Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the government borrows from rich people (in your case a portion of the financial proceeds inherited from a wealthy ancestor) or borrows against (essentially liquifying those funds) a trust funds like our Social Security or our capital assets like our National Forests which creates the government funds that the fed receives a portion to loan to banks that the banks loan to businesses and people like us.

No liquidation required. The Fed just types the money in to existence when a bank asks for it. The Fed's assets aren't "real" piles of gold and property, it's the money banks owe them. 93% of that money is ultimately retired, and the Fed keeps 7% of the profits on the asset side of their balance sheet.

If someone has a good, solid idea for a business, and they need a million dollars, that million doesn't come out of anyone's savings, or the national parks, or even Social Security. It comes out of thin air under the assumption that it really is a good, solid business plan and the effect of money-creation will generate more real productivity than inflation.

The problem over the last fifteen years is that the money becomes kind of... inbred in high finance. Without Glas-Steagal, banks can basically print up loans to their investment arms (out of thin air) and use the liquidity to move markets. ie: Goldman Sachs lends Goldman Portfolio a billion dollars to buy aluminum.

The rising aluminum price (or housing price) allows financial firms to use that as "collateral" for more loans, and those loans have gone in to acquiring significant shares of dominant companies in non-finance sectors. Specifically, the collateral here has more to do with reserve ratios: total assets still need to exceed total liabilities, but this hasn't been a limiting factor in lending since QE started.

And the banks aren't paying much tax on their record profits, so the activity of finance isn't funding public sector, middle-class jobs. But the public sector isn't the only one getting hurt because private sector firms have to deal with the higher costs of inputs and consumer spending (that drives 70% of our economy) becomes strained.

Yet the banks have very little to no incentive to write you or anyone a loan for a business, because any new business will have to compete with their existing investments (major insurers, telecomms, manufacturers). We're left with a feedback loop of incestuous finance money that does drive inflation up faster than actual productivity. With low capital gains taxes and no inheritance taxes, it is literally just a matter of time until a handful of finance-related families own every piece of property in America.

Pretty hard for banks to crank up presses when banks aren't allowed to have their own federal printing presses and free access to endless federal digits and are legally bound to enter into financial agreement with the fed and borrow government funds from the fed.

It's actually VERY easy for the banks to fire up the printing presses. They just have no reason to do so.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Correct me if I'm wrong,

Okay.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

the government borrows from rich people

Actually, the central govt provides a service to anyone, rich or not, wanting to SAVE their money as opposed to spending their money... and spending includes investing and lending. Their saving vehicles allow you to gain some interest on your savings - its one of biggest services the central govt provides and very few people are even slightly cognizant of it as a benefit provided; most think the central govt is actually the beneficiary! Silly people.

On net, the central govt is the only entity that can provide the financial vehicles for savings - you may think that your bank, a business or a local/state govt is holding your money but in reality they are either spending that money or holding it in govt securities with as little as possible being held as "cash on hand" - or they have given it over to another bank, business or local/state govt with the exact same choices. Everyone's savings in dollars is represented by the federal debt held by the public.

Sure, you can hold other wealth with ownership of corporate stock, real estate, a business, shiney rocks, donkeys, pork bellies etc. but that alone, without currency savings (in the mattress or in T-bills) results in more of a barter system, which is comparably extremely inefficient [I think it might make a comeback if we can hold wealth again in the number of brides - just need to figured out how to send those brides through the Internet tubes without making a mess!]

Some have suggested that this 'service' be eliminated to force all the money to keep circulating - being spent (including investing/lending) to provide incomes - whereby any actual 'savings' would be stuffing money into mattresses, burying in the yard or in a vault, or your standard "cash on hand." Eventually, and without going into why, it would make little difference; but, I believe, getting from here to there would be a major mind-F for everyone and likely set off panic with extreme economic repercussions. No thanks! Besides it would put all those people at the FED and most banks out of work, and who would we then blame for all financial evils?

