Immigration and multiculturalism news

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
True, but Stalin knew due to spies.
Truman was the one that ended the war though, and okayed the bomb drops
Also, he was a slimy machine politician that FDR put in place to pander to some people in his own party.

He was never employed to be a strong potential presidential candidate, since FDR just wanted to run the USA for as many mandates as he could get away with/until he croaked.
 

mrttao

Well-known member
Look, I don't like him, but this was about what could be done. It sucked, but it was needed. Better half under evil than all under evil. I don't know that there was an actual better option available no matter who was in charge.
No, it wasn't.
The general in charge said, correctly, he could sweep forwards with no opposition. And was ordered not to by the president.

Moreover, USA was there first, they stopped and waited days for USSR to come in. Specifically so they can give USSR half of germany and a bunch of europe.

Moreover, the USA was the only one propping the USSR via lend lease.
 

mrttao

Well-known member
Libertarians are left on social issues they frequently are pro abortion rights and pro LGBT rights for example, they are also pro drug decriminalized.
I am aware. so?
They are left wing on some issues, they are right wing on other issues.
Hence center.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
I am aware. so?
They are left wing on some issues, they are right wing on other issues.
Hence center.
I was not saying they are leftist. I said they had some things that makes them left leaning. The only reason they are in the right now is politics. If instead of woke communism being in charge it was paternalistic conservatives the libertarians would have a the same relationship they have now with the republicans only with the dems.
 

mrttao

Well-known member
I was not saying they are leftist. I said they had some things that makes them left leaning. The only reason they are in the right now is politics. If instead of woke communism being in charge it was paternalistic conservatives the libertarians would have a the same relationship they have now with the republicans only with the dems.
No, they are very very right wing on the concepts of:
1. free speech
2. firearm rights
3. self defense rights / stand your ground
4. small govt
5. low taxes
6. opposition to welfare

and various other stances.
it is not just a reaction to woke. liberterians in the USA have always been a combination of right wing and left wing...
honestly the 3 issues you listed. being LGBTQP, drugs, and abortion are basically the ONLY thing on which they are left wing.
 
No, they are very very right wing on the concepts of:
1. free speech
2. firearm rights
3. self defense rights / stand your ground
4. small govt
5. low taxes
6. opposition to welfare

and various other stances.
it is not just a reaction to woke. liberterians in the USA have always been a combination of right wing and left wing...
honestly the 3 issues you listed. being LGBTQP, drugs, and abortion are basically the ONLY thing on which they are left wing.

and even then it's to the extent of "Leave us alone we'll leave you alone." something that cannot be said with the left regarding the left who are bassically "Agree with us on these subjects and declare that it's good or we will make you do so."
 

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
Huitzilopochtli is always fighting on both sides.Just like their lord Khorne.....
I think this is the Democrats trying to apepase both their special interest voting blocks while virtue signalling.

In any case, US and EU foreign aid being shot at US and EU foreign aid has been a meme since the conflict started.

Also, it might be related to the vile machinations of that evilest of evil eldritch a ominations that make big C be disgusted and Azatorh wonder at the absolute entropic stupidity.

Keynesian so called economists.
 

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
I prefer emphasizing it as "so called Keynesian", because they never seem to implement the bit where the government draws down spending in the good times to recover its purchasing power for the next bad time. If I'm remembering the right economist, anyways.
I prefer feel good snake oil salesmen and human scum, myself.

One of Keynes' key ideas was that of the broken window and it being a food thing.

Another is the so called wealth effect, e.g. juicing up the stock and other securities prices, house prices and creating inflation to force people to spend money.

All they do is make the business cycle worse and create more malinvestment.

Kaynes and his adherents are some of the primary reasons why we are stumbling from one crisis into another since 2000, why government and corporate bureaucracy gets more bloated and why housing is becoming increasingly unaffordable, why huge amounts of money are misspent on DEI/ESG and the like, why it is getting harder and harder for you get people to save up and advance and for older people to retire, and above all why crony capitalists and Silicon Valley snake oil salesmen and their hedge fund and private equity pimps get richer and richer.
Google Gresham's law - Wikipedia
and the Cantillon effect

Fuck the bastard, and may he rot in his grave.
 
