Philosophy of Freedom

urbanotter said:Exactly!

It really just comes down to whether political decisions are sound or flawed.

And more often than not, we seem to be making the wrong calls.😉

Pegging our currency to another one is a purely political maneuver, and honestly, there's mounting evidence that it was a mistake from the start.

I don't think you'll find many examples globally where a nation with its own monetary sovereignty would choose to tie itself so tightly to a foreign currency, going through all that effort just to maintain a fixed exchange rate.

Usually, you only see that kind of thing in some unstable banana republic or a developing nation in Africa.

I recall reading about a period when Winston Churchill was serving as the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the United Kingdom, and he pushed for the pound to be pegged to gold. It nearly tanked the entire economy. The poor guy was operating under what sounds like sound logic—that money should represent real value, and gold is "real." But let's be honest, gold is only "fictional" real. In terms of actual utility, bread, meat, electricity, or olive oil are far more "real" than a hunk of metal sitting in a vault...!

rowdyranger44 said:urbanotter, there aren’t any easy fixes here, no magic tricks where you pull a rabbit out of a hat to solve everything. If you start cranking up the printing presses, you’re essentially murdering the savers while simultaneously handing current debtors a massive break through internal devaluation. It’s a massacre either way. Someone is bound to get slaughtered before we can establish a new equilibrium that actually aligns with how competitive the American economy is on the global stage.

Printing money would only be a justifiable move if it were funneled directly into projects with rapid returns—things that export goods and services to foreign markets. Dumping that cash into infrastructure? That’s a total catastrophe. It creates this pathetic illusion of reducing national debt, when in reality, you're just stripping away the wealth of anyone actually producing something tangible.

Of course it isn't simple. Money printing has to be moderate—it should serve as a LOAN to those who are actually thinking ahead or INCREASING production!
It absolutely shouldn't be used, for instance, to fund something like a massive bridge project.
Because that kind of thing is an investment with a very, very, very long horizon and a painfully slow return on investment!

Example:

And here is the commentary at the bottom:


The only real argument against non-credit-based money issuance is the fear of driving up inflation. However, it's quite obvious that when you have a small government deficit (say, under 5% of the total money supply), there's no real reason to fear runaway inflation, especially since the multiplier effect has a much stronger impact on inflation rates than the mere existence of non-credit issuance. To put it plainly, it's absurd to claim that we must forbid the state from issuing money "in the name of fighting inflation." De facto, a monetary system built entirely on debt is nothing more than a giant Ponzi scheme, because debtors can only settle their obligations if new debtors enter the fray, creating the new deposits required to pay off the old ones. For this to work, you need an infinite credit expansion—essentially exponentially growing debt. Since we all know that "credit expansion" cannot last forever, you inevitably hit a wall where the "credit bubble" bursts, leading to mass foreclosures, bankruptcies, liquidity crises, and eventually a complete economic breakdown characterized by rising unemployment and a descent into debt slavery. It is glaringly obvious that a debt-only monetary model is unsustainable in the long run; in such a model, debt must grow exponentially just to keep the system solvent. Yet, since the money supply grows more slowly in this model (because interest rates on loans are always significantly higher than interest on deposits), such a model is doomed to a credit crisis. Unfortunately, informal power structures tied to banking cartels have managed to impose this exact model. They've insisted on a system where the state is forbidden from issuing real money to cover deficits, while banks are simultaneously allowed to issue non-existent money in the form of debt. That is the heart of the problem. Is the purpose of money strictly to create debt, or is it to facilitate the exchange of goods, drive economic growth, and maintain a sustainable monetary model? Think about how new money enters circulation—either through the issuance of real money by the state or through the credit multiplication performed by banks. I believe it makes much more sense for the state, which holds a monopoly on issuing currency, to be able to issue real money, while simultaneously curbing the credit multiplication practiced by banks. Furthermore, the way banks multiply money prevents the state from controlling the money supply and managing targeted inflation, simply because banks have the power to conjure money out of thin air. Now we reach the "core of the matter," the question of all questions. There is a practical conflict here: non-credit issuance by the state and money multiplication by banks cannot coexist peacefully. Why? Because if the budget deficit is 5% of the total money supply, theoretical inflation should also sit around 5% (if the state covers the deficit by increasing the money supply by 5%). However, if banks have the ability to multiply money, they can simulate a much larger influx of cash than what is actually happening. In our current model, they can effectively double the money supply by creating multiplied deposits and their associated credit extensions. In other words, instead of 5%, inflation hits 10%. And once inflation climbs past the 8% mark, its effect on the economy shifts from positive to destructive. Many wonder what the fundamental issue with the monetary system is, or how to find a solution. To understand why the current model is broken, one must recognize the necessity of non-credit issuance—the idea that a portion of money should not enter circulation solely as debt. Without non-credit money issuance, a credit crisis is inevitable because, in a debt-only model, debt will always outpace the growth of the money supply.

