Universal Welfare: yea or nay?

[Self--Esteem]

Benjamin Franklin would be ashamed of today's world population.

Who fucking cares about Benjamin Franklin?

Does he really have any relevance in todays economy?

No. Apparently not. Thanks to all those douche bags who would rather work in slave labour, as long as they have a full stomach.

Who are these douche bags?

If I was cruel, I would say: Look in the mirror (since your insult could prove you are one of them).

Bit the universal usage would be: All those people who value safety and a government filled stomach over freedom and property.

[Southern Patriots]

Its a horrible idea. Especially the thought of shoe prices going up.

Women would be heading straight for our throats.

But really. It's a 0 - 0 situation.

What difference does it make if you give a beggar 100 euros of which he can buy necessities for one week or 500 euros with prices going through the roof so that he might end up paying 500 euros for the same shopping basket?

Precisely. How about instead of handing out money, we use money to create jobs? Something like (but not exactly because SOMEONE will have to have a problem with) FDR's New Deal?

FDR's New Deal was horrible. It took away from every individual the means to care for their own well being. He went as far as to seize and ban private gold.

Yeah. Absolutely horrible. People started moving out of Hoovervilles and back into homes. GDP started rising and people were able to afford food for their families. By the time the US entered the war, people weren't worried about starving to death.

Plus, the nation enjoyed a period of unprecedented economic growth and stability in the decades following. Only a few economists try to say it was in spite of the New Deal, and their conclusions get shredded by the evidence every time they discuss it with other economists. The only reason anybody even knows about them is because the GOP had been trying for years to find a way to discredit it, and used their ideas as talking points.

Damn FDR for managing the nation through recovery and into prosperity. Reality clearly has a liberal bias.

I am sure you would have been happy in the Soviet Union, Maoist China or the GDR, as well.

You know, there are people who actually care for freedom over wealth.

Ooh, nice ad hominem! See, the problem with the Soviet model of socialism is that it was never representative. They all tried to impose it from the top-down, rather than using mandates from the people to decide policy. Hence Yakov Smirnoff's unfortunately immortal meme: "In Soviet Russia, the Party finds you!"

FDR also pointed out that without some basic economic stability, "freedom" is just a word and a meaningless one at that. Someone who can't afford to keep a roof over his head or feed his family doesn't have freedom. He's forced to accept whatever conditions are demanded of him in order to correct it. Someone who can't afford the medicine to keep themselves or their family healthy doesn't have freedom either.

For some reason you seem to have failed to grasp this concept of freedom. Instead you harp on your own concept of freedom, completely ignoring that it includes the freedom to starve or die of disease. I honestly pity you.

So rather than having the chance to prosper, we should all just let the government take away, as long we are save and well fed?

You are ignorant. People back then spent their fortunes on gold, only for the government to take it away. What about those people? Let them starve for the "greater good"?

Benjamin Franklin would be ashamed of today's world population.

Did the US turn into a Soviet-style dictatorship under FDR and I didn't see? Because I recall him being elected 4 times.

Of course he was elected 4 times. The war hindered him from turning the whole economy in a down-loop.

His plans were simply megalomaniac. Anti-competition laws, sending people to jail if they refused to give the government their gold (Executive Order 6102) and privately owned gold remained illegal until 1974. He cut veterans benefits (40%. So much for all your fans of public welfare) and removed 500,000 veterans and widows from the pension roll.

I'd like to confirm those statistics. Sources, please.

[Treznor]

You get a lot of mileage out of that straw man, don't you?

I'm pretty sure I've said in this thread that I'm all for people enjoying the fruits of their labor. I have also not said that everything Roosevelt did was unassailable. I am saying that your right to accumulate more wealth than you can reasonably spend is curtailed by the right of your neighbor to not suffer in misery because he can't afford to eat. There is middle ground here, but you refuse to acknowledge it.