Last edited:

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
Another is the so called wealth effect, e.g. juicing up the stock and other securities prices, house prices and creating inflation to force people to spend money.

All they do is make the business cycle worse and create more malinvestment.
That pushing is, by the works of Keynes himself, supposed to be temporary to get out of a crisis, not permanent to keep the line going up as fast as possible. The point I was making is that of course the theory isn't going to work when you flatly refuse to apply the part where government intervention cools down so that the government has resources to spare for the next crisis.

Again, if I'm remembering the right economist. May have been a different one, because I am awful at keeping track of sources.
 

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
That pushing is, by the works of Keynes himself, supposed to be temporary to get out of a crisis, not permanent to keep the line going up as fast as possible.
Except that there isn't anything as permanent as a temporary government policy. :ROFLMAO:
The point I was making is that of course the theory isn't going to work when you flatly refuse to apply the part where government intervention cools down so that the government has resources to spare for the next crisis.
The wealth effect and free money are not adding anything to the economy's productivity.
Theydistorts the market, promote malinvestment and living beyond one's means and protect bloated, inefficient companies.
They promote the retention of useless bloat and pointless activities like stock buybacks.
They have made the crony capitalists in the financial industry and the politicians and the bureaucracy richer and everyone else poorer.

And always, always you will get stupid shit like green policies and DEI and prokbarrel or jobs for the boys in the idiotic scam.

There is a business cycle, the current crop of inept, feckless human garbage on top of academic economics and central banks have "abolished it" by goosing up the upswing and doing anything to stop a necessary, cleaning correction.

This idiocy stems from their inability to understand that history is not a line that always goes straight up.

There is a day-night cycle, a cycle of seasons, a cycle of biological and popularionsl growth, and of death.

Time to embrace reality.



Again, if I'm remembering the right economist. May have been a different one, because I am awful at keeping track of sources.
"My, what wonderful things would people be able to do, if only they weren't people."
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
There is a business cycle, the current crop of inept, feckless human garbage on top of academic economics and central banks have "abolished it" by goosing up the upswing and doing anything to stop a necessary, cleaning correction.
Emphasis on the important bit. Again, most of the intervention is mean to be specifically to "unjam" a crisis, then when the economy is going well the government is supposed to step back and recover its spending power. If I recall the right economist, Kaynes himself specifically said not to do this. Of course the theory's going to go to shit when you ignore the part where you take a break from fueling up on government money.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Emphasis on the important bit. Again, most of the intervention is mean to be specifically to "unjam" a crisis, then when the economy is going well the government is supposed to step back and recover its spending power. If I recall the right economist, Kaynes himself specifically said not to do this. Of course the theory's going to go to shit when you ignore the part where you take a break from fueling up on government money.
True - Keynes' theory is fine. Problem is that he, just like other socialists, ignored human nature.
 

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
Emphasis on the important bit. Again, most of the intervention is mean to be specifically to "unjam" a crisis, then when the economy is going well the government is supposed to step back and recover its spending power. If I recall the right economist, Kaynes himself specifically said not to do this. Of course the theory's going to go to shit when you ignore the part where you take a break from fueling up on government money.
I'd suggest you go out and read manias, panics and crashes by Kindleberger or some of the other econ books I have suggested on here over the years.

Most of these crashes start with an increase in interest rates, which becomes necessary because of inflation, or because of a natural loss of investor confidence in the bubble.

However, when that happens we usually see gubrmint step on and start pumping again.

This keeps the party going, the market high on coke and the companies and the public sector spending like idiots thinking the low rates will be around forever.

Then, when we do get a crash we see the inevitable lowering of interest rates again.

This is the type of pain avoidance that leads to huge, dangerous fragility which Nasim Taleb warned of.

You need to let the market correct and for the dead wood that is strangling the forest burn up.

No two ways about it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top