I honestly have no clue where that commenter is pulling those 5% inflation numbers from! I mean, it’s not rocket science—even ten years ago, it seemed obvious to me that the government should be printing money specifically to fund industrial production and stimulate growth. But to suggest we'd see an annual inflation rate—basically a devaluation of the Dollar—hitting that infamous 5% mark? Give me a break!

"Quote:"

urbanotter said:It never even crossed my mind to suggest we just print money to cover standard government spending, like paying the salaries of teachers, police officers, or civil servants—that kind of direct state expenditure isn't what I'm talking about.

That’s precisely why I was advocating for passing legislation that clearly defines the specific purposes for which such funds could be utilized, and I offered a few examples of where that capital should actually be "spent."

The goal is to invest exclusively in creating new value; the issue is that currently, this money comes through borrowing, which puts a massive strain on a budget that simply can't collect enough tax revenue to cover everything.

While things like interstate highways are definitely long-term investments that don't offer an immediate return, it would be far less of a burden on the system if they were financed through that method rather than forcing us to "monetize" debt when the annuities just aren't there to pay it back.

I mean, I respect your faith in politicians—really, I do—but honestly? I don't trust them any further than I can throw them. 🙂

Do you really think someone like Ivo Sanders wouldn't just whip up an amendment to the law overnight? He’d probably find a way to authorize printing more money just to pump out extra social aid—you know, specifically targeting veterans or the most vulnerable citizens here in the States.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:I recall reading about a period when Winston Churchill was serving as the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the United Kingdom, and he pushed for the pound to be pegged to gold. It nearly tanked the entire economy. The poor guy was operating under what sounds like sound logic—that money should represent real value, and gold is "real." But let's be honest, gold is only "fictional" real. In terms of actual utility, bread, meat, electricity, or olive oil are far more "real" than a hunk of metal sitting in a vault...!

Of course it isn't simple. Money printing has to be moderate—it should serve as a LOAN to those who are actually thinking ahead or INCREASING production!
It absolutely shouldn't be used, for instance, to fund something like a massive bridge project.
Because that kind of thing is an investment with a very, very, very long horizon and a painfully slow return on investment!

Example:

And here is the commentary at the bottom:


