US Election 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
konfab said:
I can say exactly the same thing about people who think Obama is the second messiah in all his perfection.

Dodgy stuff like this for example.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016...lessing-of-for-profit-college-takeover-224917

And on the whole, Trump's administration has been much better than Obama's in getting rid of regulations that allow the government to pick winners and losers.

This executive order:

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...g-regulation-and-controlling-regulatory-costs

does more for fighting corruption than any amount of subcommittees or consultative process you can think of because it removes the source of corruption.
Click to expand...
You know who were really good at deregulation and privatisation?

Mussolini's fascist party and the Nazis. Nazis literally invented the phrase - privatisation.

So deregulation is not the panacea that some fantasize about.

Deregulation can be good in some circumstances, but it also can have some severe consequences.

To stretch that to say corruption is decreased overlooks how power and the connections between business and government are narrowed down to few, very powerful politicians who are easily placed to take advantage of the reduced level of scrutiny and oversight because of the lack of regulations.

There needs to be a balance between no regulation and too much regulation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: STS
buka001 said:
You know who were really good at deregulation and privatisation?

Mussolini's fascist party and the Nazis. Nazis literally invented the phrase - privatisation.

So deregulation is not the panacea that some fantasize about.

Deregulation can be good in some circumstances, but it also can have some severe consequences.

To stretch that to say corruption is decreased overlooks how power and the connections between business and government are narrowed down to few, very powerful politicians who are easily placed to take advantage of the reduced level of scrutiny and oversight because of the lack of regulations.

There needs to be a balance between no regulation and too much regulation.
Click to expand...
You know that the sound economic policies of the Nazis rebuild Germany from a failed state with hyperinflation to a power house capable of taking on most of the world in just 10 short years.

They went a bit overboard with the killing of the Gypsies and whatnot, but they have definitely proven that privatisation works.

Your argument is basically because the Germans built the Autobahn and also killed some Jews all Hiways are now evil.
 
Last edited:
rietrot said:
You know that the sound economic policies of the Nazis rebuild Germany from a failed state with hyperinflation to a power house capable of taking on most of the world in just 10 short years.

They went a bit overboard with the killing of the Gypsies and whatnot, but they have definitely proven that privatisation works.
Click to expand...
Having slave labour does help ones economy.
 
buka001 said:
You know who were really good at deregulation and privatisation?

Mussolini's fascist party and the Nazis. Nazis literally invented the phrase - privatisation.

So deregulation is not the panacea that some fantasize about.

Deregulation can be good in some circumstances, but it also can have some severe consequences.

To stretch that to say corruption is decreased overlooks how power and the connections between business and government are narrowed down to few, very powerful politicians who are easily placed to take advantage of the reduced level of scrutiny and oversight because of the lack of regulations.

There needs to be a balance between no regulation and too much regulation.
Click to expand...
Really? That is your argument? The Nazis did something, that thing is now tainted?

Well then I would have you know that the Nazis employed Keynesian economics to the max. Which makes pretty much every government in the the world a follower of Nazi ideology.

Want more? How about environmental legislation and animal protection legislation?
A wave of research studies that began in the 1990s is focusing on the possible connection between the Nazi movement and today's green movement. In 1935, two years after the Nazis rose to power, the German government passed a Reich law for the protection of the natural environment, a law whose scope was unprecedented at the time and whose goal was to protect and care for the homeland's natural environment. The law included regulations for the protection of flora and fauna, as well as for the conservation of unique natural phenomena of scientific importance and of aesthetic and cultural value. These natural phenomena included Germany's celebrated forests, which were considered a central component of the German national identity.
Click to expand...
The law also established procedures for the definition of nature reserves and authorized the state to expropriate land for the sake of such reserves without providing any compensation to the owners of the land. Violators of this law were given stiff penalties. In addition, attempts were made to formulate laws for the prevention of air pollution. The Reich's green laws - although this might sound sarcastic - forbade the slaughtering of animals that had not been previously anaesthetized and fixed limits on experiments on animals. Within the context of the Reich's laws for the protection of the natural environment, organic agriculture, which encouraged the use of manual plowshares in small farms instead of heavy machinery, was advanced.
Click to expand...
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/of-nazis-and-other-nature-lovers-1.5236743

Well that would mean according to your logic that all environmental legislation is Nazi regulation as well.

And you are not even wrong about the regulations in Nazi Germany. Their main piece of legislation was telling people who can and who cannot do. This is what intelligent people would call a regulation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws#Text_of_the_laws

You don't get more regulatory and statist than telling people that they can and cannot work based on a bunch of arbitrary criteria. This type of thinking is what the communists parroted in South Africa, stating that Apartheid South Africa was a free market capitalist state. Again, you have to be pretty stupid to think that you can have a free market capitalist country where there are laws telling people they are not allowed to work because of the colour of their skin.

