CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › casuallynx8 › Posts

Posts by casuallynx8

67 posts shown.

Don't bring up the parents! in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Daniel Campbell5 said:Still, I’ll maintain my stance: if someone is issuing a warning via a private message alongside a notification, it would be much more civil to provide a specific reason—something like, "if you want to contest moderator actions, please use the designated sub-forum"—rather than just tossing out a vague "violation of forum rules."

That particular message is an automated one; the "rule violation" notice is simply one of the preset templates used by the system.

As for the broader issue regarding bringing up someone's parents, I find myself in agreement with the points already raised by others: such a move should only be permissible if the person mentioning them can demonstrate a clear, logical reason why it actually pertains to the discussion at hand.
Don't bring up the parents! in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Of course, even a moderator can make a mistake now and then. However, one must respect the established form and procedure. According to those rules, any grievances regarding a moderator's conduct should be filed within the Governor's subforum, rather than being aired directly within the specific thread where the disputed activity is taking place.
Don't bring up the parents! in Feedback & Suggestions ·
If you take a look at the PDF, it’s explicitly stated that discussing moderator actions is strictly prohibited under the rules. Anyone who decides to ignore that guideline will face an immediate strike against their account.

Consequently, once a moderator issues a warning within a thread, everyone else needs to respect it. If you feel the need to vent or offer a critique regarding those decisions, please move the conversation over to the Governor's subforum instead.
The future of neoliberal capitalism in Economy ·
William Mendoza6 As stated by:
We have already witnessed the fallout from crises in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain, and now we find ourselves watching Italy struggle under the weight of consumption that far outpaces its actual economic capacity. It is a predictable pattern, really. Of course, this group isn't limited to just those nations; it also includes the United States, the very capital of global capitalism.

Almost the entire world is drowning in debt—with the possible exceptions of Russia, China, and perhaps a handful of oil-rich nations. Though, even those petrostates shouldn't get too comfortable; in a few decades, that wealth will likely evaporate once we move past fossil fuels and realize oil isn't exactly a renewable resource.

The entire world is essentially in debt—to the banks. These institutions seem to operate without any regard for boundaries, whether they be national borders or basic moral compasses. By riding the waves of unchecked capitalism and anchoring themselves within the intricacies of legal frameworks, they’ve mastered the art of conjuring money out of thin air. It is this very mechanism that allows them to eventually position themselves as the ultimate owners of everything.

You seem to be overlooking a fundamental reality: banks aren't just monolithic entities; they are also beholden to their creditors and a vast array of other investors. To put this into perspective, look at the major American banks. They aren't just playing with house money; they owe hundreds of billions of dollars to everyday citizens—people like you and me who have their life savings sitting in deposit accounts. It’s a massive liability that shouldn't be ignored.

Beyond the central banks themselves, these institutions aren't beholden to anyone. They essentially conjure money out of thin air, which gives them the latitude to commit even the most catastrophic blunders without being held to account.

The way the European Union plans to bail out Greece is quite telling. They intend to stabilize the debt by essentially tapping into the tax revenue of ordinary citizens and liquidating Greek state assets. It’s a mechanism designed to service interest on loans that were essentially conjured out of thin air—fictitious money used to cover real-world obligations. Ultimately, this process serves to funnel actual capital directly from the pockets of taxpayers into the vaults of major banks.
It is an inevitable trajectory, and unfortunately, we are already seeing the beginning of it unfold right here in the States.

One eventually has to ask: how much longer can this actually last, and when will we reach the breaking point? From where I’m sitting, it looks as though the entire framework is already beginning to fray at the edges. It feels less like a steady decline and more like a systemic unraveling that's already well underway. I would be curious to hear your thoughts on the matter.

High levels of government spending paired with a ballooning national debt represent a fundamental departure from the tenets of "neoliberal" capitalism. It’s almost a contradiction in terms, really. When you consider that the core philosophy of that model relies on fiscal restraint and minimal state intervention, seeing the federal budget swell like this feels less like a market evolution and more like a complete pivot toward a different economic paradigm entirely. 🤷

Furthermore, do you believe that forcibly imposing a high corporate tax rate on banks—something in the realm of at least 50%—combined with freezing interest rates and fees, could serve as a lifeline for many struggling economies? In the US, we are talking about billions upon billions of dollars.

