"Envy" and "Conservative" B.S.

[vel]

You are being ridiculous.  Without corporations, no employees.  Without employees, no corporations.  Both are necessary to survive.  Both depend on consumers.  No consumers, no corporations, no employees.  No resources, no corporations, no employees, no consumers.  That's something called "a desert."

You get to a certain point in your thinking and you just stop.  I never thought of you being intellectually lazy before.

Without corporations?

You really don't know what you're talking about. Corporations are fictional entities created by state legislation. It is a form that allows some immunity from personal liability.

You're saying that without corporations there would not be markets. That is ridiculous. There has always been markets. In fact our direct ancestors are thought to have succeeded because of our ability to interact in ways that Neanderthal could not.

If you were to devise a system, like the Soviets, that didn't allow markets then you would get black and grey markets, as the Soviets very much had. It wouldn't be desirable but it does lay waste to your ridiculous notion that you're pushing here.

[Case_Closed]

Without corporations?

You really don't know what you're talking about. Corporations are fictional entities created by state legislation. It is a form that allows some immunity from personal liability.

You're saying that without corporations there would not be markets. That is ridiculous. There has always been markets. In fact our direct ancestors are thought to have succeeded because of our ability to interact in ways that Neanderthal could not.

If you were to devise a system, like the Soviets, that didn't allow markets then you would get black and grey markets, as the Soviets very much had. It wouldn't be desirable but it does lay waste to your ridiculous notion that you're pushing here.

Now you're just being an asshole.  Substitute "corporation" for any entity and/or person and/or thing who provides a place of employment for someone who is capable of working for less money than what they create so the owner can make an obnoxious profit.

[vel]

Now you're just being an asshole.  Substitute "corporation" for any entity and/or person and/or thing who provides a place of employment for someone who is capable of working for less money than what they create so the owner can make an obnoxious profit.

If trying to explain economics to you is "being an asshole" then I am being an asshole. Anything that would seriously interfere with the market would create black and gray markets. That happens here all the time. There is always supply and there is always demand.

As for "obnoxious profit", that isn't supposed to happen according to real conservative theories. However, setting aside the reasons for "obnoxious profits", I am not per se opposed to profits of any sort.

Romney was asked by Matt Lauer, I believe, whether there is any instance where a discussion of the efficacy and fairness of concentration of wealth isn't dismissed (the way you "conservatives" do) by whining about "class envy". Romney, being really bad on his feet, said it should only be discussed in private rooms and behind the scenes.

The fact of the matter is that there is too much money being spent by too few people to essentially buy our government. There is something fundamentally wrong when you reach the levels of concentration of wealth that we're at today. It creates things like bubbles and it's just wrong, any way you look at it. And you really cannot rightfully hide behind your incomplete notions of lassaize faire capitalism because these conditions should not exist.

So that is the debate. It is a debate we ought to have in earnest, without you "conservatives" trying so hard to bullshit your way out of it. You really ought to concede the problems because the problems are real and they're your problems as much as they are mine.

[Case_Closed]

Here's my reservation.  Obama is consulting with "Howling Moonbat Liberal" Krugman about the economy.

Pardon me for being a little skeptical about that as Obama consulted with James Cameron (movie director) about an oil spill.

[Case_Closed]

The fact of the matter is that there is too much money being spent by too few people to essentially buy our government. There is something fundamentally wrong when you reach the levels of concentration of wealth that we're at today. It creates things like bubbles and it's just wrong, any way you look at it. And you really cannot rightfully hide behind your incomplete notions of lassaize faire capitalism because these conditions should not exist.

I will not disagree with that.

Perhaps you should mention that to the DNC when they reach the $1 Billion mark on their campaign funds this year?

[vel]

Here's my reservation.  Obama is consulting with "Howling Moonbat Liberal" Krugman about the economy.

Pardon me for being a little skeptical about that as Obama consulted with James Cameron (movie director) about an oil spill.

Oh please.

