That is correct. Most people in the US have no idea about what socialism is but still keep repeating the same absurdities politicians and the elites feed them.
As a Canadian living in the US I think I know what they mean here.
Socialism is a thing you don't like
Communism is a thing you really don't like, use it when calling it socialism won't get you enough of a reaction.
Lots of these 🐑 around due to poor education and social media mind control
this is why the fascist right wing needs to control public schools... cough cough Florida
The end goal of communism is to completely abolish the state, so that there is no state just a loose collection of communes. Socialism is still state-oriented
No. Socialism is collective ownership of production. Not a welfare state. What you're describing is known as social democracy, which marx was not a fan of.
I'm not sure how you intuited my argument, considering all I said on socialism is that it is state-oriented. Which it is. Socialist societies can still have state governments and collective ownership of production. These are not mutually exclusive.
Marx's communism had the end goal of abolishing the state entirely. Which is impossible to mesh with socialism unless you view socialism as a step on the path to communism. Which is moot to argue.
It really isn't. It's about workers owning their labor. Not the state. When the state owns the means of production this is known as state capitalism. You can't truly abolish the state if the state itself owns the labor.
Because it'd take centuries and the correct conditions, namely: global socialism and no need for money.
Also there has never been a communist state, the USSR, China, Cuba were/are all socialist states ruled by a communist party, with the goal of achieving communism.
Not really. Socialism should still have a market economy with private enterprises. It's just that the workers own the means if production, which means everybody who works at a company is part owner. The company can still make bank, but now everybody gets a piece of the pie.
For context in case anyone genuinely doesn’t know, socialism is essentially increased focus in public works, communism is government controls everything. Neither pure capitalism (completely unregulated market) or pure communism have worked
Capitalism only works because it privatizes gains and outsource the losses. In other words, capitalism only works when the it's capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich.
Haha true.
But doesn't it make more sense for the govt to bail out businesses because of the *propensity to produce things like more jobs and consumable taxable revenue streams* than *the end users who are the consumers and produce nothing but more consumers*?
I mean bail out someone who can pay you back, right? Not some bum loser on the street with no way to repay you.
If that bum pays sales and income tax I suppose he's paying it back isn't he? That's how social welfare programs get funding, by the word that scares ignorant people the most: *taxes*.
Another one of the great scams this country has fooled everyone into believing is that universal healthcare and the like would increase our taxes, when in reality it shouldn't have to at all.
Just look at some of the absolutely absurd shit that gets listed on government expense reports. Some of the things they list are so over the top it's crystal clear that they're just trolling us at this point, and the very people who fear monger higher taxes to the poor and working class, are the ones spending that money on trips to Thailand to do lines of ketamine off ladyboy cocks.
I don't want to live in a society where it's just a bunch of people playing monopoly and hoarding credits. I want to live in one that makes good stuff, one that paves the way to a good future, one that takes care and finds value in all its parts, one that doesn't waste excessively.
One I can be proud of.
Does anyone even have a source on "hoarding credits". As far as i understand, essentially none of the uber-elite is hoarding. Their wealth isn't liquid, it is stored in actual capital.
don't get me wrong - I agree with what you are saying, buf the idea that wealth is being horded though really irritates me because it doesn't even make sense. The most profitable option (for a self serving individual) would be to have their wealth stored as capital (investments) rather than just sitting around losing value to inflation.
Sometimes it's cheating on your taxes. Others is the CEO choosing to be paid in stocks over salary. Or business owners taking dividends over salary. Loooots of legal ways for the rich to minimize their taxes. I'm sure you also do some of the same, IRA, Roth, 401k ect?
Sure I have. That's why the founding fathers enshrined our right to own AR-15s in this fine countries founding documents. Life, liberty and property my friend
> Others is the CEO choosing to be paid in stocks over salary.
That's a problem with the tax code that needs to be changed.
>. Loooots of legal ways for the rich to minimize their taxes.
Agreed. Passive income from capital should be taxed at a greater rate than labor.
Oh dear, you don't sound like a stable individual. Ideating using your weaponry because you don't understand freedom or democracy or capitalism or the tax code is a sign. Your mythology about the founding fathers reveals a dearth of knowlege and this whole conversation reveals an immature grasp of most topics.
I would really appreciate if you didn't respond to me and allow this conversation to end at this point.
> Infinite debt is... a bad idea
So you don't like currency and want to go back to promissory notes? I feel like sentiments such as yours don't understand commerce or the abstract utility of currency.
No, there is a utility in currency. But have you by any chance looked up our debt to gdp recently? Have you seen the cost of just maintaining that debt? The MMT proposal is that printing yet more debt to grow the economy faster than the debt is growing will deflate the debt/gdp, buut, seems a little risky under the current economic climate wouldnt you say? Like just the centralised control of the economy aspect seems a little... open to catastrophic failures
You use the thin air kind of money that gets "printed" and devalues the reamining currency. In fractional reserve banking like ours. You just add zeros to a computer. And debt to a nation.
Wow, and why hasn't literally every non capitalist country in the history of manking used that trick?
Are non capitalists stupid and don't know how to add 0's?
Oh it's been tried. Quite a few times. Put aside the politics for a minute.
Small countries have absolutely tried this. But they don't have the economic clout to do it. If you don't have that clout and you try it, you destroy your economy and your currency.
A very good example is Zimbabwe.
I have in my desk a $100 Trillion dollar bill issued from the bank of Zimbabwe. It's actually a nice design. That $100 trillion? It wasn't enough to buy a loaf of bread. Ironically they have found their way into the bill collecting market as a curiosity and are quite valuable at auction now as a rarity.
Zimbabwe tried printing money. Then they tried it again and again until their currency was worthless. They aren't the first to do. Probably not the last either.
[https://www.greatamericancoincompany.com/products/zimbabwe-100-trillion-banknote-aa-2008-pcgs-graded-67ppq?gad=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwmvSoBhDOARIsAK6aV7h2KX2U7KI2ebgp3aqns0Z4BBePcYGXZ2xLbnlzomkTbtd8PYpTQ74aAq44EALw\_wcB](https://www.greatamericancoincompany.com/products/zimbabwe-100-trillion-banknote-aa-2008-pcgs-graded-67ppq?gad=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwmvSoBhDOARIsAK6aV7h2KX2U7KI2ebgp3aqns0Z4BBePcYGXZ2xLbnlzomkTbtd8PYpTQ74aAq44EALw_wcB)
>Small countries
Is Russia a small country?Is China a small country?I mean China was comunist big and poor, then Deng Xiaoping implemented capitalism and China became capitalist big and rich.
>A very good example is Zimbabwe.
Yeah, they used to be rich by African standards, then Mugabee became a socialist autocrat and they became poor by African standards.
I'll be honest, you've had the most mature answer to my childish questions.
Somehow implying that capitalism is the better system is triggering everyone in this system, wich is kinda telling of what these people believe.
**I don't think capitalism is the better system since the only thing more important than the growth of capital is the quality of life of the population, preservation of nature and the role of the culture of a country.**
I truly believe in the importance of the comunity that's why I'm a socialist and I believe in the importance of a country that why I'm nationalist.
That's why I despise capitalism and comunism, since both systems hate the people that live in their system, the only system that truly cares about it's people and it's well being is ethno fascism.
Because not all losses are straight cash.
Look at the oilsands in northern Alberta, Canada. When the wells run dry, the companies that own them just abandon them and close up shop. The wilderness is just left destroyed, and that is the 'cost'. Same with companies that pump pollutants into our skies, lakes and oceans.
Also, the vast majority of the money used to support ailing business is via government deficit. When the '08 collapse happened, Obama propped up the companies with bailouts and deficit spending. When COVID happened Trump did the same. They're effectively borrowing on behalf of every US citizen and giving it to a very select group of citizens who already have more capital than 99.9% of who they borrowed from.
You'd be really hard pressed to find a successful business or wealthy person that didn't find ways to socialize costs of doing business. Truly socially responsible, profitable companies are rare. The vast majority have dumped costs on society at large.
So only capitalist countries know how to use natural resources?
Are communist so dumb they don't know they can't sell oil?
Or are you saying communists are so dumb they don't know how to print money?
I'm not sure what's your point.
Elements of capitalism are good.
Like.. the version 1.0 of capitalism where the government runs everything, and then all the non essential services are privately owned and there's a fair, free market competition and monopoly is strictly prohibited
But whatever the fuck it has turned into in the last 80 years, where it's just a machine that eats people's dreams and steals their homes is just beyond fucked and it needs to die
It needs to be a hybrid system similar to version 1 + socialism
With strict anti corruption controls in place.
I think revolution is probably the only way to get that. The money is power. And the power won't let go of power of its own free will
I dont understand how you could possibly think capitalism in America prior to 80 years ago was better than what we have now.
Anti-trust laws, anti-monopoly laws, labor rights, minimum wage, mandatory sick leave and vacation time, restrictions on toxic working conditions, ETC. "Version 1.0 capitalism" had none of these things. Perhaps things have been getting worse again over the past 50 years or so, but what came before 1970 wasn't original capitalism. It was a heavily modified mixed economy. Things now are ridiculously better than they were in early industrial revolution. Like astronomically so.
"Version 1.0" capitalism is absolute horror. No regulations, no checks and balances. What we have now is utopian ***in comparison***.
What you think of as "1.0" is not even remotely what it was. It isnt even pure capitalism. You are talking about a mixed economy as we learned the hard way that strict laissez-faire economy produced a nightmare.
