Socialism is when the government does good things.
Capitalism is when the government lets bad things happen.
Fascism is when the government does bad things.
Anarchy is when the government lets good things happen.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The Soviet Union was captialist?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes, it was state capitalist. No one seriously debates this.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The only people who believe that are moronic commies who don't like it because it wasn't their utopia. In every way it was communist though
>because it benefits the common people
The problem is this isn't really true because so many degrees being handed out now are for useless politically correct ideology awards, like black sociology or whatever. That's clearly the people they want to award while taking away from productive sectors.
2 years ago
Anonymous
statistics of those?
show the ratio and the average debt for them
You’ve just taxed the shit out of the common man to pay back the 1.75 trillion in loans you guaranteed to the private banks. This is the exact opposite of helping the common people.
Student loans backed by the government as a practice must be stopped, and those who still have student debt should pay them off. This is the reasonable compromise that no faction will do. It’s government guarantees of student loans that has inflated the price of education to astronomical heights, the same way CMHC backed mortgages in Canada have turned crack dens into million dollar homes.
2 years ago
Anonymous
To add to this, the student debts being passed on to siblings and parents if you die, like they are in Arizona, is downright evil. The debt dies with the debtor. What a horror show this practice is allowed.
Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. Democracy represents the public. It is not far fetched to propose that a democratic government's control over the economy is a form of "socialism". In America there are many groups like the "tea party" that accuse various things of being socialism, and it can get silly, however in the abstract there is nothing essentially wrong with this concept.
Generally speaking people expect more than this before they start calling a country socialist. Politicians must be expressly socialist and use this to justify hardline policies like nationalizing industry.
>At what point does government intervention in the economy become socialism?
Never.
>Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. Democracy represents the public.
Doesn't mean shit because:
1- Someone qualified has to manage that shit for you, either that or some kind of representative.
2- Democracy doesn't mean any decision they make good, it just makes everything less reactive.
>1- Someone qualified has to manage that shit for you, either that or some kind of representative.
Little different from a worker's cooperative that trusts an expert to help run their factory. Not everything can be decided by committee.
>2- Democracy doesn't mean any decision they make good, it just makes everything less reactive.
Is socialism "when decisions are always good"? It places decisions in the hands of the workers, in theory, and the purpose of this is to benefit the workers, but they are still human and make mistakes. It is little different from democracy in this respect.
Of course socialism refers more to small groups of workers, democracy to millions in a country, however there is nothing in the definition of socialism that limits its scale, millions of voters in a democracy are workers and it gives them influence over the means of production. I don't want to get into a debate over "true socialism has never been tried", a reasonable view is that there are different levels of socialism.
>Is socialism "when decisions are always good"? It places decisions in the hands of the workers, in theory, and the purpose of this is to benefit the workers, but they are still human and make mistakes. It is little different from democracy in this respect.
Well they have to be good decisions, nobody really cares about workers getting benefits if the results are not effective.
>It is of capital importance to note this substantial correspondence of fundamental conception as
between socialism and democracy: a whole system of practical politics may be erected upon it without further foundation. The germinal conceptions of democracy are as free from all thought of a limitation of the public authority as are the corresponding conceptions of socialism; the individual rights which the democracy of our own century has actually observed, were
suggested to it by a political Philosophy radically individualistic, but not necessarily democratic. Democracy is bound by no principle of its own nature to say itself nay as to the exercise of any power. Here, then, lies the point. The difference between democracy and socialism is not an essential difference, but only a practical
difference—is a difference of organization and policy, not a difference of primary motive. Democracy has not undertaken the tasks which socialists clamour to have undertaken; but it refrains from them, not for lack of adequate principles or suitable motives, but for lack of adequate organization and suitable hardihood:
because it cannot see its way clear to accomplishing them with credit. Moreover it may be said that democrats of today hold off from such undertakings because they are of today, and not of the days, which history very well remembers, when government had the temerity to try everything. The best thought of modern time having recognized a difference between
social and political questions, democratic government, like all other governments, seeks to confine itself to those political concerns which have, in the eyes of the judicious, approved themselves appropriate to the sphere and capacity of public authority.
