Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Discussion of the recent unfolding of history.

Re: Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:54 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote: You inspired me to look into and take up day trading.
Cool. making money without producing anything. Squeeking in an extra margin . Fancy ass parasitism.

Winning at day trading is just beating other day traders. No "real people" ever lose anything because of it. Its not much different from poker. If you can discern and process information, you beat those that go about it blindly.
Daytrading as a whole is making money off nothing. There is limited money in circulation. Money that could have gone to someone actually working, is going to you. You did not create this area of non-work income, and you are correct that the particular dollar you earn came from another one of you. But the lot of you are trying to make money off of playing video games. Would be fine in some other economy, or even if, like skilled video game players there is even an audience for their skills growing. But as it is it's just you are being the winning parasite.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2328
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Postby barbarianhorde » Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:40 pm

That truly makes no sense at all.
Why would some one working at McDonald's deserve my money? Why can't I invest it in a stock I like?

If you want to pretend to be a moral person, lets start here: Don't tell people what to do with their own money. Just make yourself useful to someone else.

But then you can't be here bitching. We all know the deal.

Plus, stock trading begins with accurate assessments of a companies actual worth and when done with half a wit it is an actual support of worthy companies. Without investors there wouldn't even be the computer or iPhone you're using to utter your absurd complaints.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2453
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:44 pm

barbarianhorde wrote:That truly makes no sense at all.
Why would some one working at McDonald's deserve my money?
I can't find where I said someone at McDonalds deserves your money.

Why can't I invest it in a stock I like?

If you want to pretend to be a moral person, lets start here: Don't tell people what to do with their own money. Just make yourself useful to someone else.
Well, language has it's ambiguities, but to me this is being silly. I didn't tell someone what to do anymore than you just told me what to say. Or is your criticizing me a sign you don't believe in free speech? I doubt that, that would be as absurd a conclusion on my part as yours of me here.

Daytrading is not investing a company you think is good. I am not sure if you know what day trading is. Daytrading is making money off the fluctuations of stocks. Flicking around here and there with short term investments that need have nothing at all to do with 'good companies'. And in it's extreme form it's the shit that brought about the 2008 crash, precisely because it is not connected to anything of real value. Let me clarify that. It does not to do with the actual worth of products and services. It has to do with guessing at - though skill is definitely involved - small changes over tiny periods of time.

Without investors there wouldn't even be the computer or iPhone you're using to utter your absurd complaints.
Because, of course, the only possible way to do things is the way they are currently done. Even if we assumed, as you do, that daytrading is the only kind of investment pattern - which it is not - rather than something that is recent, along with things like derivatives - you're still assuming that this particular model is the only possible one. And if we did not use the stock model, no one could open a business or make it grow. Because when you imagine the world without this, you just subtract. But that's a whole other discussion. Daytrading is just one of the new forms of investment - and 'investment' is a poor term for it - and, yes, it is parasitic.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2328
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Postby barbarianhorde » Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:43 pm

The 2008 crash was due to the top rating agency giving bundles of subprime mortgages (loans that would never be paid back) triple A ratings as securities until a way to short mortgages was produced. If you're gonna pretend to inform me, try harder at sounding like you know at least what we all know.

I used McDonald's as a random example. You said people who day trade are reprehensible because they could also give their money away.

In order to be successful at day trading you need to be investing sensibly. If you think you know better, try it.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2453
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Postby barbarianhorde » Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:53 pm

Back on the main theme, the idea that politicians should be mandated to equalize human conditions for some top down fairness is pure Communism. So Mr R as well as Pedro I Rengel sound like Communists to me.

America isn't about fairness or equality. There are a lot of countries where everyone has the same level of wealth and gets by just fine. There is nothing wrong with that. But it ain't American and never will be.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2453
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Postby barbarianhorde » Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:36 am

And really the only ones who are really to blame for that whole crisis are the "regular folks" who simply didn't pay their mortgages.
That's what caused the whole collapse. People "buying" houses and living in them without paying.

You can't blame that on the salespeople.
It's just horrendously stupid to think you can buy a house without paying for it.
These are the dumbasses that lost their homes but also caused the entire economy to collapse.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2453
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Feb 01, 2019 1:28 am

Call me a communist again, I'll call you a civilized retinue.

Otherwise yes, that is correct. Very good assessment.

The issue is not how you make capitalism morally correct. The question is how do you make it work.

