America moves closer to fascism Obama kills freedom of speech.

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

I think this thread is a case and point of why people under the age of 18 shouldn't have opinions.

Vuurk

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] Collective bargaining is bulls*hit. The individuals who are not members of the union are the ones who are at a loss. They end up with higher wages because of unions. It also causes higher unemployment because it raises the wage rate above the price equilibrium. It also creates deadweight loss.Vuurk

Yes because collective bargaining has had no historical impact on our political and worker rights policies for the better :roll: perhapes I was reading the wrong history books.

What if it's written by a Keynesian?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] Collective bargaining is bulls*hit. The individuals who are not members of the union are the ones who are at a loss. They end up with higher wages because of unions. It also causes higher unemployment because it raises the wage rate above the price equilibrium. It also creates deadweight loss.Vuurk

Yes because collective bargaining has had no historical impact on our political and worker rights policies for the better :roll: perhapes I was reading the wrong history books.

Yet again you seem not to have a clue to what the Worker's rights movement through unions has given.. No where should it be stated that there is nothing wrong with unions.. There most definitely is, but at the same time your extreme approach is laughable in denying the very basic things that pretty much set the foundations of the US as a middle class backbone nation..

people under the age of 18 shouldn't have opinions.

TopTierHustler

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

.

N30F3N1X

:lol:

Are you proposing that citizens of the U.S. shouldn't discuss politics?Vuurk

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] I'm not a teenager. Vuurk

He also said, "A democracy is always temporary in nature: it simple cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years."

U realize that we were predicted to pay off the national debt before the bush tax cuts?

Then I would ask you the questions how credible is Keynesian economics as a policy? How has Keynesian economics done so far in our economic history?

But then of course as a Keynesian you would respond by claiming that Keynesian economics saved us from the Great Depression and prevented this current recession from being much worse.

I do not want to start a debate about Keynesian vs Austrian economics right now though. Maybe another day. =P

Vuurk

fidosim isn't a Keynesian. :lol:

That's a bit of a generalization eh?Vuurk

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] History books are always filled with propaganda. The author is spreading their agenda. I recommend picking up an economics book.Vuurk

Yet again you seem not to have a clue to what the Worker's rights movement through unions has given.. No where should it be stated that there is nothing wrong with unions.. There most definitely is, but at the same time your extreme approach is laughable in denying the very basic things that pretty much set the foundations of the US as a middle class backbone nation..

In a free market, there should be very minimal regulations regarding workers rights - wages, safety, work environement, etc. You are going to argue that people shouldn't have to work in an unsafe or unhealthy work environment with low wages. However, they are taking that job voluntarily. It is a mutual agreement between the employer and the employee. No one is forcing them to take that job. So in the end, it must be better than all possible alternatives. In a free market, it is often in a businesses best interest to provide a safe, clean work environment with reasonable wages. This is because if you do this, your workers will likely be more productive and efficient. If you have a sh*tty, unsafe work environment, then you will have a much harder time finding good workers. People will tell each other about the working conditions and then they will decide not to work for that business.

Unless you have a good understanding of how economics, supply and demand, and equilibriums work in the market, then you should stop spouting off about how worker's rights movements have made so much progress for the American people and middle class. There are many economists who would argue against that idea. Keep in mind that textbooks are often written in a way that makes the U.S. government look very good.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] History books are always filled with propaganda. The author is spreading their agenda. I recommend picking up an economics book.Vuurk

Yet again you seem not to have a clue to what the Worker's rights movement through unions has given.. No where should it be stated that there is nothing wrong with unions.. There most definitely is, but at the same time your extreme approach is laughable in denying the very basic things that pretty much set the foundations of the US as a middle class backbone nation..

In a free market, there should be very minimal regulations regarding workers rights - wages, safety, work environement, etc. You are going to argue that people shouldn't have to work in an unsafe or unhealthy work environment with low wages. However, they are taking that job voluntarily.

Spoken like a true person that has absolutely NO idea what they are talking about.. Perhapes we should stick your ass in that same environment in the early 1900s in which the only job one could get was a factory job..

It is a mutual agreement between the employer and the employee.

No it is not because you seem to think people have a mariad of choices, when in reality they do not.. You honestly think that employees actually had a chocie in this matter? Are you even aware that these were common practices with the radical majority of ALL businesses towards the time.

No one is forcing them to take that job.

This just makes me want to facepalm, do you seriously think these people WANTED to work at these places that were extremely dangerous?

So in the end, it must be better than all possible alternatives.