The only real argument against non-credit-based money issuance is the fear of driving up inflation. However, it's quite obvious that when you have a small government deficit (say, under 5% of the total money supply), there's no real reason to fear runaway inflation, especially since the multiplier effect has a much stronger impact on inflation rates than the mere existence of non-credit issuance. To put it plainly, it's absurd to claim that we must forbid the state from issuing money "in the name of fighting inflation." De facto, a monetary system built entirely on debt is nothing more than a giant Ponzi scheme, because debtors can only settle their obligations if new debtors enter the fray, creating the new deposits required to pay off the old ones. For this to work, you need an infinite credit expansion—essentially exponentially growing debt. Since we all know that "credit expansion" cannot last forever, you inevitably hit a wall where the "credit bubble" bursts, leading to mass foreclosures, bankruptcies, liquidity crises, and eventually a complete economic breakdown characterized by rising unemployment and a descent into debt slavery. It is glaringly obvious that a debt-only monetary model is unsustainable in the long run; in such a model, debt must grow exponentially just to keep the system solvent. Yet, since the money supply grows more slowly in this model (because interest rates on loans are always significantly higher than interest on deposits), such a model is doomed to a credit crisis. Unfortunately, informal power structures tied to banking cartels have managed to impose this exact model. They've insisted on a system where the state is forbidden from issuing real money to cover deficits, while banks are simultaneously allowed to issue non-existent money in the form of debt. That is the heart of the problem. Is the purpose of money strictly to create debt, or is it to facilitate the exchange of goods, drive economic growth, and maintain a sustainable monetary model? Think about how new money enters circulation—either through the issuance of real money by the state or through the credit multiplication performed by banks. I believe it makes much more sense for the state, which holds a monopoly on issuing currency, to be able to issue real money, while simultaneously curbing the credit multiplication practiced by banks. Furthermore, the way banks multiply money prevents the state from controlling the money supply and managing targeted inflation, simply because banks have the power to conjure money out of thin air. Now we reach the "core of the matter," the question of all questions. There is a practical conflict here: non-credit issuance by the state and money multiplication by banks cannot coexist peacefully. Why? Because if the budget deficit is 5% of the total money supply, theoretical inflation should also sit around 5% (if the state covers the deficit by increasing the money supply by 5%). However, if banks have the ability to multiply money, they can simulate a much larger influx of cash than what is actually happening. In our current model, they can effectively double the money supply by creating multiplied deposits and their associated credit extensions. In other words, instead of 5%, inflation hits 10%. And once inflation climbs past the 8% mark, its effect on the economy shifts from positive to destructive. Many wonder what the fundamental issue with the monetary system is, or how to find a solution. To understand why the current model is broken, one must recognize the necessity of non-credit issuance—the idea that a portion of money should not enter circulation solely as debt. Without non-credit money issuance, a credit crisis is inevitable because, in a debt-only model, debt will always outpace the growth of the money supply.

I honestly have no clue where that commenter is pulling those 5% inflation numbers from! I mean, it’s not rocket science—even ten years ago, it seemed obvious to me that the government should be printing money specifically to fund industrial production and stimulate growth. But to suggest we'd see an annual inflation rate—basically a devaluation of the Dollar—hitting that infamous 5% mark? Give me a break!

It's the same tired lie every single time...
A bank isn't some black hole where money vanishes once you repay a loan...
That capital flows right back into the economy through the spending of employees, owners, and shareholders...

Yeah, it’s just endless spending used to hoard real estate, which then gets flipped to fuel more interest payments—it's a feedback loop that just keeps spinning.
Those who are constantly grinding to stack up cash or property end up owning more and more, while everyone else watching from the sidelines sees their slice of the pie shrink every single year.
Just take a look at how much real estate and various assets are sitting on bank balance sheets right now.

Ryan Nelson5 said:It's the same tired lie every single time...
A bank isn't some black hole where money vanishes once you repay a loan...
That capital flows right back into the economy through the spending of employees, owners, and shareholders...

In America, this isn't even a conspiracy theory—it's just reality. The plain truth is that banks get richer while the average American gets squeezed harder. These institutions barely do anything to actually support the economy. They play it too safe—too risk-averse—and they don't want to do the heavy lifting required to drive growth. Nobody likes taking risks, I suppose. Besides, even the big banks are looking a bit bloated and complacent now, especially since the housing market has basically hit a wall. 😢😲😁

Benjamin Taylor6 said:In America, this isn't even a conspiracy theory—it's just reality. The plain truth is that banks get richer while the average American gets squeezed harder. These institutions barely do anything to actually support the economy. They play it too safe—too risk-averse—and they don't want to do the heavy lifting required to drive growth. Nobody likes taking risks, I suppose. Besides, even the big banks are looking a bit bloated and complacent now, especially since the housing market has basically hit a wall. 😢😲😁

I am saying the pyramid scheme narrative is a lie—the idea that debt can never be repaid. That is false, whether you are in the US or anywhere else.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:In America, this isn't even a conspiracy theory—it's just reality. The plain truth is that banks get richer while the average American gets squeezed harder. These institutions barely do anything to actually support the economy. They play it too safe—too risk-averse—and they don't want to do the heavy lifting required to drive growth. Nobody likes taking risks, I suppose. Besides, even the big banks are looking a bit bloated and complacent now, especially since the housing market has basically hit a wall. 😢😲😁

That is true, but for entirely different reasons than some conspiracy against us.