Ask poor people who live to see 75 if it is morally correct, and then go fuck yourself.

Turns out, it's greed for wealth and beautiful things and greatness that produces better living conditions for the prole, not bleeding hearts. G'figure.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2130
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Feb 01, 2019 1:33 am

Way #1 to make it work: make prevent communist regimes from asserting control over the world. Everything else is secondary. I count nazis and fascists as communists. For for them, 'tis all about the commune. Not the individuzzle. The fhurer and the whatever it was they used to call mussolini and Franco where godheads that allowed for the commune. You know, in that sense the communists are still better then them. They aren't THAT weak.

The individual, bitch. The individual needs leveraged debt.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2130
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Feb 01, 2019 6:47 am

2008 crash was a result of regulations that forced banks to loan money to subprime borrowers and then those borrower taking more money than they could afford to pay back and spending it on mcmansions.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25945
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Postby Serendipper » Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:45 am

Mr Reasonable wrote:But I don't even think that Rush Limbaugh thinks that Rush Limbaugh is doing good for the world.


Likely true!

Rush flunked out of school before deciding to proselytize how much smarter he is than academia and capitalize on the ignorance of layfolks, who're prone to mistaking cockiness for intelligence, by peddling short-sighted ideas, based mainly on hate, that seem sensible only on the surface, the depth of which is about all either he or his audience is equipped to explore.

A DittoHead is a special variety of idiot: the arrogant who congratulate themselves for abilities they don't have and summarily demonize intelligentsia for lacking a "common sense" that is only common to uneducated people.

Hannity was a dropout too, which qualifies him as genius by conservative reckoning, oops but then Liberty University gave him a handout: an honorary degree. But conservatives still regard him as smart, so how can this paradox exist? Well, Liberty University teaches the earth is 6000 years old, so I can only surmise if one is educated in bullshit, it doesn't count against their common sense... even if it was a handout they didn't earn.

Now this guy is REALLY stupid:

Paul Krugman

Professor of Economics at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York
Columnist for The New York Times

Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography.

Previously a professor of economics at MIT, and later at Princeton University.

Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics.

Author or editor of 27 books, including scholarly works, textbooks, and books for a more general audience.

Published over 200 scholarly articles in professional journals and edited volumes.

Alma mater

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Yale University


Yup, that's how you identify dummies. The smart people dropout and hop on the radio to pound their chest for avoiding stupid things like nobel prizes and degrees that sap everyone's common sense.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Postby Serendipper » Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:58 am

Mr Reasonable wrote:2008 crash was a result of regulations that forced banks to loan money to subprime borrowers and then those borrower taking more money than they could afford to pay back and spending it on mcmansions.

Corruption existed everywhere. They packaged all those bad loans in CDOs and peddled them to wall street which ended up in the hands of sovereign wealth funds, pensions, etc, but the ratings agencies were in competition to get the ratings business so they rated them AAA for fear of losing the contract. Everyone looked the other way so long as everyone was making money.

And you coulda sold a house to a dead guy back then.... maybe even a dog. There was no income-check, no out-of-pocket expense, nothing.

I can't think of any link in the chain where shenanigans didn't happen. There really is nowhere to place the blame except the unregulated, freemarket general mindset: the idea that the market can regulate itself without a governor; it infected every participant.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Feb 01, 2019 8:04 am

Barbarian, I'm not a communist. But the government is currently in a position such that their actions to some extent determine the distribution of wealth. It's the rules that are in place that have created the billionaire class and that have made it increasingly difficult for average people to retire at a reasonable age and to get basic healthcare. So I understand what you're saying that it's not the role of government to distribute wealth, but if you agree with that then it has to work both ways. Creating a regulatory environment that facilitates a massive consolidation of it is in fact a redistribution. And it's one that doesn't serve the majority...which is what they're supposed to do. I get it that we can't find a cure for cancer unless someone has enough money in a big pile someplace to stop what they're doing and get a job like that done...but that's not the only instance, nor is it the most common type of thing that happens with large consolidations of wealth.

What happened to the idea that a person ought be able to work an honest job and make an honest living? Why is it that we start from the premise that since a guy has a billion dollars that he must have earned it, and that it's his and that to take some of it would be immoral? How did he earn it? What were the circumstances that allowed him to amass that fortune?