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

borrows against (essentially liquifying those funds) a trust funds like our Social Security

Sorry, there's nothing there to liquify except pieces of paper with a lot of zeros on them that more or less say, "IOU" - just like all other federal securities. You aren't under the impression that the feds actually buried a bunch of cash under the National Mall or put it in some secret Swiss super bank? Maybe cargo ships over the horizon stuffed with brides?

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

or our capital assets like our National Forests which creates the government funds

Why would the central govt go to the hassle of selling tangible assets when it can just have the banks create money out of thin air? I mean, the govt occasionally sells off tangible assets but that's more about cronyism or maybe to placate someone's gold fetish.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

that the fed receives a portion to loan

Sorry, the feds don't lend to banks; just the opposite - they have the banks keystroke new dollars into the feds bank accounts and in return the feds give the banks federal securities - i.e. Treasuries - although the FED has come along with QE and swapped those Treasuries for federal reserves - that's why, other than behavior impacts on the sheeple, QEs are a nothin burger.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

to banks that the banks loan to businesses and people like us. Pretty hard for banks to crank up presses when banks aren't allowed to have their own federal printing presses and free access to endless federal digits and are legally bound to enter into financial agreement with the fed and borrow government funds from the fed.

Nope, banks don't need the feds' printing presses, they got their own BANK 'printing presses' in the form double entry accounting - they simultaneously make a loan and create a deposit in the borrower's account. The feds can constrain them with capital requirements (note, reserve requirements are a joke) and other financial regulation, but the real constraint on banks' 'printing presses' is a credible, willing borrower walking into the lobby or, well, signing into their website. Oh, by the way, the borrowers destroy that money when they pay off the loan (everyone destroys money when they pay their federal taxes).

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

For those with the intellect who are your skeptics, it comes down to your intellectual capability, display of practical knowledge and ability to prove that their beliefs and understandings are wrong and no longer apply to anyone on the globe. For those who aren't as susceptible to being duped who are naturally concerned about people or repulsed by those who express views that appear to be out of touch with the reality of most, it comes down to proof of sanity and a natural ability to establish faith in ones own views. As a general rule, American's require more than a lively imagination and unrealistic comments to change its way of thinking and believe in a system that doesn't exist to them.

Yep, but if you make the effort and go down stairs early enough, you might just catch Santa Claus.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

True. A dollar is a dollar. The dollar in your investment account is as valuable as the dollar in my wallet and the dollar in the welfare recipients hand. According to liberal belief, the dollar in my wallet and the dollar in the welfare recipients hand is more valuable than the dollar received from your dead ancestor.

Nope, a dollar is a dollar wherever it is.

From a macro-economic view, it is more valuable to economic functioning to have a dollar value in the hands of people that will likely spend it and provide others with income, than it is to have it just part of a huge pool of inheritance that will forever sit on the US Treasury's Excel spreadsheet collecting interest.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

As most folks here know, I think banks are worthless cruft and grifters. Let's all have software that will allow us to keystroke money into our credit union accounts. That for sure would fix any demand issues. If I want to go on a poker junket in Vegas and have all sea food meals, no prob. I'd book some reservations , see what the costs are and keystroke that amount of money into my checking account. The demand value in Vegas would go up. This is far better than QE(x) where Feddie Fundies are going straight into a whole shitpot of asset bubbles. Let's be real, Vegas junkets don't wreck the real economy like popping bubbles.



As per above I choose a person with keystroke software. Let's all sing it, Dire Straits - Money for nothing , your chicks for free.



Yeah, but you have to pay interest on debt with that system. My way does away with those pesky interest payments and is thus far more sustainable.

The current arrangement is broken.

To get borrowing to work requires:
1. The would be borrower has to be willing to take on more debt and the would be lender has to be assured of credit worthiness. Us working stiffs are debt saturated which makes that a major fail.
2. Non self liquidating debt tends to hang around like unwanted belly fat. It just sits there and makes the owner unhealthy. It's only self liquidating debt that doesn't do that. Self liquidating debt = debt assumed to build some economic asset that produces more income than the debt + interest. Consumer debt never does that.
3. The Fed has no way to control where cheap interest rate money goes. From what I've seen, it goes to produce asset bubbles.