Krugman is actually not consulting with President Obama as far as I know. You don't have any legitimate complaints so you just make shit like this up.

[Case_Closed]

Oh please.

Krugman is actually not consulting with President Obama as far as I know. You don't have any legitimate complaints so you just make shit like this up.

You know what's really fucked up?  That the American people even have to keep an eye on these foxes guarding the hen house.  There is absolutely no fucking way in Hell Americans should have to be up to speed with Economic Indicators.  It's bullshit.

[vel]

You know what's really fucked up?  That the American people even have to keep an eye on these foxes guarding the hen house.  There is absolutely no fucking way in Hell Americans should have to be up to speed with Economic Indicators.  It's bullshit.

You what's really bullshit?

Your whole school of economic thought is total bullshit, made up out of thin air largely by non-economists, to defraud the American people. And this phony school of economic thought has led directly to the largest transfer of wealth in history from the American middle class to the top 1%.

And what's really outrageous is that they've conned all of you "conservatives" into doing this for them.

[Case_Closed]

You what's really bullshit?

Your whole school of economic thought is total bullshit, made up out of thin air largely by non-economists, to defraud the American people. And this phony school of economic thought has led directly to the largest transfer of wealth in history from the American middle class to the top 1%.

I know how to balance a checkbook.  I know when I run out of money, I stop spending...just like everyone else in this country...with the exception of the United States Government.

[vel]

I know how to balance a checkbook.  I know when I run out of money, I stop spending...just like everyone else in this country...with the exception of the United States Government.

Do you know how to create your own currency? Do you know how to have sovereign immunity? Do you even know what it means to create your own currency and to have sovereign immunity?

No?

Well, then you don't know shit about the rules that apply to the federal government. It's not analogous to your checkbook, which is yet another irrelevance you're bringing to the table.

[Case_Closed]

Do you know how to create your own currency? Do you know how to have sovereign immunity? Do you even know what it means to create your own currency and to have sovereign immunity?

No?

Well, then you don't know shit about the rules that apply to the federal government. It's not analogous to your checkbook, which is yet another irrelevance you're bringing to the table.

So, in your opinion, the mounting debt we have is irrelevant.  Just print more.  How can we be "the wealthiest nation on Earth" and be so indebted to so many "less wealthy nations" on this planet?

Is this the Liberal Plan?  As long as we have trees, cotton and ink, we're solvent?

[vel]

So, in your opinion, the mounting debt we have is irrelevant.  Just print more.  How can we be "the wealthiest nation on Earth" and be so indebted to so many "less wealthy nations" on this planet?

Is this the Liberal Plan?  As long as we have trees, cotton and ink, we're solvent?

Once again you put words into my mouth. It is not the liberal position that "the mounting debt we have is irrelevant" and nor is that mainstream economics.

That was Dick Cheney and Obsurder who said that. It was your "conservatives" who said that and who also initiated the mounting debt with their phony "supply-side economics", tax cuts for the rich without corresponding spending cuts, and massive military adventurism expenditures.

How soon you forget and how selective you are.

The correct statement of my position, and of mainstream economic thought, is that you don't enact contractionary policies until we're in a period of sustainable recovery. At that point, when we're in a sustainable recovery, we will be able to cut the bloated military budget and allow the ill-advised Bush tax cuts for the rich to expire. That revenue combined with new revenue from our growing economy will take care of the debt.

That is, unless you mopes have your way and bring us back to the brink or worse.

[Case_Closed]

Once again you put words into my mouth.

Please review the sentences I "asked" you.  They were followed by a ? mark.

I put no words in anyone's mouth via an interrogatory.

[vel]

Please review the sentences I "asked" you.  They were followed by a ? mark.

I put no words in anyone's mouth via an interrogatory.

If you were seriously asking me a question you would have phrased it in such a way as to make it a serious question. But that's not what you intended.

The real risk of debt is inflation, which would be a way to devalue all of that debt that you're so worried about.

Explain to me what the difference is between: 1) a United States Treasury security; and 2) a corresponding amount of United States currency.