|
StealthArcher posted:Oh deary me you've done it now. I can already hear Amergin typing out "Guilty of being alive while white." unironically. Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 07:54 on May 22, 2014 |
#
?
May 22, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:51 |
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:You know what, I'll step on this land mine. Many decedents of slaves are white, are they guilty? If I'm a white immigrant to America, how much more guilty am I than someone who's family has been here longer? What about before the abolition of slavery? What about a family that actually owned slaves? Maybe, to make this problem even discuss-able we need to drop the pretense of who did what to whom and just tackle the problem as it exists now. Should blacks be locked out of the reparation process because they were the victims and not the perpetrators? Hell no. Are they responsible for solving it? Well, now we're in a pickle. So let's drop the whole whites begging forgiveness from the decedents of slaves pretense. The issue is that black people in America were not allowed to accrue wealth for most of American history. That's the problem reparations seeks to address. It's an American problem, and Americans need to solve it full stop. Laying blame and coming up with some arcane responsibility rubric is counter productive and divisive. If you want to feel bad about white supremacy, write a check to the SPLC. How about the government writes a check, and you pay taxes. If you're black and rich enough to pay taxes, congratulations! You get to help.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 07:54
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's not a crime, you're just not innocent. By hook or by crook, the stolen property has made its way into your house. I for example am not innocent of what was visited on the Salish because I am sitting on their land, and they aren't. No immoral activity = innocent. Buying stolen goods does not a thief make. I do think so; its warm and toasty around the unfeeling, money grubbing capitalist's campfire, come on over. (of course the justification for that statement is quite simple- even if you did create the circumstances or place the unfortunates into them, as long as you have not violated anyone's property rights, including those concerned with contracts, written, verbal, implied, or otherwise, you have done no wrong.)
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
absolem posted:No immoral activity = innocent. Buying stolen goods does not a thief make. Hmm yes tell me more from beneath your giant ancap fedora
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:How about the government writes a check, and you pay taxes. If you're black and rich enough to pay taxes, congratulations! You get to help. absolem posted:No immoral activity = innocent. Buying stolen goods does not a thief make.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
absolem posted:No immoral activity = innocent. Buying stolen goods does not a thief make. Buying stolen goods and refusing to return them or compensate the original owner in any way, if you later discover that the goods you bought are stolen, is actually wrong and bad. Likewise benefiting from white supremacy is wrong. That I as a white person have no choice but to benefit from white supremacy does not lessen my culpability or change the fact that it would be wrong to not make some efforts to compensate the people who have been harmed by white supremacy. Like, I have unfairly benefited from being white. I should be made to pay for this somehow. How, I don't know, but it should be rectified.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hmm yes tell me more from beneath your giant ancap fedora Well, there is no way to disagree with that first statement without playing with definitions. The ancap fedora has actually been recently renovated into a proper mansion, complete with indentured servants. As you likely know, I am forced, by my very nature, to take your remark as an invitation to talk at you. There can be no disagreement that no violent or otherwise coercive acts were committed by the average person in question here. Therefore, they are innocent, there is no obligation make reparations. If you want to advance the position that being in a privileged position is immoral, you may want to consider supporting your witty remarks with an argument.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
absolem posted:Well, there is no way to disagree with that first statement without playing with definitions. This is gonna be great, I can just feel it. Hey bud, do me a favour and go look up the Waitangi Tribunal, have a little read about it and tell me what your thoughts on it are, ok?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:
Fair enough, since the goods are not the seller's to sell, "buying" them means nothing, and using them would be immoral. Unfortunately, its very difficult to tell what is and is not stolen. Clearly slavery involved theft. However, less clear are the later manipulations. Share cropping thefts aren't well documented, but certainly happened. Predatory lending and housing practices, though? Conspiracies to keep "undesirables" out and impoverished? Those are not crimes, they violate nothing. My earlier post is not very clear at all, sorry. Swan Oat posted:Buying stolen goods and refusing to return them or compensate the original owner in any way, if you later discover that the goods you bought are stolen, is actually wrong and bad. Likewise benefiting from white supremacy is wrong. That I as a white person have no choice but to benefit from white supremacy does not lessen my culpability or change the fact that it would be wrong to not make some efforts to compensate the people who have been harmed by white supremacy. Like, I have unfairly benefited from being white. I should be made to pay for this somehow. How, I don't know, but it should be rectified. Yes, later finding out means that you best stop using them post hast, and offer recompense in order to dissuade the owner from coming after you for damages (my earlier post was unclear, sorry). Benefiting from white supremacy is not wrong. You've failed to connect those two concepts adequately. Especially since white supremacy is not only to do with actual crimes (see above).