Eh, cut out the middleman. I'll take the account with the Fed and bypass those damn financial intermediaries. Sure it's more akin to printing money, but us proles can really jive up spending in a much more efficient manner.

Everything that has gone wrong with banks can be tied to allowing banksters to do more that what banks are suppose to do - create money.

I would prefer a public banking system that would still create money out of thin air - that is one of the most fundamental elements necessary for a functioning modern economy. If we have to have a private banking system, and I'm okay with that, then it must be constrained by the govt - banking should be one of the most boring jobs in the world.

Interest, as long as its reasonable and regulated, is not a problem as long as the central govt isn't be completely stupid and trying to run a balance budget or worse, a surplus that quite literally strips wealth out of the economy.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

No liquidation required. The Fed just types the money in to existence when a bank asks for it. The Fed's assets aren't "real" piles of gold and property, it's the money banks owe them. 93% of that money is ultimately retired, and the Fed keeps 7% of the profits on the asset side of their balance sheet.

If someone has a good, solid idea for a business, and they need a million dollars, that million doesn't come out of anyone's savings, or the national parks, or even Social Security. It comes out of thin air under the assumption that it really is a good, solid business plan and the effect of money-creation will generate more real productivity than inflation.

The problem over the last fifteen years is that the money becomes kind of... inbred in high finance. Without Glas-Steagal, banks can basically print up loans to their investment arms (out of thin air) and use the liquidity to move markets. ie: Goldman Sachs lends Goldman Portfolio a billion dollars to buy aluminum.

The rising aluminum price (or housing price) allows financial firms to use that as "collateral" for more loans, and those loans have gone in to acquiring significant shares of dominant companies in non-finance sectors. Specifically, the collateral here has more to do with reserve ratios: total assets still need to exceed total liabilities, but this hasn't been a limiting factor in lending since QE started.

And the banks aren't paying much tax on their record profits, so the activity of finance isn't funding public sector, middle-class jobs. But the public sector isn't the only one getting hurt because private sector firms have to deal with the higher costs of inputs and consumer spending (that drives 70% of our economy) becomes strained.

Yet the banks have very little to no incentive to write you or anyone a loan for a business, because any new business will have to compete with their existing investments (major insurers, telecomms, manufacturers). We're left with a feedback loop of incestuous finance money that does drive inflation up faster than actual productivity. With low capital gains taxes and no inheritance taxes, it is literally just a matter of time until a handful of finance-related families own every piece of property in America.



It's actually VERY easy for the banks to fire up the printing presses. They just have no reason to do so.

You're playing at a higher level. You might find this interesting -

Part 1

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=30827

Iceland’s Sovereign Money Proposal – Part 1

Part 2

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=30833

Warning - Professor Bill can be pretty long worded.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

No liquidation required. The Fed just types the money in to existence when a bank asks for it. The Fed's assets aren't "real" piles of gold and property, it's the money banks owe them. 93% of that money is ultimately retired, and the Fed keeps 7% of the profits on the asset side of their balance sheet.

If someone has a good, solid idea for a business, and they need a million dollars, that million doesn't come out of anyone's savings, or the national parks, or even Social Security. It comes out of thin air under the assumption that it really is a good, solid business plan and the effect of money-creation will generate more real productivity than inflation.

The problem over the last fifteen years is that the money becomes kind of... inbred in high finance. Without Glas-Steagal, banks can basically print up loans to their investment arms (out of thin air) and use the liquidity to move markets. ie: Goldman Sachs lends Goldman Portfolio a billion dollars to buy aluminum.

The rising aluminum price (or housing price) allows financial firms to use that as "collateral" for more loans, and those loans have gone in to acquiring significant shares of dominant companies in non-finance sectors. Specifically, the collateral here has more to do with reserve ratios: total assets still need to exceed total liabilities, but this hasn't been a limiting factor in lending since QE started.