I'm asking. I don't think all cases are the same. I don't think that every rich person is evil. But there is such a thing as more money than you can ever spend. There is such a thing as working an entire life and never escaping poverty. What do you say to the person who works full time for 40 years and ends up with nothing to show for it and who eventually dies from a stroke while bagging groceries in a walmart at 68 years old because he has to in order to keep his electricity on?
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25945
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Feb 01, 2019 8:13 am

Serendipper wrote:
Mr Reasonable wrote:2008 crash was a result of regulations that forced banks to loan money to subprime borrowers and then those borrower taking more money than they could afford to pay back and spending it on mcmansions.

Corruption existed everywhere. They packaged all those bad loans in CDOs and peddled them to wall street which ended up in the hands of sovereign wealth funds, pensions, etc, but the ratings agencies were in competition to get the ratings business so they rated them AAA for fear of losing the contract. Everyone looked the other way so long as everyone was making money.

And you coulda sold a house to a dead guy back then.... maybe even a dog. There was no income-check, no out-of-pocket expense, nothing.

I can't think of any link in the chain where shenanigans didn't happen. There really is nowhere to place the blame except the unregulated, freemarket general mindset: the idea that the market can regulate itself without a governor; it infected every participant.



It's that whole mentality of getting rich quick. The idiot homebuyers thought they'd borrow 300k while making 50k, then sell the house for 700k and retire at 45. The banks just wanted the mortgages because at the end of the day they can garnish the social security of the homeless who they foreclosed on. The traders wanted the CDOs because they put big numbers on the books, risk be damned, and everyone just thought that the government wouldn't let a mass exodus of homebuyers flooding the homeless shelters happen.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25945
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Feb 01, 2019 8:15 am

Serendipper you make a valid point. I'm about to be 40, and have been all over and seen and done all kinds of shit and there's still a certain class of people who would narrow me down to the simple fact that I went to college when it comes time to decide how they're going to judge my intelligence. In many cases, the dumber the person is...the more likely they are to resent the educated and rationalize how college is stupid.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25945
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Postby barbarianhorde » Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:08 am

Rengel please don't call me that. I'm sorry I called you a Communist.
I think Capitalism works because rather than a model of proper behavior, it is a psychological license to exist. It only works when it is allowed to be that.

Mr R, I agree government regulation is to blame.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2453
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Postby barbarianhorde » Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:14 am

Mr Reasonable wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Mr Reasonable wrote:2008 crash was a result of regulations that forced banks to loan money to subprime borrowers and then those borrower taking more money than they could afford to pay back and spending it on mcmansions.

Corruption existed everywhere. They packaged all those bad loans in CDOs and peddled them to wall street which ended up in the hands of sovereign wealth funds, pensions, etc, but the ratings agencies were in competition to get the ratings business so they rated them AAA for fear of losing the contract. Everyone looked the other way so long as everyone was making money.

And you coulda sold a house to a dead guy back then.... maybe even a dog. There was no income-check, no out-of-pocket expense, nothing.

I can't think of any link in the chain where shenanigans didn't happen. There really is nowhere to place the blame except the unregulated, freemarket general mindset: the idea that the market can regulate itself without a governor; it infected every participant.



It's that whole mentality of getting rich quick. The idiot homebuyers thought they'd borrow 300k while making 50k, then sell the house for 700k and retire at 45. The banks just wanted the mortgages because at the end of the day they can garnish the social security of the homeless who they foreclosed on. The traders wanted the CDOs because they put big numbers on the books, risk be damned, and everyone just thought that the government wouldn't let a mass exodus of homebuyers flooding the homeless shelters happen.


It's an insult to the principle of trade to call these people home buyers.
Whoever "bought" a home without paying for it should be thankful there are homeless shelters. These don't exist in the Congo.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2453
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Postby barbarianhorde » Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:33 am

I was enjoying Homer and appreciating Xenophon at university until I made a thesis on Minoan Crete wherein based on a study of murals of Knossos I suggested it may have been a matriarchal society and thereby evoked the wrath and contempt of my professor who set out to get me removed. I beat him to it and got a specialized job based on some technical skills I had acquired as a kid. Thanks to that I didn't get in student debt.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2453
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Feb 01, 2019 10:12 am

Well I didn't want to say "homeowner".
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25945
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Postby Serendipper » Fri Feb 01, 2019 10:27 am

Mr Reasonable wrote:Serendipper you make a valid point. I'm about to be 40, and have been all over and seen and done all kinds of shit and there's still a certain class of people who would narrow me down to the simple fact that I went to college when it comes time to decide how they're going to judge my intelligence. In many cases, the dumber the person is...the more likely they are to resent the educated and rationalize how college is stupid.