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
absolem posted:Benefiting from white supremacy is not wrong. Take a step back and think about what you've just said. What are you exactly trying to argue here?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:Like, I have unfairly benefited from being white. I should be made to pay for this somehow. How, I don't know, but it should be rectified. Personally, I feel no guilt. I do as much as I can to fight white supremacy and help the civil rights movement, and that is a hell of a lot more then self flagellation on the internet has ever done. I think at some level, people who haven't really thought about it much or done anything just want everyone else to feel equally culpable so they don't have to lift a finger. Yes, I probably benefit from white supremacy, but no, I'm not complicit. Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 08:34 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
Two Finger posted:This is gonna be great, I can just feel it. Its already great. I read the wikipedia article on it, if you have a better article, link me. It sounds like a decent way to make reparations, if that's your goal. Some things that stand out: -nonbinding nature of the decisions makes it seem like a joke -seems to have accomplished a good bit even though -its procedure seems ludicrously unsound (allowing lower quality evidence) -I detest the idea of the government making these sorts of decisions in the first place -and I can't stand the idea of using stolen funds (as in, funds stolen by the government from taxpayers, knowingly, etc. )to make reparations (or using any force, at, all, ever) -I have no choice but to advance that it ought to be dissolved, but not for many other reasons than any other state institution. Now do me a favor and respond to my points in this and previous posts, bruv If you are familiar with anarchism and dislike it so strongly, care to tell me why?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
Wait, so now I'm guilty (or not innocent, whichever) for my (great to the Nth-grand)father's sins? I don't accept that. I do accept that I'm priviledged, that me being white, relatively wealthy as a result of my country's (The Netherlands) history of slave trading and all other sorts of nasty poo poo is unjust (and I wish we lived in a perfect world, but we don't, unfortunately), but while I benefit from that horrid past, I was forced into the situation I'm in now. None of it was my doing and I did not choose to be born into the position I was and therefor I consider myself innocent. I try to improve things the best I can, in my own way, and I use my priviledged position to do so, but I refuse to feel guilty for something I had no choice in.SedanChair posted:I for example am not innocent of what was visited on the Salish because I am sitting on their land, and they aren't. Did you cause that situation? Did you choose to be in that situation? Are you able to remedy the situation but choosing not to? If the answer is no to these questions then yes, you are innocent. It's unjust, but you're not responsible.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
Two Finger posted:Take a step back and think about what you've just said. What are you exactly trying to argue here? I am arguing that it is not immoral to benefit from a situation in which someone other than yourself has violated someone's rights, as long as you yourself have not violated anyone's rights.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:Well it's kind of the same thing, and still an easy cop out for white people to take. Yeah it's hard to grapple with how we can dismantle white society/supremacy, but actually what is so hard about that? This something I'm asking you, goon to goon, why do you feel you are unable to contribute? This is true, and I shouldn't lean on it to prop myself up. As far as the actual problem goes, I have, since my own political turning tried to think of what exactly would be needed to really 'repay' as it were the huge societal deficit that actions over a several century period overshadowing the entirety of your and my nations' histories. The essay posted just above actually had even more things done in the name of white supremacy then I even already knew about, and I'm certain there are more hidden away either through secrets or consequential outcomes due to other actions. The act of repartition itself can't be payment of debt in the usual sense either. In one measure of how to make due in the broadest sense, it should result in the harmed party being of the same status as the harmee, plus interest due on delays and time and life/lives lost without. The idea that a spectrum should result not only in blacks with the same income, wealth, education, governmental, and societal status but also payments of a kind to make due for the eons this was denied due to the actions of the guilty party. You can't even stop there, you must make sure in no uncertain circumstances it cannot begin to slide back due to the same actions in more covert methods again the debt not only being owed but unrightfully taken out against the will of the people it was and resulting in what quite frankly is an abhorrent ignorance and debasement over what amounts to gently caress all besides a prejudice over tribalism. You could do this through direct payments, yes, but you would also need to focus on discrimination in employment, in schools both childhood and adult, in office, in business, and in law. It would require the action of thoroughly rooting out all measures or beliefs of white supremacy in any powerful or influential position in the long run. It would need to be made socially, economically, and