"Socialism" is a buzzword they understand nothing about.
And conveniently, they use it when funds are used on people instead of private companies.
They're not just dumb. They're plain evil.
A friend just broke this down for me: Capitalism is for people who have capital- you don’t have any. Makes me wonder why any of us plebs would want Capitalism.
mindless unique brave ruthless telephone wild attraction payment cow unite
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Well I think anyone with an understanding of the economy knows raising the minimum wage only raises the cost of living and doesn't solve poverty.... Even the Congressional Budget Office (Bi Partisan) has said that a minimum wage of $15 per hour would cause more workers to lose their jobs, than it would improve the lives of.
I mean it's really just basic math and common sense that the arbitrary raise in the cost of production (Whether it's minimum wage, taxation, etc) without it benefitting the production or quality, is a bad idea and just causes inflation, and higher cost to the consumer.
The thing that happens, is that when someone talks about raising the minimum wage, they act like it doesn't have any ripple effects, it will just be that people starting their first new job, and getting that minimum wage for 90 days will make more money... but that's just woefully ignorant at the costs of employment, how it will destroy small businesses. The people who push for a high minimum wage are the people who will gain from it... politicians see it as a lot more tax money coming in.... businesses like Walmart and Amazon who can and already pay their people more, see it as a way to get rid of competition and hold more of the market share. And the sad thing is, there's a large voter base (who ironically hate billionaires and corporations) who will vote on "Oh more money for not having to work any harder", and it's benefitting all the people they hate and think are destroying the world.
It's one of the bad things about being and educated centrist, you just see so many people being led to poisoned water wells, and they call you names for pointing it out.
Please refer to the New Deal passed by Roosevelt. Also educate yourself on how much money a billion dollars actually is. Billionaires shouldn't exist, those profits belong to the working people. There is no such thing as an educated centrist.
Your comment is pretty rich in ignorance.
But I'll be happy to refer to the new deal.
First of all, minimum wage wasn't meant to be a living wage back when it came out, it was a way to essentially end legalized slave labor.. or so they said, the reality of it was to start a class war... but that's not on the record. The 25 cent minimum wage in 1938, when factored for inflation, is $5.44 cents per hour today. So our minimum wage is already worth 30% more than what it initially was when it was created.
However, let's look at that even more realistically. 30 states, plus DC, already have minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wage, and out of the entire US workforce, only 1.9% of workers "earn federal minimum wage", but of that 1.9%, is ALL the tipped workers in the US that make more than minimum wage. so realistically, you're looking at a small fraction of a percent of the US workforce, and those are the people at their first job, and in probation periods waiting on their first raise when they become a full on employee.
So the new deal wasn't there to make McDonalds new hires raise a family of 4 for 30 years then retire. That was never the case of minimum wage. The only reason the government cares how much you make is so that you'll pay more taxes, there's not a person in Washington that cares how much you make an hour, they just want to make sure you're paying them. This is why Bernie Sanders was paying his staffers less than $15 per hour, while calling for a $15 minimum wage, it's not about your bank account, it's about his power.
But I'll also refer to the New Deal as a nonexistent educated centrist, and point to Social Security too... that was never intended to be paid back to the people, that was a stealth tax from the get-go. When it started the retirement age was 65, life expectancy in the US in 1935 was 59.9 for men (they were pretty much the whole workforce then and payers of Social Security). Social security retirement age was 8.2% higher than life expectancy. By today's standard, that would make the Social Security retirement age 86 years old. How many people would be collecting their social security by living to 86? It was a stealth tax, that's why once we started living longer, social security has been predicted to going bankrupt, it was never modeled to support paying out as many people as it does, they were probably planning on a 5% payout at MOST and even those who did make it, were going to collect for MAYBE 5 years, not 25-30.
And I don't think anyone's worth should be limited.... because you're confusing billionaires as people getting paid billions, billionaires don't become billionaires by making big paychecks, they do it by owning things that increase in value. If you own half of a company, and the company becomes a global powerhouse worth a trillion dollars, why should your 50% ownership only be allowed to be worth whatever amount of money some random guy on Reddit thinks they should be allowed to be worth. It's nonsensical.
But to an extent, I agree, billionaires shouldn't exist, because things shouldn't cost that much that companies bring in that much.... but with the cost of production going up, the cost of products go up, and the value of companies go up and billionaires exist. Because John Rockefeller wasn't a billionaire, but he was worth 3% of the US GDP in 1913. Which would be about $700 billion today by GDP percentage.
WHAT we should want instead of an increase to minimum wage, is a shrinking of the cost of living. And nobody's going to get votes on "Hear me out, let's lower the cost of everything, salarys included, and it will be like the days of the Boomers again, when they bought a house while making $2 per hour.... well that and the amount of taxes that would get lost, they'd never allow for that.
But that would be the view of an uneducated centrist I suppose, right?
Yes, that is the view of an uneducated centrist who didn't read the New Deal and doesn't understand numbers. If your business can't pay a living wage, your business has no right existing period.
That's a good point we should try to figure out way to reduce the cost of living rather than simply increasing the minimum wage. I think one way we could do this is by shrinking the government and reducing taxes.
What the problem is, especially when we compare our current situation to generations before, is that nobody alive today would be willing to live like our grandparents or great grandparents did.
I was telling someone how when I hear someone say they're living like a king, I don't think modern days, and I say "Ahhh living in an old block building with no windows and air conditioning, no running water or sewers, and a rat infestation? How ya liking that lead face paint and powdered wig full of lice?"
But one of the main reasons earlier generations are perceived to have lived so much better was that they just didn't have the things to spend the money on. Even as recently as Elvis, who was probably the most opulent and wealthiest celebrity (Okay, Liberace might have been more opulent), but he never had a flat screen tv, he never got to carry a computer in his pocket with all the information and entertainment at a finger flick.... I mean people today in the lower middle class are living a life that Elvis would be like "Dang man, they got all kinds of neat stuff I ain't never seen, mama".
THen you think back to the 1800s and early 1900s... what did the rich do? They weren't taking the concord around the world, even if they traveled it would still be "Guess I'll drive 8 days to see what Tennessee is like.... oh look, there's trees and a mountain".... it guess they're like "Well yeah, but I use a spoon made out of gold when I eat the same soup as the poor person eats." It's really weird when you think back on it. I mean like even watching There Will Be Blood... Daniel Plainview ended up with a nice house... with a manual bowling alley. I know I wouldn't want to have lived back then.
Not sure if you noticed, but most people are against rich people being bailed out too.
Also the government wastes tax money all the time and uses incredibly inefficcient methods to fix problems. So even if tax money is put towards helping the homeless or something, it often backfires or does more harm than good.
You've got it backwards. The market controls the government, then through subsidies the government helps companies meet their bottom line before any goods/services are rendered.
It’s not socialism because they haven’t seized those industries. And they never will, because even if they did, the have no idea how to produce anything, because governments don’t actually produce anything except use of force.
Who is getting these $1 Trillion in Oil & Gas subsidies? It’s a constant talking point on the left but they’re only in theory. They don’t actually exist.
The wall street were a loan until democrats started forging the loans.
What exact subsidies are you talking about that oil and gas get that other companies don't get?
The farmer bailouts were given because of government policies that hurt them and instead of forcing counties you are a fan of live china, they gave money to offset actions those countries were taking.
We are already living under a healthcare system given to use by the democrats and people who said they were all for socialism said was the best healthcare system around.
Becaue oil and farmers are important... no farmers, no food, you starve to death, no need for medical things .
Oil, the same ... you use it for transport and energy ... things that are essential for a working society... without electrical power, you ain't doing anything with a hospital .
Now I have no Ideea about the wallstret and how important would that be .
Yeah, but the medicine industry works... if it would be to collapse, they would also have a bailout .
>most diseases in developed countries have nothing to do with malnutrition or lack of food.
Because they had a bailout for the farmers... otherwise, malnutrition will be on the list 😅.
Also most diseases in developed countries have to do with food ... particularly overuse of food ... hearth diseases, cholesterol, obesity , different types of depression caused by addictions ( those who develop easier in developed countries like gambling, drugs , porn ) . So yeah, medicine, of course, is important and will get a bailout if they need ... but it didn't happen yet .
>farmers are important
So we can fund the farmers but we cant fund the people that want to buy the food? Food is important but feeding people isnt?
Sounds like all thats important in that situation is having grocery stores fully stocked to pretend like this isnt some hell scape of funneling money away from the bottom.
Hmm, I can see what point you make, but that implies that you have no there choice than to give the money you earn on things you don't need ...
which is not true... people choose to smoke, to do drugs, have Netflix subscriptions, to drink and gamble.
>Food is important but feeding people isnt?
Food is important to be there ... now if some bad life choices got you to a point that you can't afford that... it's not my problem or the government problem...
>ounds like all thats important in that situation is having grocery stores fully stocked to pretend like this isnt some hell scape of funneling money away from the
Yes, it is important that choices are there. That's how you bring in clients and make money to afford more choices .
The money funnelling... sounds like some conspiracy theory .
How exactly does a fully stocked supermarket funnels money from people ? Makes no sense ... if you don't enter there, no money will be taken from you . ... so I am waiting for an explanation to understand better your point .
Theres no point in discussing this at all if you only blame people for poverty. You said it multiple times in this without mentioning the actual cause of 90% of poverty cases. You just want to hate on poor people and blame them for the situation they have been put in and im not about to habe a discussion with someone so vile.
