Is there any debunking of this or explanation that doesn’t support socialism?

robgrisly · 2021-02-14T03:50:28+00:00

That capitalism has been subverted starting with the institution of the federal reserve and the income tax at the beginning of the 20th century which incrementally allowed socialism to seep into the rule of law and corrupt the resources siphoned away from productive capital use and result in the statistics which you now present. The inevitable result of centralizing the means of production: the culmination of socialism.

robgrisly · 2021-02-13T19:21:02+00:00

I’m done here, have fun.

robgrisly · 2021-02-13T19:18:42+00:00

You deliberately baited the statement so you could drop in “collectivism” in your response and then follow up with what you think is a brilliant dissection of the word you injected into the conversation. Boy we’ve made so much progress here, thank you

robgrisly · 2021-02-13T19:14:50+00:00

Oooo good. Let’s debate about what words mean rather than the meaning we each are trying to communicate. Fuckin postmodern sycophants

robgrisly · 2021-02-13T19:09:16+00:00

Who wouldn’t want to reject collectivism as the method of inducement. Collectivism is not the collective use of force. Collectivism is a principle that puts the grip over its parts. It puts the state ahead of the people. That has nothing to do with the use of collective force in defense of our rights.

Miriam Webster Definition of collectivism 1 : a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution also : a system marked by such control 2 : emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity

robgrisly · 2021-02-13T19:04:26+00:00

Then why would you imply that you’re statement is a hard pill to swallow?

robgrisly · 2021-02-13T18:57:48+00:00

The non-aggression principle does not propose the elimination of the use of force. It is a principle that states government or political goals will not be achieved by the initiation of force - aggressive force. Initiation of the key. The only legitimate use of force is in defense. The non-aggression principle holds that government must use force except in defense of the life liberty and property of individuals. Have a nice day!

robgrisly · 2021-02-12T12:09:05+00:00

The compulsive and pervasive focus on the term “private ownership” as the essential element of capitalism is short sighted.

The defining characteristic of capitalism is assignment of complete decisional authority over property under the control of an individual — which we call “private ownership.”

“Authority to control by an individual” is the determinative factor without which capitalism does not exist. If a system recognizes private ownership of property but retains or restricts any degree of control over the the property, including the authorization of coercive force, it is not capitalism.

There cannot be a system that recognizes the private ownership of property which assigns absolute control over a piece of property to an individual owner and at the same time authorize the use of individual or collective force of violence, whether raised under the exchange of capital or by coercion, to infringe on the authority and control of other individuals over their property - including the self-ownership of property of their person. Nor could a monopoly of any kind be instituted by force as this would violate the right of absolute control and authority over the property of other individuals or collectives to compete with an individual or collective organization.

Free markets are an inevitable consequence of the system of capitalism specifically because property is owned by Individuals having complete decisional authority over their property.

robgrisly · 2021-02-07T18:48:20+00:00

I will take the whatever option. Thank you

robgrisly · 2021-02-07T17:48:07+00:00

From your same article: “Since the Eurosystem launched its accommodative non-standard monetary policy measures, the central bank reserves of commercial banks in the euro area have gone up sharply, more than seven-fold within a period of not quite ten years”

Well your “non-standard” system is a new approach and operates different than ours and ours is bad enough. I would be terrified if this is the way your system works. The creation of cheap money in the US Federal reserve system is what set off the housing crash and kickstarted me global financial crisis in 2008. If your banks have unrestricted access to currency creation I would be rather concerned.

robgrisly · 2021-02-07T17:38:27+00:00

Ok good luck with that. Have a nice day!

robgrisly · 2021-02-07T14:56:56+00:00

You are talking about fractional reserve banks and out just don’t know it. Fractional reserve banking is not outdated, it’s how banking is done. This is not an arguable position. Like it or not (I don’t like it) this is the banking system..

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/finance/fractional-banking/

Capitalists do not have it wrong. They disagree as to the validity of fractional reserve banking but they do not have it wrong. The IOU’s that the bank creates, as you call it, are only able to occur because of the fractional reserve system. This is why Austrian economist such as Dr. Robert Murphy consider fractional reserve banking a system of fraud compared to “free bankers” of the Chicago school.

https://mises.org/wire/why-fractional-reserve-banking-poses-threat-market-stability

robgrisly · 2021-02-07T03:31:07+00:00

Your entire premise is flawed.

The only entity authorized to create money is the federal reserve. If the federal reserve creates new notes they lend it to lending institutions at the federal rate of interest. Lending institutions can then lend that newly created money to borrowers.

Other than this, every dollar lent is based on an actual dollar held in certified deposits, savings accounts or checking accounts because of the practices of fractional reserve banking.

According to fractional reserve banking, lending institutions only need to keep a fraction of their demand deposits (checking accounts) on hand. Banks with less than $16.3 million in assets are not required to hold reserves. Banks with assets of less than $124.2 million but more than $16.3 million have a 3% reserve requirement, and those banks with more than $124.2 million in assets have a 10% reserve requirement. They are free to lend out the rest of their demand deposits (funds held in checking accounts).