You are more clever than this. If you want to attack deregulation, you could at least provide a substantial argument. Stating that it was a Nazi policy is not only historically incorrect, but it would mean that 99% of policies that you would probably support would classified as Nazi policy.

rietrot said:
You know that the sound economic policies of the Nazis rebuild Germany from a failed state with hyperinflation to a power house capable of taking on most of the world in just 10 short years.
Click to expand...

That is a myth. They were not sound economic policies.
The Nazis came to power in the midst of Great Depression. The unemployment rate at that point in time was close to 30%.[16] At first, the new Nazi government continued the economic policies introduced by the government of Kurt von Schleicher in 1932 to combat the effects of the Depression.[17] Hitler appointed Hjalmar Schacht, a former member of the German Democratic Party, as President of the Reichsbank in 1933 and Minister of Economics in 1934.[16] The policies he inherited included a large public works programs supported by deficit spending – such as the construction of the Autobahn network – to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment.[18] These were programs that were planned to be undertaken by the Weimar Republic during conservative Paul von Hindenburg's presidency, and which the Nazis appropriated as their own after coming to power.[19] Hjalmar Schacht created a scheme for deficit financing, in which capital projects were paid for with the issuance of promissory notes called Mefo bills, which could be traded by companies with each other.[20] This was particularly useful in allowing Germany to rearm because the Mefo bills were not Reichsmarks and did not appear in the federal budget, so they helped conceal rearmament.[21] When the notes were presented for payment, the Reichsbank printed money. This proved inadequate in 1938, when a large share of Mefo’s five-year promissory notes fell due, so the government employed “highly dubious methods” where “banks were forced to buy government bonds, and the government took money from savings accounts and insurance companies” in order to pay the holders of Mefo bills, due mainly to a serious government cash shortage
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

And you don't get to say they were sound economic policies if they are so bad that you have to raid the banks of other countries.
 
Buka inadvertently supporting some aspects of Nazi economics... Well well well, always knew he protested too much.

Buka aka MyBBs Nazi economist.
 
konfab said:
Really? That is your argument? The Nazis did something, that thing is now tainted?

Well then I would have you know that the Nazis employed Keynesian economics to the max. Which makes pretty much every government in the the world a follower of Nazi ideology.

Want more? How about environmental legislation and animal protection legislation?


https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/of-nazis-and-other-nature-lovers-1.5236743

Well that would mean according to your logic that all environmental legislation is Nazi regulation as well.

And you are not even wrong about the regulations in Nazi Germany. Their main piece of legislation was telling people who can and who cannot do. This is what intelligent people would call a regulation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws#Text_of_the_laws

You don't get more regulatory and statist than telling people that they can and cannot work based on a bunch of arbitrary criteria. This type of thinking is what the communists parroted in South Africa, stating that Apartheid South Africa was a free market capitalist state. Again, you have to be pretty stupid to think that you can have a free market capitalist country where there are laws telling people they are not allowed to work because of the colour of their skin.

You are more clever than this. If you want to attack deregulation, you could at least provide a substantial argument. Stating that it was a Nazi policy is not only historically incorrect, but it would mean that 99% of policies that you would probably support would classified as Nazi policy.



That is a myth. They were not sound economic policies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

And you don't get to say they were sound economic policies if they are so bad that you have to raid the banks of other countries.
Click to expand...
You missed my nuance.

The point is that deregulation is not the panacea you want it to be.

There has to be caution and reflection in the approach.

The Nazi comparison was to illustrate, that at the extreme you will not achieve utopia.

I support some aspects of deregulation, absolutely (specifically small business), but I also support regulations where they are critical and primarily in aspects on health and safety at work.
 
konfab said:
Really? That is your argument? The Nazis did something, that thing is now tainted?

Well then I would have you know that the Nazis employed Keynesian economics to the max. Which makes pretty much every government in the the world a follower of Nazi ideology.

Want more? How about environmental legislation and animal protection legislation?


https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/of-nazis-and-other-nature-lovers-1.5236743

Well that would mean according to your logic that all environmental legislation is Nazi regulation as well.

And you are not even wrong about the regulations in Nazi Germany. Their main piece of legislation was telling people who can and who cannot do. This is what intelligent people would call a regulation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws#Text_of_the_laws

You don't get more regulatory and statist than telling people that they can and cannot work based on a bunch of arbitrary criteria. This type of thinking is what the communists parroted in South Africa, stating that Apartheid South Africa was a free market capitalist state. Again, you have to be pretty stupid to think that you can have a free market capitalist country where there are laws telling people they are not allowed to work because of the colour of their skin.

You are more clever than this. If you want to attack deregulation, you could at least provide a substantial argument. Stating that it was a Nazi policy is not only historically incorrect, but it would mean that 99% of policies that you would probably support would classified as Nazi policy.



That is a myth. They were not sound economic policies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

And you don't get to say they were sound economic policies if they are so bad that you have to raid the banks of other countries.
Click to expand...
Perhaps a less emotional example would be the USA in the 1930's.

There was sweet F/A labour regulations.