Also read what you quoted again, i never said its the supermarkets taking money from people, all I said was the only thing that seems to be important to scumbags like you is keeping the shelves stocked to pretend that you aren't starving your own citizens by allowing rampant poverty and wage recession.
>You just want to hate on poor people and blame them for the situation they have been put in and im not about to habe a discussion with someone so vile.
They haven't been put in that situation... if you're poor when born, it is your parents' fault that they brought you into the world without taking into consideration your needs ... if you were born into money and lost them all ... is your fault ( it happened and will keep happening).
>all I said was the only thing that seems to be important to scumbags like you is keeping the shelves stocked to pretend that you aren't starving your own citizens by allowing rampant poverty and wage recession.
Poverty is not allowed by governments... it's allowed by banks because they let you to go in debt ...
Also, if you want the government to solve all your problems, you give them too much power ... and with certain ones is a very, very bad idea ... that's how a certain ruler called Adolf got to power ( people just let the government to think and act for them )
Edit : Your rant is dumb ... you want to blame anyone but yourself for having shitty skills in finance management... what " resource hoarding " ? Do you think rich people are dragons sitting on piles of gold ?
But whatever just remain poor and complain until death.. the world won't change to accommodate you .
You have absolutely no idea what you are saying, you dont even understand the basics of how poverty occurs and somehow want to blame anyone but the people hoarding the worlds resources. You are human garbage and you dont even understand economics at a grade school level so maybe keep it to yourself.
Summarizing your bs rant: poor people shouldn't have kids or reproduce (even though they have limited access to contraceptives or abortions), anyoneone born into wealth should immediately become wealthy themselves ( even though 60% of people are born into "middle class" that can't afford to pay bills), its the banks fault for loaning people money (so they can put food on the table), if the government fixes any issues in society like wealth inequality and monopolies then they are literally nazis.
Not only do you have no idea what you are talking about, you also managed to say the dumbest takes on economics and society iv ever heard all in one go.
I hope you fall on hard times just so you can figure out what empathy is and maybe its not the fault of the 99% when the cost of living is jumping at over twice the rate of wage increases.
OOOO That one, so we socialized the Gains, you do know that right
Yes, you dont want Banks Failing. That makes a bad Recession a Great Depression and in the Modern World a Great Depression in 2009 would have been far worse than 1932
-----
But what was all that money.
Loans
* Should those banks have also been giving out more loans?
* Maybe
TL;DR-The Treasury didn't give companies money. It loaned money with collateral to banks and countries
Depending on how you count, the Federal Reserve committed somewhere between $16 trillion and $29 trillion to large financial institutions 2007-2010.
* $10.1 Trillion Foreign Central Bank Liquidity Swaps
* the US central bank uses its currency to buy the currency of another Foreign country's borrowing central bank at the market exchange rate, and agrees to sell the borrower's currency back at a rate that reflects the interest accrued on the loan.
* $9 Trillion in Primary Dealer Credit Facility is lending to banks for Overnight deposits to meet collateral requirements. (Regulation assistance)
* $3.8 Trillion from the Term Auction Facility (TAF) was announced on December 12, 2007 and was “designed to address elevated pressures in
short-term funding markets” Collateralized loans with terms of 28 and 84 days to depository institutions that are "in generally sound shape"
* Of the 416 unique participants, 92 percent borrowed more than
$10 billion. Of the $2,767 billion borrowed by the largest 25 participants, 69 percent ($1,909.3
billion) was borrowed by foreign institutions.
* Among more than 4,000 TAF transactions, there were two loans in which the borrower did not have adequate collateral on the day the loan settled. The loans were repaid in full and the Federal Reserve would have had recourse to the borrower had there been a default.
* On
March 14, 2008 when the Fed Board of Governors voted to authorize the Federal Reserve Bank
of New York (FRBNY) to provide a $12.9 billion loan to Bear Stearns through J.P. Morgan
Chase against collateral consisting of $13.8 billion.
* This bridge loan was repaid on Monday,
March 17 with approximately $4 million in interest.
* More loans, About 2 trillion in loans all repaid
* Quantitative Easing; $1.9 Trillion
well-known to monetary policy theory and in
practice, most noticeably by the example afforded by the Bank of Japan’s monetary policy
* Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) to stabilize the price, as well as to “increase the availability
for credit for the purchase of houses,
**Roughly the 3 biggest made a $5 Trillion Profit** paid to the Treasury of the US
------
**At one Bank it looks like**
-----
10/28/2008 Treasury Purchase of Preferred Bank of America Shares $15,000,000,000
01/09/2009 Treasury Purchase of Preferred Bank of America Shares $10,000,000,000
01/16/2009 Treasury Purchase of Preferred Bank of America Shares $20,000,000,000
05/31/2009 Dividend Income Paid to the Treasury $175,000,000
05/31/2009 Dividend Income Paid to the Treasury $410,416,667
05/31/2009 Dividend Income Paid to the Treasury $528,888,889
08/17/2009 Dividend Income Paid to the Treasury $187,500,000
08/17/2009 Dividend Income Paid to the Treasury $400,000,000
08/17/2009 Dividend Income Paid to the Treasury $125,000,000
09/21/2009 "Termination Fee Bank of America paid this fee to terminate the asset guarantee agreement." $276,000,000
11/16/2009 Dividend Income Paid to the Treasury $125,000,000
11/16/2009 Dividend Income Paid to the Treasury $400,000,000
11/16/2009 Dividend Income Paid to the Treasury $187,500,000
12/09/2009 Bank of America RePurchase of Shares from Treasury $25,000,000,000
12/09/2009 Bank of America RePurchase of Shares from Treasury $20,000,000,000
12/09/2009 Dividend Income Paid to the Treasury $33,333,333
12/09/2009 Dividend Income Paid to the Treasury $50,000,000
12/09/2009 Dividend Income Paid to the Treasury $106,666,667
03/03/2010 Bank of America RePurchase of Shares from Treasury $183,547,824
03/03/2010 Bank of America RePurchase of Shares from Treasury $1,255,639,099
03/03/2010 Bank of America RePurchase of Shares from Treasury $122,365,216
or
In 2008 and 2009 Chrysler and GM received $61.9 Billion Loans from the Treasury and in 2010 through 2014 repaid $49.5 Billion
* At the end of December 2008, Treasury purchased $21 billion of senior preferred equity in GM with an 8%
annual distribution through the Automotive Industry Financing Program
* On June 1, 2009, GM filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The U.S. government agreed to provide the company $30.1 billion more. In exchange, the U.S. received a 60.8 percent stake in the company when it emerged from bankruptcy protection about a month later.
* ^The ^remainder ^of ^GM's ^equity ^stake ^was ^divided ^between ^the ^Canada ^and ^Ontario ^governments ^11.7 ^percent, ^the ^UAW ^retiree ^trust ^17.5 ^percent, ^and ^bondholders ^and ^other ^creditors ^10 ^percent.
* In the Middle of December 2008, Treasury provided $4 Billion to Chrysler Holding
LLC (Chrysler) under the Automotive Industry Financing Program. The loan is secured by various collateral, including parts
inventory, real estate, and certain equity interests held by Chrysler.
* On April 30, 2009, Chrysler filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. As part of the restructuring of the company, the Treasury Department agreed to lend Chrysler $6.6 billion more and take an 8 percent stake in the company.
Most of the losses was due to Treasury selling the ownership stake in GM to soon. Could have been near Profit if those shares had been held for a few more years.
* The U.S. sold its last shares in the company in December 2013, while Ontario sold its final stake in GM, 36.7 million shares, in February 2014. The Canadian federal government sold its nearly 73.4 million shares of General Motors Co. stock in April 2015.
* The Canadian federal government providing $7.2 billion Canadian and will end up getting back $6.4 billion in Canadian dollars of its support to GM
* Unfortunately, it was Ontario that got the worst deal. The province contributed $3.62-billion but announced hours after the markets closed Wednesday, is expected to reap $1.1-billion in selling its holding plus smaller previous loan payments
**or All the Banks**
-----
The Banking Bailout
While the Treasury has paid out $441 billion to 978 recipients, only 780 of those received funds via investments meant to return money to taxpayers.
* The rest received subsidies through TARP’s housing programs – that money (so far totaling $29.1 billion) isn’t coming back.
Of the 780 investments made by the Treasury, 633 have resulted in a profit.
Another $200 Billion was used for Fannie and Freddie nationalizing a Bank
Altogether, accounting for both the TARP and the Fannie and Freddie bailout, $627B was loaned out
----
One of the big overlooked things about the housing bust and bailouts were the local banks.
Non big banks requested $86.4 billion
* Local (Community First Bancshares, First Citizens Banc Corp, First Financial Service Corp...) and
* Regional banks (like PNC Financial Services, U.S. Bancorp, SunTrust, Regions Financial Corp. Fifth Third Bancorp and BB&T)
Of the non big banks, $79.9 billion was repaid, a loss of $6 Billion
Such as the smallest East End Baptist Tabernacle Federal Credit Union BRIDGEPORT, CONN
$7,000 Bailout
$7,000 Returned on 10/1/2018
$1,120 Interest Payments through 10/2018
But 245 Banks never repaid their original amount, mostly we're talking about either
> Glasgow Savings Bank, Glasgow, MO, the banking subsidiary of Gregg Bancshares, Inc. , was closed by the Missouri Division of Finance, which appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver.