Speaking of Benjamin Franklin, he said a few things on the topic. He didn't approve of welfare, but he also didn't approve of wealth for its own sake.

He that is of the opinion that money will do everything may well be suspected of doing everything for money.

Great strawman, right there.

1. While gold is probably the only true money, it is also no money in the classical sense. It's an asset. Something you invest in to keep you afloat in the elderly years follwed by retirement (since the government is incapable of providing fairly for everyone).

2. How can you really justify government supported theft? Because that's basically what the seizure of gold was.

Felt left out, did you?

1. Why is gold the only true money? How is it not any more arbitrary than paper money? Furthermore, I challenge you assertion that the government is less capable than the private market for managing retirement funds.

2. As I said, I don't necessarily think everything Roosevelt did was for the best. He was trying a lot of solutions, and he recognized that the gold standard isn't the panacea people thought it was. Did he go about it the best way? Probably not. Did he act decisively in a time of crisis? Yes. Did it ultimately help to stabilize our economy? Also, yes. Your revision of history doesn't change that.

[Self--Esteem]

You get a lot of mileage out of that straw man, don't you?

I'm pretty sure I've said in this thread that I'm all for people enjoying the fruits of their labor. I have also not said that everything Roosevelt did was unassailable. I am saying that your right to accumulate more wealth than you can reasonably spend is curtailed by the right of your neighbor to not suffer in misery because he can't afford to eat. There is middle ground here, but you refuse to acknowledge it.

Speaking of Benjamin Franklin, he said a few things on the topic. He didn't approve of welfare, but he also didn't approve of wealth for its own sake.

He that is of the opinion that money will do everything may well be suspected of doing everything for money.

Great strawman, right there.

1. While gold is probably the only true money, it is also no money in the classical sense. It's an asset. Something you invest in to keep you afloat in the elderly years follwed by retirement (since the government is incapable of providing fairly for everyone).

2. How can you really justify government supported theft? Because that's basically what the seizure of gold was.

Felt left out, did you?

1. Why is gold the only true money? How is it not any more arbitrary than paper money? Furthermore, I challenge you assertion that the government is less capable than the private market for managing retirement funds.

2. As I said, I don't necessarily think everything Roosevelt did was for the best. He was trying a lot of solutions, and he recognized that the gold standard isn't the panacea people thought it was. Did he go about it the best way? Probably not. Did he act decisively in a time of crisis? Yes. Did it ultimately help to stabilize our economy? Also, yes. Your revision of history doesn't change that.

1.Because gold is free from government influence (usually), inflation save and widely accepted. And I was not talking about the private market, I was talking about the individual itself. Don't you think you know your own interests better than any government?

2. His actions had a negative impact on later times. The outcome of Bretton Woods is one of the reasons we are in such shambles today.

[Self--Esteem]

Its a horrible idea. Especially the thought of shoe prices going up.

Women would be heading straight for our throats.

But really. It's a 0 - 0 situation.

What difference does it make if you give a beggar 100 euros of which he can buy necessities for one week or 500 euros with prices going through the roof so that he might end up paying 500 euros for the same shopping basket?

Precisely. How about instead of handing out money, we use money to create jobs? Something like (but not exactly because SOMEONE will have to have a problem with) FDR's New Deal?

FDR's New Deal was horrible. It took away from every individual the means to care for their own well being. He went as far as to seize and ban private gold.

Yeah. Absolutely horrible. People started moving out of Hoovervilles and back into homes. GDP started rising and people were able to afford food for their families. By the time the US entered the war, people weren't worried about starving to death.

Plus, the nation enjoyed a period of unprecedented economic growth and stability in the decades following. Only a few economists try to say it was in spite of the New Deal, and their conclusions get shredded by the evidence every time they discuss it with other economists. The only reason anybody even knows about them is because the GOP had been trying for years to find a way to discredit it, and used their ideas as talking points.