The reality is that banks here financed consumer spending because government policy encouraged it through massive debt. If you constantly borrow money and hand it out to the public, they will spend it. Banks simply adapt to that system by issuing consumer loans because demand is high... they avoid the business sector because it's too risky. However, if you stop handing out money like crazy, consumption drops, demand for consumer credit falls, and banks are forced to pivot toward financing the economy.

Banks in other countries don't fund the economy out of the goodness of their hearts; they do it because policy creates those conditions.

Ryan Nelson5 said:I am saying the pyramid scheme narrative is a lie—the idea that debt can never be repaid. That is false, whether you are in the US or anywhere else.

That is true, but for entirely different reasons than some conspiracy against us.

The reality is that banks here financed consumer spending because government policy encouraged it through massive debt. If you constantly borrow money and hand it out to the public, they will spend it. Banks simply adapt to that system by issuing consumer loans because demand is high... they avoid the business sector because it's too risky. However, if you stop handing out money like crazy, consumption drops, demand for consumer credit falls, and banks are forced to pivot toward financing the economy.

Banks in other countries don't fund the economy out of the goodness of their hearts; they do it because policy creates those conditions.

And that is exactly what we are seeing play out right now:

But then that's just socialism, not anarcho-capitalism. 🤷

Look, the point is that anarcho-capitalism—and the world we live in now—allows people to band together, start their own factories, or set up farming cooperatives to live independently. That can happen under anarcho-capitalism too. You could do everything an anarcho-communist does. But here’s what I’ve gathered from talking to other communists: in anarcho-communism, you aren't allowed to work for profit, trade for your own benefit, or hire people. They ban any agreement where all parties actually consent to the terms. Get what I'm saying? How can anarcho-communism even exist without sliding back into a market economy? Someone smarter or more skilled will eventually step up and demand more in exchange for their labor. If you ban trade and hiring, you're attacking freedom. And if workers are forced to take over factories, that's just stealing property from shareholders and owners. Basically, anarcho-communism relies on force and prohibitions, whereas anarcho-capitalism is built on mutual consent, property rights, and the non-aggression principle. That's how it looks from a libertarian perspective.

Workers should just step in and take over those factories nobody wants—the ones falling apart, drowning in debt, or run by incompetent bosses who can't even manage to meet payroll. If there's a vacuum where management has completely checked out, let the employees run the show and see how far they get. Once the money dries up and the owners finally lose their minds, we'll be right back to square one: workers taking matters into their own hands.

Ryan Nelson5 said:It's the same tired lie every single time...
A bank isn't some black hole where money vanishes once you repay a loan...
That capital flows right back into the economy through the spending of employees, owners, and shareholders...

It’s just the interest. The principal is essentially conjured out of thin air and enters circulation—much like freshly printed cash—whenever a loan is issued... then it seemingly evaporates when the debt is settled.

Consequently, in America, the total amount of money circulating in the economy is controlled exclusively by these private banking institutions (think JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, etc.). The skyrocketing cost of housing, general inflation, and even wage growth over the last decade have been driven almost entirely by these private banks "printing" money via credit. Essentially, the nation's economy isn't steered by politicians, but by the bankers at places like Chase or Citi. This is why certain idealists argue that the Federal Reserve, or rather the politicians, should take control of economic management. However, it's difficult to explain to that crowd that for twenty years now, those very same politicians have been embedding themselves within these private banks, taking out millions in loans without a single cent of actual deposits or any meaningful collateral or mortgage to back them up. It’s the same group of people. I suppose the only sensible solution would be switching to gross salary payments and halting money printing altogether—perhaps through something like a gold standard.