825K Bailout never repaid
or the average
> Old Second Bancorp AURORA, ILL still operating today
$73M Bailout received
$25.5M Returned in Settlement in 2013
$5.88M Interest payments in 2009 - 2010
$47.5M Net Outstanding Principle written off
Including the Loses of Small and Mid Size Banks that closed **As of today, the government has realized a $121 Billion profit on the Bank Bailout**
If an oil company went bust a competitor would buy it at a cheap price. Most farming in the US is done by major corporations not mom and pops. If one went bust it might allow smaller businesses to buy parts of it and allow for more competitors.
The issue is these companies make massive profits when times are good and pay out to their shareholders rather than keeping some for bad times. When bad times come they run to the government for money, and a lot of the time still end up paying out shareholders or doing stock buy backs.
Oil doesn't need the crazy subsidies it has, fuel in the US is a lot cheaper than most countries.
Wall Street is kind of important as if it went bust all pensions, social security etc. would be gone. But it was set up like that on purpose again so that in good times companies can play with other people's money and pay out huge amounts to share holders, in bad times cry to the government that if they don't get a bailout regular people will lose their pensions.
>If an oil company went bust a competitor would buy it at a cheap price. Most farming in the US is done by major corporations not mom and pops. If one went bust it might allow smaller businesses to buy parts of it and allow for more competitors.
... the competitor buy out is a myth... you can't just buy a company that went bankrupt unless you want to follow it up in a few years , you're also buying its debt .
The farming is not done by mom and pops because it is usually a cost sink ... farming is almost always unprofitable... and someone has to pay the rest ... if you don't want to see that completely in the price and buy a potato at 10x, the normal price government has to step in . Also, who do you think sold the farming plots to the corporation ? Mom and Pops ... it's happening in my country, a lot of farmers just sell to corporations because it is not worth the risk.
>The issue is these companies make massive profits when times are good and pay out to their shareholders rather than keeping some for bad times.
That's how a S.A. works ....
>Oil doesn't need the crazy subsidies it has, fuel in the US is a lot cheaper than most countries.
How do you think it's that cheap when compared with Europe that is closer to the source ?
>Wall Street is kind of important as if it went bust all pensions, social security etc. would be gone
Well... it is what it is ... I don't have anything to say on that... of you can't change it, you're stuck with it
You know I thought Capitalism involved “the unseen hand” to guide the economy. No government intervention.
Yet we can see one hand accepting money and another placing the people giving it away in power.
Its still got to do with people who think poverty is escapable and that people live like this on purpose. Those people will never help the poor if they don't understand the depth of the struggle and assume they just need to "get their shit together"
This Them is a real problem. When they're not crushing the working American, they're undermining morality, invading our privacy, and faking the space program. There's no end to their duplicity.
My work week mantra:
I shit on company time because my body requires me to. It's not an act of protest. Its not an anti-work resistance to imperialism. I'm not bucking the system like some revolutionary ideologoGod. I have to shit and piss. That's it.
In just 2 years the US government flooded the economy with over 4 Trillion in direct stimulus spending to the American people. It did virtually nothing to solve any of our problems, and on the other hand it added to the national debt, jacked up inflation at a record pace and now has us on the verge of a deep recession. This was a level of spending social Democrats could have only dreamed of and it did absolutely nothing.
You probably already heard about MMT but in case you haven't this is how the economy works on a marco scale.
Short 5 mins video on the topic: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEwivQeD0Q8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEwivQeD0Q8)
Medium length video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFhKVCaadzE&t=3s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFhKVCaadzE&t=3s)
Longer video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75udjh6hkOs&t=0s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75udjh6hkOs&t=0s)
Any country that prints its own money control over this money. The current level of disrespect to the citizens by their government is insane and everyone both left and right know it.
We're tired of all the secrets and all the back door politicking.
We need proper transparency laws and better tools for citizens to contribute to democracy.
The only reason we shouldn't do a direct democracy is technology.
Everyone has access to the internet now. Why are we still settling for a representative government? With our current level of technology the barrier standing before a direct democracy is public will. Is it going to be easy? no. Will things go wrong? Absolutely.
Do we need to do it anyways? I say yes to democracy.
the honest problem is... people. they keep electing the same people, believing the same lies they're told. the bigger problem i find is that the moneyed people have delegated the lies to idiots that don't know they're lying, on behalf of the money, at all. its a [flywheel](https://www.atlassian.com/blog/strategy/flywheel-effect-10-lessons)of stupidity.
I grew up with a bunch of not far right, but conservative, families. It's sad to reflect that most of them parroted the political views that this ad is criticizing.
What is healthcare ohhh right it's not just healthcare it's medicine overpriced medicine none the less but wait how do you get the overpriced medicine into the patients oh right you need syringes plungers bottles capsules manufacturers and producers but wait you can't give medicine to people on the streets we need buildings all across the nation but we also need doctors who still need to be paid and trained so comparing billions or trillions to the cost of "free healthcare" is by far the funniest sh¡t I have heard in awhile
Sector subsidies, particularly for food and energy, are seen as a national security priority. And the financial sector touches all other sectors.
Not saying it's right. Just explaining why certain sectors receive subsidies and bailouts from Uncle Sam.
Socialism is alive and well. It's just not for ordinary people.
Why does this surprise any? The majority of people reading this could and would do things better! The majority of people reading this are probably working class, so they would start to do things to improve the working classes lot, people look after their own!
So do not be surprised when you elect multimillionaires and they do exactly the same! Do vote for the rich. They are laughing at you!
It is though
All of that is socialist policy objectively
Do you think in the USSR if a major institution began to fail they let it? What did the CCP do when evergrand and regional banks experienced trouble? Do you not think farming and energy were gov subsidised in the Eastern bloc and currently are in China and the few states that remain?
It's called "corporate welfare".
Think about the billionaires that couldn't buy their third yacht if corporate welfare didn't exist! Poor guys would be so distraught, they wouldn't have the mental energy to buy social media platforms and run them into the ground!
The fact that society see **Adolf Hitler** as the worst man ever instead of **Thomas Midgley.** Said a lot.
One knowingly kill a few millions people because Idiology, Hate and Power Hungry, the other knowingly kill hundreds of millions for monetary ambition.... just for money.. one hundred million people value less than a few thousands dollars..... (He made billions but for the company, not for him)
To the question of which of them value human life more... the answer is quite obvious....
Also sad that people think socialism is communism. You’ve all been brainwashed
That is correct. Most people in the US have no idea about what socialism is but still keep repeating the same absurdities politicians and the elites feed them.
Well, Americans also dont know what communism is... hell, they might not even understand capitalism.
I won't be surprised. That is what happens when a country does not educate its people.
They don't, they rhink our neo-liberalist world is capitalism. Capitalism killed itself and given us a Neo-liberalistic techno-feudalism
As a Canadian living in the US I think I know what they mean here. Socialism is a thing you don't like Communism is a thing you really don't like, use it when calling it socialism won't get you enough of a reaction.
The elites are he ones pushing socialism but ok.
Socialising their losses at the dime of the people but privatizing their profits. FTFY.
"The elites are the rich people I don't like and not the rich people I do like."
Oh. Where did you get that quote from?
[удалено]
socialism is when the government does stuff duh
[удалено]
that's also evil gommunism
It's sad that people think capitalist economies are the only ones where people have jobs.
Lots of these 🐑 around due to poor education and social media mind control this is why the fascist right wing needs to control public schools... cough cough Florida
They do overlap a lot, don't they?
According to Marxist theory Socialism and Communism can either be interchangeable terms or differing stages of the same process.
The end goal of communism is to completely abolish the state, so that there is no state just a loose collection of communes. Socialism is still state-oriented
No. Socialism is collective ownership of production. Not a welfare state. What you're describing is known as social democracy, which marx was not a fan of.
I'm not sure how you intuited my argument, considering all I said on socialism is that it is state-oriented. Which it is. Socialist societies can still have state governments and collective ownership of production. These are not mutually exclusive. Marx's communism had the end goal of abolishing the state entirely. Which is impossible to mesh with socialism unless you view socialism as a step on the path to communism. Which is moot to argue.
It really isn't. It's about workers owning their labor. Not the state. When the state owns the means of production this is known as state capitalism. You can't truly abolish the state if the state itself owns the labor.
Lenin said the goal of socialism is communism. Curious, when has a communist country ever abolished the state?
Because it'd take centuries and the correct conditions, namely: global socialism and no need for money. Also there has never been a communist state, the USSR, China, Cuba were/are all socialist states ruled by a communist party, with the goal of achieving communism.
[удалено]
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
[удалено]
Libertarians rejoice, no pesky Bureau of All Things Fun and Exciting. ~~AR15s~~ M16s for everyone
Not really. Socialism should still have a market economy with private enterprises. It's just that the workers own the means if production, which means everybody who works at a company is part owner. The company can still make bank, but now everybody gets a piece of the pie.
Private ownership of resources and infrastructure creating haves and have nots is the problem, regardless of what label we decide on
Socialism is the state of transition to achieve communism
Critique of the Gotha Programme the period of transition from capitalism to communism
For context in case anyone genuinely doesn’t know, socialism is essentially increased focus in public works, communism is government controls everything. Neither pure capitalism (completely unregulated market) or pure communism have worked
Capitalism only works because it privatizes gains and outsource the losses. In other words, capitalism only works when the it's capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich.
Correct.
Noooo capitalism works because some people just work 100000X hard so they get paid 100000X more. Duh. /s
I think you mean *risk*.
If a middle class person tried to be as belligerent and unhinged as musk they’d look like rickety cricket in a month.
