quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

Actually...in the next revision of history...it will be exactly those people (those who save, have cash, build, etc.) who will do well.

quote:

Ironically....you're the only ones who will be able to borrow.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jniu4

We're 12-18 hours away from systemic meltdown across world finanical markets.

We've lost 1300 or so Dow points since the Bailout. Down 500 since a huge Commercial Paper bank was opened this morning by the Federal Reserve. Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Royal Bank of Scotland (to name a few) lost anywhere from 20-40% of their value today.

Nothing has worked. There's no time left in your checking account when it goes down 20-40% a day. We don't have any more big banks to lose.

Look for a huge coordinated rate cut across the globe spearheaded by the Brits tonight or tomorrow - or look out. Time to take a stand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

It is the global market which will right itself, if it is to be righted - all our leaders can do is try to put together the legal framework for that to occur - but in a competitive global economy they all have to act together to make that happen; the markets as we have seen, are very good at exploiting any loophole and any gap in the framework to their (not our) advantage.

E

listen, our 'leaders' cannot fix this through regulation, which is exactly what they are trying to do. they're trying to keep prices high, banks running, businesses from failing, etc.

but that's not what should happen. we should have bankruptcies, people go out of business, and bank runs. what is more, these are good things. the threats of these things make every single bank, corporation, and individual responsible for it's debts and contracts. if they go bankrupt, this is not a bad thing, this is a magnificent thing (the way Hoppe describes it). it's the threat of bankruptcy and failure that makes these institutions and individuals act responsibly and wisely.

these institutions should fail. prices should plummet. individuals should save. and governments should butt out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout

I agree with you to a certain extent, but these things only work properly to balance out the bubbles in theory. In real life they have some very nasty unintended consequences. If the economy were allowed to completely implode we would have unemployment at unimaginable levels.

quote:

Perhaps the system needs to change, perhaps it will change, but that can't and shouldn't happen over night. If things are left to completely unravel on their own, the resulting chaos could take FAR longer to reknit than if we shore it up and help transform it into something else.  And, what do you plan to do with your gold if the cupboard is bare? Can you eat it? Who will buy it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboy291

The fact that the the book is named Liberal Fascism, is enough to tell you it's as full of crap as the website Hitlerwasasocialist and Ann Coulters How to Speak to a Liberal(if you have too)

And any comparison between Roosevelt and Hitler, Mussolini or any other dictator no matter what is way out of context.

• Universal suffrage polled on a regional basis, with proportional representation and voting and electoral office eligibility for women;
• Proportional representation on a regional basis;
• Voting for women (which was opposed by most other European nations);
• Representation at government level of newly created National Councils by economic sector;
• The abolition of the Italian Senate (at the time, the Senate, as the upper house of parliament, was by process elected by the wealthier citizens, but were in reality direct appointments by the King. It has been described as a sort of extended council of the Crown);
• The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industry, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made of professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers (this concept was rooted in corporatist ideology and derived in part from Catholic social doctrine).
• The quick enactment of a law of the State that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers;
• A minimum wage;
• The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions;
• To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants;
• Reorganisation of the railways and the transport sector;
• Revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance;
• Reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55.
• A strong progressive tax on capital (envisaging a “partial expropriation” of concentrated wealth);
• The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor;

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

and yes, hitler was a socialist. if you'd like to argue this, I'd be more than happy to educate you on the nation socialist movement in germany, whose hands the means of production was in, how hitler and his party felt about capitalism and capitalists, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout

While we are at it, check out this link about "default credit swaps". Talk about a house of cards http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8634

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

and yes, hitler was a socialist. if you'd like to argue this, I'd be more than happy to educate you on the nation socialist movement in germany, whose hands the means of production was in, how hitler and his party felt about capitalism and capitalists, etc.

You are showing your complete and utter ignorance of both socialism and fascism. Socialism is internationalist, Hitler was a nationalist. Fascism is nationalist which is why Hitler could talk about pure blood. The nationalist part of Hitler's movement has more in common with American patriotism than with anyone who believes in  internationalism. The Americans say 'In god we trust.', the NAZIs said, ''God is with us', both seem to have the belief god is on their side, socialist tend not to believe in god. You have to look deeper than names and titles in politics, you have to look at the substance and motivations of movements, parties and nations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

and yes, hitler was a socialist. if you'd like to argue this, I'd be more than happy to educate you on the nation socialist movement in germany, whose hands the means of production was in, how hitler and his party felt about capitalism and capitalists, etc.

You are showing your complete and utter ignorance of both socialism and fascism. Socialism is internationalist, Hitler was a nationalist. Fascism is nationalist which is why Hitler could talk about pure blood. The nationalist part of Hitler's movement has more in common with American patriotism than with anyone who believes in  internationalism. The Americans say 'In god we trust.', the NAZIs said, ''God is with us', both seem to have the belief god is on their side, socialist tend not to believe in god. You have to look deeper than names and titles in politics, you have to look at the substance and motivations of movements, parties and nations.