legally untenable to be a person of these beliefs. No matter the method you undertook this would need to be the case, it in itself being the true end of the actual disease. As far as me, I was raised in a belief that bought into the just world, that poor's deserved it, that black people / natives just needed to work harder, and more usual libertarian horseshit. After a fair amount of scorn and interaction peeling away my forcibly sheltered upbringing I abandoned these beliefs. I'm a student of engineering, understanding only basics of political science, economics or law. I supposed part of my inhibition is a recognizance of a lack of capabilities or a fear my old beliefs would come back and poison my efforts, but sitting here thinking about it and typing all this out makes me think it was a reluctance to do things not at the forefront of sorts. Too proud to actually live up to my own beliefs. So you know what, for you and myself I'll look into what exactly I can do. Here in Canada we've long had a supremacy issue with our native population and the idea of anything to do with them to most leaves them coming out with the same sort of racist bile you see toward African-Americans in the USA. So I'll ask native advocacy groups about volunteering, attempt to curb my own circle of friends's issues on these things and if necessary cut ties, do some political work for a candidate who supports these issues. Realistically you're right, its hard but isn't. Its just a matter of actually attempting what you say you believe in. Thanks for making me self reflect here. Having to type this all out on a phone on my night shift made me sit and think things over. If you have any of your own suggestions for action besides these feel free. Its good to be called out.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
A lot of my family's wealth was stolen from black people because of racial discrimination in FHA policy. A lot of my family's wealth was stolen because my high school dropout dad was able to rise through the ranks of a major corporation due to this skin color, while black people were not even considered for any management positions regardless of ability. A lot of my family's wealth was stolen because a grandfather was able to use the GI Bill to get a college degree after WWII and become an accountant, which is something black people were largely unable to do. They served the same as my grandfather, but their benefits were stolen. I used to work with a black guy who basically had my same role but he was paid less than me. I was paid more because I had previously asked for a raise, but he was still robbed because white supremacy allowed me greater ability to ask for and expect a raise. Like I told him (after he mentioned his rate) that I got paid more than him and he should ask for a raise, but he demurred. I didn't steal from him directly, but white supremacy took money from his pocket and put it into mine. I think it is time for whitey to pay up. e: otoh I got my current job through a friend WHO IS BLACK so I guess it all evens out in the end
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
absolem posted:I am arguing that it is not immoral to benefit from a situation in which someone other than yourself has violated someone's rights, as long as you yourself have not violated anyone's rights. Haha. You rule. EDIT: OK here we go, here's the definition of complicit. "choosing to be involved in an illegal or questionable act, especially with others;" Which is more or less exactly what you just said. To do it knowingly is one thing, to do it unknowingly is a different thing. What you're arguing is that you've knowingly benefitted from a situation that disadvantages others, but because it wasn't you doing the disadvantaging there's no issue. No, that's pretty much the definition of being complicit. Comrade Blyatlov fucked around with this message at 08:44 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
absolem posted:I am arguing that it is not immoral to benefit from a situation in which someone other than yourself has violated someone's rights, as long as you yourself have not violated anyone's rights. How do you feel about mortgage-backed securities and the 2008 financial crisis? Because very few of the groups and individuals that basically clusterfucked the economy actually, factually violated anyone else's rights - but where rights were violated, they compounded because (and this is a bit of an oversimplification) of the attitude of "whatever, not my problem." When someone screws a black person through lovely lending practices and those loans get packaged into securities and oh gently caress, there goes the economy, you see how profiting off harms done by others and even just standing idly by isn't cool. Perpetuation of the harm through act or omission is a form of participation in the harm. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 08:50 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