As long as citizens lack the freedom to truly manage their own hard-earned money, there is zero chance of this changing. Imagine if my neighbor hired a thief to snatch my TV and DVD player. Then, they split the loot. When I demand my property back, my neighbor tells me... well, it's our joint property now, because I voted in a democratic election that allowed that thief the right to steal from you. And since I need it right now, he tells me, "we'll get to it next year." 🤣.

We have reached a point where the most self-proclaimed pious moralists and the socially sensitive types are actually advocating for forced robbery as a way of life. And whenever you dare to point out that specific reality, they suddenly stop preaching about morality and goodness and start making excuses. 🤣

Harold Martin10 said:"Quote:"

I mean, I respect your faith in politicians—really, I do—but honestly? I don't trust them any further than I can throw them. 🙂

Do you really think someone like Ivo Sanders wouldn't just whip up an amendment to the law overnight? He’d probably find a way to authorize printing more money just to pump out extra social aid—you know, specifically targeting veterans or the most vulnerable citizens here in the States.

What makes you think I have even an ounce of trust left in today's politicians?🤷

It isn't that I lack trust, per se, but rather that I am deeply convinced they are steering us toward becoming nothing more than cheap, low-standard labor. It feels like we're being molded to serve the interests of global elites and various "investors" who are simply looking to balloon their own wealth at our expense.

Based on your previous posts and general outlook, I had assumed you were one of those people who actually trusts the system, since you seem to support this specific social and economic model currently playing out both here in the States and across the globe.

Charles Campbell7 said:It’s just the interest. The principal is essentially conjured out of thin air and enters circulation—much like freshly printed cash—whenever a loan is issued... then it seemingly evaporates when the debt is settled.

Consequently, in America, the total amount of money circulating in the economy is controlled exclusively by these private banking institutions (think JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, etc.). The skyrocketing cost of housing, general inflation, and even wage growth over the last decade have been driven almost entirely by these private banks "printing" money via credit. Essentially, the nation's economy isn't steered by politicians, but by the bankers at places like Chase or Citi. This is why certain idealists argue that the Federal Reserve, or rather the politicians, should take control of economic management. However, it's difficult to explain to that crowd that for twenty years now, those very same politicians have been embedding themselves within these private banks, taking out millions in loans without a single cent of actual deposits or any meaningful collateral or mortgage to back them up. It’s the same group of people. I suppose the only sensible solution would be switching to gross salary payments and halting money printing altogether—perhaps through something like a gold standard.

As long as citizens lack the freedom to truly manage their own hard-earned money, there is zero chance of this changing. Imagine if my neighbor hired a thief to snatch my TV and DVD player. Then, they split the loot. When I demand my property back, my neighbor tells me... well, it's our joint property now, because I voted in a democratic election that allowed that thief the right to steal from you. And since I need it right now, he tells me, "we'll get to it next year." 🤣.

We have reached a point where the most self-proclaimed pious moralists and the socially sensitive types are actually advocating for forced robbery as a way of life. And whenever you dare to point out that specific reality, they suddenly stop preaching about morality and goodness and start making excuses. 🤣

Until the majority realizes this and pushes for change, true freedom remains out of reach.

Our entire way of life and how we behave is dictated through the design and control of the financial and monetary systems.

This is achieved through manipulation and by feeding us delusions, such as the idea that we should wait for salvation from foreign capital or outside investors.

The world isn't filled with philanthropists and Good Samaritans; instead, it is dominated by greed, avarice, and self-interest.

The only way out of this mess is to rely on our own strength and protect our interests from both our own leaders and those "Samaritans" from overseas. As the old saying goes, if you help yourself, God will help you.

There are two main things causing us the most harm.
-An unprotected, open market that dictates exactly what we are supposed to consume.
-The current model of monetary and financial policy.

I believe the only thing the average person can do is vote for the party they feel is the lesser of two evils—the one actually attempting to address these two core issues.

For now, that would be the Labor Party, who, despite all their flaws as a political organization, seem to recognize exactly where the deepest problems in this society are hidden.

