431 posts shown.
Ryan Nelson5 said:That paradise was built on capitalist money. Once the cash stopped flowing, paradise collapsed... ☕
Ryan Nelson5 said:You've crafted quite a neat justification for double standards.🙂
But we don't even need to discuss other civilizations; we can look at different generations within the same country. For instance, my father's and uncles' generation was born after WWII. They survived actual famine, not this modern version where everyone has a smartphone in hand. Their perspective on reality is far more grounded than that of the younger generations.
Ryan Nelson5 said:Why would it be hard to compare people on a global scale, at least regarding material wealth? An African person is just as much a human being as an American, yet the American likely believes they are closer to God, allowing them to complain about hunger while clutching a smartphone.
Ryan Nelson5 said:And why shouldn't we be compared to the rest of the world?
Ryan Nelson5 said:Then what counts as a valid point to you? In America, people have health insurance, access to education, and they aren't starving on the streets. Yet, some act like the country is facing a total apocalypse.
Charles Campbell7 said:I suspect most people in this country are being significantly overpaid. If compensation actually reflected true productivity, we wouldn't be stuck with this current import-heavy, consumption-driven economy that relies entirely on mounting debt and selling off national assets for pennies on the dollar.
Ryan Nelson5 said:You've run out of intelligent things to say, so you resort to your usual sarcasm...
but since you brought it up... most of them bark too loud, not because they're struggling, but because things aren't as good as they used to be.
Ryan Nelson5 said:If you define "moving forward" as a shrinking GDP, falling consumer spending, declining industrial production, and a downgraded credit rating, then sure, I guess we're making great strides.😂
While it is undeniably true that the government spends a fortune on those specific areas, there are underlying reasons for that spending that are deeply, deeply intertwined with this supposed "progress."😍
Even though we deal with heavy taxation, there are plenty of other nations out there that are in a far better position despite facing similar or even higher tax loads.
It's absolutely true that the investment climate is lackluster, even though there have been numerous attempts to fix it that ultimately fell short.
It honestly feels like our only remaining option is to call in a shaman to perform a ritual to somehow magically transform the investment landscape.😍😂
Harold Martin10 said:A system where the government decides who gets hit with massive taxes and who gets handed subsidies simply isn't capitalism. It can't be, because the state is essentially seizing capital from one group just to redistribute it to another.
I'm not quite sure what to call this setup—maybe there's a specific term for it—but it definitely isn't capitalism.
Ryan Nelson5 said:You aren't wrong, it just isn't the only metric. It’s actually useful that you brought it up, because the sheer scale of government-funded money pits in our economy is another clear sign of how much socialism has taken over.
Harold Martin10;43429775 said:urbanotter said:It feels like all these followers and devotees of guys like Adam Smith and Milton Friedman are ultimately the ones who steered us right into this mess we're in today.
At the end of the day, what really matters is that you possess such a deep well of knowledge, even if that expertise has left us navigating a situation where an exit strategy feels almost impossible to find.Low labor costs aren't the only way a manufacturer can hold their own against the competition. In my experience, much more critical factors like automation, niche specialization, and constant innovation tend to drive the real value. To put it simply, if someone else out there can manufacture a product both cheaper and better than you can, then it actually makes sense to import that item rather than wasting resources trying to build it domestically. Following that same logic, if you can pivot to specialize in a different area where you can produce goods more efficiently and with higher quality than your rivals, you’ll find yourself in a great position to export. At the end of the day, the consumer is always the one who comes out on top.
It feels like we've been stuck listening to the same theoretical mantras, recycled logic, and empty demagoguery for twenty years now. It’s a cycle that never yields actual results, and honestly, it's exactly why we find ourselves in such a massive mess—to borrow a phrase from that former thief who used to run the show as Prime Minister.You’ve hit on a crucial point there—local manufacturers, absolutely crushed by heavy taxes and regulatory burdens, simply can't compete on price with imports from countries where the tax overhead is a fraction of what we deal with here. That really is the heart of the issue. I don't think the answer lies in slamming our borders shut against foreign goods, because that just ends up punishing the American consumer with higher prices at the checkout counter. Instead, the real fix is a massive reduction in the tax burden; otherwise, nobody is going to find it worthwhile to actually build anything on American soil. Of course, quality and global competitiveness don't just appear overnight—building a truly successful business takes years of grit and investment—but without cutting those taxes, that progress will never happen. Relying on "closed borders" or "high tariffs" isn't just a primitive form of mercantilism; it also flies in the face of the very economic policies the Federal Government has been pursuing for decades as we've worked to integrate into a global system built on free trade and the removal of customs barriers.