Number_6 posted:Just a note to say that if you already voted in one of the Texas party primaries in March, you don't actually have a choice for the runoff. (If you voted in the March Democratic primary, you can't vote in the Republican runoff, and vice versa.) Ah, yeah, of course. I guess I heard something saying you could vote in the runoff even if you didn't vote in the first primary and sort of extrapolated that into something else for some dumb reason. SO if you didn't vote, you can still choose, but if you did, you're locked in to that one. Makes sense.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:How do you feel about mortgage-backed securities and the 2008 financial crisis? Fun stuff, definitely Simplified, it was caused primarily by failings in three areas. First, the federal government decided that it was qualified to interfere in the banking industry. It did so in several ways: Regulations (which generally helped create larger, more monopolistic firms), private pressure on semi-private firms such as the FHLMC et al (largely designed to increase home ownership), and a combination of fiscal and monetary policies designed to keep interest rates low and large banks and the poor liquid. Second, banks allowed pressure from the federal government in conjunction with prevailing positive economic indicators (created in part by the government) to override their desire for safety. This is due largely to government pressure on the FHLMC et al to increase home ownership and housing starts convincing the those organizations to forgo traditional safeguards and guarantee loans that were riskier than acceptable for the institution. When those organizations decided to buy (and signal that they would always buy) sub prime packages, many banks decided that since the government was largely happy with this course of events, they would always be able to sell these packages, causing them to forego the recommendations of their risk managers (or at least those with heads on their shoulders). Third, loan consumers failed to take into account what they could truly afford, misled by government talk of home ownership and advertising by banks so hungry for profit they neglected to cover their asses. Basically, the administration pushed the FHLMC et al to buy subprime packages, which caused banks to ignore risk warnings based on the incorrect assumption that there would always be a buyer for these packages, and go into a blind feeding frenzy. The combination of these two pressures and consumer ignorance meant that people actually bought stuff they couldn't afford. This was all backed up by artificial liquidity and artificially cheap money sponsored by the government. The crash was predicted well in advance by many Austrian economists. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with subprime lending, its just playing with worse odds, so you should do less of it. e:In response to your clarification, the crisis was created by a lot of dumb poo poo and a very small amount of actually immoral stuff, which I'm sure includes some contract breaking (but also the government doing its thing generally relies on coercion). I'll restate the fact that benefiting from someone else making GBS threads on someone's life is not wrong unless you also participate in the making GBS threads (the only thing that is immoral is coercion, incl. breaking contracts, written, implied, or otherwise). absolem fucked around with this message at 17:51 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
absolem posted:Fun stuff, definitely Invaluable insight that.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
absolem posted:Fun stuff, definitely Hahahahahahahaha oh man this is too much, you cannot be serious? EDIT: loving poor people, tanking the economy Comrade Blyatlov fucked around with this message at 09:12 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
absolem posted:I am arguing that it is not immoral to benefit from a situation in which someone other than yourself has violated someone's rights, as long as you yourself have not violated anyone's rights. I'd say it depends on your level of knowledge about how you benefitted from those acts. If you know you benefitted from the marginalization of others then not taking some measures to help correct the problem is immoral. The stolen goods mention from before works much the same way. If you happen to figure out they're stolen then you have some obligation to right things. I think how much an individual person or government should do to remedy the situation is debatable but the above is not.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
Two Finger posted:Hahahahahahahaha oh man this is too much, you cannot be serious?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 09:11
|
|
|
Haha that's a load of stupid bullshit. In all cases it was the banks pushing the regulators (who were often bankers themselves) to make credit easier to obtain. Banks didn't want caution; in fact the entire synthetic derivative market is predicted on taking on more risk. On the off chance you're not a troll, please note that you won't get far here trying to convince anyone of 1) Austrian economics 2) poor people caused the financial crisis.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
Yeah, he should have stuck it out a bit longer. drat.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
absolem posted:Fun stuff, definitely Holy gently caress. Incredible. Here is your analysis: Step 1: Mortgages to poor people Step 2: ????? Step 3: Mortgages are a systemic contagion I would write a rebuttal but your "analysis" has been rebutted by economists and financial experts about as much as "there is no anthropogenic climate change" has been by scientists so whats the point