Damn FDR for managing the nation through recovery and into prosperity. Reality clearly has a liberal bias.

I am sure you would have been happy in the Soviet Union, Maoist China or the GDR, as well.

You know, there are people who actually care for freedom over wealth.

Ooh, nice ad hominem! See, the problem with the Soviet model of socialism is that it was never representative. They all tried to impose it from the top-down, rather than using mandates from the people to decide policy. Hence Yakov Smirnoff's unfortunately immortal meme: "In Soviet Russia, the Party finds you!"

FDR also pointed out that without some basic economic stability, "freedom" is just a word and a meaningless one at that. Someone who can't afford to keep a roof over his head or feed his family doesn't have freedom. He's forced to accept whatever conditions are demanded of him in order to correct it. Someone who can't afford the medicine to keep themselves or their family healthy doesn't have freedom either.

For some reason you seem to have failed to grasp this concept of freedom. Instead you harp on your own concept of freedom, completely ignoring that it includes the freedom to starve or die of disease. I honestly pity you.

So rather than having the chance to prosper, we should all just let the government take away, as long we are save and well fed?

You are ignorant. People back then spent their fortunes on gold, only for the government to take it away. What about those people? Let them starve for the "greater good"?

Benjamin Franklin would be ashamed of today's world population.

Did the US turn into a Soviet-style dictatorship under FDR and I didn't see? Because I recall him being elected 4 times.

Of course he was elected 4 times. The war hindered him from turning the whole economy in a down-loop.

His plans were simply megalomaniac. Anti-competition laws, sending people to jail if they refused to give the government their gold (Executive Order 6102) and privately owned gold remained illegal until 1974. He cut veterans benefits (40%. So much for all your fans of public welfare) and removed 500,000 veterans and widows from the pension roll.

I'd like to confirm those statistics. Sources, please.

While not the best source, it definitely gives an insight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

Read First New Deal

Some passages:

# In a controversial move, Roosevelt gave Executive Order 6102 which made all privately held gold of American citizens property of the US Treasury. This gold confiscation by executive order was argued to be unconstitutional, but Roosevelt's executive order asserts authority to do so based on the "War Time Powers Act" of 1917. Gold bullion remained illegal for Americans to own until President Ford rescinded the order in 1974.[52][53][54][55]

Reform of the economy was the goal of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) of 1933. It tried to end cutthroat competition by forcing industries to come up with codes that established the rules of operation for all firms within specific industries, such as minimum prices, agreements not to compete, and production restrictions. Industry leaders negotiated the codes which were then approved by NIRA officials. Industry needed to raise wages as a condition for approval. Provisions encouraged unions and suspended anti-trust laws. The NIRA was found to be unconstitutional by unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on May 27, 1935. Roosevelt opposed the decision, saying "The fundamental purposes and principles of the NIRA are sound. To abandon them is unthinkable. It would spell the return to industrial and labor chaos."[51] In 1933, major new banking regulations were passed. In 1934, the Securities and Exchange Commission was created to regulate Wall Street, with 1932 campaign fundraiser Joseph P. Kennedy in charge.

Roosevelt tried to keep his campaign promise by cutting the regular federal budget, including 40% cuts to veterans' benefits and cuts in overall military spending. He removed 500,000 veterans and widows from the pension rolls and slashed benefits for the remainder. Protests erupted, led by the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Roosevelt held his ground, but when the angry veterans formed a coalition with Senator Huey Long and passed a huge bonus bill over his veto, he was defeated. He succeeded in cutting federal salaries and the military and naval budgets. He reduced spending on research and education.

[Southern Patriots]

Oh, that was before WWII. He had to handle the budget, or can you think of alternative ways? What happened to veteran's benefits as a result of the war? I'll give you a hint, its the G.I. Bill.

[North Calaveras]

Universal Welfare is a terrible idea, the cost is ridiculas in implementing it. Look at Greece, they have a large welfare program.