– Woodrow Wilson, Socialism and Democracy
I wish I could take you behind a shed and shoot you out of pity. How the hell did you manage to call the decision to bail out GM, a huge job provider and supplier of god knows how many cars as stupid whilst claiming propping up tesla as the smart thing to do. What's even worse you act as if producing pickups is a bad thing despite their popularity and practical utility
The state looked what was in the interest of the average person, not which company had potential for the biggest increase in share price
ashahahaha
just drop in from twitter?
you know you have to be 18 to post here right
hahahahahaha
2 years ago
Anonymous
Great argument. Just look at the state of GM and Tesla in the market. GM wasn't even worth saving. Complete piece of shit company. It won't be long before Tesla is employing more Americans than GM - probably within a few years.
2 years ago
Anonymous
tesla will never move beyond the major cities, batteries only last like 200 miles, which for some people is a single day's worth of driving. Plus your electricity bill would be through the roof straining the grid
2 years ago
Anonymous
>tesla will never move beyond the major cities
what do you mean? people driving teslas? i live in Mississippi and see them all the time. if you're the type of person to put stickers on a gas pump and view gas prices through a political lens, i don't know why you wouldn't be more enthusiastic about tesla.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>anecdote
I know you're moronic but come on >y-you're just a partisan!
Black person if everybody had electric cars the electrical grid would collapse
2 years ago
Anonymous
Not really, Tesla doesn't have any edge outside public perception
Musk derangement syndrome.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>duh y no gib electic cars? duh wy no pint money so evbudy have windmill? i tink is self explanatody
your kind should be euthanized at birth
2 years ago
Anonymous
>nitpicks and whines
Yeah moron if we switch the entire nation to a different paradigm in an instant shit won't work
But guess what?
No one is proposing that. It's a question of "hey we gotta switch over soon or we are gonna die or go bankrupt"
>borrow money during a recession to prevent the economic contagion from spreading >pay it back during the good times >workers happy, economy vastly better off, libertarian aspies seethe because it doesn't work on paper
The libertarian incel fears the social democratic BVLL
2 years ago
Anonymous
>printing money good
okay and?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>ten year olds think that the government is literally printing money and not issuing bonds that are backed by investors >ten year olds think posting this over and over again is an own
2 years ago
Anonymous
>printing money good
okay and?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I accept your concession.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>printing money good
okay and?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I wish they actually borrowed money and paid it back instead of printing money
2 years ago
Anonymous
>borrow money during a recession to prevent the economic contagion from spreading >can't repay it back because you're suppose to be twice as productive to repay a long term loan + making profit >company turns into a parasite backed by the state inducing more losses >workers rioting, economy still shit, libertarian aspie laughs while democratic bvll commit sudoku
2 years ago
Anonymous
Ao I've always been under the impression that recessions are natural and the economy sort of shrugs off struggling bussinesses t free up the captill they are using for more productive ways. Like a company might create a electric car that's cheaper then gas and so all those companies that make gas powered cars go bankrupt and get cleansed from the economy allowing other people to use their land and factories and labor for other things.
And yes, borrowing money to try to spend your way out of a recession is bad. When a recession happens the maximum thing you should do is give out unemployment insurance payments until the economy recovers. You dint want family's going hungry bc of bad economic times but you dint want to distort the economy in a bad way.
I've also read that in previous recessions where the governent doestdo anything. There's generally 4 months where things are awry and then recover very fast. Prices decline to meet new lower demand and that generally spurs new demand and causes investment somewhere else. So just leave it alone and allow prices to lower and allow the economy to recover.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Ao I've always been under the impression that recessions are natural and the economy sort of shrugs off struggling bussinesses t free up the captill they are using for more productive ways. Like a company might create a electric car that's cheaper then gas and so all those companies that make gas powered cars go bankrupt and get cleansed from the economy allowing other people to use their land and factories and labor for other things.
Yes, from what i know recessions are natural in this case. This is cause by technological progress, but we should implement socil causes as well (new companies allocating personal and resource better than dominating ones, what happened to A&P).
Subsidize old companies just because you don't want people to be fired becomes a burden to the whole economic system.