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What's mediocre about him? His patience to lay things out so thoroughly for benighted folks like you is pretty exceptional in my opinion. He's a mix of black Thomas Friedman and Lifetime Original Movie. He's a lightweight intellectual who consistently failed upward until he was given an audience of people who will applaud his mawkish, over verbose style since it tells them what they already think and sounds like something smart to them. I mean, seriously: "No one can know what would come out of such a debate. Perhaps no number can fully capture the multi-century plunder of black people in America. Perhaps the number is so large that it can’t be imagined, let alone calculated and dispensed.But I believe that wrestling publicly with these questions matters as much as—if not more than—the specific answers that might be produced. An America that asks what it owes its most vulnerable citizens is improved and humane. An America that looks away is ignoring not just the sins of the past but the sins of the present and the certain sins of the future. More important than any single check cut to any African American, the payment of reparations would represent America’s maturation out of the childhood myth of its innocence into a wisdom worthy of its founders." The guy is more dramatic than actual abolitionists who were fighting actual slavery. His rhetoric is cosplaying as a 19th century sermon and boy is he pushing that collection plate. Give us money, the number is probably open-ended, but let me assure you that it will be healing. SickZip fucked around with this message at 12:15 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
absolem posted:I am arguing that it is not immoral to benefit from a situation in which someone other than yourself has violated someone's rights, as long as you yourself have not violated anyone's rights. I am seriously going to print this out and frame it on my wall as the clearest loving example of bougie, wanna-be radical and vacuuous pseudo-intellectual drivel. It's almost platonic in its perfection. Fake edit: Aaaand now you're blaming poor people for the financial crisis. Holy poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
Good to see jrodefeld has decided to join us again but I'm not sure about the name change.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
Question: Does Obama owe reparations?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
Hey can we get this embedded while the derail's piping hot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuDx6_PLIVk
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
TO THEIR CREDIT: Austrian economists did predict our austerity driven economic boom that we all live in today EDIT: Trap loving sprung, Warszawa, nice Homura and Sickle fucked around with this message at 09:20 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
I have a question about the VA scandal in the news. Conservatives like this douche are bragging about how the problems at the VA prove socialized medicine doesn't work (and for once actually uses the term "socialized medicine" in an accurate manner). But isn't one of the major problems that there's been a massive influx of veterans trying to seek medical attention in the past few years? Apparently, funding HAS increased under Obama, but it looks like it didn't increase nearly enough to compensate the veterans coming in.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 09:33
|
|
|
absolem posted:Fun stuff, definitely A...are you real? Wait, I just read to the bottom of this and realized that you are an austrian. Since I can't find the link to my old quote on the issue, I'm going to go ahead and repeat it really quick before I go to bed. quote:The crash was predicted well in advance by many Austrian economists. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with subprime lending, its just playing with worse odds, so you should do less of it. There are a lot of things wrong with your post. Pretty much everything in fact, but this in particular is so wrong that I can't let it go unopposed. So who are these Austrian economists? Well there are typically six to seven of them: Mark Thornton, Frank Shostak, Stefan Karlsson, Peter Schiff, Robert Wenzel, Hans F. Sennholz and Gereld Celente. I'm going to touch on them in turn: Mark Thornton - Mark Thornton made his most public comments on this in a series of 2004 articles. These articles are noticable for recognizing that the housing market was in a bubble (which everyone knew) and that there could be a crash. Pretty much everything else in his articles, including his rationale for why the housing bubble exists (He thinks it is inflation rather than artificially low interest rates causing the giant pool of money to go looking for higher investments) is wrong. Thornton makes no mention of CDS' CDO's or any of the wonderful little instruments that caused a housing price collapse to turn into the great depression 2. Next. Frank Shostack - gently caress I hate the formatting on Mises.org. Shostack predicted there would be a housing bubble because there was a lot of money. That is it. My loving dog could have prognosticated that. My two year old niece at the time probably mumbled something about housing prices being too high into her cereal. Next. Stephan Karlsson - Again we have another Austrian who noticed that housing prices doubling in the course of four years was probably not a good thing. This does not mean he predicted the great recession, because the primary driving factor of the recession was not the crash of housing prices, but the freezing of the commercial paper market caused as a result of lovely practices within the banks. A housing bubble crash would have hurt, a total loss of faith in the economy caused by 40-1 leverage went well beyond that. Next. Robert Wenzel/Raymond Sabat(its complicated) - This asshat predicted a bubble in 2004 under a pen name. Whupty loving do. Hans loving Sennhoz - Are you sensing a pattern here? Predicted a housing bubble. Woooooo! Gereld Celente - Yay something new! Okay, so unlike his friends Gereld Celente did actually predict the 2008 collapse. He then predicted the 2009 collapse we all remember so horribly. And the 2012 hyperinflation. Do you guys remember how: "By 2012 America will become an undeveloped nation, that there will be