No. I've been waiting for the world to realize the fundamental flaws with the current economic system for years now. The faster it burns, the happier I will be.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-11 5:52
As long as there are people who desire to exchange good and/or services, there will be an economy.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-11 10:52
Saving is bad therefore the economy must not be saved.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-11 15:45
Just a couple of houseboats, then we'll be OK.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-11 21:51
>>5
Let too many houseboats pass and we're all fucked for sure.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-11 22:42
it can save itself eventually
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-11 23:37
it will be fine after it rids itself of us, its parasites
well damn, if we save our money too much, the economists complain that we aren't spending enough and then the stock market tanks because "consumer confidence" and shit like that
CAN"T WIN COMING OR GOING
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-13 4:01
>>16
If poors save their money and the rich spend theirs then it's win, win.
>>19 FAIL.
How about you PROVE ME WRONG? Oh, you can't? Well please STFU.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-13 8:27
>>20
What's so bad about that?
They're spending the money wisely. Almost.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-13 9:02
>>21
RedCream is a Libertarian. Speaking of Libertarianism, socially I love that aspect of it, the ideas of the Government having no business in our homes, being there to protect our rights--especially our first, second and fourth amendment rights.
Economically, I have my doubts that we as a country would be better off with the policies that say, Ron Paul would like to have implemented if he became President. I do agree that Government spends way too much money on bullshit and seriously needs to cut back on a lot of things.
I'd like to hear RedCream's idea of what should be done, because most Libertarians that I've messaged to back and forth here on 4chan seem to not know what they're talking about--in regards to the economic aspect of how Libertarianism would improve or change things. (It seems that way to me, I could be wrong about this--if I am, please correct me.) Then again, most of them were on /r9k/ which would probably explain for the fail.
>>22
Certainly. This problem can't be fixed with more spending and more debt. Spending and debt ARE THE PROBLEMS.
Libertarianistically speaking, rather than continue using flawed methods that only delay the day of real resolution, let's resolve NOW. Let the gamblers bankrupt NOW. They have to anyway. The people who lost, must account for their losses ANYWAY. So do it now and let the necessary and inescapable pain pass NOW, before the delayed pain grows too large to ever endure without a Civil War II.
Obama and his crew in the Congress could be wiping their asses with my sentiments if they had only cut down government spending before re-allocating in these new, massive spending bills. But they did nothing of the kind. They took the bloated Bush Budget and then added on all their own horseshit. Again, SPENDING IS THE PROBLEM, SO MORE SPENDING CANNOT SOLVE IT.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-13 19:43
>>23
The trouble with your, lol, "theory" is that money and spending of said is a concept invented by society. Money doesn't exist independently of social constructs. Therefor if we stop spending and let stockholders go bankrupt then that is the end of society as we know it. You are talking as if money can exist if we change the system of spending and debt. It cannot. And without money I'm afraid Americans will starve to death in mass quantities after they've finished rioting and raping you. Nobody wants that. (I know you're turned on by the idea of a large cock entering your anus but trust me, you do not want the social order to lose control of the masses.)
The only way out of this mess is MORE spending. We need to find more ways to generate products that people want and people need to buy them. The dot com bubble is an example of this in action. If it wasn't for Bush sabotaging the dot com industry we would not be in this mess. The real estate bubble is another example of this. We need more such avenues for generating wealth such as these. We also need a ban on American companies outsourcing their labor needs to foreign companies. These two things combined mean everybody will be working on creating products people want to buy while spending their money on products other people are working on. It's a happy cycle!
Name:
TwentyDongs2009-03-13 19:54
>>24
Flawless victory. I always LOL hard when FailCheese's remedial sociopolitical "theories" get proved wrong. Damn FailCheese, you're getting owned every time you failpost. Isn't it time to give up?
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-13 20:16
ITT: RedCream gets owned so hard I doubt he'll return to /lounge/. Good job >>24
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-13 21:07
>>24
Wealth and debt are, in the current system, inseparable from each other. All money that exists in circulation is owed by someone to someone. If all debt were paid off, there would be no money. The major problem, though, is that debt, by its very nature, incurs interest. What this means is that debt will always exceed the wealth available, since all wealth is incurring interest on some account somewhere. I'm sure you've all heard this somewhere before (zeitgeist lol).
The net result is that SOMEONE somewhere is going to default on their debt. We may come to a day when the US tries to pay off its debt, and finds that there simply isn't enough money in existence.
It's possible for non-inflationary, asset-backed currencies, like the greenback, to exist, but they have their own host of problems.
I think periods of prosperity are inevitably linked to periods of upheaval, when the system finally collapses.
>>24
Apparently you are having trouble with basic economic law:
SPENDING IS THE PROBLEM, SO MORE SPENDING CANNOT SOLVE IT
I should have said "OVERSPENDING". That is fixed by paying down debts until the debt load is manageable again.
But of course you stupid fuckers and "Obots" think that credit can just be extended forever. So it was an easy well for the filthy Jews to get you to believe that houses could appreciate in value in double-digits forever.
>>25-26
Once your expenses outstrip your income, you're in trouble regardless of your so-called economic theories. Bankrupt, get foreclosed, and just be glad we don't have debtors' prisons anymore.
In other words, Obots, you have to PAY OWN YOUR HUGE DEBTS FIRST, before indulging in further consumer spending. Necessities before luxuries. Let's see you fags try to argue your way out of THAT!
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-14 17:08
RedCream makes some good points, but >>24 still owned him...HARD
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-14 20:05
but if you don't pay your debts, then you still have your money. so there.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-14 20:14
RedCream is DQN
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-14 21:34
Wow, I'm really surprised that redcream showed his face on /lounge/ after the logic beating he received from >>24 I guess he likes the punishment.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-14 21:40
>>30
LOL. I'll default on my debts instead. Then jet to New Zealand where I'll chill on the beach with a Latin one. You know, the type who can suck a beach ball through a straw, act like a chipmunk and out my nuts in each wall of her jaw.
Oh snap! Looks like I did argue my way out of your failpost.