>Founding Fathers opposed socialism
>Found Fathers opposed big banks
>Big banks are inevitable unless the government makes them illegal
>Government intervention into the economy is socialism
HELP
>>71999917
Congress establishing the currency and regulating interstate commerce is not necessarily socialism.
>>71999917
>>Government intervention into the economy is socialism
the means of production being owned by the workers is socialism
>>71999917
Please tell me you did not just confuse Andrew Jackson as a "founding father."
>>71999917
>By the Eternal Anglo I shall rout you out!
Based Jackson. Funny that the institute he was so deadly against decided to put him on a $ bill as a fuck you to his memory.
>>72000862
Franklin was against fractional reserve banking.
>>72000817
Socialism is a loose term these days, you sound like a socialist yourself my Italian amigo.
>>72000862
He was a contributing founder of the core American ideology, "founder" does not only refer to those individuals physically present at the literal founding of the nation.
Why does any mention of socialism always provoke semantic bullshit?
>>72000984
>Franklin was against fractional reserve banking.
Was the OP quoting Franklin?
>>72001026
>He was a contributing founder of the core American ideology, "founder" does not only refer to those individuals physically present at the literal founding of the nation.
Yeah, no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States
You cannot just change the common usage of a word to make up for a foolish mistake.
>>72001026
>He was a contributing founder of the core American ideology
Oh, and I should have mentioned Jackson was arguably the last of the "Jeffersonian" Republicans who held onto an ideology that lost even when Jefferson tried to put it into practice as Secretary of State under Washington and even his own eight years as the third POTUS.
>>71999917
>Founding Fathers opposed socialism
They opposed something that didn't exist during their time? Okay.
Many of them, like Franklin, were actually in favor of government financed public education.
>because a few guys hundreds of years thought x was bad, we should always think x is bad.
the founding fathers were not omnipotent gods, they were just people.
>>72001703
No, but he should have made it clearer when he was talking about the founders.
>>72001891
>No, but he should have made it clearer when he was talking about the founders.
He was perfectly clear in trying to claim Jackson was a "founding father" to the point of trying to redefine "founding fathers" to fit Jackson in.
>>72001808
Socialism stands for "strong government" in a right wing american's mind.
They fail to see that socialism imply a strong gov, but reverse is not true
>>71999917
Holy shit, you are one dumb nigger Tyrone.
>CENTRAL bank is only possible BECAUSE of the government.
>Federal Reserve Act
>google. com
Printing our own money is not socialism ya dingus.
>>71999917
bitcoin dot org
>>71999917
>Big banks are inevitable unless the government makes them illegal
audible guffaw
>>71999917
>Big banks are inevitable unless the government makes them illegal
This is where you fucked up, fampai. In traditional laissez fairez economics, you really do not have natural monopolies, or predator businesses. E.g., big banks that are run corruptly will be out competed by smaller banks as they earn the trust of consumers easier.
>>72000817
But who are the workers? Socialism can have many flexible interpretations; if the workers are the tax payers, than government intervention in economy is arguably socialism.
>>72002254
>E.g., big banks that are run corruptly will be out competed by smaller banks as they earn the trust of consumers easier.
What is Walmart?
>>72001834
>t. Janet Yellen
Are you genuinely retarded? The very concept of the Constitution itself is "Big Government", since it dictates to the states which laws they can make and which they can't.
Founding fathers weren't libertardian Paultards.
>>72002287
Walmart wouldn't exist as it is without government intervention subsidizing wages.
>>71999917
The reason why "big banks" exist is because they are propped up by the government. They should've let all the big banks collapse in 2008 instead of bailing them out, and use the bailout money to instead pay back people who lost their savings.
They should've also arrested all bankers who were in on the scam.
>>72002376
I don't think you understand what the term big government is.
I thought kikes were supposed to be smart. I'm guessing your father got cucked by an arab.
>>72002287
>What is Walmart?
A business in a highly regulated and subsidized sector.
>>72002424
Moving goalposts?
First it was:
>big business would be out competed by smaller by earning their trust
Now it is:
>wouldn't exist without government intervention.
It seems Walmart proves that small business will not "out compete" big businesses.
>>71999917
>Government intervention into the economy is socialism
There's your problem, you're a retard
>>72002376
>The very concept of the Constitution itself is "Big Government"
Yeah... no. It dictates nothing to the law, that's post-Civil War talk. Inherrently the US states were (and on paper they still are) sovereign. The idea wasn't that the state governments can do everything not prohibited by the federal government, but that the federal government could do everything not prohibited by the states. This is why the Senate is compased of not representatives of the people (those are in the House of Representatives) but representatives of the individual states. This is why both Hawaii and California get 2 representatives: all the states are equals.