a revolution marked by food riots, squatter rebellions, tax revolts and job marches, and that holidays will be more about obtaining food, not gifts. “We’re going to see the end of the retail Christmas… we’re going to see a fundamental shift take place… putting food on the table is going to be more important that putting gifts under the Christmas tree,” said Celente, adding that the situation would be “worse than the great depression" I sure don't. Gereld Celente is a doomsayer, he's a broken clock who is right twice a day because he repeatedly says everything will be lovely. Peter Schiff - Here we are, the shitstopper. Peter Schiff is the only Austrian economist I am aware of to have accurately predicted several major facets of the collapse years in advance. So what is his thing? Well he's like Celente... more or less. Peter Schiff runs a company called Euro Pacific Capital and/or precious metals. The entire focus of EPC is that schiff, its founder believes that the US economy is going to end up in the toilet, so you should invest in overseas markets and especially precious metals, such as gold. Whether this hatred of the US is because of some delusion or because his father has been in and out of jail for tax evasion for decades I'm still not sure on. What is important to remember here is that Schiff thinks the US is going to bomb, he has thought this way since 1997, and he has been outspoken in it constantly. So with that in mind Schiff is out there screaming to the heavens that the US economy is going to collapse. So what should you do? Invest in his company and buy precious metals. The man is selling a product, and that product is the idea that the US is going to collapse. The simple fact is that Peter Schiff lost his clients money in the financial collapse. The granddaddy of all "Austrians predicted the collapse" lost loving money when it happened because his 'prediction' just involved saying the same thing he'd said every year, and the same thing he has been saying every year since. Peter Schiff has predicted hyper-inflation in the US every year since 2007. Seven years running and we are still hyper-not-inflated. Austrians predict thousands of catastrophes annually. They are almost universally wrong because their ideology is based off of junk science. The fact that you can go back and find seven of them vaguely pointing in the direction of houses during the single largest housing bubble is not some mystical sign that they know what they were doing. I loving predicted the bubble in 2005 when I was told "You should buy a house, housing prices never go down." and thought that it was stupid. That does not mean that 23 year old me knew gently caress all what he was talking about. Sorry for the effort post but... gently caress. quote:Good to see jrodefeld has decided to join us again but I'm not sure about the name change. I'm going to be honest, I miss JRod. This asshat's reply won't be nearly as entertaining or neurotic. Caros fucked around with this message at 09:55 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
Caros posted:A...are you real? That sounds like every single one of them tried to say the same poo poo every year and eventually all of them got lucky. I don't see the distinction between Peter Schiff (who is lauded by "serious" news people) and everyone else.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 10:25
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:That sounds like every single one of them tried to say the same poo poo every year and eventually all of them got lucky. I don't see the distinction between Peter Schiff (who is lauded by "serious" news people) and everyone else. The difference is that most of the rest of them made one or two comments on the issue in or around 2005 and otherwise didn't say much else. This is telling because most of them don't have anything at all to say on the matter beyond acknowledging the basic fact that there was a housing bubble. Schiff is a little different in that circa 2006 he actually talked about some of the underlying causes such as cdos. They are all frauds mind you. In that they are all together. Incidently, if you want to know how stupid Schiff is, he has endorsed bitcoins as a good thing. Personally I think it's a craven move to up his libertarian credit, but it's still dumb as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 10:37
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:I expect this article will have a lot of people talking, so linking it here. The Case for Reparations by Ta-Nehisi Coates
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 10:46
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Holy gently caress. Incredible.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 10:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:51 |
|
|
absolem posted:I definitely read the article. You'll notice that I said that Coates spends little time as compared to the length of the essay on actual solutions, not that he didn't discuss them. Whether or not reparations would help to eliminate racism (a contention which I find to be unsupportable due to the inaccurate nature and inefficient tendencies of imposed disincentives) is immaterial since reparations would negatively affect people innocent of the wrongs being paid for. (I keep using "paid" etc, but I understand it wouldn't necessarily be monetary) His argument is about the ongoing wrongs, not slavery, so your entire point is contingent on either having not read the essay or having deliberately missed the point. For someone who claims to like logical arguments your posts are entirely based on a straw man fallacy
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 11:59
|
|