[Treznor]

You get a lot of mileage out of that straw man, don't you?

I'm pretty sure I've said in this thread that I'm all for people enjoying the fruits of their labor. I have also not said that everything Roosevelt did was unassailable. I am saying that your right to accumulate more wealth than you can reasonably spend is curtailed by the right of your neighbor to not suffer in misery because he can't afford to eat. There is middle ground here, but you refuse to acknowledge it.

Speaking of Benjamin Franklin, he said a few things on the topic. He didn't approve of welfare, but he also didn't approve of wealth for its own sake.

He that is of the opinion that money will do everything may well be suspected of doing everything for money.

Great strawman, right there.

1. While gold is probably the only true money, it is also no money in the classical sense. It's an asset. Something you invest in to keep you afloat in the elderly years follwed by retirement (since the government is incapable of providing fairly for everyone).

2. How can you really justify government supported theft? Because that's basically what the seizure of gold was.

Felt left out, did you?

1. Why is gold the only true money? How is it not any more arbitrary than paper money? Furthermore, I challenge you assertion that the government is less capable than the private market for managing retirement funds.

2. As I said, I don't necessarily think everything Roosevelt did was for the best. He was trying a lot of solutions, and he recognized that the gold standard isn't the panacea people thought it was. Did he go about it the best way? Probably not. Did he act decisively in a time of crisis? Yes. Did it ultimately help to stabilize our economy? Also, yes. Your revision of history doesn't change that.

1.Because gold is free from government influence (usually), inflation save and widely accepted. And I was not talking about the private market, I was talking about the individual itself. Don't you think you know your own interests better than any government?

2. His actions had a negative impact on later times. The outcome of Bretton Woods is one of the reasons we are in such shambles today.

1. Uh huh. In other words, it's still arbitrary, but you like it better.

People have lots of reasons why they don't spend all of their free time planning their retirement savings. Yes, smart people do. People with free time should. People fascinated by numbers and economics will anyway. But one of the strengths of society is that we don't all have to be experts in every single thing in order to be miniature, self-contained nations in our own right. We lean on each other for support and information, and rely heavily on advice from people who are better informed in other topics. The concept that everyone should be a renaissance man like Da Vinci is extremely idealistic as well as unreasonable.

2. Thank you for your historical revision. It's very amusing.

[North Calaveras]

whos going to produce if they have a steady income from the government? Where's the money coming from?

[Southern Patriots]

whos going to produce if they have a steady income from the government? Where's the money coming from?

Magic hope and forest sprites.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

whos going to produce if they have a steady income from the government? Where's the money coming from?

Spending the money in the economy and from people working.

[Treznor]

whos going to produce if they have a steady income from the government? Where's the money coming from?

People who have other motivations to work besides money. It may give you a headache to think about it, but some people work because they love what they do. Other people work out of a sense of responsibility or duty. Some people work only because they can't make money doing what they love. Removing the money motivation has flaws, to be sure, but that doesn't mean there aren't other motivations out there.

[North Calaveras]

whos going to produce if they have a steady income from the government? Where's the money coming from?

People who have other motivations to work besides money. It may give you a headache to think about it, but some people work because they love what they do. Other people work out of a sense of responsibility or duty. Some people work only because they can't make money doing what they love. Removing the money motivation has flaws, to be sure, but that doesn't mean there aren't other motivations out there.

So everyone is just going to do jobs they want to do then, since they are already on welfare, why do a crappy job when the government is paying you already, wouldn't you choose something fun.

[Treznor]

whos going to produce if they have a steady income from the government? Where's the money coming from?

People who have other motivations to work besides money. It may give you a headache to think about it, but some people work because they love what they do. Other people work out of a sense of responsibility or duty. Some people work only because they can't make money doing what they love. Removing the money motivation has flaws, to be sure, but that doesn't mean there aren't other motivations out there.