Those better alternatives have been cultivated from a environment where worker rights exist, that certain laws must be met with minimum wages.. Your getting this all from a perspective of some one who enjoys a system that does not have to deal with this.. How bout you sit down and crack open a history book for a change instead of trying to spout off baseless crap like this..

In a free market, it is often in a businesses best interest to provide a safe, clean work environment with reasonable wages.

Thats funny because REALITY will point to the exact opposite looking around the entire world..

This is because if you do this, your workers will likely be more productive and efficient.

Yet again baseless rhetoric you have shown no data in some how suggesting that the efficency and productivity if the same company hired 3 people instead of the 1 with split wages and zero coverage.. Yet again we actually had to have a WORKER MOVEMENT and political movement to create regulations these things didn't come out of no where, and the businesses sure as hell didn't support them or start them.

If you have a sh*tty, unsafe work environment, then you will have a much harder time finding good workers. People will tell each other about the working conditions and then they will decide not to work for that business.

Unless you have a good understanding of how economics, supply and demand, and equilibriums work in the market, then you should stop spouting off about how worker's rights movements have made so much progress for the American people and middle class. There are many economists who would argue against that idea. Keep in mind that textbooks are often written in a way that makes the U.S. government look very good.

Yet again your viewing this on a current day issue where worker rights, safe working conditions, and collective bargaining have existed for 80 years.. You have no clue what your talking about, how bout you actually look back to those times in which they don't exist, or look at the countries who do not have such things..

In fact if anything businesses do no change.. Worker rights.. Safe working conditions.. Started with workers and political movement, not businesses.. Environmental concerns, banning of toxic dumping.. Started as a political movement NOT a business venture.. All the things we take forgranted to day was put forward by political movements and NOT businesses, who in fact historically have shown they are the MOST RESISTANT to such change constantly.. Perhapes you have never heard of the Pinkerton men? Or other such things.. Thugs that businesses hired to pretty much bully and assault workers who got out of line.

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] It was made by a Scottish history professor who lived in the 1700s Alexander Tytler.

He also said, "A democracy is always temporary in nature: it simple cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years."

Vuurk

U realize that we were predicted to pay off the national debt before the bush tax cuts?

Also, I do not think at all that we would have payed off the national debt before his tax cuts. It is not a matter of taxation. It is a spending problem. Our government is very fiscally irresponsible. We spend more on military than the next 10 countries in the world combined. People can predict all they want, but their is no way that we are paying off the debt unless we start cutting spending drastically.

I brought him p for the reasons I mentioned, it was predicted that we were gonna pay off our debt, then the cuts proposed by bush stopped all.

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] I disagree. You are reading a textbook pushing that ideology. However, I can create an argument against it.

In a free market, there should be very minimal regulations regarding workers rights - wages, safety, work environement, etc. You are going to argue that people shouldn't have to work in an unsafe or unhealthy work environment with low wages. However, they are taking that job voluntarily. It is a mutual agreement between the employer and the employee. No one is forcing them to take that job. So in the end, it must be better than all possible alternatives. In a free market, it is often in a businesses best interest to provide a safe, clean work environment with reasonable wages. This is because if you do this, your workers will likely be more productive and efficient. If you have a sh*tty, unsafe work environment, then you will have a much harder time finding good workers. People will tell each other about the working conditions and then they will decide not to work for that business.

Unless you have a good understanding of how economics, supply and demand, and equilibriums work in the market, then you should stop spouting off about how worker's rights movements have made so much progress for the American people and middle class. There are many economists who would argue against that idea. Keep in mind that textbooks are often written in a way that makes the U.S. government look very good.

Vuurk

Not an opinion.

I actually agree with you on that. However, I still think it is important to communicate and discuss the current state of politics. I think you are right though that many voters are not educated on politics. Also, many times people might have an idea for what they want to accomplish but their means of accomplishing that goal are terrible. They do not realize the potential unintended consequences of their ideas if they were to be actually enacted. Many politicians have this problem as well. Vuurk

They have taken are freedom of speach, they have bought are freedom of the press, what is next, concentration camps? Oh yeah, that's FEMA! If we don't wake up and fight now. We are surely heading for a goverment made catastrophe.

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] I disagree. You are reading a textbook pushing that ideology. However, I can create an argument against it.

In a free market, there should be very minimal regulations regarding workers rights - wages, safety, work environement, etc. You are going to argue that people shouldn't have to work in an unsafe or unhealthy work environment with low wages. However, they are taking that job voluntarily. It is a mutual agreement between the employer and the employee. No one is forcing them to take that job. So in the end, it must be better than all possible alternatives. In a free market, it is often in a businesses best interest to provide a safe, clean work environment with reasonable wages. This is because if you do this, your workers will likely be more productive and efficient. If you have a sh*tty, unsafe work environment, then you will have a much harder time finding good workers. People will tell each other about the working conditions and then they will decide not to work for that business.