I'm not an economist, but i don't think people understand the role of incentives and information inside an economy, companies are not just profit making machines that you can repair and use again once the dust settles.
Never said that. Your reading comprehension is abysmal. I said we should have forced GM to be a better business after we bought them. Not let them continue the same shit that wrecked them in the first place.
>we should've just forced them to be a better business
By producing electric cars? At the volume they produced traditional vehicles?
You say my reading comprehension is bad but you haven't provided any alternatives
2 years ago
Anonymous
>By producing electric cars?
Yes >At the volume they produced traditional vehicles?
No, at minimum, the volume Tesla was producing in 2008 - which wasn't very much at all.
2 years ago
Anonymous
So where will those jobs go anon? It's really not much different compared to just letting the company fail.
There's no revenue in EVs
2 years ago
Anonymous
>So where will those jobs go anon?
R&D? A job is a job, be it a mechanic, engineer or HR person. >It's really not much different compared to just letting the company fail.
It's pretty much failed, 15 years later. The writing is on the wall for GM. Ford is doing better though. GM employs 90k Americans, Tesla employs 70k Americans. Where do you think these numbers are going in the next decade? You don't have to be a genius.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The U.S. government spent about $50 billion to bail out GM. As a result of the company’s 2009 bankruptcy, the government’s investment was converted to a 61 percent equity stake in the Detroit-based automaker, plus preferred shares and a loan.
>Treasury whittled down its GM stake through a series of stock sales starting in November 2010, with the remaining shares sold on December 9, 2013.
>At the time of the December sale, Treasury put the total loss at $10.3 billion but said it did not expect any significant proceeds from its remaining $826 million investment in “old” GM, the report by the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program said.
lmao. we lost money buying that piece of shit. it should not have happened this way.
Stupid goyim, socialism, is only for when the banks go "bankrupt" due to their own """mistakes""", that's when the CEO retires with millions up the ass, the company recieves tons of cash from the government. Then the citizens get told it's all their fault. And remember who's paying for all of it? That's right, the citizen. Then the actual sociallist well being network gets dismantled by the IMF.
Aka capitalism for thee but not for me, says the fat israelite smoking a cuban cigar.
You own nothing goyim.
If it's just the elite who benefits it's crony capitalism or oligarchy.
If the government gives handouts to everybody or tries to freeze prices, it's socialism.
When you're trying to find out what's wrong with society you can't ignore that certain people are more prone to certain behavior. Otherwise you're just an ideologue >NOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU LE EVIL
and you're a naive child
[...] >forcing an unwilling person who had nothing to do with the original debtor entering into a loan agreement to pay off a debt he never accrued.
Show nose, Schlomo.
What memes point out that it's particularly dumb brown people that take out loans without understanding they need to pay them back
2 years ago
Anonymous
That reinforces that the common man being bailed out of student loans is socialism
2 years ago
Anonymous
I wouldn't call moron "common", at least not in white society. I don't think marx really took into account genuinely stupid brown people in his utopia
2 years ago
Anonymous
America ain't no white society
2 years ago
Anonymous
No shit, which is why I said,
You’ve just taxed the shit out of the common man to pay back the 1.75 trillion in loans you guaranteed to the private banks. This is the exact opposite of helping the common people.
Student loans backed by the government as a practice must be stopped, and those who still have student debt should pay them off. This is the reasonable compromise that no faction will do. It’s government guarantees of student loans that has inflated the price of education to astronomical heights, the same way CMHC backed mortgages in Canada have turned crack dens into million dollar homes.
> Student loans backed by the government as a practice must be stopped, and those who still have student debt should pay them off.
No more bankrolling morons. Let universities return to what their original purpose is: Research and preservation of knowledge, not feel-good welfare projects.
I've finished reading the entire thread.
Most of the posts are chaotic rants, communicating nothing - the replies in chains are just masturbation, confusion and insults.
Just go to /misc/ at least there I can filter your entire post history after reading two replies.
>forcing an unwilling person who had nothing to do with the original debtor entering into a loan agreement to pay off a debt he never accrued.
Show nose, Schlomo.
>Both state governments and the federal government provide just over 40.0% of total funding for postsecondary education each, while almost all of their contributions come from budget appropriations for the funding of their respective public schools.