That budgetary revenue could be strategically deployed toward reducing national debt. By implementing stricter regulations on the reckless creation of capital out of thin air, we might actually see some systemic stability. In my view, this would provide the government with much-needed breathing room to lower the tax burden on businesses and everyday citizens, effectively offsetting those costs by increasing the levies placed on banks.

Of course not. If history has taught us anything at all, it’s that a government's hunger for capital is essentially insatiable. You can implement any tax you like or attempt to bolster state revenue through various means, but it will never truly satisfy that bottomless appetite.

How do you all perceive the trajectory of capitalism moving forward?

In my own estimation, we are likely looking at a continued cycle of expansion followed by aggressive contraction in government spending, much like the pattern we are witnessing right now.
Thread deleted: "Sort by size in Feedback & Suggestions ·
It’s fundamentally pointless; it serves as little more than a playground for trolls to circle back to topics that have already been dissected from every conceivable angle a hundred thousand times over.
Can someone explain how the banning process works? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
You need 100 points before you get sent to the ban corner for three days.
Alternative History: The USA as a Socialist State in 2011 in Close to Politics ·
goldenviper752 said:I can't seem to track down that specific data point, and frankly, it’s news to me.
Alternative History: The USA as a Socialist State in 2011 in Close to Politics ·
goldenviper752 said:🤦 Now, don't go blaming yourself; however, the footnote explicitly states

that they performed a "revision" of the GDP, which conveniently factors in an estimate of the shadow economy(!) along with a few other calculated guesses. 🙄

EDIT: So, we are looking at a GDP built on shadow economy estimates. Welcome to the United States! 😂

It’s not really a "welcome to America" situation; rather, the US implemented this specifically to align with EU standards, which utilize this exact methodology. If my memory serves me correctly, this was introduced about two or three years ago.
Alternative History: The USA as a Socialist State in 2011 in Close to Politics ·
goldenviper752 said:How much longer are people going to swallow this nonsense? What kind of "17,609 $" are we talking about here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Croatia

If the GDP back in 2006 was sitting at $9,664, there is simply no mathematical way to leapfrog to $17,000 in just three years—even assuming we experienced some sort of massive economic miracle.

Furthermore—and this is a crucial point—A. Marković had envisioned privatization as the logical next step, a process that, ideally, would have been executed away from the chaos of wartime conditions, thereby drastically reducing the level of corruption.

That $17,000 figure is likely the GDP per capita adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity (PPP).

According to data from the Federal Reserve, the GDP per capita in 2009 was approximately €10,245, which works out to about $14,000 at the current exchange rate. http://www.federalreserve.gov/stats
Currency adjustment clauses in loans in Economy ·
There’s actually a whole discussion happening over on the politics board regarding this:

In any case, an exchange rate isn't something you can just dictate by executive order 😁—not here in America, at least, given how much our trade with the rest of the world is driven by open markets. Just because the Fed is attempting to use certain measures to nudge the dollar toward specific levels doesn't mean they’ll actually succeed. Think of a currency clause as a sort of insurance policy; it's how a bank protects itself against sudden shifts in the value of the dollar. Since most Americans tend to keep their savings in dollars, banks have to be able to pay those out reliably. If the value of loans issued in a different denomination were to suddenly plummet, the bank would find itself in a massive bind (and the savers wouldn't be far behind).
I haven't said, nor do I intend to suggest, that the USA is headed for total collapse. However, I am convinced that simply printing more money isn't the silver bullet that will pull them out of this crisis.🙂
Elizabeth Harris11 said:Honestly, it gives me the chills thinking about how countries that leaned hard into Keynesian interventionism during the crisis are now finally seeing the light at the end of the recession tunnel—take the USA and Germany, for example, they’ve technically moved past it. Meanwhile, the folks who put all their faith in the "free market" magic, like Ireland, are basically left standing out in the cold without any cover.

