Can we fix the crisis by using the Canadian model?

Arthur Fowler83 said:So, I guess when Washington, D.C. and Brussels strip away a nation's sovereignty, it's perfectly fine—but the moment you try to claw back that lost autonomy, suddenly it's "populism."
Interesting perspective.
Are you perhaps a journalist?
☕

Well, if you're achieving those goals by robbing your own citizens and racking up debt under terrible terms, then yeah—that's definitely populism.

No, I'm not a journalist.

Harold Martin10 said:Well, if you're achieving those goals by robbing your own citizens and racking up debt under terrible terms, then yeah—that's definitely populism.

No, I'm not a journalist.

It isn't robbery. It's simply the cost of dealing with the incompetence, negligence, and reckless borrowing left behind by the previous administration (those Democrats).

Any politician who actually gives a damn about the national interest would have been forced to do the same.

nimbleharbor10 said:Oh, really? So because Greece isn't isolated from global capital, they somehow don't have citizens sleeping on benches or digging through dumpsters?
And let’s look at the "jobs" that capital actually brought to Greece: they were wiped out. All they got were mindless austerity measures and destructive budget cuts.
Who actually profited from all that capital in Greece? First, the foreign banks, and second, the local political vultures.

You're telling me Greece is your ideal example?!

It’s the exact same principle. You simply cannot spend more than you bring in, and that rule applies to both countries just the same. Honestly, Greece brought this on themselves. The entire nation was living far beyond its means—much like we were—but they managed to pull through in the end. Even their credit rating has seen a significant recovery.

Arthur Fowler83 said:That’s a minor detail compared to how hungry the IMF gets when it comes to swallowing up everyone else's sovereignty (including America's).

So, are you really suggesting that a nation heavily reliant on foreign loans and importing eighty percent of its goods is somehow more sovereign than a country fueled by private capital?

rustywalker32 said:You really just keep repeating the same tired arguments over and over again. You might as well just put it in your profile signature that everything ever created is solely the fault of the government; it would save us all the trouble of reading these repetitive posts.
First off, the idea that major corporations only exist because of government subsidies is total nonsense and a completely baseless generalization.
"Make-believe jobs"? That's a ridiculous category to even suggest. It’s clear you don't really grasp the subject matter at hand. You're just talking in circles...
Besides, if you took a moment to actually study the productivity growth data for most companies, I think you'd be quite surprised by what you find.

That's just not true... unlike you, I've actually spent time working within large corporations...
I've already provided plenty of concrete examples...

Someone else is the one talking nonsense here... I'm not the one insulting you...

Here is an example for you to chew on

http://www.nytimes.com/news/article/...example_link...

Differential tax treatment is nothing more than a hidden subsidy... and there's plenty more where that came from.

And just think back to why the Boston Tea Party happened in the first place.

An act was passed mandating which specific company's tea people had to buy.
Which means this pattern of behavior has a very long history...

These kinds of scenarios usually manifest within the supposed icons of the "free market."....

America is the ultimate representative of that particular style.

Once I have a bit more free time, I'll throw a few more examples your way....

Harold Martin10 said:That's a bit like saying the Republican Party were populists and the Democratic Party weren't just because they aren't the Republicans.

Nationalizing pension funds and swapping out cheap debt for expensive debt just to score points with the crowd? That is pure populism, plain and simple.

I mean, how on earth do you nationalize something that you literally codified into law yourself?

The sheer arrogance involved in denying how much politics dictates entrepreneurship is truly staggering...
Most of the time, they pull it off through regulatory red tape....

I’m not pointing fingers at you specifically, but there are plenty of examples out there...

True market behavior would be letting that 5% be handed over to individuals to use however they see fit...

Christian Morales said:So, are you really suggesting that a nation heavily reliant on foreign loans and importing eighty percent of its goods is somehow more sovereign than a country fueled by private capital?

I mean, what kind of "private" capital are we even talking about when it’s all just backed by taxpayer-funded government guarantees?

Don't you realize that foreign investors, especially in sectors like the American auto industry, basically demand that the government picks up sixty percent of the tab through subsidies

The truth is that the entire fabric of society plays a massive role in the actual creation of private wealth and capital.

Take this situation as a prime example...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/example-of-government-subsidies-and-debt

If we want to see real growth, we need robust manufacturing sectors and access to affordable credit.

hollowhawk412 said:That's just not true... unlike you, I've actually spent time working within large corporations...
I've already provided plenty of concrete examples...

Someone else is the one talking nonsense here... I'm not the one insulting you...

Here is an example for you to chew on

http://www.nytimes.com/news/article/...example_link...

Differential tax treatment is nothing more than a hidden subsidy... and there's plenty more where that came from.

And just think back to why the Boston Tea Party happened in the first place.

An act was passed mandating which specific company's tea people had to buy.
Which means this pattern of behavior has a very long history...

These kinds of scenarios usually manifest within the supposed icons of the "free market."....

America is the ultimate representative of that particular style.

Once I have a bit more free time, I'll throw a few more examples your way....

Oh, so we know each other now? You're clearly well-versed in my life story, aren't you? How charming. But honestly, where either of us has worked is completely irrelevant to this debate, so please, let's not resort to trolling. And it's truly wonderful that you're getting your news from a site like BuzzFeed. It's such a high-quality journalistic outlet that one can actually trust what they read there.
Bottom line: this is just a mountain of overblown nonsense. There's zero evidence that massive corporations are built on subsidies, even if small businesses are.

rustywalker32 said:Oh, so we know each other now? You're clearly well-versed in my life story, aren't you? How charming. But honestly, where either of us has worked is completely irrelevant to this debate, so please, let's not resort to trolling. And it's truly wonderful that you're getting your news from a site like BuzzFeed. It's such a high-quality journalistic outlet that one can actually trust what they read there.
Bottom line: this is just a mountain of overblown nonsense. There's zero evidence that massive corporations are built on subsidies, even if small businesses are.

I suppose the logic here is something like: a massive corporation gets $100 million because they employ 1,000 people, while a small business only gets $1 million because they only have 10 employees. Oh, the injustice! Why did the little guy only get a million! 🙂

hollowhawk412 said:I mean, how on earth do you nationalize something that you literally codified into law yourself?

The sheer arrogance involved in denying how much politics dictates entrepreneurship is truly staggering...
Most of the time, they pull it off through regulatory red tape....

I’m not pointing fingers at you specifically, but there are plenty of examples out there...

True market behavior would be letting that 5% be handed over to individuals to use however they see fit...

Just so we're clear, the people getting hit hardest here are the workers. They’re the ones putting the most skin in the game, yet the money that should be staying in their pockets is being diverted to patch up holes in a bloated, inefficient federal budget.

The whole social-bureaucratic state model has taken on this twisted, almost perverse shape—where hard work is essentially penalized while idleness gets rewarded. As long as the system keeps functioning this way, how can we ever expect the economy to truly bounce back?

Jessica Smith11 said:I suppose the logic here is something like: a massive corporation gets $100 million because they employ 1,000 people, while a small business only gets $1 million because they only have 10 employees. Oh, the injustice! Why did the little guy only get a million! 🙂

That’s pretty much the gist of it. Honestly, starks keeps chanting this same tired mantra all over this forum, insisting that everything is somehow the government's doing. They act like an entrepreneur can build a massive empire from scratch entirely on their own, but according to them, the credit belongs solely to Washington—whether it's because of a single government contract, a tiny tax break, or some other minor incentive. It’s becoming quite exhausting to read, really. In my view, if a private citizen does 99% of the heavy lifting, it's a bit much to claim that the remaining 1% provided by the state is the true reason for their success.