The Economics Discussion Thread

We Are Not All Created Equal: The truth about the American class system

Wall Street’s Big Lie


Edited by Slartibartfast - December 28 2011 at 09:24

Beware the coming EU bailouts by the IMF and US Federal Reserve..

A warning from Ron Paul:

Ron Paul - the coming EU bailouts

Nice to know that while US states go bankrupt, the Fed wil be pumping more devalued money into a busted Europe.

Our government, here in the UK uses an expression to describe the current economic crisis "We're all in it together" This is of course not entirely true. Goldman Sachs has done extraordinarily well out of the crisis. They are now in charge of Greece and Italy. Democratic governments were deposed in what was - for all intents and purposes - a cue by the global bank, and in their place unelected technocrats, formerly of the bank. In the case of Greece, Papandraeos replacement was actually head of the Boston Federal Reserve at one point.

On the issue of debt. The official level of national debt in the US is around $14.5T. This is what the nation owes, however the debt they don't shout too loud about is the quadrillions of derivative debts, inflated by the global banks. That is money that WE DO NOT OWE!!! but are all being forced to pay back through our respective imposed austerity packages, despite many economists saying the debt is mathamatically impossible to pay off.

Anyway, merry Christmas. Let's hope we have something to celebrate next year.

Edited by Blacksword - December 20 2011 at 06:24

Yeah they make zero sense now.

^True. But these former slaves would've been in no condition whatsoever to return to Africa by their own means and, having been forcibly removed from there, helping them to go back would've been a justified reparation I think.


Edit: Oh I read now your reply to Mofo. I agree.

Edited by The T - November 28 2011 at 13:19

TheMasterMofo wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: That's why you just free the slaves. If they wish to go back, they can go back. The point I was making was Lincoln's position of forcibly shipping them back. I thought that was the context. With what money to pay for the passage back?

I think the moral solution would have been to offer reparations. I would say for them to sue their owners. I know that would formally be thrown out of court in this country, but a logical legal system would still hold people accountable.

If you didn't catch it. I was saying I misunderstood you due to the context. I get your point now.

^Can't you all agree that the good thing to do would have been "hey, you are free now, would you like to go back to the land where you were forcibly removed from or stay here?" 

TheMasterMofo wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: What the hell are you smoking? Forcibly removing a group of people from a geographical area because of the color of their skin is not noble no matter what time period you hail from. Clearly you didn't actually read my post, for I have no recollection of saying anything about forcing them to go back. Did anyone even think to ask slaves what they wanted, ultimately, back then? Did anybody care what the slaves wanted at the time? Does anyone really know what time it is? Does anybody care? Probably not.

That's why you just free the slaves. If they wish to go back, they can go back. The point I was making was Lincoln's position of forcibly shipping them back. I thought that was the context.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: So it's resolved, Lincoln was a truly awful fellow who wasn't shot nearly enough.  Jefferson would have saved the nation if only he'd been given half a chance. Lincoln stands for the things you supposedly abhor, so your support of him strikes me as disingenuous or uninformed.

Yeah you nailed me.  I'm actually both ingenuous and misinformed.
Remind me again why I have to like Lincoln and the modern day republican party or neither?
Let's ignore that whole state's rights thing.


Edited by Slartibartfast - November 28 2011 at 07:03

^I can't detect whether you're benig sarcastic or not Pat Shields because I can see some sense in Mofo's remark.

TheMasterMofo wrote: Gamemako wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: He wanted blacks to be shipped back to Africa. He didn't want them to be able to vote. His economic policies and curtailment of personal freedoms are identical to current Republicans. Modern republicanism idolizes him. His saving of the Union had nothing to do with emancipation of the slaves. To be fair, Lincoln was a lot like Jefferson. Jefferson preached small government and freedom until he found himself in position where he had to weigh his beliefs and what he knew would a better outcome. It is unclear what Lincoln actually believed with regard to slaves. He preached sending them back to Africa, but that may have been Lincoln the Politician showing his hand. He may have freed the slaves in the South because he believed that all men were equal, or he may have done it as part of the war effort. I've read two biographies on Lincoln, and while I'm no Lincoln scholar, it's really not clear what he believed. It is extremely likely that he found slavery abhorrent -- that much is pretty clear from pretty much all personal accounts. However, whether he thought blacks should be integrated into society is hard to say. It was a shrewd man who invited Franklin Douglas to his second inauguration. You mean Frederick Douglas? And at the time I can see why "Shipping black people back to Africa" would be considered by GOOD and moral people. For some people it might not have been "Lets get all dem dere negroes out of our country". You have to remember that initially most slaves were taken from Africa against their free will. Many slaves might have preferred going back to Africa to staying in America. Shipping slaves back to where they come from doesn't necessary have to be a negative position to have had back then. Obviously today it WOULD be.

What the hell are you smoking? Forcibly removing a group of people from a geographical area because of the color of their skin is not noble no matter what time period you hail from.