So everyone is just going to do jobs they want to do then, since they are already on welfare, why do a crappy job when the government is paying you already, wouldn't you choose something fun.

It's like you didn't read what I wrote. Imagine that.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

whos going to produce if they have a steady income from the government? Where's the money coming from?

People who have other motivations to work besides money. It may give you a headache to think about it, but some people work because they love what they do. Other people work out of a sense of responsibility or duty. Some people work only because they can't make money doing what they love. Removing the money motivation has flaws, to be sure, but that doesn't mean there aren't other motivations out there.

So everyone is just going to do jobs they want to do then, since they are already on welfare, why do a crappy job when the government is paying you already, wouldn't you choose something fun.

Name me one 'fun' job that doesn't require hard work and a good education.

[Bafuria]

As right wing as I may seem to be, I actually am in favor of this

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

[Self--Esteem]

You get a lot of mileage out of that straw man, don't you?

I'm pretty sure I've said in this thread that I'm all for people enjoying the fruits of their labor. I have also not said that everything Roosevelt did was unassailable. I am saying that your right to accumulate more wealth than you can reasonably spend is curtailed by the right of your neighbor to not suffer in misery because he can't afford to eat. There is middle ground here, but you refuse to acknowledge it.

Speaking of Benjamin Franklin, he said a few things on the topic. He didn't approve of welfare, but he also didn't approve of wealth for its own sake.

He that is of the opinion that money will do everything may well be suspected of doing everything for money.

Great strawman, right there.

1. While gold is probably the only true money, it is also no money in the classical sense. It's an asset. Something you invest in to keep you afloat in the elderly years follwed by retirement (since the government is incapable of providing fairly for everyone).

2. How can you really justify government supported theft? Because that's basically what the seizure of gold was.

Felt left out, did you?

1. Why is gold the only true money? How is it not any more arbitrary than paper money? Furthermore, I challenge you assertion that the government is less capable than the private market for managing retirement funds.

2. As I said, I don't necessarily think everything Roosevelt did was for the best. He was trying a lot of solutions, and he recognized that the gold standard isn't the panacea people thought it was. Did he go about it the best way? Probably not. Did he act decisively in a time of crisis? Yes. Did it ultimately help to stabilize our economy? Also, yes. Your revision of history doesn't change that.

1.Because gold is free from government influence (usually), inflation save and widely accepted. And I was not talking about the private market, I was talking about the individual itself. Don't you think you know your own interests better than any government?

2. His actions had a negative impact on later times. The outcome of Bretton Woods is one of the reasons we are in such shambles today.

1. Uh huh. In other words, it's still arbitrary, but you like it better.

People have lots of reasons why they don't spend all of their free time planning their retirement savings. Yes, smart people do. People with free time should. People fascinated by numbers and economics will anyway. But one of the strengths of society is that we don't all have to be experts in every single thing in order to be miniature, self-contained nations in our own right. We lean on each other for support and information, and rely heavily on advice from people who are better informed in other topics. The concept that everyone should be a renaissance man like Da Vinci is extremely idealistic as well as unreasonable.

2. Thank you for your historical revision. It's very amusing.

1. You are simple minded if you really think you need to be an expert in order to care for your self. Building up your own retirement fond is extremely easy and does not take more than 2 hours of deep planning.

As it is today, people in many countries are forced to pay into a public retirement fund, even if they were smart enough to care for themselves. How is this preferable?

2. I can't wait to see you deniers bleeding out of your mouth, when Keynesianism fails once again. I hope you will eventually stop with those bullshit accusations that it's all the fault of those evil Austrian School economists (who actually foresaw the crisis as early as 2004-2005). Repeat: It is not the fault of the free market, because there exists no free market! Neither in Europe, nor the US!

[North Calaveras]

whos going to produce if they have a steady income from the government? Where's the money coming from?

