Fundamental necessities of any economic system

total liberal nonsense of course if they don't have to do with value free people don't buy them with their hard earned money. If there is even a tiny threat to value stocks for example instantly decline because the world is exquisitely sensitive to value.

libcommies like to find fault where there obviously is none so they can introduce communist regulation

 

I hope you understand that since you did not quote from the person (in your comment) to whom you are responding, there is no way of knowing who you are addressing - and therefore preventing them from rebutting ...

 

Who said anything about "banks or bailouts?

People and organizations put their money in investments that were held or even managed by commercial banks. Some of those banks were recommending investments to their clients on one floor or shorting those same investments on another floor. When the music stopped trillions of peoples dollars were gone. I lost $50k in retirement savings, which will cost me more like $500k of unrelized potential income. Where did my money go? Did it vanish? No, it was earned by investors of which banks got a cut.

However, it's true banks got money as part of a bailout. Whether they "paid it back" or not is irrelevant. But as long as you brought it up. Banks "repaid" TARP with money from the government.....lol

 

True, if the retirement funds are from your company. But given the tumultuous times we are in, only a fool would depend upon one private company for lifetime employment. Those days a gone, gone, gone.

Meaning the gummint is the only entity one could truly depend upon for old-age retirement. (I am quite sure that the Retirement Funding is supplied by the Dept of the Treasury, and they are probably funding the amounts with T-notes. And who buys those?

One guess. China will do nicely.

I doubt seriously that national retirement-funds "bet their money" on the stock-market. Now, by "state" I am of course referring to Europe.

In the US ... admittedly I don't really know. But the inherent risk is obvious and anybody doing that would be lucky to be simply shot for doing if taking such risk with government funds derived in part from taxation.

Anyone losing a colossal amount of money of a Federal retirement-fund is looking at pure hatred as a consequence ...

 

I didn't realise you thought it was like the Album charts....

I expect knowledge, from the left and the right. Your comments are destructive of social democracy. You sure you're not a plant?

You've gone from social democracy is an advancement of socialism to social democracy to an advancement of capitalism. Social democracy is just capitalism with greater control over poverty. Is that to be applauded? Yes. But you exaggerate what it means, probably to try and play a rightesous card.

Nonsense. Plenty of liberal democracies who don't compete with US inequalities.

Actually I'm British. Arguably we do have higher inequality problems (although, until recently, also a more effective welfare state). Your position is "I likes social democracy, I don't likes America". It isn't any complicated or insightful.[/quote]

 

Same in Europe where they have a socialist regulations up the gazoo!! Does the libcommie want a govt genius by your side everyday to make all your spending decisions for you?

 

Capitalism just eliminated 40% of the planets poverty when China switched to it. If social democracy gives greater control over poverty than capitalism why so afraid to tell us how on earth that is possible?

 

I still chuckle when I see you celebrate an 'open' dictatorship.

 

celebrating 700 million people who might have slowly starved to death under libcommieism had Friedman not switched them to Republican capitalism.

 

Again, there is no republican capitalism. Now Friedman has been associated with relationship with dictatorship. An amusing aspect of fake libertarianism...

 

Capitalism is now Republican since they are only ones who support it. Trump's tax bill will pass to support capitalism. Democrats 100% opposed. Do you understand now?

 

total libcommie BS of course which explains why you forgot to explain what the association was.

 

You can continue to post idiotic comments and hope to change reality. That is your prerogative.

 

of course if it was idiotic you would not be so afraid to explain why. What do you learn from your fear?

 

I made it clear: you invented a term that has no consistency with political economy. Your post truth stuff is dead dull.

 

Friedman used the term statist. I'm simply more specific using the term libcommie since it describes the two most significant statist groups today. Sorry to rock your world.

 

Friedman didn't use the term 'republican capitalism'. Nor did Friedman use the term 'libcommie'. You use them as you are ranting, rather than referring to any relevant political economy.

 

So? If I said he used it I'll pay you $10,000 Bet? Do you know what a strawman is?

 

if its too complicated for you just pretend libcommie is substitute for statist. See how you have to be brought along?

 

Anyone mixing clearly incompatible political economic terms is clearly talking from ignorance.

 

Friedman was talking from ignorance by using term statist??

 

actually a libcommmie is a statist since both liberals and communists want an an always more powerful state. Simple enough now?

 

A libcommie does not and cannot exist. Anyone using the term is just ignorant of political economy. Keep coming out with ludicrous comments and I'll keep informing you of your error.

 

Norman Thomas ( socialist presidential candidate)
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

 

Petty effort. Liberalism and communism are, by definition, inconsistent. Socialism and communism are also, by definition, different. Crikey, socialist political economy is often non-Marxist.

Your position is reliant on knowing no economics.