I'm beginning to define conservatism as the proposition that smart people are stupid and stupid people are smart. They will value your intelligence until you disagree with them, then you'll lack "common sense". As best I can tell, "book smarts" primarily causes a loss of "common sense" and I'll concede there may be some truth in that correlation, but what truth resides is only applicable to a single person. But what is it that the vast majority of smart people can't see? And why is it only uneducated people can see it? Instead of humbly admitting that NOT studying economics didn't make them experts and that there may be something they haven't considered, they doubledown with "liberal agenda, indoctrination, brainwashing, omg protect the ego!"

Common sense is what's readily apparent and obvious to even the dumbest person, and what's most obvious is that the earth is flat because: look around, don't it look flat? It's common sense! Stupid science disagrees. It's the government's fault!



It's common sense that we could just keep going faster and faster right? It's common sense! But stupid Einstein says no.

Common sense is essentially a superficial overview of a situation with no depth of exploration.

Like the gold standard seems sensible until I ask what happens when the population expands and people get richer, where will all the new gold come from? "Oh yeah I didn't think of that." Some cocky-sounding guy on youtube said money needed to be backed by something and it seemed sensible until we actually think beyond the slogan.

Or "the min wage will drive up prices." How? Prices are already as high as companies can push them. Are we to think walmart is being charitable by offering lower prices than it could get away with? Hell no! They're charging the max they can without losing business and revenue and profit. 21 times over 80 years the min wage has been raised and it's always "the sky is falling" with those people. The reason prices go up is: people have more money! They buy more stuff and increase demand, which increases prices that people gleefully pay. In my min wage study, states with higher min wages had 10% higher gas prices (on ave), but 30% higher median incomes (on ave). Who wouldn't take a 10% hike for 30% more pay?

It's dumb idea after dumb idea and it's stemming from the fact that they haven't thought it out and are too proud to admit they don't know something. And there's the terror that someone somewhere might get something for nothing.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Postby barbarianhorde » Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:18 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Mr Reasonable wrote:Serendipper you make a valid point. I'm about to be 40, and have been all over and seen and done all kinds of shit and there's still a certain class of people who would narrow me down to the simple fact that I went to college when it comes time to decide how they're going to judge my intelligence. In many cases, the dumber the person is...the more likely they are to resent the educated and rationalize how college is stupid.

I'm beginning to define conservatism as the proposition that smart people are stupid and stupid people are smart. They will value your intelligence until you disagree with them, then you'll lack "common sense". As best I can tell, "book smarts" primarily causes a loss of "common sense" and I'll concede there may be some truth in that correlation, but what truth resides is only applicable to a single person. But what is it that the vast majority of smart people can't see? And why is it only uneducated people can see it? Instead of humbly admitting that NOT studying economics didn't make them experts and that there may be something they haven't considered, they doubledown with "liberal agenda, indoctrination, brainwashing, omg protect the ego!"

Common sense is what's readily apparent and obvious to even the dumbest person, and what's most obvious is that the earth is flat because: look around, don't it look flat? It's common sense! Stupid science disagrees. It's the government's fault!



It's common sense that we could just keep going faster and faster right? It's common sense! But stupid Einstein says no.

Common sense is essentially a superficial overview of a situation with no depth of exploration.

Like the gold standard seems sensible until I ask what happens when the population expands and people get richer, where will all the new gold come from? "Oh yeah I didn't think of that." Some cocky-sounding guy on youtube said money needed to be backed by something and it seemed sensible until we actually think beyond the slogan.

Or "the min wage will drive up prices." How? Prices are already as high as companies can push them. Are we to think walmart is being charitable by offering lower prices than it could get away with? Hell no! They're charging the max they can without losing business and revenue and profit. 21 times over 80 years the min wage has been raised and it's always "the sky is falling" with those people. The reason prices go up is: people have more money! They buy more stuff and increase demand, which increases prices that people gleefully pay. In my min wage study, states with higher min wages had 10% higher gas prices (on ave), but 30% higher median incomes (on ave). Who wouldn't take a 10% hike for 30% more pay?

It's dumb idea after dumb idea and it's stemming from the fact that they haven't thought it out and are too proud to admit they don't know something. And there's the terror that someone somewhere might get something for nothing.