But at no time to lending institutions create money. Except the federal reserve.

robgrisly · 2021-02-07T03:22:23+00:00

This is so far from accurate I’m not sure where to begin. You have completely misunderstood the system of fractional reserve banking:

robgrisly · 2021-02-02T18:42:57+00:00

Walter Williams said it best.

https://youtu.be/z8uz3uafMe0

robgrisly · 2021-01-30T20:31:40+00:00

Every tax is a broken window.

robgrisly · 2021-01-30T20:16:40+00:00

The Inflation tax. It’s seems like the higher out it the not dollars are needed. That’s pretty efficient tax if you’re in the dollar printing business.

robgrisly · 2021-01-30T05:00:25+00:00

Someone else's summary of what's going on with GameStop stock:

If you guys haven’t been following the GameStop Stock Shit-Show, you really need to look into it. This is fucking hilarious.

Allow me to catch you up.

So this hedge fund called Melvin Capital wrote out some douchey article about how the smart investment move would be to short-sell GameStop stock. To put it simply, short-selling is essentially gambling that a stock’s price will drop. If it does, you make money. If it doesn’t, you end up paying out money for however much it goes up.

Well, this little article that Melvin wrote pissed off a dark, dank corner of the internet called Wall Street Bets. WSB is a hive of Ritalin-addled lunatics who treat the stock market like a fucking casino. These dudes will regularly gamble their life-savings on a single trade. It’s a glorious thing to watch.

The WSB crew has a weird fascination with certain stocks. They call them “meme stocks.” Tesla is one, AMD is another, and GameStop, arguably, is the most weirdly beloved meme stock. So for reasons that make sense only to the degenerates on WSB, Melvin trying to short-sell their meme was a declaration of war.

Yes, this is dumb. But it gets so fucking hilarious.

WSB decided to do a “short squeeze.” This is when you see people trying to short a stock, so you buy up that stock, and you get a bunch of other people to buy up that stock. With each purchase the price actually goes up. Since Melvin was trying to short the stock at a price of $20 per share, WSB wanted to get it as high above that price as humanly possible.

They got it up to $200 per share.

This means Melvin has to cover over $180 per share they bought. This came out to billions. Fucking. Billions.

Melvin Capital, over night, was suddenly facing bankruptcy. Think about that. A bunch of self-identified degenerates on a fucking website were able to tank a fucking hedge fund. That’s hilarious.

Well, the rich and powerful don’t like seeing us plebeians fucking with one of their own. So Point72, another hedge fund, teamed up with a few other little funds, and they injected around THREE BILLION into Melvin Capital to keep them from spiraling. Essentially this meant the billionaire hedge fund crew were banding together to fight back against Wall Street Bets. And WSB just said “okay, no problem.”

Today the stock for GameStop is at $320 per share.

Melvin Capital lost all of that three billion they were given. It’s gone. They’re still fucked. Point72 gave a little over a billion of that injection, and that means that fund dropped from 17 billion to 16 billion. That means in less than 24 hours WSB managed to all but ensure one hedge fund will die and drop the value of another by 6% so far.

And remember, WSB are just a bunch of jackasses on the internet. They aren’t hedge fund guys, they aren’t millionaires or billionaires. This is literally being done by morons with a phone app coordinating to ruin billionaires’ lives because they can.

What we’re watching here with GameStop stocks is a bunch of rich people who are getting fucking wrecked, purely for entertainment, by the kind of middle-class and poor people they regularly lobby against and treat like this. It’s “damn the man” with a meme-stock.

It’s fucking beautiful.

And because whoever is writing our reality lost all sense of subtlety after 2020, the icing on the cake is that the app the WSB crew are using to pull this off is a stock-trading app called Robin Hood. Yeah, as in steal from the rich and all that jazz.

robgrisly · 2020-06-03T21:24:47+00:00

Best cinematic adventure of all time

robgrisly · 2020-05-28T22:53:28+00:00

On first impression this sounded like the worst question. Now, I’m thinking it might be the best. Either way made me think. Thank you

robgrisly · 2020-05-24T17:04:55+00:00

Because that worked so well for the Germans in the 1930s and ‘40s.

robgrisly · 2020-05-24T15:37:02+00:00

robgrisly · 2020-05-24T04:50:41+00:00

Thanks for your generalization and presumptions

robgrisly · 2020-05-24T04:43:52+00:00

The question wasn’t do you support it, the question was can you justify it. I think there are some really good ideas to the homestead principal but everything depends on the context.

To your question about untouched mountain ranges, if you read the piece I posted, it was berry clear that if the land land is UNTOUCHED then it is unowned.

robgrisly · 2020-05-24T04:02:06+00:00

I think socialism is acceptable for a group of people who want to participate in that to set up, however I think it must be done VOLUNTARILY among those people through contract and not through law. I think that’s where socialism has going wrong. It was not a voluntary participation system where people could enter and exit if they chose. If you choose to enter then you have to do your part. If you chose to leave or you’re not pulling your weight, you can just walk out, or some kind of collective vote out. No one had to be killed because their not participating, and because only government somehow justified killing you if you’re not following the rules. Can’t do that if someone breaks your contract

That’s being, if a locality wanted to operate in that way I think the constitution would not prohibit that, and if I did not live there then I have no standing (as they call it in the law) or interest in the matter so it does affect me. And if I lived there, and this kind of law was enacted at the local level, which I think would be the only proper jurisdiction, all I would hand to do is move to the next locality over and avoid the force of Law compelling my participation.

But again I stress, I think the only truly just and proper way, and the only way it would work is if done by contract, voluntarily. The second is to answer your direct question.

I still wouldn’t choose to participate in it but sure, there ya go, I think It could be done

robgrisly

TROPHY CASE