I just read about ten definitions of socialism define:socialism, google. And none of the ones I read listed internationalism as a  basic part of socialism.

I do have to ask, where are you getting your definitions from, as sometimes, you use what seems to be counter-standard accepted meanings.

edited to add, nor do they reference religion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Socialist philosophy was, is and always has been internationalist, right from its birth. I'm sure socialism isn't defined in America in its correct way because of decades of capitalist propaganda in the American media. I have to admit when I hear Americans talk about socialism, I don't recognize it but I recognize socialism when it is discussed by someone of any other nationality. I have also never heard a rational statement about socialism when I've been in the states, not that it a word one would hear often. Americans have been brainwashed when it comes to socialism which is why they hate socialist policies such as national health systems even though Americans pay twice as much for theirs and get a lesser product for the extra money. America capitalists who own the US media are shit scared of ordinary Americans realizing how they could benefit from socialist policies that they have a rolling campaign to discredit it. Quite often you get some Bush Whitehouse puppet on a current affairs propgram here and start ranting on about Russians and socialism or China and socialism and they are just seen as idiots because it is quite obvious, they don't know what they are talking about, especially when they are talking on a the national TV wof a country that has a powerful socialist party and that country is free, has a great education system and better health care for its citizens than America provides for Americans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Socialism may or may not be internationalist but it is basically about the ownership
of the means of production and distribution.
Neither Socialism nor totally free markets are the answer IMO.

Socialism falls because when someone else is expected to pay the bill, the fear of failure is removed or moneymay be created waste, indifference and  vested privilege of the bureaucratic classes raise their ugly heads.
Totally free markets tend to oligarchy, monopoly and relative poverty for the masses.

Something slightly left of centre is required backed up with regulatory teeth that bite.
ie a mixed economy allowing the enterprising the rewards of their efforts backed up with
universal provision of health care, education, housing. Things like that.
Look at the disaster that is education for the masses existing in the UK.
Thats what left wing idealogues can achieve.

Attempts to impose economic/social equality should never be considered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArizonaSunSwitch

Yeah Canada and Mexico have great health care systems.

That's why buffalo new york's hospitals are full of Canadians and phoenix hospitals are full of Mexicans.
At least most of the Canadians pay their bills (instead of the US Taxpayer).

The public will begin to reject socialized medicine once non-multi millionaire women begin experiencing natural childbirth in mass whenever they are lucky enough to go into labor *after* the one epidural qualified anesthesiologist per hospital goes home at 5pm. Do you think socialized medicine would work differently in this country than any other country's socialized medicine ?

And btw, we've been in a mixed statist economy since at least the new deal if not the mann act. Throwing around capitalist pejoratives just tells me you really don't understand the meaning of the term. Which the would-be ruling class in this country truly appreciates because, in effect, you are demanding government to deny your unalienable rights and to turn you into property of the state (to be used or disposed of as your owner sees fit). Since your (unintentional) demand for the government to reduce yourself from a person into an object effects my ability to live my life in (relative) freedom I'd really appreciate it if you did some independent study on the origin of this country. Ie. read the written record left behind by the founders themselves instead of taking the word of your (mostly) indoctrinated high school and college teachers. Understand that most of our founders thought our country would degenerate from a republic, to a democracy, to a kingship (ie dictatorship) within 150 years. What is happening to us today, they predicted at the birth of this country. Read the founders and gain some perspective on how freedom is lost. (the same way freedom has been lost over and over again since the beginnings of human civilization).

Once you do that i don't think you'll find it hard to understand that the sole purpose of socialized medicine is so government can control the quality of each individual's health care. Unless you're part of the ruling class you *lose* under this system by every metric (quality, cost, relationship with your doctor, etc).

Any person that doesn't understand that capitalism requires freedom and that freedom requires capitalism threatens the freedom of all of us. Sorry if that pisses anyone off, but frankly, if you're pissed, you don't understand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Socialism may or may not be internationalist but it is basically about the ownership
of the means of production and distribution.
Neither Socialism nor totally free markets are the answer IMO.

Socialism falls because when someone else is expected to pay the bill, the fear of failure is removed or moneymay be created waste, indifference and  vested privilege of the bureaucratic classes raise their ugly heads.
Totally free markets tend to oligarchy, monopoly and relative poverty for the masses.

Something slightly left of centre is required backed up with regulatory teeth that bite.
ie a mixed economy allowing the enterprising the rewards of their efforts backed up with
universal provision of health care, education, housing. Things like that.
Look at the disaster that is education for the masses existing in the UK.
Thats what left wing idealogues can achieve.

Attempts to impose economic/social equality should never be considered.