Charles Campbell7 said:It’s just the interest. The principal is essentially conjured out of thin air and enters circulation—much like freshly printed cash—whenever a loan is issued... then it seemingly evaporates when the debt is settled.

Consequently, in America, the total amount of money circulating in the economy is controlled exclusively by these private banking institutions (think JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, etc.). The skyrocketing cost of housing, general inflation, and even wage growth over the last decade have been driven almost entirely by these private banks "printing" money via credit. Essentially, the nation's economy isn't steered by politicians, but by the bankers at places like Chase or Citi. This is why certain idealists argue that the Federal Reserve, or rather the politicians, should take control of economic management. However, it's difficult to explain to that crowd that for twenty years now, those very same politicians have been embedding themselves within these private banks, taking out millions in loans without a single cent of actual deposits or any meaningful collateral or mortgage to back them up. It’s the same group of people. I suppose the only sensible solution would be switching to gross salary payments and halting money printing altogether—perhaps through something like a gold standard.

As long as citizens lack the freedom to truly manage their own hard-earned money, there is zero chance of this changing. Imagine if my neighbor hired a thief to snatch my TV and DVD player. Then, they split the loot. When I demand my property back, my neighbor tells me... well, it's our joint property now, because I voted in a democratic election that allowed that thief the right to steal from you. And since I need it right now, he tells me, "we'll get to it next year." 🤣.

We have reached a point where the most self-proclaimed pious moralists and the socially sensitive types are actually advocating for forced robbery as a way of life. And whenever you dare to point out that specific reality, they suddenly stop preaching about morality and goodness and start making excuses. 🤣

Explain this post more clearly... who is the analogy about with the TV and the DVD?

urbanotter said:Until the majority realizes this and pushes for change, true freedom remains out of reach.

Our entire way of life and how we behave is dictated through the design and control of the financial and monetary systems.

This is achieved through manipulation and by feeding us delusions, such as the idea that we should wait for salvation from foreign capital or outside investors.

The world isn't filled with philanthropists and Good Samaritans; instead, it is dominated by greed, avarice, and self-interest.

The only way out of this mess is to rely on our own strength and protect our interests from both our own leaders and those "Samaritans" from overseas. As the old saying goes, if you help yourself, God will help you.

There are two main things causing us the most harm.
-An unprotected, open market that dictates exactly what we are supposed to consume.
-The current model of monetary and financial policy.

I believe the only thing the average person can do is vote for the party they feel is the lesser of two evils—the one actually attempting to address these two core issues.

For now, that would be the Labor Party, who, despite all their flaws as a political organization, seem to recognize exactly where the deepest problems in this society are hidden.

🤣
The only thing those Labor Party charlatans have figured out is the old populist playbook for winning power: don't tell the people the truth, just tell them what they want to hear.
If they ever actually take office, they’ll just dodge their promises and act more "responsible." Then, the smart people will realize for the thousandth time: they're just like everyone else.

urbanotter said:What makes you think I have even an ounce of trust left in today's politicians?🤷

It isn't that I lack trust, per se, but rather that I am deeply convinced they are steering us toward becoming nothing more than cheap, low-standard labor. It feels like we're being molded to serve the interests of global elites and various "investors" who are simply looking to balloon their own wealth at our expense.

Based on your previous posts and general outlook, I had assumed you were one of those people who actually trusts the system, since you seem to support this specific social and economic model currently playing out both here in the States and across the globe.

My approach would be to strip them of their power, whereas you seem to want to hand them even more. The entities responsible for the crisis in the USA were

a) debtors
b) banks
c) developers
d) the Administration

Now, look—debtors, banks, and developers were just acting normally; they were seeking the best possible outcomes within market conditions.

On the other hand, the Administration—which really should be looking out for the broader public interestregulated the market in a way that allowed the real estate bubble to inflate as much as humanly possible.

Essentially, the state did the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do. If the Administration hadn't meddled, the crisis would have been far milder. So, are you honestly suggesting we give the Administration even more power, just so they can make even bigger messes? 🙂

Ryan Nelson5 said:Explain this post more clearly... who is the analogy about with the TV and the DVD?