Therefore, states are just as much to blame as the federal government.
Some argue any form of government is socialism which is weird. We don't exactly think of police and courts and the military as being socialism. But technically they are since you are forcing people to pay for those services without their being competition and no choice in the matter.
Almost everything the government does distorts the economy. Interest rates, taxes, regulations, public programs, they all interfere with the market. Now I'm all for a small government but I don't think that's socialism. So yeah, rather hard and interesting question you have.
>try to realize socialism >increase government influence and manage the economy from there >you call it socialism because workers are "empowered" somehow in that system >system breaks because it's flawed and important individuals in charge start fighting for power >it's not socialism anymore because workers are not empowered now
But the reality is, you made a centralized system covering people in vodka or send them to a gulag according to how they behave, expecting people to not fight for extracting as much resources as they can from it.
When it benefits the common people and not the elites
So never?
Correct
Canceling student loans is a form of socialism because it benefits the common people instead of the elites
>socialism is the government does good things
Socialism is when the government does good things.
Capitalism is when the government lets bad things happen.
Fascism is when the government does bad things.
Anarchy is when the government lets good things happen.
The Soviet Union was captialist?
Yes, it was state capitalist. No one seriously debates this.
The only people who believe that are moronic commies who don't like it because it wasn't their utopia. In every way it was communist though
Leftloid opinion matters?
>Anarchy is when the government
>because it benefits the common people
The problem is this isn't really true because so many degrees being handed out now are for useless politically correct ideology awards, like black sociology or whatever. That's clearly the people they want to award while taking away from productive sectors.
statistics of those?
show the ratio and the average debt for them
You’ve just taxed the shit out of the common man to pay back the 1.75 trillion in loans you guaranteed to the private banks. This is the exact opposite of helping the common people.
Student loans backed by the government as a practice must be stopped, and those who still have student debt should pay them off. This is the reasonable compromise that no faction will do. It’s government guarantees of student loans that has inflated the price of education to astronomical heights, the same way CMHC backed mortgages in Canada have turned crack dens into million dollar homes.
To add to this, the student debts being passed on to siblings and parents if you die, like they are in Arizona, is downright evil. The debt dies with the debtor. What a horror show this practice is allowed.
Thread should've ended right here.
When Bourgeois private companies are totally absent, or they are so little they don't influence the economy of the whole country.
Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. Democracy represents the public. It is not far fetched to propose that a democratic government's control over the economy is a form of "socialism". In America there are many groups like the "tea party" that accuse various things of being socialism, and it can get silly, however in the abstract there is nothing essentially wrong with this concept.
Generally speaking people expect more than this before they start calling a country socialist. Politicians must be expressly socialist and use this to justify hardline policies like nationalizing industry.
>At what point does government intervention in the economy become socialism?
Never.
>Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. Democracy represents the public.
Doesn't mean shit because:
1- Someone qualified has to manage that shit for you, either that or some kind of representative.
2- Democracy doesn't mean any decision they make good, it just makes everything less reactive.
>1- Someone qualified has to manage that shit for you, either that or some kind of representative.
Little different from a worker's cooperative that trusts an expert to help run their factory. Not everything can be decided by committee.
>2- Democracy doesn't mean any decision they make good, it just makes everything less reactive.
Is socialism "when decisions are always good"? It places decisions in the hands of the workers, in theory, and the purpose of this is to benefit the workers, but they are still human and make mistakes. It is little different from democracy in this respect.
Of course socialism refers more to small groups of workers, democracy to millions in a country, however there is nothing in the definition of socialism that limits its scale, millions of voters in a democracy are workers and it gives them influence over the means of production. I don't want to get into a debate over "true socialism has never been tried", a reasonable view is that there are different levels of socialism.
>Is socialism "when decisions are always good"? It places decisions in the hands of the workers, in theory, and the purpose of this is to benefit the workers, but they are still human and make mistakes. It is little different from democracy in this respect.
Well they have to be good decisions, nobody really cares about workers getting benefits if the results are not effective.
>Socialism is public ownership of the means of production
That's marxist socialism not socialism.
No. That's socialism.