And the banks aren't paying much tax on their record profits, so the activity of finance isn't funding public sector, middle-class jobs. But the public sector isn't the only one getting hurt because private sector firms have to deal with the higher costs of inputs and consumer spending (that drives 70% of our economy) becomes strained.

Yet the banks have very little to no incentive to write you or anyone a loan for a business, because any new business will have to compete with their existing investments (major insurers, telecomms, manufacturers). We're left with a feedback loop of incestuous finance money that does drive inflation up faster than actual productivity. With low capital gains taxes and no inheritance taxes, it is literally just a matter of time until a handful of finance-related families own every piece of property in America.

The nation was established by a so-called handful of finance-related families who either owned or had a financial interest in the bulk of the property in America.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

It's actually VERY easy for the banks to fire up the printing presses. They just have no reason to do so.

I don't see us giving them a reason to for a very long time.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Yep, but if you make the effort and go down stairs early enough, you might just catch Santa Claus.

I'd have to believe in Santa Claus before I'd even consider wasting the time and effort to do something foolish like that.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Are you complaining that you are not a nation state? Well, true enough. You aren't, and have no chance of ever being one.

Nope. I realize that I'm a citizen of a nation state. A citizen with the freedom and power to accept, oppose and cut ties.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I'd have to believe in Santa Claus before I'd even consider wasting the time and effort to do something foolish like that.

Not surprising. The belief that federal debt/deficits are evil trumps all other beliefs in regard to the believer's certainty. It is also the belief that allows you to be led around by the nose by the elites and act against your own economic self-interest.

The funny thing is the capacity to question that belief has nothing to do with intellectual capacity - this stuff is not rocket science. It has much to do with intellectual laziness, but what it is really about is just plain fear of letting go of the strongest belief one holds. In order to function in the world, we humans need a belief system to operate from; giving up on any aspect of that system, let alone the one that is held most certain, brings memento mori - most people will avoid that feeling like the plague ....regardless of the costs.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I'd have to believe in Santa Claus before I'd even consider wasting the time and effort to do something foolish like that.

Believing in the trickle-down theory is a lot like believing in Santa Claus. But Ronnie has all of you conservatives hooked on it.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The nation was established by a so-called handful of finance-related families who either owned or had a financial interest in the bulk of the property in America.

And we have progressed beyond that original oligarchy. Conservatives want us to return to it.

I don't see us giving them a reason to for a very long time.

But there's abundant reason for fiscal stimulus. If coupled with the idea of responsibility and entrepreneurship, grants and stimulus to those who are poor would help revive our cities and other pockets of poverty. That would benefit the entire economy greatly. A nation that has a huge underclass and a declining middle class will not improve or prosper. A more generous attitude is needed. Not full socialism, but a mixed economy works. A nation stuck on austerity and libertarian economics does not work. It declines into a banana republic. That's where we're headed under Republican rule.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Believing in the trickle-down theory is a lot like believing in Santa Claus. But Ronnie has all of you conservatives hooked on it.

Not really. Supply side economics is more believable to more adults than Santa Claus. My daughter is twelve. She's at the age where kids generally begin to part with their belief in Santa Claus. Knowing her, whether she still believes or not, she's going to express a belief in Santa in order to benefit from the belief in Santa for as long as she's able to get away with it with her peers and her parents. With that said, I'd say liberal belief in whatever is more like a belief in Santa Claus.

There is a bunch of stuff missing in this conversation. I'll throw out a few points.

If too many people can print money too easily and without checks, you get inflation. To avoid this, the Federal Reserve controls how much money one can get and at what interest rate. The art of deciding the money supply and prime interest rate is comparable to rocket science. When Nixon took us off the gold standard and into uncharted territory, we didn't know how to get it right and had a big mess.

My personal perspective is that both taxes and dividends take money out of the real economy. This is bad, and should be done no more than necessary. A lot of the difference between liberals and conservatives is in whether they think the rich elites or the politicians will spend the money more wisely. Trickle down assumes taking money out of one company and investing it in another will be beneficial. I'm inclined to believe it makes life harder on existing companies in order to bankroll start ups. I'm not impressed by the wisdom of this. I also doubt the current value system which suggests companies should be run to maximize the profits of the stockholder without regard to the long term stability of the company. This seem to me like trying to suck as much milk out of the cow as possible without worrying about the long term health of the cow.