That analogy is meant to describe people who vote for a massive welfare state—essentially, voters who support a system where the government loots one segment of the population and then redistributes those stolen funds. Someone brought up an example earlier: most people would feel too guilty to personally smash a window or break into someone’s house to steal cash just to pay for their college tuition. However, when a politician (the very person they voted for) does it on their behalf, they somehow consider it perfectly legitimate. I suppose I don't quite understand the logic there. To me, it’s still just theft, even if it isn't happening directly at your front door. So, the example refers to forced taxation, though I'd argue inflation has the exact same effect as a tax, making it all pretty much the same thing in the end.

Charles Campbell7 said:That analogy is meant to describe people who vote for a massive welfare state—essentially, voters who support a system where the government loots one segment of the population and then redistributes those stolen funds. Someone brought up an example earlier: most people would feel too guilty to personally smash a window or break into someone’s house to steal cash just to pay for their college tuition. However, when a politician (the very person they voted for) does it on their behalf, they somehow consider it perfectly legitimate. I suppose I don't quite understand the logic there. To me, it’s still just theft, even if it isn't happening directly at your front door. So, the example refers to forced taxation, though I'd argue inflation has the exact same effect as a tax, making it all pretty much the same thing in the end.

The point about inflation is valid, but it usually hovers around 3% or 3.5%. When you look at the big picture, the total tax burden is easily ten times higher than what we lose to inflation. I mean, just looking at a 25% sales tax alone—it's quite a leap, isn't it?

Ryan Nelson5 said:🤣
The only thing those Labor Party charlatans have figured out is the old populist playbook for winning power: don't tell the people the truth, just tell them what they want to hear.
If they ever actually take office, they’ll just dodge their promises and act more "responsible." Then, the smart people will realize for the thousandth time: they're just like everyone else.

I think you're saying that because you're in a much more privileged position than I am.
You seem to be playing the role of a prophet who can see right through everyone's character without any actual evidence, predicting exactly how things will play out—and somehow concluding that we should just vote for the same people who have already cheated us and stolen from us.

I consider myself just an average person, and I have no intention of voting for anyone who has a history of corruption or dishonesty. I prefer to live by the old adage that a wise person learns from their mistakes and doesn't repeat them, while a fool keeps making the same errors even when they know better.

I'm going to cast my vote for anyone who hasn't been part of that cycle of theft and deceit, provided there is even the slightest chance they might actually do things differently. As far as I'm concerned, there is absolutely no future left with the people who have held power up until now.

Harold Martin10 said:My approach would be to strip them of their power, whereas you seem to want to hand them even more. The entities responsible for the crisis in the USA were

a) debtors
b) banks
c) developers
d) the Administration

Now, look—debtors, banks, and developers were just acting normally; they were seeking the best possible outcomes within market conditions.

On the other hand, the Administration—which really should be looking out for the broader public interestregulated the market in a way that allowed the real estate bubble to inflate as much as humanly possible.

Essentially, the state did the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do. If the Administration hadn't meddled, the crisis would have been far milder. So, are you honestly suggesting we give the Administration even more power, just so they can make even bigger messes? 🙂

But then who exactly would you hand that power to?

Maybe we should hand it to the very people who exploited market conditions at everyone else's expense and directly contributed to us landing in this mess.

It feels like a bit of a contradiction to blame them for causing the crisis while simultaneously claiming they were just behaving "normally."😕

Do you honestly believe they’re going to undergo some sort of moral awakening or suddenly decide to change their ways if you grant them even more freedom to prioritize themselves? There's no reason to think they wouldn't just repeat the cycle instead of working toward the common good.🙂

urbanotter, the ones who walked away with the biggest slice of the pie are the very same people who spent years suffocating any semblance of fair market competition. They’ve been rigging the regulatory framework like they're getting a custom suit hand-tailored just for them. The Federal Government has more than proven its track\\s incompetence over the last two decades. It is high time they stepped back and actually fixed the things that would benefit everyone. Let them start by fixing the judicial system. That would do far more good than them continuing to play the big shot in our national economy.