Most people that read Latin and Greek that I know are conservatives.
"Book smarts" is a toddler term. Which books? Rubbish on "Social Sciences"? Dan Brown?
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2453
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Feb 01, 2019 8:21 pm

These posts are getting really long and wordy, I can't promise I read all of them.

But here, some points:

Distribution of wealth. That's a dandy. That will be Obama's claim to fame, making that up or bringing it to the fore. Distribution of wealth.

Because, as we all know, wealth is a river that flows and then evil capitalists divert it to their own ranches or whatever. It comes from God in a determined quantity and precedes human activity.

"2008 crash was a result of regulations that forced banks to loan money to subprime borrowers and then those borrower taking more money than they could afford to pay back and spending it on mcmansions."

A lot of people don't know this. But it's true. Fanny May and Freddy Mac is a GOVERNMENT(ok, -ish, governmentish) institution. They were covered by the government to take inmense risks while packaging this risk as not risk at all and had the kind of capital at their disposition that buys and sells regions of the planet. Why? Believe it or not, the original rationale had to do with keeping house prices affordable for the hard working man who evil capitalists just want to roll over and mistreat.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2130
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Feb 01, 2019 8:38 pm

So often, this is the logic of the left:

I feel bad about this thing, make a regulation that fixes it. (doesn't understand at all the dynamics of the thing causing the bother)

*regulation is put in place*

The regulation, because it was put in place with no actual understanding of the situation, both doesn't fix supposed problem and creates a bunch more.

Leftists: there is a problem here. Since no regulation exists to fix that problem, it is evidently a problem of not having regulation.

*regulation regulating the previous regulation is put in place*

Right wingers: it was your fault to begin with! You had th-

Leftists: EVOOOOOOOOOLL!

Right Wingers: but-

Leftists: RACIST EVOOOOOOLLLLL!

Right Wingers: you-

Leftists: Ok, on to the next subject.

*they move on to the next subject*
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2130
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Feb 01, 2019 8:45 pm

The only people shrewd enough, intelligent and determined and hard boned enough, to actually pose economics as a problem of regulation and actually understand the dynamics of the thing they are regulating, is the Chinese communist party.

I know, in their hearts, that's what a lot of the more educated, more intelligent, shrewder Western left would like. Thanfully, they don't have the heritage of a 100 years of starvation and insanity that the communists in China have, so they aren't hard boned enough to get it done.


In my experience, there are two and only two kinds of leftists.

1. People that have feelings and haven't looked into the claims made by left or right. It is forgivable to believe the claims of the left before looking into them, to believe the stance of the left corresponds with the real world before checking, as the real world precedes thought and there is no reason thought should a priori correspond with how things actually are. I used to be this kind until, no thanks to your fancy Universities, I started looking into the claims one by one. Guess what there was a totally unexpected and unfailing 100% rate of?

2. Actual communists. These are hardcore people that I respect and admire, and are my enemies. Very few of those actually around (enough to make ass puppets of the first kind).
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2130
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Postby Serendipper » Sat Feb 02, 2019 12:21 am

barbarianhorde wrote:Most people that read Latin and Greek that I know are conservatives.

Oh yeah? Most people who can't read at all are conservatives.

"Book smarts" is a toddler term. Which books? Rubbish on "Social Sciences"? Dan Brown?

Nice try. Physics, math, literature, medicine, programming... you name it. Anything that requires intelligence.

If you ever return from your safe space shielding you from realizing that you're allying yourself with the dummies, you can peruse the 27 points correlating cognitive deficiency with conservatism viewtopic.php?f=3&t=194612
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Postby Serendipper » Sat Feb 02, 2019 12:27 am

Pedro I Rengel wrote:These posts are getting really long and wordy, I can't promise I read all of them.

Safe space much?

Distribution of wealth. That's a dandy. That will be Obama's claim to fame, making that up or bringing it to the fore. Distribution of wealth.

Obama was an economic conservative. The last liberal president was Carter.

Because, as we all know, wealth is a river that flows and then evil capitalists divert it to their own ranches or whatever. It comes from God in a determined quantity and precedes human activity.

If the rich are getting richer, then where is the money coming from? Magic? Obviously it comes from everyone else and the capitalistic periodic downturns happen when the consumers have been bled dry by transferring all their money as profits and interest to the rich.

When loans are created, where does the money come from to pay the interest?

You haven't ventured past square one in pondering this.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Current Events



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users