Can and do governments spend wisely, or do politicians long entrenched in power become corrupt, bloated and inefficient? Yes to both. The democrats generally held Congress from the New Deal through Twilight in America. A lot of what Reagan did to trim long established habitual excess was appropriate and overdue. This doesn't mean the current Republican Congress hasn't got problems.

I have problems with simplistic values both Red and Blue. More money in the hands of Wall Street elites is no better than more money in the hands of Washington DC elites. Both are taking funds from the real economy and seem to care little for the damage done. We need a better and leaner Wall Street as much as a better and leaner Washington DC. There is a definite place for both the economic and political structures, but neither are running well just now.

At the same time there are problems that only the government can handle. A blanket assumption that all government is evil results in problems that are never solved. If it is core world view that government cannot solve problems, it follows that problems that can only be addressed by government must not exist. Thus you get stuff like global warming denial and a belief that private banks can print money, total disconnect from reality.

Grump. Anyway, y'all were going around all the usual circles. We need to run around in different circles.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Not really. Supply side economics is more believable to more adults than Santa Claus.

If more people believe in Young-Earth Creationism than in the Easter Bunny, does that make Young-Earth Creationism valid?

My daughter is twelve. She's at the age where kids generally begin to part with their belief in Santa Claus. Knowing her, whether she still believes or not, she's going to express a belief in Santa in order to benefit from the belief in Santa for as long as she's able to get away with it with her peers and her parents. With that said, I'd say liberal belief in whatever is more like a belief in Santa Claus.

Charles Manson is unfortunately quite real; Santa Claus is a mythical character. Which would you prefer that a child believe in? Santa Claus is entirely a benign entity.

I can think of far worse than liberalism -- like Communism, fascism, Nazism, Ku Kluxism, Apartheid, Ba'athism, ISIS, absolute monarchy, insane despotism, and plutocracy. Let's look at what liberalism achieved:

1. rejection of the divine right of kings
2. responsible government
3. freedom of conscience and expression
4. abolition of slavery
5. voting rights for the non-rich
6. votes for women
7. pacifism
8. universal education
9. child labor outlawed
10. decolonization

None of it was easy, but just contemplate the alternatives to liberalism.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But there's abundant reason for fiscal stimulus. If coupled with the idea of responsibility and entrepreneurship, grants and stimulus to those who are poor would help revive our cities and other pockets of poverty. That would benefit the entire economy greatly. A nation that has a huge underclass and a declining middle class will not improve or prosper. A more generous attitude is needed. Not full socialism, but a mixed economy works. A nation stuck on austerity and libertarian economics does not work. It declines into a banana republic. That's where we're headed under Republican rule.

I'm familiar with the underclass. A more assertive attitude is needed with the underclass. The underclass severely lacks in self discipline, the ideas of personal responsibility and accountability, interest in education and so on. Sorry, but the generous attitude isn't working and will never work for them. What you need is a million hard nosed red blooded male and female march into a city and stay indefinitely and drastically change the culture from within. The increasing social familiarity with them is having the opposite effect as far as generosity towards them.

Originally Posted by B Butler

There is a bunch of stuff missing in this conversation. I'll throw out a few points.

If too many people can print money too easily and without checks, you get inflation. To avoid this, the Federal Reserve controls how much money one can get and at what interest rate. The art of deciding the money supply and prime interest rate is comparable to rocket science. When Nixon took us off the gold standard and into uncharted territory, we didn't know how to get it right and had a big mess.

We are using the money supply to hide the fact that workers are being terribly underpaid.