Nope. Socialism didn't start with Marx, didn't end with him and many socialists sure as hell didn't agree with him.
Never claimed any of that. Common ownership is just a common trait to most variants of socialism.
Socialism is just the idea if you kill and steal from enough people, equality will emerge
That's kind of a good summary of Leninism lol
>It is of capital importance to note this substantial correspondence of fundamental conception as
between socialism and democracy: a whole system of practical politics may be erected upon it without further foundation. The germinal conceptions of democracy are as free from all thought of a limitation of the public authority as are the corresponding conceptions of socialism; the individual rights which the democracy of our own century has actually observed, were
suggested to it by a political Philosophy radically individualistic, but not necessarily democratic. Democracy is bound by no principle of its own nature to say itself nay as to the exercise of any power. Here, then, lies the point. The difference between democracy and socialism is not an essential difference, but only a practical
difference—is a difference of organization and policy, not a difference of primary motive. Democracy has not undertaken the tasks which socialists clamour to have undertaken; but it refrains from them, not for lack of adequate principles or suitable motives, but for lack of adequate organization and suitable hardihood:
because it cannot see its way clear to accomplishing them with credit. Moreover it may be said that democrats of today hold off from such undertakings because they are of today, and not of the days, which history very well remembers, when government had the temerity to try everything. The best thought of modern time having recognized a difference between
social and political questions, democratic government, like all other governments, seeks to confine itself to those political concerns which have, in the eyes of the judicious, approved themselves appropriate to the sphere and capacity of public authority.
– Woodrow Wilson, Socialism and Democracy
At the point at which government orders the transfer of the means of production to the workers.
at the very moment the gouverment started interventing in economy.
Socialism? In America!? Never!
They’re testing the waters for nationalizing mortgages
Here we go again with semantic mansturbation.
What is the diffetence between state ownership and social ownership?
When poor people benefit instead of rich people.
/thread
Not really, even if a bank didn't need a bailout they forced them to take government money.
>we bought GM so they could continue making Hummers and pickups at the exact same time Elon Musk was getting Tesla up to par
If we're gonna buy those pieces of shit out, we should at least be smart about it. Just look where GM and Tesla are today.
I wish I could take you behind a shed and shoot you out of pity. How the hell did you manage to call the decision to bail out GM, a huge job provider and supplier of god knows how many cars as stupid whilst claiming propping up tesla as the smart thing to do. What's even worse you act as if producing pickups is a bad thing despite their popularity and practical utility
The state looked what was in the interest of the average person, not which company had potential for the biggest increase in share price
moron. I'm saying we should have made GM produce electric vehicles instead of Hummers and pickups.
ashahahaha
just drop in from twitter?
you know you have to be 18 to post here right
hahahahahaha
Great argument. Just look at the state of GM and Tesla in the market. GM wasn't even worth saving. Complete piece of shit company. It won't be long before Tesla is employing more Americans than GM - probably within a few years.
tesla will never move beyond the major cities, batteries only last like 200 miles, which for some people is a single day's worth of driving. Plus your electricity bill would be through the roof straining the grid
>tesla will never move beyond the major cities
what do you mean? people driving teslas? i live in Mississippi and see them all the time. if you're the type of person to put stickers on a gas pump and view gas prices through a political lens, i don't know why you wouldn't be more enthusiastic about tesla.
>anecdote
I know you're moronic but come on
>y-you're just a partisan!
Black person if everybody had electric cars the electrical grid would collapse
Musk derangement syndrome.
>duh y no gib electic cars? duh wy no pint money so evbudy have windmill? i tink is self explanatody
your kind should be euthanized at birth
>nitpicks and whines
Yeah moron if we switch the entire nation to a different paradigm in an instant shit won't work
But guess what?
No one is proposing that. It's a question of "hey we gotta switch over soon or we are gonna die or go bankrupt"
moron
>we have to print money or we'll die!
Wasn't viable in 08', still isn't viable for most people today
>Between 2020 and 2025, GM will invest $35 billion in EV and AV product development spending, exceeding GM's gas and diesel investment.
They're 15 years too late and a shit business.
