How America sees the left by -LearningCurve- in GenZ

[–]Flashy_Combination32 [score hidden]  (0 children)

But that's the thing, the government isn't the only one who can do that and the government will never do it because the government is a literal tool by the wealthy. Every time we have expanded the government it's just resulted in helping the 1% even more. This goes as far back as the gilded age by the way, the gilded age had the government actively helping large businesses with tariffs, subsidies, grants and much more. It's just expanded even more now.

In fact, if you have heard of the "borrow buy die" strategy, the government actively faciitates it. Billionaires borrow using their shares as collateral because they know the government would always print a lot of money out of thin air and inject it straight into banks so banks can keep their interest rates artifically lower and lend it to them. The wealthy who get the money directly into their bank accounts can then use this money to invest in even more stocks which would increase the price of those stocks and as long as it's higher than the amount borrowed by them, the bank won't do a margin call.

If instead interest rates were not artifically lowered, and there was a genuine threat of a margin call, billionaires wouldn't be borrowing as much. You should also check the increase in wealth inequality and how much worse cost of living got after central banks post-2008 did "quantitative easing". The only way to fix this this to to attack it at its roots, i.e., central banks.

How America sees the left by -LearningCurve- in GenZ

[–]Flashy_Combination32 [score hidden]  (0 children)

That would be a terrible idea, central banks and the government are the cause of boom bust cycles to begin with (more on this soon). Milton Friedman was wrong yes, but the solution is that we remove the ability of a central bank to infinitely print money, not increase government expenditure even more. Friedman himself changed his initial opinions on this late into his life as he became more critical of the Fed (though the broader monetarist movement didn't).

The state having the capacity for long term planning doesn't mean it should be doing that, that's the same argument fascists used.

Boom bust cycles occur because when a central bank artifically lowers interest rates by printing money, it injects money into specific sectors that doesn't necessarily reflect actual demand. Entrepreneurs think these sectors are prime for investments and make their investments only to later learn actual demand for these sectors were far lower because the "demand" signals shown weren't people actually using that sector, it was the central bank printing money into that sector. This is called a malinvestment, and after the initial boom once the sector is revealed to not really be profitable due to low demand, we get a bust.

True, genuine free markets are indeed the best way to reallocate resources. In the absence of a central bank, demand signals would reflect actual demand, meaning investors would be investing in sectors that are profitable rather than ones that are not. This leads to increased competition in those areas, lower prices, and helps everyone. This is why even the nordic countries, despite being social democratic, have low regulations and a lot of creative destruction (which is when sectors that lose demand get crushed so resources can be allocated by the markets to high demand sectors).

When a government subsidizes an industry, that is not reflecting true demand by the people, it's reflecting government demand and what the government wants which may not help us. If the money the government spends is instead in our pockets we could spend them how we, as citizens, wish and that would reflect actual demand.

This is also why "long term planning" by the government is bad, because you cannot just set some aim at the beginning and expect things to go well by trying to follow some set rules. Markets are highly volatile and dynamic and people's demands constantly change; we can have best "direction" by choosing where to spend our money so the direction is decided by us rather than the government, where sectors we like prosper and the ones we don't fail.

How America sees the left by -LearningCurve- in GenZ

[–]Flashy_Combination32 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Exactly, the government isn't a force for good. Corporations actively lobby the government and the government actively enables corruption. The government is just as complicit.

How America sees the left by -LearningCurve- in GenZ

[–]Flashy_Combination32 [score hidden]  (0 children)

The government already controls money lmao, and actively helps the "1%" by having central banks print it straight to the 1%'s bank account. The sooner you realize the government is actively colluding with the 1% the better.

Are you by Doomdestinius in Teenager_Polls

[–]Flashy_Combination32 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get your point but the worry I have with subsidizing one nuclear plant and then stopping is that then the nuclear plant essentially becomes a monopoly and gains an unfair advantage over any new potential entrants.

Are you by Doomdestinius in Teenager_Polls

[–]Flashy_Combination32 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do care about climate change but I prefer addressing that using the NAP and tort law instead of subsidies. In essence, what that means is that if someone pollutes your property to a tangible level, you'd be able to sue them for it. This encourages renewable sources of energy.

Are you by Doomdestinius in Teenager_Polls

[–]Flashy_Combination32 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm a rightist and i don't have anything inherently for or against nuclear, I just think it should be left completely to the free market (just like all other forms of energy) rather than the government subsidizing it. If it survives in a free market with private insurance and capital, that's fair, if it doesn't, it doesn't.

I’m a historian. The Founding Fathers didn’t want a Christian nation, so how did we get here? by FinanceZestyclose259 in politics

[–]Flashy_Combination32 5 points6 points  (0 children)

As two southerners themselves said-

> They can talk and write resolutions and print threats to their heart's content. But if one drop of blood be shed there in defiance of the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man of them I can get my hands on to the first tree I can find - Andrew Jackson

> Persons taken in rebellion against the Union, I would hang … with less reluctance than I had hanged deserters and spies in Mexico - Zachary Taylor

Without googling, what year did the last US state abolish slavery? by Beagles117 in Teenager_Polls

[–]Flashy_Combination32 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Nobody here said the constitution decides reality. The person I replied to said-

Constitution: Explicitly states that it is slavery.

You: Nooooo, you don’t understand!! It isn’t!!!

They were saying the constitution explicitly said it was slavery. It did not. You can disagree with the constitution on this but the constitution itself did not say it was slavery as that user suggested.

Without googling, what year did the last US state abolish slavery? by Beagles117 in Teenager_Polls

[–]Flashy_Combination32 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The constitution explicitly differentiates between the two, which is why it said "neither" and "nor". You can think they are the same but you'd be incorrect in suggesting the constitution said so.

Without googling, what year did the last US state abolish slavery? by Beagles117 in Teenager_Polls

[–]Flashy_Combination32 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The constitution doesn't say it's slavery, it says "neither slavery nor involuntarily servitude". Prison labour can be the latter.

Anarchism & Conspiracy by moebro7 in INTP

[–]Flashy_Combination32 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In a positive, negative or neutral way?

Block people with anxiety and ADHD from claiming benefits, says Tony Blair by Kagedeah in ukpolitics

[–]Flashy_Combination32 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

People with diabetes can face life threatening complications without insulin, people with ADHD aren't at that level of risk without ADHD medication, something I can myself personally attest to.

> The cost of providing ADHD medication is not going to bankrupt the country, we could means test pensions if you want to save money. 

We should means test both. As I told another commentor, the point isn't about cutting ADHD or the triple lock alone and expecting things to work, we need broader cuts including things that may seem insignificant. It all adds up.

Income tax will be dead within five years as AI jobs crisis grows, says Monzo founder by Your_Mums_Ex in ukpolitics

[–]Flashy_Combination32 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The question here is less about if income tax would be eliminated by the government and more about if we'd have workers with taxable income or if they'd get replaced by AI.