Unless you have a good understanding of how economics, supply and demand, and equilibriums work in the market, then you should stop spouting off about how worker's rights movements have made so much progress for the American people and middle class. There are many economists who would argue against that idea. Keep in mind that textbooks are often written in a way that makes the U.S. government look very good.

Vuurk

Yet again we can point to you to countless nations trhough out the world or the US during the early 1900s.. Your head is in your ass if you seriously think that worker rights were created because they were good business, or other such things.

Have you ever taken an economics class? You do not realize that these other countries that you are saying do not have good workers rights are not free market economies at all. They are corrupt command economies controlled by the people in power. If it takes 200 days to open up a business then that is not free market and can not be used as a criticism of my free market approach. You are going to believe what you want to regardless of what I say. There is no point in even providing an alternative argument, because you will reject it without even considering what I am saying. I'm not going to respond to the rest of your response because it primarily consists of something along the lines, "you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. You are CLUELESS."Vuurk

Have you ever stopped to think "maybe they're right"?

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] Why are you bringing up Bush? Throughout this entire thread people have been very defensive regarding Obama. It is not a matter of Republican or Democrat...Conservative vs. Liberal. They are both at fault in my opinion. I think that Bush did a lot of harm to our economy. I am not a fan of Bush. The two party system is terrible. I wish everyone in this country was an independent or at least able to criticize their own party when criticism is warrant.

Also, I do not think at all that we would have payed off the national debt before his tax cuts. It is not a matter of taxation. It is a spending problem. Our government is very fiscally irresponsible. We spend more on military than the next 10 countries in the world combined. People can predict all they want, but their is no way that we are paying off the debt unless we start cutting spending drastically.

Vuurk

I brought him p for the reasons I mentioned, it was predicted that we were gonna pay off our debt, then the cuts proposed by bush stopped all.

They have taken are freedom of speach, they have bought are freedom of the press, what is next, concentration camps? Oh yeah, that's FEMA! If we don't wake up and fight now. We are surely heading for a goverment made catastrophe.hydr0_32

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] Have you ever taken an economics class?Vuurk

Not an opinion.

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] So to clarify, you are telling me that you do not believe that government spending in the United States is an issue? Vuurk

I hope the people here realize Fascism does not have to be a dicatorship. You CAN have a Fascist Democracy.

All a Fascist nation needs is the following:

1. Promoting one's culture as superior and educating your people that it is (Does the US have this? Yes, to an extent)

2. A strong sense of Militarism and promotion of the Military (Does the US have this? Yes, though to be fair, every nation does this)

3. An intergration of private companies working with the Goverment (doe sthe US have this? Somewhat, Lockhead Martin, the Bank bailouts are evidence of this, but again, not enitrly there yet)

There you go, that is what a Fascist nation need sto exist. You can even say the "Communist hunts' of the 50's were a definate sign of Fascism. I fthe US became a Fascist nation no one would really notice as the US is already very close to one. That is why I laugh at people who say the US will become Socialist with Obama. As if the US became socialist, you would SEE the changes, they would be more obvious.

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"]Have you ever taken an economics class? You do not realize that these other countries that you are saying do not have good workers rights are not free market economies at all. They are corrupt command economies controlled by the people in power. If it takes 200 days to open up a business then that is not free market and can not be used as a criticism of my free market approach. You are going to believe what you want to regardless of what I say. There is no point in even providing an alternative argument, because you will reject it without even considering what I am saying. I'm not going to respond to the rest of your response because it primarily consists of something along the lines, "you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. You are CLUELESS."Vuurk

Have you ever stopped to think "maybe they're right"?

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] I do not believe for a second that you have taken an econ class lol.Vuurk

Of course it's not in the best interest of companies to give a sh*t about their workers. That's why people who aren't idiots and sociopaths support decent wages and working conditions. Just look at working conditions before unions, do you honestly think that's ok?

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] The idea that unions and collective bargaining are bad things is not at all extremist. Many economists would agree with this idea. I'm sure there are economists who support it, but to call it an extremist ideology is ridiculous. If you claim to have taking an econ course then you should have a good understanding of many peoples' criticisms of unions I assume? Also why do you feel it is necessary to randomly throw the word 'derp' into your sentences?Vuurk

Of course it's not in the best interest of companies to give a sh*t about their workers. That's why people who aren't idiots and sociopaths support decent wages and working conditions. Just look at working conditions before unions, do you honestly think that's ok?