Dr. Paul on Kudlow: There's Absolutely No Reason To Default - January 25, 2023
There is every reason to default.
Stop taxing Americans to pay the people who loaded the fraudulent debt on us.
Make it much harder for the feds to take on debt.
Force a massive reduction in government.
Rand is among the few who still believe in fiscal responsibility on Capitol Hill.
As the system plays out, however, the need and votes for bigger government is democratically unstoppable now.
Capitalism went bad. The wealth is too concentrated and dependency has become a way of life.
What does capitalism have to do with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball
pretty much everything. The tension and war between American democracy and European-style high financeQuote:
Originally Posted by acptulsa
is what is playing out and has been unfolding for nigh 120 years. We're long in the tooth. These times were predicted
by deep thinkers across the fields and disciplines at the highest levels... from Schumpeter to Beard. They lived when it began
and knew where it was going... we've arrived... capitalism is oligarchy is plutocracy at war with culture and democracy, because
democracy was too weak and stupid to contain its power. Ethics and natural law are the only powers aside from OLD TIME RELIGION
that can defeat CAPITAL - ISM.
I don't agree. Admittedly successful capitalism can make people wealthy enough to create plutocracy. But I don't see capitalism as the problem. The first thing plutocracy generally tries to do is squash the competition, and the only way to do that is to eliminate the very capitalism that created them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball
No, that sounds like Marxist sour grapes to me. Capitalism works. The trouble is the Bill Gates types, who find ways to create monopolies. That isn't capitalism. It's fascism.
The fiscally responsible thing to do is to default.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball
Marxism is capitalist. Das Kapital.Quote:
Originally Posted by acptulsa
These terms were invented by the Judeo-Masonic banking groups to raise revolutions and wars in the 19th century. The extent that they propose opposing ideologies is very minimal, and only cosmetic in historical, real application.
1785 Samuel Johnson's:
Capital: 1) Relating to the head. 2) Criminal in the highest degree. 3) That which affects life. 4) Chief ; principal. 5) Chief ; metropolitan.
6) Applied to letters : large. 7. Capital stoc: The principal or original stock of a trader or company.
Capital: (noun from the adjective)1. the upper part of a pillar. 2. The chief city of a nation or kingdom.
Capitalist - word did not exist.
Capitalism - word did not exist.
1828 Webster's:
CAPITALIST, noun A man who has a capital or stock in trade, usually denoting a man of large property, which is or may be employed in business.
Capitalism - word did not exist.
communism (n.) creation date: 1843
capitalism (n.) creation date: 1854
etymonline.com
That's the game the Left plays. It's downright Orwellian. Ignorance is strength. War is peace. Marxism is capitalist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball
So, we can infer you're Big Brother's propagandist, then?
I just showed you that the Left invented these terms in the 19th century. Then, you defend one of their Orwellian catch phrases.Quote:
Originally Posted by acptulsa
You're internalising their propaganda. See how it worked? No different than supporting the Reps or Dems. Same trap.
Capitalism has a meaning, related to but separate from the specific meaning of the root word that gave rise to it. You're the one trying to change the meaning of that word like a leftist. You can spew irrelevant and spurious etymology until a year from next Tuesday, and everyone will still be able to see that fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball
Isn't that deeply rooted in human nature though ?Quote:
Originally Posted by acptulsa
Apparently so. People have been quoting Lord Acton since 1887.Quote:
Originally Posted by luctor-et-emergo
http://emilysquotes.com/wp-content/u...bsolutely..jpg
Capitalism still works, though, and remains an opposite of Marxism. Furthermore, plutocracy dismantling capitalism so it can't create rivals to their power isn't capitalism going bad, it's capitalism being dismantled.
Why do you ask? Should we ban capitalism to keep people from accumulating wealth, and parlaying it into power? Should cavemen have banned exercise to prevent the rise of bullies?
There is no such thing as a tool the devil can't use. Shall we ban them all? How long would we survive? That's the leftist fallacy. That's why leftism only empowers those who administer it, and has never, ever empowered anyone else.
Why I ask? I like to have an intelligent discussion and sometimes it needs some fuel. I'm perfectly happy in taking positions I do not (fully) agree with in order to have someone else develop better arguments. It's about knowledge, and knowledge is power, as you may well know. Most of my questions are not because I want to know the answer to the question but rather the thought process behind it.Quote:
Originally Posted by acptulsa
I do subscribe to your further answer. I'm there with you. But in order to educate the masses you need to be open to the argument you will meet.
And educating the masses is something you'll have to do, it's the only way.
https://i.ibb.co/m9jH0Xq/gngn.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by acptulsa