My personal perspective is that both taxes and dividends take money out of the real economy. This is bad, and should be done no more than necessary. A lot of the difference between liberals and conservatives is in whether they think the rich elites or the politicians will spend the money more wisely. Trickle down assumes taking money out of one company and investing it in another will be beneficial. I'm inclined to believe it makes life harder on existing companies in order to bankroll start ups. I'm not impressed by the wisdom of this. I also doubt the current value system which suggests companies should be run to maximize the profits of the stockholder without regard to the long term stability of the company. This seem to me like trying to suck as much milk out of the cow as possible without worrying about the long term health of the cow.

Trickle-down really means that what most matters most is that the right people get everything. Then the bounty will somehow go to us through luxury spending (they will hire more domestic servants, throw money into the political system, and build mansions) and the common man will get some prosperity radiating from extreme wealth that implies mass deprivation.

From monarchs of antiquity to feudal lords to slave-owning planters to sweatshop exploiters has come much the same argument. The result of trickle-down economics remains the same: mass suffering for elite indulgence.

Can and do governments spend wisely, or do politicians long entrenched in power become corrupt, bloated and inefficient? Yes to both. The democrats generally held Congress from the New Deal through Twilight in America. A lot of what Reagan did to trim long established habitual excess was appropriate and overdue. This doesn't mean the current Republican Congress hasn't got problems.

We have the best Congress that Kochaine can buy. It's horrible!

Maybe we will bumble our way to a social market economy. Until then we are going to find life harder despite our efforts -- because the super-rich are going to devour any new efforts. Add to that, our technology may create some consumer miracles but at the cost of jobs. If you are a recent bookbinder, then you would rather have your old job back than the tablets which have made books obsolete. Kodak and Polaroid used to be consistently ranked among the best companies for which to work; we now have digital cameras instead of photographic film that generated profits for Kodak and Polaroid and jobs for employees of those two companies. If they could get away with it, the Corporate Right would have Congress outlaw unions and give workers the 'freedom' to work unpaid overtime for the good of America (really the economic elites).

We have the economics of fascism if without the torture chambers, concentration camps, and execution pits. Our economic elites are corrupt, rapacious, and cruel; should they find themselves challenged there will be better countries in which to live -- some much poorer. Better a slum in Calcutta than a torture chamber in San Francisco.

I have problems with simplistic values both Red and Blue. More money in the hands of Wall Street elites is no better than more money in the hands of Washington DC elites. Both are taking funds from the real economy and seem to care little for the damage done. We need a better and leaner Wall Street as much as a better and leaner Washington DC. There is a definite place for both the economic and political structures, but neither are running well just now.

Conservatives used to insist upon a nexus between savings and investment. People worked a little more than they needed to, spent a little less than they made, socked away some money into savings accounts or life insurance policies, and financial institutions bought bonds of industrial concerns. Investing was for the experts. Now many must toil so that a few specialists can indulge themselves.

At the same time there are problems that only the government can handle. A blanket assumption that all government is evil results in problems that are never solved. If it is core world view that government cannot solve problems, it follows that problems that can only be addressed by government must not exist. Thus you get stuff like global warming denial and a belief that private banks can print money, total disconnect from reality.

Government is the only institution that can do national defense, administer justice in a form other than lynching, protect property rights, set standards of business practice, establish right-of-way for highways, provide education for poor kids... but it can also go awry with show projects, aggressive warfare, and crony capitalism. Rationality, and not ideology, can answer the appropriate questions.

Grump. Anyway, y'all were going around all the usual circles. We need to run around in different circles.

The Right thinks that big government invariably becomes bad government. Social Security is a big activity. A secret police would be horrible no matter how efficient it is with public funds.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

If more people believe in Young-Earth Creationism than in the Easter Bunny, does that make Young-Earth Creationism valid?



Charles Manson is unfortunately quite real; Santa Claus is a mythical character. Which would you prefer that a child believe in? Santa Claus is entirely a benign entity.

I can think of far worse than liberalism -- like Communism, fascism, Nazism, Ku Kluxism, Apartheid, Ba'athism, ISIS, absolute monarchy, insane despotism, and plutocracy. Let's look at what liberalism achieved:

1. rejection of the divine right of kings
2. responsible government
3. freedom of conscience and expression
4. abolition of slavery
5. voting rights for the non-rich
6. votes for women
7. pacifism
8. universal education
9. child labor outlawed
10. decolonization

None of it was easy, but just contemplate the alternatives to liberalism.

