Universal Welfare: yea or nay?

[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.

[Treznor]

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.

[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.

And it saved the United States from total economic ruin and collapse.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

I have to admit that keynesianism stopped the Great Depression, but it had terrible consequences later.

[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.

[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.

Cool strawman.

FDR's approach wasn't about curbing freedoms, it was about preventing ruin and starvation. Not like you can't buy gold now.

[Treznor]

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.

[Pythria]

This would bankrupt the US, or whoever was providing the money. If you printed it, inflation would go through the Oort Cloud. If you taxed for it, the country would collapse, because there simply wouldn't be enough money. For one week- 6.9 billion people. $200 per person, per week. 52 weeks a year. That's 71.76 trillion dollars per year. Besides, even if it was workable, I wouldn't want to be forced give away my money to other people through welfare. I've got nothing against charities, and I'll donate to those, but I don't want to be forced into it.

[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.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

I wouldn't want to be forced give away my money to other people through welfare.

Don't you already?

[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.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

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?

[Treznor]

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.

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.

[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.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

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.

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.

Margaret Thatcher too.

[Southern Patriots]

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.

Which is what would happen if we let big business run everything the way they want like you want them to do, instead of having a democratically-elected government regulate things.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

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.

Which is what would happen if we let big business run everything the way they want like you want them to do, instead of having a democratically-elected government regulate things.

It really depends on what kind of regulation. Some regulation to ensure integrity and make sure that they do not default on loansor become bankrupt is okay. But anymore than that andyou'll need a veryyyyyyyyy good reason.

[Southern Patriots]

I can agree with that, EY. A balance must be struck. The center must hold.

[Treznor]

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.

Which is what would happen if we let big business run everything the way they want like you want them to do, instead of having a democratically-elected government regulate things.

It really depends on what kind of regulation. Some regulation to ensure integrity and make sure that they do not default on loansor become bankrupt is okay. But anymore than that andyou'll need a veryyyyyyyyy good reason.

How about regulation to ensure that loans aren't issued with hidden fees and penalties, so the person obtaining the loan isn't driven into bankruptcy because they don't have specialized training in law and banking matters?

[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.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

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.

Which is what would happen if we let big business run everything the way they want like you want them to do, instead of having a democratically-elected government regulate things.

It really depends on what kind of regulation. Some regulation to ensure integrity and make sure that they do not default on loansor become bankrupt is okay. But anymore than that andyou'll need a veryyyyyyyyy good reason.

How about regulation to ensure that loans aren't issued with hidden fees and penalties, so the person obtaining the loan isn't driven into bankruptcy because they don't have specialized training in law and banking matters?

What is integrity?

[EvilDarkMagicians]

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?

[Treznor]

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.

Which is what would happen if we let big business run everything the way they want like you want them to do, instead of having a democratically-elected government regulate things.

It really depends on what kind of regulation. Some regulation to ensure integrity and make sure that they do not default on loansor become bankrupt is okay. But anymore than that andyou'll need a veryyyyyyyyy good reason.

How about regulation to ensure that loans aren't issued with hidden fees and penalties, so the person obtaining the loan isn't driven into bankruptcy because they don't have specialized training in law and banking matters?

What is integrity?

A lot more complicated than you seem to think.

[Self--Esteem]

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.

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.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

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.

Which is what would happen if we let big business run everything the way they want like you want them to do, instead of having a democratically-elected government regulate things.

It really depends on what kind of regulation. Some regulation to ensure integrity and make sure that they do not default on loansor become bankrupt is okay. But anymore than that andyou'll need a veryyyyyyyyy good reason.

How about regulation to ensure that loans aren't issued with hidden fees and penalties, so the person obtaining the loan isn't driven into bankruptcy because they don't have specialized training in law and banking matters?

What is integrity?

A lot more complicated than you seem to think.

Does it not include what you just mentioned?