It feels like I’m just listening to the same broken record over and over again. Honestly, I’ve been hearing this exact same lamentation for twenty years now, and yet, I don't see any actual progress being made. If anything, it feels like we’re just sliding backward.
To be honest, I find myself leaning toward a much more straightforward, almost primitive approach to politics—one that focuses on establishing truly equal trade relations between nations. I would take that over our current system any day. The way things are running right now feels like it’s actively working against the interests of our community, serving only to line the pockets of a tiny handful of individuals while the rest of us are left to deal with the fallout.
Are you honestly trying to suggest that the economic policies of the American government are actually working, or that we’ve become a successful nation with a bright outlook for the future?
If that’s really how you see things, then I think you might be missing the bigger picture here. You seem to be overlooking the harsh reality of our current situation and where we're headed, a point that our honorable Secretary of the Treasury actually conceded quite candidly during his address this evening.
I can't help but feel that our current political landscape is steering us toward a sort of "elite league," where prosperity and profit seem reserved exclusively for those at the very top. It feels like we’re watching a system designed to benefit the heavy hitters while everyone else—those who share similar struggles or simply want a fair shot—gets left behind. Even after years of trying to navigate these waters, so many people find themselves stuck in the same cycle of hardship and instability, never quite reaching that level playing field we were promised. It reminds me of a few years back when I was struggling to get a small business off the ground; no matter how hard I worked, the systemic hurdles felt insurmountable compared to the giants in the industry. We just seem to be spinning our wheels while the powerful continue to pull ahead.
Ryan Nelson5 said:Based on the percentage of GDP allocated to social programs and government salaries (as I previously noted).
Do you honestly think I’m advocating for an unjust state where people don't deserve dignity?
Ryan Nelson5 said:Don't get mad, but you really are clueless. 🤷 Everything he said is true. Our system is two-thirds socialism and one-third capitalism, and that socialist component is exactly what’s causing our problems. Yet you continue to advocate for even more socialism.
driftingjackal5 said:There is a massive difference between DECLARING something and actually DOING it. On paper, North Korea is a "democratic republic." On paper, the Communist Party of China is communist. Those declarations aren't worth the paper they're printed on... you might as well use them as toilet paper. Just like our Constitution—it's just dead ink on a page.
Charles Lopez3 said:How do you even have the nerve to claim that American politics and the economy over the last 20 years look anything like what could be called "capitalism" or "free enterprise"? It's blindingly obvious to me that you're just a run-of-the-mill populist demagogue—a total economic illiterate who couldn't explain something as basic as supply and demand without looking at Wikipedia, let alone any advanced economic theory or paradigm. Like Murray Rothbard once wrote: "It is not a crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, ultimately, a specialized discipline that most people consider a 'dull science.' But it is entirely irresponsible to hold loud and reckless opinions on economic concepts while still in that state of ignorance."
Enough with the off-topic rambling... I'm asking you nicely to stop commenting if you don't have anything intelligent to contribute to the THREAD.
driftingjackal5 said:
driftingjackal5 said:Your explanation just proves you don't have a clue about basic economics—stuff like comparative and absolute advantage, or how specialization drives progress and innovation. Seriously, go look up "comparative advantage" before you try to have an informed discussion with me. By the way, even Adam Smith talked about this, so it's pretty obvious you don't understand the "capitalism" you hate so much.
Cheap labor isn't the only comparative advantage a manufacturer can use to compete. Automation, specialization, and innovation matter way more. Basically, if someone can make something better and cheaper than you, it makes sense to import it instead of making it yourself. Same logic applies to you—if you specialize in something else and can produce it better and cheaper than anyone else, then you'll be able to export. At the end of the day, consumers always win.