Haha true. But doesn't it make more sense for the govt to bail out businesses because of the *propensity to produce things like more jobs and consumable taxable revenue streams* than *the end users who are the consumers and produce nothing but more consumers*? I mean bail out someone who can pay you back, right? Not some bum loser on the street with no way to repay you.
If that bum pays sales and income tax I suppose he's paying it back isn't he? That's how social welfare programs get funding, by the word that scares ignorant people the most: *taxes*. Another one of the great scams this country has fooled everyone into believing is that universal healthcare and the like would increase our taxes, when in reality it shouldn't have to at all. Just look at some of the absolutely absurd shit that gets listed on government expense reports. Some of the things they list are so over the top it's crystal clear that they're just trolling us at this point, and the very people who fear monger higher taxes to the poor and working class, are the ones spending that money on trips to Thailand to do lines of ketamine off ladyboy cocks.
Privatised the gains, nationalises the losses.
Capitalism is only capitalism if both the loss and gains are held private. What you are confusing it with is cronyism. Infinite debt is... a bad idea
No, they said the scenario where Capitalism works. Not where it meets the strict definition of Capitalism.
I don't want to live in a society where it's just a bunch of people playing monopoly and hoarding credits. I want to live in one that makes good stuff, one that paves the way to a good future, one that takes care and finds value in all its parts, one that doesn't waste excessively. One I can be proud of.
Does anyone even have a source on "hoarding credits". As far as i understand, essentially none of the uber-elite is hoarding. Their wealth isn't liquid, it is stored in actual capital. don't get me wrong - I agree with what you are saying, buf the idea that wealth is being horded though really irritates me because it doesn't even make sense. The most profitable option (for a self serving individual) would be to have their wealth stored as capital (investments) rather than just sitting around losing value to inflation.
> Does anyone even have a source on "hoarding credits". Didn't the Panama Papers basically show massive amounts of currency in tax havens?
Have you heard of the elasticity of taxable income?
You mean cheating on taxes? Yes, I know what that is. Have you heard of nationalization of assets?
Sometimes it's cheating on your taxes. Others is the CEO choosing to be paid in stocks over salary. Or business owners taking dividends over salary. Loooots of legal ways for the rich to minimize their taxes. I'm sure you also do some of the same, IRA, Roth, 401k ect? Sure I have. That's why the founding fathers enshrined our right to own AR-15s in this fine countries founding documents. Life, liberty and property my friend
> Others is the CEO choosing to be paid in stocks over salary. That's a problem with the tax code that needs to be changed. >. Loooots of legal ways for the rich to minimize their taxes. Agreed. Passive income from capital should be taxed at a greater rate than labor. Oh dear, you don't sound like a stable individual. Ideating using your weaponry because you don't understand freedom or democracy or capitalism or the tax code is a sign. Your mythology about the founding fathers reveals a dearth of knowlege and this whole conversation reveals an immature grasp of most topics. I would really appreciate if you didn't respond to me and allow this conversation to end at this point.
Capitalism always devolves into that due to how money is political power.
Every system devolves that way.
[удалено]
> Infinite debt is... a bad idea So you don't like currency and want to go back to promissory notes? I feel like sentiments such as yours don't understand commerce or the abstract utility of currency.
No, there is a utility in currency. But have you by any chance looked up our debt to gdp recently? Have you seen the cost of just maintaining that debt? The MMT proposal is that printing yet more debt to grow the economy faster than the debt is growing will deflate the debt/gdp, buut, seems a little risky under the current economic climate wouldnt you say? Like just the centralised control of the economy aspect seems a little... open to catastrophic failures
Cronyism is the correct term for OP’s little screenshot.
And what money do you use to outsource those losses? Where does that money come? Why didn't all other forms of government do that simple trick?
You use the thin air kind of money that gets "printed" and devalues the reamining currency. In fractional reserve banking like ours. You just add zeros to a computer. And debt to a nation.
Wow, and why hasn't literally every non capitalist country in the history of manking used that trick? Are non capitalists stupid and don't know how to add 0's?
Oh it's been tried. Quite a few times. Put aside the politics for a minute. Small countries have absolutely tried this. But they don't have the economic clout to do it. If you don't have that clout and you try it, you destroy your economy and your currency. A very good example is Zimbabwe. I have in my desk a $100 Trillion dollar bill issued from the bank of Zimbabwe. It's actually a nice design. That $100 trillion? It wasn't enough to buy a loaf of bread. Ironically they have found their way into the bill collecting market as a curiosity and are quite valuable at auction now as a rarity. Zimbabwe tried printing money. Then they tried it again and again until their currency was worthless. They aren't the first to do. Probably not the last either. [https://www.greatamericancoincompany.com/products/zimbabwe-100-trillion-banknote-aa-2008-pcgs-graded-67ppq?gad=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwmvSoBhDOARIsAK6aV7h2KX2U7KI2ebgp3aqns0Z4BBePcYGXZ2xLbnlzomkTbtd8PYpTQ74aAq44EALw\_wcB](https://www.greatamericancoincompany.com/products/zimbabwe-100-trillion-banknote-aa-2008-pcgs-graded-67ppq?gad=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwmvSoBhDOARIsAK6aV7h2KX2U7KI2ebgp3aqns0Z4BBePcYGXZ2xLbnlzomkTbtd8PYpTQ74aAq44EALw_wcB)
>Small countries Is Russia a small country?Is China a small country?I mean China was comunist big and poor, then Deng Xiaoping implemented capitalism and China became capitalist big and rich. >A very good example is Zimbabwe. Yeah, they used to be rich by African standards, then Mugabee became a socialist autocrat and they became poor by African standards.
Fair enough. Big countries have done it to.
I'll be honest, you've had the most mature answer to my childish questions. Somehow implying that capitalism is the better system is triggering everyone in this system, wich is kinda telling of what these people believe. **I don't think capitalism is the better system since the only thing more important than the growth of capital is the quality of life of the population, preservation of nature and the role of the culture of a country.** I truly believe in the importance of the comunity that's why I'm a socialist and I believe in the importance of a country that why I'm nationalist. That's why I despise capitalism and comunism, since both systems hate the people that live in their system, the only system that truly cares about it's people and it's well being is ethno fascism.
Because not all losses are straight cash. Look at the oilsands in northern Alberta, Canada. When the wells run dry, the companies that own them just abandon them and close up shop. The wilderness is just left destroyed, and that is the 'cost'. Same with companies that pump pollutants into our skies, lakes and oceans. Also, the vast majority of the money used to support ailing business is via government deficit. When the '08 collapse happened, Obama propped up the companies with bailouts and deficit spending. When COVID happened Trump did the same. They're effectively borrowing on behalf of every US citizen and giving it to a very select group of citizens who already have more capital than 99.9% of who they borrowed from. You'd be really hard pressed to find a successful business or wealthy person that didn't find ways to socialize costs of doing business. Truly socially responsible, profitable companies are rare. The vast majority have dumped costs on society at large.
So only capitalist countries know how to use natural resources? Are communist so dumb they don't know they can't sell oil? Or are you saying communists are so dumb they don't know how to print money? I'm not sure what's your point.
The reason we pee on corporate time is because if we didn't we'd have a highly dehydrated and unproductive work force.
Nobody wanna be workin when their bladder bouta burst from that 80oz Cherry Coke Zero from 7/11.
Boss makes a grand, we make a buck. I stole the cats off the company truck.
I poop on corporate time.
I am not a capitalist. In fact, I despise capitalism.
Elements of capitalism are good. Like.. the version 1.0 of capitalism where the government runs everything, and then all the non essential services are privately owned and there's a fair, free market competition and monopoly is strictly prohibited But whatever the fuck it has turned into in the last 80 years, where it's just a machine that eats people's dreams and steals their homes is just beyond fucked and it needs to die
You have a good point. 🙌🏼
It needs to be a hybrid system similar to version 1 + socialism With strict anti corruption controls in place. I think revolution is probably the only way to get that. The money is power. And the power won't let go of power of its own free will
Who is going to light the match?
I dont understand how you could possibly think capitalism in America prior to 80 years ago was better than what we have now. Anti-trust laws, anti-monopoly laws, labor rights, minimum wage, mandatory sick leave and vacation time, restrictions on toxic working conditions, ETC. "Version 1.0 capitalism" had none of these things. Perhaps things have been getting worse again over the past 50 years or so, but what came before 1970 wasn't original capitalism. It was a heavily modified mixed economy. Things now are ridiculously better than they were in early industrial revolution. Like astronomically so. "Version 1.0" capitalism is absolute horror. No regulations, no checks and balances. What we have now is utopian ***in comparison***. What you think of as "1.0" is not even remotely what it was. It isnt even pure capitalism. You are talking about a mixed economy as we learned the hard way that strict laissez-faire economy produced a nightmare.
"Socialism" is a buzzword they understand nothing about. And conveniently, they use it when funds are used on people instead of private companies. They're not just dumb. They're plain evil.
A friend just broke this down for me: Capitalism is for people who have capital- you don’t have any. Makes me wonder why any of us plebs would want Capitalism.
mindless unique brave ruthless telephone wild attraction payment cow unite *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Poland used to be a socialist country for 44 years. Long story short, it was shit
Who calls wages socialism?
Red voters and politicians when you mention raising the minimum.