All jokes aside, I was actually arguing this point just two years ago—I kept insisting that we needed massive capital injections into our energy and agriculture sectors, even if it was just a quick fix to stop the bleeding of $2-3 billion leaving the US every single year. Fast forward two years later, and we've already watched an extra $6 billion vanish, and by the time anyone actually decides to get moving, we're looking at another $12 billion flying right out the door.

For the longest time, the big buzzword around here was this idea that "the market will decide everything." Well, the market certainly decided we should focus on retail, and now look at us—we've got massive big-box retailers, distributors, and shopping malls popping up on every single corner.

Perhaps that is precisely why we are seeing QE2 move forward?
I wouldn't consider myself part of the academic inner circle—I don't teach at a university, certainly not an economics department if that’s what we're implying—but I find that headline quite chilling, particularly the substance of the article itself 😁
The Financial System and Money Supply in Banking, Insurance & Loans ·
Maria Thomas48 said:Where does this idea come from—that price controls cause shortages? We aren't talking about setting hard limits on prices, but rather controlling how much they grow. What really matters is adjusting prices and wages to a level that makes sense based on participation, you know, comparing them to similar companies. For example, a successful corporation could pay its CEO $150,000, but the question is whether that’s an appropriate salary for the work done or if it's just a way to drain the company's accumulated wealth without any actual effort behind it.

The bottom line is that money has to be earned through labor and production. Generating profit with minimal work just devalues the dollar and serves as a way to grab more than what was actually contributed.

To put it this way: if I take $333 from my paycheck to buy groceries or tuck it away in a savings account, everything is fine. But if I take those same $333 and simply hand them over to a friend as a gift, I am effectively diluting the value of the currency.

😵
The Financial System and Money Supply in Banking, Insurance & Loans ·
Amanda Allen4 said:Every single price control measure just ends up triggering shortages. If we let this happen again, we'll be forced to drive all the way to Trieste just to pick up basic daily necessities—not to mention waiting two years just to get a phone line installed!

It’s common sense, really. I just don't understand why some people seem so determined to ignore it.
The Financial System and Money Supply in Banking, Insurance & Loans ·
Amanda Allen4 said:Your proposal (see above) still relies on the idea of a government monopoly over currency (fiat money) rather than letting its market value dictate its worth—so let's be honest, this isn't some radical overhaul of the global monetary system. As long as there is even a shred of a free market for goods and services—which inherently means prices are formed through supply and demand—this little experiment of yours is never going to yield positive results.

It seems quite evident that he isn't actually interested in a free market at all. 😉
America has the highest taxes in the world! in Economy ·
Anthony Wood11 said:Honestly, we should just take a page out of America's book. They don't bother with Sales Tax and such, but if we go down that road, we’d better be prepared to implement a property tax to make up the difference.

It isn't quite like that—they don't have Sales Tax at the federal level, but they certainly have it at the state level.

Furthermore, if our goal is to remain integrated within the EU, maintaining a system comparable to Sales Tax is essentially non-negotiable.
America has the highest taxes in the world! in Economy ·
wearytrucker22 said:Well, you only provided a link regarding payroll deductions, so that's why I answered the way I did.

Sure, but in Norway, you get a fully finished, reliable vehicle that actually starts at -40 degrees. The stuff being sold in Eastern Europe or the North America is basically a semi-finished product made with cheap materials—just junk coming out of Europe and Japan. There's zero chance a car bought in America is going to start up in -40 degree weather.

Look, I only shared a link regarding the base salary, 🙄 and if you aren't capable of using Google, that’s hardly my concern. If you're going to assert a specific thesis, the burden of proof lies with you to back it up, rather than expecting me to do your legwork for you.😕
America has the highest taxes in the world! in Economy ·
Where exactly did the income tax go? ☕
Paul Anderson2 said:I guess those "combined rates" are just a mix of taxes and payroll deductions taken right out of your gross pay.

If that’s the case, then the claim that we pay the highest taxes is simply inaccurate. Don't get me wrong—that isn't to say I'm an advocate for our current tax system (those who follow my posts know exactly where I stand on that matter 😁), but there are certainly nations with much heavier burdens. Take Sweden, for instance. Their state income tax can climb as high as 55%, and on top of that, employers have to shell out an additional 31.42% in contributions beyond the base salary 😁 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...qANvoQ&cad=rja)