You're right about one thing, though—"domestic manufacturing, burdened by taxes and fees, cannot price-compete with imports from countries where business is done with far lower taxes and levies." That’s exactly the problem. The fix isn't slamming the borders shut against foreign products (that just hits the American consumer with higher prices)—it's significantly slashing the tax burden so anyone would actually bother producing something in America. It doesn't mean quality and competitiveness happen overnight—building a successful business takes years—but without cutting those taxes, it’s never happening. "Closing borders" and "high tariffs" aren't just primitive mercantilism; they run directly counter to the policy the Federal Government has been pushing for decades to join organizations based on eliminating tariffs and promoting free trade.
It feels like all these followers and devotees of guys like Adam Smith and Milton Friedman are ultimately the ones who steered us right into this mess we're in today.
At the end of the day, what really matters is that you possess such a deep well of knowledge, even if that expertise has left us navigating a situation where an exit strategy feels almost impossible to find.Low labor costs aren't the only way a manufacturer can hold their own against the competition. In my experience, much more critical factors like automation, niche specialization, and constant innovation tend to drive the real value. To put it simply, if someone else out there can manufacture a product both cheaper and better than you can, then it actually makes sense to import that item rather than wasting resources trying to build it domestically. Following that same logic, if you can pivot to specialize in a different area where you can produce goods more efficiently and with higher quality than your rivals, you’ll find yourself in a great position to export. At the end of the day, the consumer is always the one who comes out on top.
It feels like we've been stuck listening to the same theoretical mantras, recycled logic, and empty demagoguery for twenty years now. It’s a cycle that never yields actual results, and honestly, it's exactly why we find ourselves in such a massive mess—to borrow a phrase from that former thief who used to run the show as Prime Minister.You’ve hit on a crucial point there—local manufacturers, absolutely crushed by heavy taxes and regulatory burdens, simply can't compete on price with imports from countries where the tax overhead is a fraction of what we deal with here. That really is the heart of the issue. I don't think the answer lies in slamming our borders shut against foreign goods, because that just ends up punishing the American consumer with higher prices at the checkout counter. Instead, the real fix is a massive reduction in the tax burden; otherwise, nobody is going to find it worthwhile to actually build anything on American soil. Of course, quality and global competitiveness don't just appear overnight—building a truly successful business takes years of grit and investment—but without cutting those taxes, that progress will never happen. Relying on "closed borders" or "high tariffs" isn't just a primitive form of mercantilism; it also flies in the face of the very economic policies the Federal Government has been pursuing for decades as we've worked to integrate into a global system built on free trade and the removal of customs barriers.
It feels like I’m just listening to the same broken record over and over again. Honestly, I’ve been hearing this exact same lamentation for twenty years now, and yet, I don't see any actual progress being made. If anything, it feels like we’re just sliding backward.
To be honest, I find myself leaning toward a much more straightforward, almost primitive approach to politics—one that focuses on establishing truly equal trade relations between nations. I would take that over our current system any day. The way things are running right now feels like it’s actively working against the interests of our community, serving only to line the pockets of a tiny handful of individuals while the rest of us are left to deal with the fallout.
Are you honestly trying to suggest that the economic policies of the American government are actually working, or that we’ve become a successful nation with a bright outlook for the future?
If that’s really how you see things, then I think you might be missing the bigger picture here. You seem to be overlooking the harsh reality of our current situation and where we're headed, a point that our honorable Secretary of the Treasury actually conceded quite candidly during his address this evening.
I can't help but feel that our current political landscape is steering us toward a sort of "elite league," where prosperity and profit seem reserved exclusively for those at the very top. It feels like we’re watching a system designed to benefit the heavy hitters while everyone else—those who share similar struggles or simply want a fair shot—gets left behind. Even after years of trying to navigate these waters, so many people find themselves stuck in the same cycle of hardship and instability, never quite reaching that level playing field we were promised. It reminds me of a few years back when I was struggling to get a small business off the ground; no matter how hard I worked, the systemic hurdles felt insurmountable compared to the giants in the industry. We just seem to be spinning our wheels while the powerful continue to pull ahead.
Amanda Allen4 said:So, what you're suggesting is that globalization is inherently destructive and the only solution is to pivot toward autarky? Is that really the case?
Harold Martin10 said:We can probably agree that the Federal Government has a mandate to oversee macroeconomic stability.
At one point, around 2001 or 2002, the government started ramping up its own debt. This fueled a rise in the standard of living, which encouraged people to take out mortgages. So, you had both the citizens and the government increasing their debt simultaneously. It created this positive feedback loop: GDP growth leads to better credit ratings, which leads to more borrowing, which drives more GDP growth. Naturally, people started assuming home prices would climb forever. Of course, a bubble like that *had* to burst eventually—and it did, simply because they ran out of new debtors to fund the ever-increasing levels of debt.