Not really, Tesla doesn't have any edge outside public perception
>What's even worse you act as if producing pickups is a bad thing despite their popularity and practical utility
kek. just look at pickup trucks next time you're driving. how many of them are extended cab with just a 6' bed that is completely empty? 80 percent?
what's the difference between that and an empty SUV?
Nothing, hence my inclusion of Hummers in my argument.
>>duh y no gib electic cars? duh wy no pint money so evbudy have windmill? i tink is self explanatody
>your kind should be euthanized at birth
Same dude who said investing in Tesla would've been smarter than bailing out gm?
No, the bailouts were necessary in 2008 when GM was the biggest employer in the industry, you just have Musk derangement syndrome.
>printing money good
okay and?
>borrow money during a recession to prevent the economic contagion from spreading
>pay it back during the good times
>workers happy, economy vastly better off, libertarian aspies seethe because it doesn't work on paper
The libertarian incel fears the social democratic BVLL
>printing money good
okay and?
>ten year olds think that the government is literally printing money and not issuing bonds that are backed by investors
>ten year olds think posting this over and over again is an own
>printing money good
okay and?
I accept your concession.
>printing money good
okay and?
I wish they actually borrowed money and paid it back instead of printing money
>borrow money during a recession to prevent the economic contagion from spreading
>can't repay it back because you're suppose to be twice as productive to repay a long term loan + making profit
>company turns into a parasite backed by the state inducing more losses
>workers rioting, economy still shit, libertarian aspie laughs while democratic bvll commit sudoku
Ao I've always been under the impression that recessions are natural and the economy sort of shrugs off struggling bussinesses t free up the captill they are using for more productive ways. Like a company might create a electric car that's cheaper then gas and so all those companies that make gas powered cars go bankrupt and get cleansed from the economy allowing other people to use their land and factories and labor for other things.
And yes, borrowing money to try to spend your way out of a recession is bad. When a recession happens the maximum thing you should do is give out unemployment insurance payments until the economy recovers. You dint want family's going hungry bc of bad economic times but you dint want to distort the economy in a bad way.
I've also read that in previous recessions where the governent doestdo anything. There's generally 4 months where things are awry and then recover very fast. Prices decline to meet new lower demand and that generally spurs new demand and causes investment somewhere else. So just leave it alone and allow prices to lower and allow the economy to recover.
>Ao I've always been under the impression that recessions are natural and the economy sort of shrugs off struggling bussinesses t free up the captill they are using for more productive ways. Like a company might create a electric car that's cheaper then gas and so all those companies that make gas powered cars go bankrupt and get cleansed from the economy allowing other people to use their land and factories and labor for other things.
Yes, from what i know recessions are natural in this case. This is cause by technological progress, but we should implement socil causes as well (new companies allocating personal and resource better than dominating ones, what happened to A&P).
Subsidize old companies just because you don't want people to be fired becomes a burden to the whole economic system.
I'm not an economist, but i don't think people understand the role of incentives and information inside an economy, companies are not just profit making machines that you can repair and use again once the dust settles.
>fantasy
The last refuge of the lolbertarian
no argument + you're gay
Never said that. Your reading comprehension is abysmal. I said we should have forced GM to be a better business after we bought them. Not let them continue the same shit that wrecked them in the first place.
>we should've just forced them to be a better business
By producing electric cars? At the volume they produced traditional vehicles?
You say my reading comprehension is bad but you haven't provided any alternatives
>By producing electric cars?
Yes
>At the volume they produced traditional vehicles?
No, at minimum, the volume Tesla was producing in 2008 - which wasn't very much at all.
So where will those jobs go anon? It's really not much different compared to just letting the company fail.
There's no revenue in EVs
>So where will those jobs go anon?
R&D? A job is a job, be it a mechanic, engineer or HR person.
>It's really not much different compared to just letting the company fail.
It's pretty much failed, 15 years later. The writing is on the wall for GM. Ford is doing better though. GM employs 90k Americans, Tesla employs 70k Americans. Where do you think these numbers are going in the next decade? You don't have to be a genius.
>The U.S. government spent about $50 billion to bail out GM. As a result of the company’s 2009 bankruptcy, the government’s investment was converted to a 61 percent equity stake in the Detroit-based automaker, plus preferred shares and a loan.