Companies, farms and so on took advantage of the massive oversupply of labour because of the great depression and paid woefully inadequate wages. They bullied labour to accepting ridiculously low wages.

They bribed police and local government officials to wipe out any labour organisations and attempts to strike or form some kind of a union were violently destroyed.

Only with the massive ramp up to the command economy of WW2, did labour regulations begin to permeate through and the slow step upwards for labour rights in the USA begin.
 
buka001 said:
You missed my nuance.

The point is that deregulation is not the panacea you want it to be.

There has to be caution and reflection in the approach.

The Nazi comparison was to illustrate, that at the extreme you will not achieve utopia.

I support some aspects of deregulation, absolutely (specifically small business), but I also support regulations where they are critical and primarily in aspects on health and safety at work.
Click to expand...
Except the Nazi comparison was completely invalid because they did the opposite of deregulation.
 
buka001 said:
Perhaps a less emotional example would be the USA in the 1930's.
Click to expand...
Ok...

buka001 said:
Companies, farms and so on took advantage of the massive oversupply of labour because of the great depression and paid woefully inadequate wages. They bullied labour to accepting ridiculously low wages.
Click to expand...
I fully agree with you. Would have been much better that farms and companies simply left millions of people unemployed because the government forces them to pay minimum wage, which is above what the farms and companies are able to afford after a depression.

buka001 said:
They bribed police and local government officials to wipe out any labour organisations and attempts to strike or form some kind of a union were violently destroyed.
Click to expand...
And how did they do that? Oh the government gave themselves power to determine who is allowed to work and who isn't.

buka001 said:
Only with the massive ramp up to the command economy of WW2, did labour regulations begin to permeate through and the slow step upwards for labour rights in the USA begin.
Click to expand...
LOL, you do know FDR's new deal delayed the economic recovery of the US significantly.

Having hobbled the banking system and destroyed the gold standard, he turned next to agriculture. Working with the politically influential Farm Bureau and the Bernard Baruch gang, Roosevelt pushed through the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. It provided for acreage and production controls, restrictive marketing agreements, and regulatory licensing of processors and dealers "to eliminate unfair practices and charges." It authorized new lending, taxed processors of agricultural commodities, and rewarded farmers who cut back production.

The objective was to raise farm commodity prices until they reached a much higher "parity" level. The millions who could hardly feed and clothe their families can be forgiven for questioning the nobility of a program designed to make food and fiber more expensive. Though this was called an "emergency" measure, no President since has seen fit to declare the emergency over.

Industry was virtually nationalized under Roosevelt's National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. Like most New Deal legislation, this resulted from a compromise of special interests: businessmen seeking higher prices and barriers to competition, labor unionists seeking governmental sponsorship and protection, social workers wanting to control working conditions and forbid child labor, and the proponents of massive spending on public works.

The legislation allowed the President to license businesses or control imports to achieve the vaguely identified objectives of the act. Every industry had to have a code of fair competition. The codes contained provisions setting minimum wages, maximum hours, and "decent" working conditions. The policy rested on the dubious notion that what the country needed most was cartelized business, higher prices, less work, and steep labor costs.
Click to expand...
https://mises.org/library/how-fdr-made-depression-worse

To the point, you don't really understand what you are talking about since the polices you are so loving advocating for, are ones that contradict exactly what you said in your post:
I support some aspects of deregulation, absolutely (specifically small business), but I also support regulations where they are critical and primarily in aspects on health and safety at work.
Click to expand...

And just to be clear, there are regulations that work. The ones that work are the ones where there really is a low cost and high benefit, and you can measure the benefit. One such example is regulations requiring certain foodstuff be enriched with vitamins that prevent disease. The cost of that type of regulation is very low, but the benefit is immense. And you can measure its impact by looking how many people are suffering from the diseases that the enrichment prevents.
 
And to end the week on a happy note:

Biden Cuts Hole In Mask So He Can Still Sniff People's Hair

article-5930-1.jpg


https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-c...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
 
This is great


insideclimatenews.org

Biden Names Ocasio-Cortez, Kerry to Lead His Climate Task Force, Bridging Democrats’ Divide - Inside Climate News

With the climate task force that Joe Biden named Wednesday, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee is making a clear bid to bridge the divides in his own party that threaten his candidacy and the long-term fight for action on global warming. In tapping as co-chairs Rep. Alexandria...
insideclimatenews.org insideclimatenews.org

Biden Names Ocasio-Cortez, Kerry to Lead His Climate Task Force, Bridging Democrats’ Divide

Progressives applaud the former vice president’s embrace of Bernie Sanders’ climate advisors. One analyst called the panel “the Climate Dream Team for Democrats.”
 
cerebus said:
Progressives turning against AOC now, really?
Click to expand...
Nowhere in your mind exists the possibility that progressives are fed up with the Democrat party no matter how much progressive politicians virtue signal :X3: :laugh: .
And AOC is turning into the love child of hairy legs Biden and Ice cream Pelosi. A careerist and hypocritical plutocrat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X