30 Oct 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI am curious about that point. I come from a part of the world where printing money is quite popular (Zambia in the early nineties and Zimbabwe since then).
This is what printing money, progressive taxation, affirmative action etc (liberal stuff) helps neutralize.
I saw it as a non-progressive tax on anyone whose main worth was in currency (the poor). So I fail to see how it is a good thing (from the point of view of the poor).
01 Nov 10
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadBy itself it's not a good thing. However, if the printed money is then distributed to the poor via whatever method (relief checks, jobs programs etc) then the rich peoples' strategy of denying cash to the market (in order to make everyone desperate and willing to do anything for the cash which the rich have socked away) is undermined.
I am curious about that point. I come from a part of the world where printing money is quite popular (Zambia in the early nineties and Zimbabwe since then).
I saw it as a non-progressive tax on anyone whose main worth was in currency (the poor). So I fail to see how it is a good thing (from the point of view of the poor).
Now, of course, if the government prints the money and then simply spends it on jet fighters or paying foreign debt or gives it to the rich this will not work. In that case the money does not go into circulation such that the poor can gain it. It remains circulating from one rich person to another in that case and so does not accomplish the objective of helping the poor defend themselves from the rich.
01 Nov 10
Originally posted by generalissimoI suppose the only way to sleep good at night for "progressives" like yourself is to not allow conservaitves from voting. In fact, I think Clinton said that the Tea Party was the most dangerous organization on the face of the planet. So much for Al qaeda. 😛
It is a mystery to me why people like whodey are still given the right to vote, every time I look at his posts Im more convinced that the current system is bound to elect incompetent leaders.
01 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungProbably not. Google gives me this YouTube video from a conspiracy nutcase.
Interesting meme. I wonder if it's true.
Contrary to what the title suggests, Clinton does not mention the Tea Party, but states there is currently a climate in which extreme fringe groups might do something akin to the Oklahoma bombing.
So whodey, when did Clinton make that statement?
01 Nov 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe Oklahoma bombing was absolutely nuts. These kinda things just gotta be concerted.
Contrary to what the title suggests, Clinton does not mention the Tea Party, but states there is currently a climate in which extreme fringe groups might do something akin to the Oklahoma bombing.
01 Nov 10
Originally posted by whodeyClinton's finally got his (or her) 'vast right-wing conspiracy'.
I suppose the only way to sleep good at night for "progressives" like yourself is to not allow conservaitves from voting. In fact, I think Clinton said that the Tea Party was the most dangerous organization on the face of the planet. So much for Al qaeda. 😛
01 Nov 10
Originally posted by zeeblebotSo... looking at the charts we can see we first had steep rises in house prices, followed by the collapse of the bubble, a steep decline and now they have stabilized.
that was the very first graph for you. not necessarily for us.
anyhow, i like the look of line charts. they're beautiful.
How does this relate to your OP?