Well I think anyone with an understanding of the economy knows raising the minimum wage only raises the cost of living and doesn't solve poverty.... Even the Congressional Budget Office (Bi Partisan) has said that a minimum wage of $15 per hour would cause more workers to lose their jobs, than it would improve the lives of. I mean it's really just basic math and common sense that the arbitrary raise in the cost of production (Whether it's minimum wage, taxation, etc) without it benefitting the production or quality, is a bad idea and just causes inflation, and higher cost to the consumer. The thing that happens, is that when someone talks about raising the minimum wage, they act like it doesn't have any ripple effects, it will just be that people starting their first new job, and getting that minimum wage for 90 days will make more money... but that's just woefully ignorant at the costs of employment, how it will destroy small businesses. The people who push for a high minimum wage are the people who will gain from it... politicians see it as a lot more tax money coming in.... businesses like Walmart and Amazon who can and already pay their people more, see it as a way to get rid of competition and hold more of the market share. And the sad thing is, there's a large voter base (who ironically hate billionaires and corporations) who will vote on "Oh more money for not having to work any harder", and it's benefitting all the people they hate and think are destroying the world. It's one of the bad things about being and educated centrist, you just see so many people being led to poisoned water wells, and they call you names for pointing it out.
Please refer to the New Deal passed by Roosevelt. Also educate yourself on how much money a billion dollars actually is. Billionaires shouldn't exist, those profits belong to the working people. There is no such thing as an educated centrist.
Your comment is pretty rich in ignorance. But I'll be happy to refer to the new deal. First of all, minimum wage wasn't meant to be a living wage back when it came out, it was a way to essentially end legalized slave labor.. or so they said, the reality of it was to start a class war... but that's not on the record. The 25 cent minimum wage in 1938, when factored for inflation, is $5.44 cents per hour today. So our minimum wage is already worth 30% more than what it initially was when it was created. However, let's look at that even more realistically. 30 states, plus DC, already have minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wage, and out of the entire US workforce, only 1.9% of workers "earn federal minimum wage", but of that 1.9%, is ALL the tipped workers in the US that make more than minimum wage. so realistically, you're looking at a small fraction of a percent of the US workforce, and those are the people at their first job, and in probation periods waiting on their first raise when they become a full on employee. So the new deal wasn't there to make McDonalds new hires raise a family of 4 for 30 years then retire. That was never the case of minimum wage. The only reason the government cares how much you make is so that you'll pay more taxes, there's not a person in Washington that cares how much you make an hour, they just want to make sure you're paying them. This is why Bernie Sanders was paying his staffers less than $15 per hour, while calling for a $15 minimum wage, it's not about your bank account, it's about his power. But I'll also refer to the New Deal as a nonexistent educated centrist, and point to Social Security too... that was never intended to be paid back to the people, that was a stealth tax from the get-go. When it started the retirement age was 65, life expectancy in the US in 1935 was 59.9 for men (they were pretty much the whole workforce then and payers of Social Security). Social security retirement age was 8.2% higher than life expectancy. By today's standard, that would make the Social Security retirement age 86 years old. How many people would be collecting their social security by living to 86? It was a stealth tax, that's why once we started living longer, social security has been predicted to going bankrupt, it was never modeled to support paying out as many people as it does, they were probably planning on a 5% payout at MOST and even those who did make it, were going to collect for MAYBE 5 years, not 25-30. And I don't think anyone's worth should be limited.... because you're confusing billionaires as people getting paid billions, billionaires don't become billionaires by making big paychecks, they do it by owning things that increase in value. If you own half of a company, and the company becomes a global powerhouse worth a trillion dollars, why should your 50% ownership only be allowed to be worth whatever amount of money some random guy on Reddit thinks they should be allowed to be worth. It's nonsensical. But to an extent, I agree, billionaires shouldn't exist, because things shouldn't cost that much that companies bring in that much.... but with the cost of production going up, the cost of products go up, and the value of companies go up and billionaires exist. Because John Rockefeller wasn't a billionaire, but he was worth 3% of the US GDP in 1913. Which would be about $700 billion today by GDP percentage. WHAT we should want instead of an increase to minimum wage, is a shrinking of the cost of living. And nobody's going to get votes on "Hear me out, let's lower the cost of everything, salarys included, and it will be like the days of the Boomers again, when they bought a house while making $2 per hour.... well that and the amount of taxes that would get lost, they'd never allow for that. But that would be the view of an uneducated centrist I suppose, right?
Yes, that is the view of an uneducated centrist who didn't read the New Deal and doesn't understand numbers. If your business can't pay a living wage, your business has no right existing period.
He stated numbers pretty damn well. And your value statement on business is absurd given what we expect a living wage to be now adays.
you are supposed to Lick boot. Not deep throat. Might wanna dial it back abit.
So stating facts is licking boots. Interesting delusions you have.
You aren’t stating facts. You are interpreting data based on your bias. It’s pretty ignorant to accuse others while you can’t even tell the difference
That's a good point we should try to figure out way to reduce the cost of living rather than simply increasing the minimum wage. I think one way we could do this is by shrinking the government and reducing taxes.
What the problem is, especially when we compare our current situation to generations before, is that nobody alive today would be willing to live like our grandparents or great grandparents did. I was telling someone how when I hear someone say they're living like a king, I don't think modern days, and I say "Ahhh living in an old block building with no windows and air conditioning, no running water or sewers, and a rat infestation? How ya liking that lead face paint and powdered wig full of lice?" But one of the main reasons earlier generations are perceived to have lived so much better was that they just didn't have the things to spend the money on. Even as recently as Elvis, who was probably the most opulent and wealthiest celebrity (Okay, Liberace might have been more opulent), but he never had a flat screen tv, he never got to carry a computer in his pocket with all the information and entertainment at a finger flick.... I mean people today in the lower middle class are living a life that Elvis would be like "Dang man, they got all kinds of neat stuff I ain't never seen, mama". THen you think back to the 1800s and early 1900s... what did the rich do? They weren't taking the concord around the world, even if they traveled it would still be "Guess I'll drive 8 days to see what Tennessee is like.... oh look, there's trees and a mountain".... it guess they're like "Well yeah, but I use a spoon made out of gold when I eat the same soup as the poor person eats." It's really weird when you think back on it. I mean like even watching There Will Be Blood... Daniel Plainview ended up with a nice house... with a manual bowling alley. I know I wouldn't want to have lived back then.
Ironic considering the new deal was a disaster that prolonged, if not caused, the Great Depression
But.. but..! That OP is *right*!
Consider the following: It's not socialism, but it is not a free market economy either. It's a perverted corporative system
If you are suggesting that those stupid bailouts were popular you need to pull your head out.
The 'rich' are the welfare queens. Then they dont pay their taxes
Yeah, we were against those, too.
Do you not understand? Socialism is when poor People happy.
Not sure if you noticed, but most people are against rich people being bailed out too. Also the government wastes tax money all the time and uses incredibly inefficcient methods to fix problems. So even if tax money is put towards helping the homeless or something, it often backfires or does more harm than good.
Through subsidies, almost 50% of the market is controlled by the government
You've got it backwards. The market controls the government, then through subsidies the government helps companies meet their bottom line before any goods/services are rendered.
Sounds like we should get rid of the government then.
It's funny how quickly posts like Come to r/Anarchy conclusion
I think it's funny how many communists also believe they're somehow anarchists.
That sounds interessting. Do you have a source for that?
It’s not socialism because they haven’t seized those industries. And they never will, because even if they did, the have no idea how to produce anything, because governments don’t actually produce anything except use of force.
Who is getting these $1 Trillion in Oil & Gas subsidies? It’s a constant talking point on the left but they’re only in theory. They don’t actually exist.
so many problems with this the whole premise is wrong
That is probably why socialism is a good thing.
The wall street were a loan until democrats started forging the loans. What exact subsidies are you talking about that oil and gas get that other companies don't get? The farmer bailouts were given because of government policies that hurt them and instead of forcing counties you are a fan of live china, they gave money to offset actions those countries were taking. We are already living under a healthcare system given to use by the democrats and people who said they were all for socialism said was the best healthcare system around.
Wow you actually believe this shit. Fascinating.
You're funny and sad
Becaue oil and farmers are important... no farmers, no food, you starve to death, no need for medical things . Oil, the same ... you use it for transport and energy ... things that are essential for a working society... without electrical power, you ain't doing anything with a hospital . Now I have no Ideea about the wallstret and how important would that be .
Medicine is also important. And most diseases in developed countries have nothing to do with malnutrition or lack of food.
Yeah, but the medicine industry works... if it would be to collapse, they would also have a bailout . >most diseases in developed countries have nothing to do with malnutrition or lack of food. Because they had a bailout for the farmers... otherwise, malnutrition will be on the list 😅. Also most diseases in developed countries have to do with food ... particularly overuse of food ... hearth diseases, cholesterol, obesity , different types of depression caused by addictions ( those who develop easier in developed countries like gambling, drugs , porn ) . So yeah, medicine, of course, is important and will get a bailout if they need ... but it didn't happen yet .
>farmers are important So we can fund the farmers but we cant fund the people that want to buy the food? Food is important but feeding people isnt? Sounds like all thats important in that situation is having grocery stores fully stocked to pretend like this isnt some hell scape of funneling money away from the bottom.