People who have other motivations to work besides money. It may give you a headache to think about it, but some people work because they love what they do. Other people work out of a sense of responsibility or duty. Some people work only because they can't make money doing what they love. Removing the money motivation has flaws, to be sure, but that doesn't mean there aren't other motivations out there.

So everyone is just going to do jobs they want to do then, since they are already on welfare, why do a crappy job when the government is paying you already, wouldn't you choose something fun.

It's like you didn't read what I wrote. Imagine that.

Oh I read it, i just don't see how anybody is going to work if they are going to be put on welfare. It happens now in the united states, they don't work because they have these benefits.

[Treznor]

1. You are simple minded if you really think you need to be an expert in order to care for your self. Building up your own retirement fond is extremely easy and does not take more than 2 hours of deep planning.

As it is today, people in many countries are forced to pay into a public retirement fund, even if they were smart enough to care for themselves. How is this preferable?

2. I can't wait to see you deniers bleeding out of your mouth, when Keynesianism fails once again. I hope you will eventually stop with those bullshit accusations that it's all the fault of those evil Austrian School economists (who actually foresaw the crisis as early as 2004-2005). Repeat: It is not the fault of the free market, because there exists no free market! Neither in Europe, nor the US!

1. Thank you for your humble assessment of my mental faculties. I'll note you completely missed the point, but I am somehow not surprised.

2. I'm still waiting for you Free Market cultists to acknowledge the failure of free market policies over the last thirty years. All I'm seeing is the frantic movement of goalposts. Good thing I'm not holding my breath.

[Treznor]

whos going to produce if they have a steady income from the government? Where's the money coming from?

People who have other motivations to work besides money. It may give you a headache to think about it, but some people work because they love what they do. Other people work out of a sense of responsibility or duty. Some people work only because they can't make money doing what they love. Removing the money motivation has flaws, to be sure, but that doesn't mean there aren't other motivations out there.

So everyone is just going to do jobs they want to do then, since they are already on welfare, why do a crappy job when the government is paying you already, wouldn't you choose something fun.

It's like you didn't read what I wrote. Imagine that.

Oh I read it, i just don't see how anybody is going to work if they are going to be put on welfare. It happens now in the united states, they don't work because they have these benefits.

Yeah, I figured it would give you a headache to think about motivations other than money. Sorry about that.

You see, some people need that motivator. I acknowledge this. Not everyone does and the fact that you can't conceive of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I have not stopped writing just because I haven't made a penny from it.

[North Calaveras]

1. You are simple minded if you really think you need to be an expert in order to care for your self. Building up your own retirement fond is extremely easy and does not take more than 2 hours of deep planning.

As it is today, people in many countries are forced to pay into a public retirement fund, even if they were smart enough to care for themselves. How is this preferable?

2. I can't wait to see you deniers bleeding out of your mouth, when Keynesianism fails once again. I hope you will eventually stop with those bullshit accusations that it's all the fault of those evil Austrian School economists (who actually foresaw the crisis as early as 2004-2005). Repeat: It is not the fault of the free market, because there exists no free market! Neither in Europe, nor the US!

1. Thank you for your humble assessment of my mental faculties. I'll note you completely missed the point, but I am somehow not surprised.

2. I'm still waiting for you Free Market cultists to acknowledge the failure of free market policies over the last thirty years. All I'm seeing is the frantic movement of goalposts. Good thing I'm not holding my breath.

Let's put that up against socialist economys.

[Self--Esteem]

1. You are simple minded if you really think you need to be an expert in order to care for your self. Building up your own retirement fond is extremely easy and does not take more than 2 hours of deep planning.

As it is today, people in many countries are forced to pay into a public retirement fund, even if they were smart enough to care for themselves. How is this preferable?

2. I can't wait to see you deniers bleeding out of your mouth, when Keynesianism fails once again. I hope you will eventually stop with those bullshit accusations that it's all the fault of those evil Austrian School economists (who actually foresaw the crisis as early as 2004-2005). Repeat: It is not the fault of the free market, because there exists no free market! Neither in Europe, nor the US!