A lot of people today blame the borrowers, saying they should have watched the macro trends more closely, but that's a bit unrealistic—after all, those borrowers are essentially paying politicians through taxes to handle that oversight for them.
Others point the finger at the banks, but honestly, that's not really their job; they have to look out for themselves and protect their clients' savings.
It was the government's responsibility to monitor consumer debt and stop borrowing so heavily, which would have prevented the artificial spike in real estate prices caused by that temporary boost in living standards. Instead, the government borrowed as much as possible to intentionally pump up the GDP. And it's perfectly predictable that rising GDP and consumer confidence will trigger a real estate boom.
On top of that, once things started slowing down, the government rolled out various measures and incentives—which, while a smaller part of the issue, clearly shows their intent—to lure even more people into taking out loans just to keep the GDP and living standards afloat until the next election cycle.
That's why I maintain that having no regulation at all is often better than having regulation that moves in the wrong direction.
| I remember looking back at the data from around the early 2000s, and it’s clear that the Federal Government began ramping up its borrowing at a massive scale. This sudden influx of liquidity essentially fueled a surge in the standard of living, which in turn encouraged everyday Americans to take out heavy mortgages to buy homes. It was this strange, synchronized moment where both the government and the private citizens were simultaneously stacking up debt. We entered this feedback loop—a sort of artificial positive spiral where GDP growth led to higher credit ratings, which then allowed for even more borrowing, which supposedly drove even more GDP growth. Of course, the psychological fallout from all this was that people started believing the myth that real estate prices would just climb forever. But, as anyone who follows market cycles knows, a bubble like that has to burst eventually. In our case, the whole thing finally collapsed simply because we ran out of new debtors to fund the ever-increasing levels of debt. There’s this common sentiment floating around lately where people blame debtors, arguing they should have been more vigilant about the macro situation before signing on the dotted line. But if you really think about it, that expectation just isn't realistic. Most of these individuals are essentially paying politicians out of their own pockets to handle those high-level economic decisions on their behalf, so expecting them to be experts in global market trends is asking far too much. People love to point the finger at banks whenever things go sideways, but I honestly don't think that's fair. It’s not really the bank's responsibility to manage your life for you; at the end of the day, individuals have to take charge of their own financial futures and be diligent about protecting their own savings. I remember back when I was first starting out with my own accounts, I spent way too much time worrying about market fluctuations instead of just building a solid personal safety net, and it taught me that you can't always rely on an institution to look out for your best interests. Ultimately, we all have to be our own best advocates when it comes to our money. The Federal Government really should have been looking out for the average citizen’s debt levels instead of constantly piling on more borrowing themselves; if they had just exercised some restraint, they might have prevented the massive spike in real estate prices we've all been feeling lately. It feels like that housing boom was essentially a byproduct of a temporary rise in living standards, yet rather than stabilizing things, the Federal Government seemed intent on borrowing as much as humanly possible just to artificially inflate the GDP. I remember watching similar patterns during certain economic shifts in my own life, where everything felt inflated for a moment before the reality set in, and it seems perfectly logical that this forced surge in GDP and consumer confidence would inevitably trigger such an aggressive real estate bubble. On top of that, once things started losing momentum, the Federal Government stepped in with various measures and incentives—which I see as only a small part of the larger issue, though it certainly reveals their true intentions. It felt like they were just trying to trick more people into taking out new loans, all in a desperate attempt to prop up the GDP and maintain the illusion of a stable standard of living until the next election cycle rolls around. |
That’s exactly why I’ve always maintained that it’s far better to have no regulation at all than to be saddled with regulations that are fundamentally flawed or heading in the wrong direction. I remember watching certain local policy debates back in my hometown, where well-intentioned officials tried to fix a small issue but ended up creating a massive bureaucratic bottleneck that stifled every small business on the block. It’s much more efficient to let things breathe naturally than to implement a set of rules that actually makes the situation worse.
driftingjackal5 said:Look, PLEASE explain to me how an open, free market could possibly "hurt" consumers—and how in a free market anyone can "dictate" what you choose to buy? 🙂