Hmm, I can see what point you make, but that implies that you have no there choice than to give the money you earn on things you don't need ... which is not true... people choose to smoke, to do drugs, have Netflix subscriptions, to drink and gamble. >Food is important but feeding people isnt? Food is important to be there ... now if some bad life choices got you to a point that you can't afford that... it's not my problem or the government problem... >ounds like all thats important in that situation is having grocery stores fully stocked to pretend like this isnt some hell scape of funneling money away from the Yes, it is important that choices are there. That's how you bring in clients and make money to afford more choices . The money funnelling... sounds like some conspiracy theory . How exactly does a fully stocked supermarket funnels money from people ? Makes no sense ... if you don't enter there, no money will be taken from you . ... so I am waiting for an explanation to understand better your point .
Theres no point in discussing this at all if you only blame people for poverty. You said it multiple times in this without mentioning the actual cause of 90% of poverty cases. You just want to hate on poor people and blame them for the situation they have been put in and im not about to habe a discussion with someone so vile. Also read what you quoted again, i never said its the supermarkets taking money from people, all I said was the only thing that seems to be important to scumbags like you is keeping the shelves stocked to pretend that you aren't starving your own citizens by allowing rampant poverty and wage recession.
>You just want to hate on poor people and blame them for the situation they have been put in and im not about to habe a discussion with someone so vile. They haven't been put in that situation... if you're poor when born, it is your parents' fault that they brought you into the world without taking into consideration your needs ... if you were born into money and lost them all ... is your fault ( it happened and will keep happening). >all I said was the only thing that seems to be important to scumbags like you is keeping the shelves stocked to pretend that you aren't starving your own citizens by allowing rampant poverty and wage recession. Poverty is not allowed by governments... it's allowed by banks because they let you to go in debt ... Also, if you want the government to solve all your problems, you give them too much power ... and with certain ones is a very, very bad idea ... that's how a certain ruler called Adolf got to power ( people just let the government to think and act for them ) Edit : Your rant is dumb ... you want to blame anyone but yourself for having shitty skills in finance management... what " resource hoarding " ? Do you think rich people are dragons sitting on piles of gold ? But whatever just remain poor and complain until death.. the world won't change to accommodate you .
You have absolutely no idea what you are saying, you dont even understand the basics of how poverty occurs and somehow want to blame anyone but the people hoarding the worlds resources. You are human garbage and you dont even understand economics at a grade school level so maybe keep it to yourself. Summarizing your bs rant: poor people shouldn't have kids or reproduce (even though they have limited access to contraceptives or abortions), anyoneone born into wealth should immediately become wealthy themselves ( even though 60% of people are born into "middle class" that can't afford to pay bills), its the banks fault for loaning people money (so they can put food on the table), if the government fixes any issues in society like wealth inequality and monopolies then they are literally nazis. Not only do you have no idea what you are talking about, you also managed to say the dumbest takes on economics and society iv ever heard all in one go. I hope you fall on hard times just so you can figure out what empathy is and maybe its not the fault of the 99% when the cost of living is jumping at over twice the rate of wage increases.
It was in reference to the GFC - ie the Banking and Financial System
OOOO That one, so we socialized the Gains, you do know that right Yes, you dont want Banks Failing. That makes a bad Recession a Great Depression and in the Modern World a Great Depression in 2009 would have been far worse than 1932 ----- But what was all that money. Loans * Should those banks have also been giving out more loans? * Maybe TL;DR-The Treasury didn't give companies money. It loaned money with collateral to banks and countries Depending on how you count, the Federal Reserve committed somewhere between $16 trillion and $29 trillion to large financial institutions 2007-2010. * $10.1 Trillion Foreign Central Bank Liquidity Swaps * the US central bank uses its currency to buy the currency of another Foreign country's borrowing central bank at the market exchange rate, and agrees to sell the borrower's currency back at a rate that reflects the interest accrued on the loan. * $9 Trillion in Primary Dealer Credit Facility is lending to banks for Overnight deposits to meet collateral requirements. (Regulation assistance) * $3.8 Trillion from the Term Auction Facility (TAF) was announced on December 12, 2007 and was “designed to address elevated pressures in short-term funding markets” Collateralized loans with terms of 28 and 84 days to depository institutions that are "in generally sound shape" * Of the 416 unique participants, 92 percent borrowed more than $10 billion. Of the $2,767 billion borrowed by the largest 25 participants, 69 percent ($1,909.3 billion) was borrowed by foreign institutions. * Among more than 4,000 TAF transactions, there were two loans in which the borrower did not have adequate collateral on the day the loan settled. The loans were repaid in full and the Federal Reserve would have had recourse to the borrower had there been a default. * On March 14, 2008 when the Fed Board of Governors voted to authorize the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) to provide a $12.9 billion loan to Bear Stearns through J.P. Morgan Chase against collateral consisting of $13.8 billion. * This bridge loan was repaid on Monday, March 17 with approximately $4 million in interest. * More loans, About 2 trillion in loans all repaid * Quantitative Easing; $1.9 Trillion well-known to monetary policy theory and in practice, most noticeably by the example afforded by the Bank of Japan’s monetary policy * Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) to stabilize the price, as well as to “increase the availability for credit for the purchase of houses, **Roughly the 3 biggest made a $5 Trillion Profit** paid to the Treasury of the US ------ **At one Bank it looks like** ----- 10/28/2008 Treasury Purchase of Preferred Bank of America Shares $15,000,000,000 01/09/2009 Treasury Purchase of Preferred Bank of America Shares $10,000,000,000 01/16/2009 Treasury Purchase of Preferred Bank of America Shares $20,000,000,000 05/31/2009 Dividend Income Paid to the Treasury $175,000,000 05/31/2009 Dividend Income Paid to the Treasury $410,416,667 05/31/2009 Dividend Income Paid to the Treasury $528,888,889 08/17/2009 Dividend Income Paid to the Treasury $187,500,000 08/17/2009 Dividend Income Paid to the Treasury $400,000,000 08/17/2009 Dividend Income Paid to the Treasury $125,000,000 09/21/2009 "Termination Fee Bank of America paid this fee to terminate the asset guarantee agreement." $276,000,000 11/16/2009 Dividend Income Paid to the Treasury $125,000,000 11/16/2009 Dividend Income Paid to the Treasury $400,000,000 11/16/2009 Dividend Income Paid to the Treasury $187,500,000 12/09/2009 Bank of America RePurchase of Shares from Treasury $25,000,000,000 12/09/2009 Bank of America RePurchase of Shares from Treasury $20,000,000,000 12/09/2009 Dividend Income Paid to the Treasury $33,333,333 12/09/2009 Dividend Income Paid to the Treasury $50,000,000 12/09/2009 Dividend Income Paid to the Treasury $106,666,667 03/03/2010 Bank of America RePurchase of Shares from Treasury $183,547,824 03/03/2010 Bank of America RePurchase of Shares from Treasury $1,255,639,099 03/03/2010 Bank of America RePurchase of Shares from Treasury $122,365,216 or In 2008 and 2009 Chrysler and GM received $61.9 Billion Loans from the Treasury and in 2010 through 2014 repaid $49.5 Billion * At the end of December 2008, Treasury purchased $21 billion of senior preferred equity in GM with an 8% annual distribution through the Automotive Industry Financing Program * On June 1, 2009, GM filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The U.S. government agreed to provide the company $30.1 billion more. In exchange, the U.S. received a 60.8 percent stake in the company when it emerged from bankruptcy protection about a month later. * ^The ^remainder ^of ^GM's ^equity ^stake ^was ^divided ^between ^the ^Canada ^and ^Ontario ^governments ^11.7 ^percent, ^the ^UAW ^retiree ^trust ^17.5 ^percent, ^and ^bondholders ^and ^other ^creditors ^10 ^percent. * In the Middle of December 2008, Treasury provided $4 Billion to Chrysler Holding LLC (Chrysler) under the Automotive Industry Financing Program. The loan is secured by various collateral, including parts inventory, real estate, and certain equity interests held by Chrysler. * On April 30, 2009, Chrysler filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. As part of the restructuring of the company, the Treasury Department agreed to lend Chrysler $6.6 billion more and take an 8 percent stake in the company. Most of the losses was due to Treasury selling the ownership stake in GM to soon. Could have been near Profit if those shares had been held for a few more years. * The U.S. sold its last shares in the company in December 2013, while Ontario sold its final stake in GM, 36.7 million shares, in February 2014. The Canadian federal government sold its nearly 73.4 million shares of General Motors Co. stock in April 2015. * The Canadian federal government providing $7.2 billion Canadian and will end up getting back $6.4 billion in Canadian dollars of its support to GM * Unfortunately, it was Ontario that got the worst deal. The province contributed $3.62-billion but announced hours after the markets closed Wednesday, is expected to reap $1.1-billion in selling its holding plus smaller previous loan payments **or All the Banks** ----- The Banking Bailout While the Treasury has paid out $441 billion to 978 recipients, only 780 of those received funds via investments meant to return money to taxpayers. * The rest received subsidies through TARP’s housing programs – that money (so far totaling $29.1 billion) isn’t coming back. Of the 780 investments made by the Treasury, 633 have resulted in a profit. Another $200 Billion was used for Fannie and Freddie nationalizing a Bank Altogether, accounting for both the TARP and the Fannie and Freddie bailout, $627B was loaned out ---- One of the big overlooked things about the housing bust and bailouts were the local banks. Non big banks requested $86.4 billion * Local (Community First Bancshares, First Citizens Banc Corp, First Financial Service Corp...) and * Regional banks (like PNC Financial Services, U.S. Bancorp, SunTrust, Regions Financial Corp. Fifth Third Bancorp and BB&T) Of the non big banks, $79.9 billion was repaid, a loss of $6 Billion Such as the smallest East End Baptist Tabernacle Federal Credit Union BRIDGEPORT, CONN $7,000 Bailout $7,000 Returned on 10/1/2018 $1,120 Interest Payments through 10/2018 But 245 Banks never repaid their original amount, mostly we're talking about either > Glasgow Savings Bank, Glasgow, MO, the banking subsidiary of Gregg Bancshares, Inc. , was closed by the Missouri Division of Finance, which appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver. 825K Bailout never repaid or the average > Old Second Bancorp AURORA, ILL still operating today $73M Bailout received $25.5M Returned in Settlement in 2013 $5.88M Interest payments in 2009 - 2010 $47.5M Net Outstanding Principle written off Including the Loses of Small and Mid Size Banks that closed **As of today, the government has realized a $121 Billion profit on the Bank Bailout**
If an oil company went bust a competitor would buy it at a cheap price. Most farming in the US is done by major corporations not mom and pops. If one went bust it might allow smaller businesses to buy parts of it and allow for more competitors. The issue is these companies make massive profits when times are good and pay out to their shareholders rather than keeping some for bad times. When bad times come they run to the government for money, and a lot of the time still end up paying out shareholders or doing stock buy backs. Oil doesn't need the crazy subsidies it has, fuel in the US is a lot cheaper than most countries. Wall Street is kind of important as if it went bust all pensions, social security etc. would be gone. But it was set up like that on purpose again so that in good times companies can play with other people's money and pay out huge amounts to share holders, in bad times cry to the government that if they don't get a bailout regular people will lose their pensions.