>Treasury whittled down its GM stake through a series of stock sales starting in November 2010, with the remaining shares sold on December 9, 2013.
>At the time of the December sale, Treasury put the total loss at $10.3 billion but said it did not expect any significant proceeds from its remaining $826 million investment in “old” GM, the report by the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program said.
lmao. we lost money buying that piece of shit. it should not have happened this way.
debt forgiveness for student loans is asinine, this money should be going towards Isreal
It's funny that he thinks printing more money and giving it to actual morons will save them from getting slaughtered at midterms
It probably will
nah, if anything printing more money is the last desperate attempt to garner support before the fed collapses the stock market in the next few months
When a policy helps the proles, it's communism, when a policy helps the rich it's capitalism
Stupid goyim, socialism, is only for when the banks go "bankrupt" due to their own """mistakes""", that's when the CEO retires with millions up the ass, the company recieves tons of cash from the government. Then the citizens get told it's all their fault. And remember who's paying for all of it? That's right, the citizen. Then the actual sociallist well being network gets dismantled by the IMF.
Aka capitalism for thee but not for me, says the fat israelite smoking a cuban cigar.
You own nothing goyim.
>okay and?
If it's just the elite who benefits it's crony capitalism or oligarchy.
If the government gives handouts to everybody or tries to freeze prices, it's socialism.
so when a japanese shogun confiscated all rice and then gave it back less based on need he was a socialist
Anachronism aside, yes
that's moronic
Yes anachronisms are moronic.
You're an evil, most likely fat subhuman moron.
True.
When you're trying to find out what's wrong with society you can't ignore that certain people are more prone to certain behavior. Otherwise you're just an ideologue
>NOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU LE EVIL
and you're a naive child
Cretin memebrain.
What memes point out that it's particularly dumb brown people that take out loans without understanding they need to pay them back
That reinforces that the common man being bailed out of student loans is socialism
I wouldn't call moron "common", at least not in white society. I don't think marx really took into account genuinely stupid brown people in his utopia
America ain't no white society
No shit, which is why I said,
> Student loans backed by the government as a practice must be stopped, and those who still have student debt should pay them off.
No more bankrolling morons. Let universities return to what their original purpose is: Research and preservation of knowledge, not feel-good welfare projects.
I've finished reading the entire thread.
Most of the posts are chaotic rants, communicating nothing - the replies in chains are just masturbation, confusion and insults.
Just go to /misc/ at least there I can filter your entire post history after reading two replies.
welcome to IQfy bro. you're here forever.
Been on IQfy since 2012.
This board has always been worse /misc/ without IDs and with more trolls.
>forcing an unwilling person who had nothing to do with the original debtor entering into a loan agreement to pay off a debt he never accrued.
Show nose, Schlomo.
meds
cope
How much funding do you think public universities get from the federal government?
the federal government owns 92% of student loan debt, you tell me
>you tell me
ok.
>Both state governments and the federal government provide just over 40.0% of total funding for postsecondary education each, while almost all of their contributions come from budget appropriations for the funding of their respective public schools.
Therefore, states are just as much to blame as the federal government.
oh okay but you're wrong
>the federal government owns 92% of student loan debt
Some argue any form of government is socialism which is weird. We don't exactly think of police and courts and the military as being socialism. But technically they are since you are forcing people to pay for those services without their being competition and no choice in the matter.
Almost everything the government does distorts the economy. Interest rates, taxes, regulations, public programs, they all interfere with the market. Now I'm all for a small government but I don't think that's socialism. So yeah, rather hard and interesting question you have.
because most people who call themselves socialists have no idea what it means
I am a socialist because I think of the lower and middle class
see
>try to realize socialism
>increase government influence and manage the economy from there
>you call it socialism because workers are "empowered" somehow in that system
>system breaks because it's flawed and important individuals in charge start fighting for power
>it's not socialism anymore because workers are not empowered now
But the reality is, you made a centralized system covering people in vodka or send them to a gulag according to how they behave, expecting people to not fight for extracting as much resources as they can from it.
There's a huge difference between "government intervening in the economy" and the government nationalizing the means of production.