1. Thank you for your humble assessment of my mental faculties. I'll note you completely missed the point, but I am somehow not surprised.

2. I'm still waiting for you Free Market cultists to acknowledge the failure of free market policies over the last thirty years. All I'm seeing is the frantic movement of goalposts. Good thing I'm not holding my breath.

2. Again. We did not have free market policies over the last 30 years. Stop blaming private individuals and start blaming the FEDs and stupid politicians such as Gordon Brown and George W.

[Treznor]

1. You are simple minded if you really think you need to be an expert in order to care for your self. Building up your own retirement fond is extremely easy and does not take more than 2 hours of deep planning.

As it is today, people in many countries are forced to pay into a public retirement fund, even if they were smart enough to care for themselves. How is this preferable?

2. I can't wait to see you deniers bleeding out of your mouth, when Keynesianism fails once again. I hope you will eventually stop with those bullshit accusations that it's all the fault of those evil Austrian School economists (who actually foresaw the crisis as early as 2004-2005). Repeat: It is not the fault of the free market, because there exists no free market! Neither in Europe, nor the US!

1. Thank you for your humble assessment of my mental faculties. I'll note you completely missed the point, but I am somehow not surprised.

2. I'm still waiting for you Free Market cultists to acknowledge the failure of free market policies over the last thirty years. All I'm seeing is the frantic movement of goalposts. Good thing I'm not holding my breath.

Let's put that up against socialist economys.

Sure. I nominate Sweden, Norway, Denmark, France, Germany, Australia and Italy.

[North Calaveras]

1. You are simple minded if you really think you need to be an expert in order to care for your self. Building up your own retirement fond is extremely easy and does not take more than 2 hours of deep planning.

As it is today, people in many countries are forced to pay into a public retirement fund, even if they were smart enough to care for themselves. How is this preferable?

2. I can't wait to see you deniers bleeding out of your mouth, when Keynesianism fails once again. I hope you will eventually stop with those bullshit accusations that it's all the fault of those evil Austrian School economists (who actually foresaw the crisis as early as 2004-2005). Repeat: It is not the fault of the free market, because there exists no free market! Neither in Europe, nor the US!

1. Thank you for your humble assessment of my mental faculties. I'll note you completely missed the point, but I am somehow not surprised.

2. I'm still waiting for you Free Market cultists to acknowledge the failure of free market policies over the last thirty years. All I'm seeing is the frantic movement of goalposts. Good thing I'm not holding my breath.

Let's put that up against socialist economys.

Sure. I nominate Sweden, Norway, Denmark, France, Germany, Australia and Italy.

These economy's are more successful than that of the United States?

[Treznor]

1. You are simple minded if you really think you need to be an expert in order to care for your self. Building up your own retirement fond is extremely easy and does not take more than 2 hours of deep planning.

As it is today, people in many countries are forced to pay into a public retirement fund, even if they were smart enough to care for themselves. How is this preferable?

2. I can't wait to see you deniers bleeding out of your mouth, when Keynesianism fails once again. I hope you will eventually stop with those bullshit accusations that it's all the fault of those evil Austrian School economists (who actually foresaw the crisis as early as 2004-2005). Repeat: It is not the fault of the free market, because there exists no free market! Neither in Europe, nor the US!

1. Thank you for your humble assessment of my mental faculties. I'll note you completely missed the point, but I am somehow not surprised.

2. I'm still waiting for you Free Market cultists to acknowledge the failure of free market policies over the last thirty years. All I'm seeing is the frantic movement of goalposts. Good thing I'm not holding my breath.

2. Again. We did not have free market policies over the last 30 years. Stop blaming private individuals and start blaming the FEDs and stupid politicians such as Gordon Brown and George W.

Sure we didn't. And sadly, if you repeat it enough somebody might believe it.