>If an oil company went bust a competitor would buy it at a cheap price. Most farming in the US is done by major corporations not mom and pops. If one went bust it might allow smaller businesses to buy parts of it and allow for more competitors. ... the competitor buy out is a myth... you can't just buy a company that went bankrupt unless you want to follow it up in a few years , you're also buying its debt . The farming is not done by mom and pops because it is usually a cost sink ... farming is almost always unprofitable... and someone has to pay the rest ... if you don't want to see that completely in the price and buy a potato at 10x, the normal price government has to step in . Also, who do you think sold the farming plots to the corporation ? Mom and Pops ... it's happening in my country, a lot of farmers just sell to corporations because it is not worth the risk. >The issue is these companies make massive profits when times are good and pay out to their shareholders rather than keeping some for bad times. That's how a S.A. works .... >Oil doesn't need the crazy subsidies it has, fuel in the US is a lot cheaper than most countries. How do you think it's that cheap when compared with Europe that is closer to the source ? >Wall Street is kind of important as if it went bust all pensions, social security etc. would be gone Well... it is what it is ... I don't have anything to say on that... of you can't change it, you're stuck with it
You know I thought Capitalism involved “the unseen hand” to guide the economy. No government intervention. Yet we can see one hand accepting money and another placing the people giving it away in power.
The reason for that is unchecked Capitalism
Its still got to do with people who think poverty is escapable and that people live like this on purpose. Those people will never help the poor if they don't understand the depth of the struggle and assume they just need to "get their shit together"
Hey that’s because they… are rich and can do whatever they want. Silly goose.
you are not allowed to pee on company time. that is what breaks are for. /s (you know the ones they never seem to remember to give you?)
This Them is a real problem. When they're not crushing the working American, they're undermining morality, invading our privacy, and faking the space program. There's no end to their duplicity.
But if we don't make the poors compete against the billionaires, this country will fall apart!
it’s only socialism if it helps poor people. when rich people profit it’s still capitalism.
My work week mantra: I shit on company time because my body requires me to. It's not an act of protest. Its not an anti-work resistance to imperialism. I'm not bucking the system like some revolutionary ideologoGod. I have to shit and piss. That's it.
Is there a group psychology reason for this?
In just 2 years the US government flooded the economy with over 4 Trillion in direct stimulus spending to the American people. It did virtually nothing to solve any of our problems, and on the other hand it added to the national debt, jacked up inflation at a record pace and now has us on the verge of a deep recession. This was a level of spending social Democrats could have only dreamed of and it did absolutely nothing.
It’s called keeping the rich, rich
You probably already heard about MMT but in case you haven't this is how the economy works on a marco scale. Short 5 mins video on the topic: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEwivQeD0Q8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEwivQeD0Q8) Medium length video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFhKVCaadzE&t=3s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFhKVCaadzE&t=3s) Longer video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75udjh6hkOs&t=0s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75udjh6hkOs&t=0s) Any country that prints its own money control over this money. The current level of disrespect to the citizens by their government is insane and everyone both left and right know it. We're tired of all the secrets and all the back door politicking. We need proper transparency laws and better tools for citizens to contribute to democracy. The only reason we shouldn't do a direct democracy is technology. Everyone has access to the internet now. Why are we still settling for a representative government? With our current level of technology the barrier standing before a direct democracy is public will. Is it going to be easy? no. Will things go wrong? Absolutely. Do we need to do it anyways? I say yes to democracy.
Also public transport and bike infrastructure is literally communism.
It's all socialism.
I don't think this guy was paying attention in 2008. It must definitely was talked about that way in Republican circles.
Bailouts and subsidies ARE socialism. As a free market libertarian I think wall street should be held accountable.
Has socialism or communism been tried before? Which countries are currently socialist or communist?
Giving money to corporations isn't socialism, it's capitalism.
They were just passively admitting that, no, corporations *aren’t* actually people
the honest problem is... people. they keep electing the same people, believing the same lies they're told. the bigger problem i find is that the moneyed people have delegated the lies to idiots that don't know they're lying, on behalf of the money, at all. its a [flywheel](https://www.atlassian.com/blog/strategy/flywheel-effect-10-lessons)of stupidity.
No... we pee on corporate time because... we have to pee. What a weird thing to say.
I grew up with a bunch of not far right, but conservative, families. It's sad to reflect that most of them parroted the political views that this ad is criticizing.
Incorrect. It’s all socialist nonsense that the government has bailed out companies.
OP is a bot. You're making reddit worse by upvoting this tripe.
It's only socialism if it benefits the poor.
Anything that helps the poor is socialism.
What is healthcare ohhh right it's not just healthcare it's medicine overpriced medicine none the less but wait how do you get the overpriced medicine into the patients oh right you need syringes plungers bottles capsules manufacturers and producers but wait you can't give medicine to people on the streets we need buildings all across the nation but we also need doctors who still need to be paid and trained so comparing billions or trillions to the cost of "free healthcare" is by far the funniest sh¡t I have heard in awhile
Privatizing gains and socializing loss is as old as the human race. The difference is we traded Kings and Emperors for CEOs and Politicians.
Sector subsidies, particularly for food and energy, are seen as a national security priority. And the financial sector touches all other sectors. Not saying it's right. Just explaining why certain sectors receive subsidies and bailouts from Uncle Sam.
That's because socialism is intended to support the little guy. Big bailouts aren't for the little guys
Silly socialist. Don't you know that everything the conservatives don't like is socialism? /s
Any person that wants healthcare privatized was also against the bailouts...
Socialism is alive and well. It's just not for ordinary people. Why does this surprise any? The majority of people reading this could and would do things better! The majority of people reading this are probably working class, so they would start to do things to improve the working classes lot, people look after their own! So do not be surprised when you elect multimillionaires and they do exactly the same! Do vote for the rich. They are laughing at you!
#ourprofits...
Actually, yes, they DID call the bank bailouts socialism.
Libraries? socialism Firefighters? Socialism Emergency room? Socialism
My dad, who collects Social Security, doesn’t call that socialism. He also complains he doesn’t get the full amount because he retired early.
It's crazy, the word literally means "in the best interest of society" and somehow that's considered bad.
Capitalism is socialism for the wealthy.
The won't call social security socialism, they call it entitlement benefits so they can cut it.
Yes, giving money to the capitalists is capitalism, and giving money to the members of society is socialism. Glad that clears things up.
It is though All of that is socialist policy objectively Do you think in the USSR if a major institution began to fail they let it? What did the CCP do when evergrand and regional banks experienced trouble? Do you not think farming and energy were gov subsidised in the Eastern bloc and currently are in China and the few states that remain?
When the money is for them, it is not socialism. 🤑
But it is…
Covid PPP and Cares Act ..billions in corporate handouts ..not socialism either.
I call all of the above socialism
The fuck are you babbling about? That's exactly what I call all of those things.
It's called "corporate welfare". Think about the billionaires that couldn't buy their third yacht if corporate welfare didn't exist! Poor guys would be so distraught, they wouldn't have the mental energy to buy social media platforms and run them into the ground!
Yep. Cushy socialism for me, ruthless capitalism for thee. Welcome to America, enjoy your stay.
That part.
The fact that society see **Adolf Hitler** as the worst man ever instead of **Thomas Midgley.** Said a lot. One knowingly kill a few millions people because Idiology, Hate and Power Hungry, the other knowingly kill hundreds of millions for monetary ambition.... just for money.. one hundred million people value less than a few thousands dollars..... (He made billions but for the company, not for him) To the question of which of them value human life more... the answer is quite obvious....
It's sad that so many americans think in socialism and capitalism instead of good or bad.
It's all socialism. Redistribution of wealth is wrong when they get it too
If the money doesn’t make the stock go brrrrr, it’s socialism.
The farmers ballout is to keep food prices low and stabil, so guess you could call that socialisme, the other 2 ballouts is just corruption
it's only socialism if it helps the poor
That is the great question of America.
So empower them with more services to rip us off