1) It makes it more valid than the Easter Bunny. 2) Santa Claus is a better mystical person than Charles Manson. 3) Liberalism is taking a lot of credit for libertarian accomplishments like the rejection of the divine rights of kings and Popes, freedom of conscience and expression, abolition of slavery, individual freedom to vote, individual freedom for women to vote and decolonization.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

1) It makes it more valid than the Easter Bunny. 2) Santa Claus is a better mystical person than Charles Manson. 3) Liberalism is taking a lot of credit for libertarian accomplishments like the rejection of the divine rights of kings and Popes, freedom of conscience and expression, abolition of slavery, individual freedom to vote, individual freedom for women to vote and decolonization.

Libertarianism is much newer than classical liberalism.

There has never been a Libertarian State (of course such would be an oxymoron). The idea that the State can vanish is utopian in the extreme.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I'm familiar with the underclass. A more assertive attitude is needed with the underclass. The underclass severely lacks in self discipline, the ideas of personal responsibility and accountability, interest in education and so on. Sorry, but the generous attitude isn't working and will never work for them. What you need is a million hard nosed red blooded male and female march into a city and stay indefinitely and drastically change the culture from within. The increasing social familiarity with them is having the opposite effect as far as generosity towards them.

I can hardly imagine a clearer pretext for abusing and exploiting the disadvantaged -- those people who lack the resources in a grossly-unequal order. They are poor because they are lazy and improvident; thus We their Betters have the right to beat productivity out of them and ensure that they get just their barest needs so that We their Betters can steward more wealth. Should they resist then we need to be more generous with the lash -- and should they rebel they must be mowed down.

They will become slaves for all practical purposes, their status to be maintained as if an inherited burden that they can never slough off. They will also be a perfect fifth column for any conqueror.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Libertarianism is much newer than classical liberalism.

There has never been a Libertarian State (of course such would be an oxymoron). The idea that the State can vanish is utopian in the extreme.

Classical liberalism is R-libertarianism. You live in a R-libertarian nation state and are protected by its Constitution.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I can hardly imagine a clearer pretext for abusing and exploiting the disadvantaged -- those people who lack the resources in a grossly-unequal order. They are poor because they are lazy and improvident; thus We their Betters have the right to beat productivity out of them and ensure that they get just their barest needs so that We their Betters can steward more wealth. Should they resist then we need to be more generous with the lash -- and should they rebel they must be mowed down.

They will become slaves for all practical purposes, their status to be maintained as if an inherited burden that they can never slough off. They will also be a perfect fifth column for any conqueror.

You don't come across as the type who would associate with the underclass or be around them enough to become familiar with them.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

You don't come across as the type who would associate with the underclass or be around them enough to become familiar with them.

You sounded like someone who would consign them to 'labor' camps where they are sweated for production on near-starvation rations.

Stick to your day job.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

You don't come across as the type who would associate with the underclass or be around them enough to become familiar with them.

To me he comes across as a self-hating member of the underclass, trying really hard to separate himself from his own kind.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

To me he comes across as a self-hating member of the underclass, trying really hard to separate himself from his own kind.

I know a welfare queen and some petty crooks; I knew some fellow who ate himself into disability and a fatal heart attack at age 47; I knew a few drunks. That's what one can expect in a wreck of a rural community. But nothing that the underclass can do matches the evil that economic elites can do through political corruption, warmongering, and the suppression of the rights of working people.

Your friendly neighborhood meth cook does great harm, but nothing that he does can be as bad as what the Koch brothers have intended for America.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

To me he comes across as a self-hating member of the underclass, trying really hard to separate himself from his own kind.

He's to prim and proper and book smart to be a member of the underclass. He's more likely a child of wealthier parents who spent the bulk of their time spoiling, protecting, providing and doing their best to help make life more easy for him.