Tocqueville even commented on pre-Civil War America that if one of the states would choose to leave the union, then the union would be powerless to act against it. And that's what we saw in the Civil War, hence why we actually had a fucking war in the first place. If the Federal Government had the power to intervene (as it would get post-Civil War), then just a "lol no" would be enough to keep them in the union. Kind of like how Bretagne cannot declare itself independent from the highly centralized French government. Because in France, the Regions only have the power to decide everything that was delegated to them by the central government.
>>72002507
>A business in a highly regulated and subsidized sector.
Which has "earned the trust" of its customers and thus leaving nothing for "smaller banks to outcompete" them with?
In purely competitive terms, a bigger business with a highly efficient distribution chain is going to beat out smaller businesses as it can undercut and underprice them at every opportunity.
>>71999917
its actually quite simple.
the founding fathers would be disgusted with the american government.
the american government does not represent america, at all.
it represents jew interests and if you are a bootlicker, you're not american.
you're a fucking traitor supporting an OCCUPYING FORCE that has taken over your country.
>American on holiday here
>>72002519
Well, fine then.
>All big business =/= big banks
>Also, what does e.g. mean?
Enjoy your fucking retarded bullshit, faggot.
>>72002629
>>All big business =/= big banks
No claim was made to such. Only that your concept of "out competing" is based upon ideology which can only exists if you close your eyes to reality.
>>72002666
>E.g., big banks that are run corruptly will be out competed by smaller banks as they earn the trust of consumers easier.
What is Walmart?
>hurr durr, Walmart is a bank. Your example is shit
>mfw people talking about central banks like they actually know anything.
Just stop please, the central banks exist to prop up government and government allows them to exist because it's a symbiotic relationship in which both parties profit from and the people suffer in order to mint money and expand the states power and reach.
Money = power and when you have an unlimited supply of promissory notes, then you pretty much have unlimited power.
It's funny that the Federal Reserve Act was passed pretty much at the same time the ADL was formed.
;^)
>>72002079
Don't confuse strong government and expansive government.
Americans oppose an expansive government which controls the lives of an individual. But the american government is obviously very strong (by far the strongest in the world).
Meanwhile, european governments are very expansive, but very weak (bending over backwards for any sandnigger refugee who waddles up to the border)
>>72002726
Walmart is a clear counter example in regards to "smaller contemporaries outcompeting" a much bigger and more efficient organization.
>Walmart isn't a bank
This isn't even limited to distribution of consumer goods. Another example is Comcast which provides services. Specifically it provides internet services. Because Comcast is such a big efficient company it moves into an area and can undercut the local competition until they either go out of business or pull out of competition.
What is a bank but a service, a financial service?
Now I expect you will come up with another trivial objection to the refutation.
>>71999917
>>Big banks are inevitable unless the government makes them illegal
big banks are inevitable due to corruption
>>72002889
Get fucked, you retarded faggot
>Hurr your exempli gratia doesn't apply in this narrow circumstance, are you sure you're not moving goalposts?
Like seriously, are you fucking stupid to not see how hypocritical this stance is while proposing a change of subject? Like it fucking baffles me.
>>72002987
>Get fucked, you retarded faggot
You cannot even provide a trivial objection so you resort to insults? Can you be a bit more pathetic?
>>72003045
Fuck no. Fuck you, you retard. Like what the fuck do you think you're doing? Like I'm fucking half mad and half confused.
>You're moving a goal post by an example given not fitting my narrow change of subject while I change the fucking subject
You want my honest answer? Walmart is already losing ground. People are buying less from Walmart because they don't trust it, people are investing more in higher quality goods, and Amazon is stealing their cheapness out from under them.
In a completely free market, these situations do not occur in theory because there should always be routes of competitiveness.
>>72002519
Consumers only control the spending of ~60% of what they earn, 40% goes to government. On top of that government has powers to arbitrarily override their economic choices with legislation.
These conditions put small companies competing only for the attention of consumers at a huge disadvantage. They're not big enough to have hooks in government, so they live and die by the market, while large corporations can stay afloat through lobbying for subsidies and laws that skew the market in their favor (often under the guise of worker/consumer protection).
There is no good reason to forfeit so much money and power over the economy to politicians, it breeds corruption.
>>72002987
Instead of using liberal ad hominem like a fucking retard why not provide a proper refutation, such as
>>72002889
The thing is Wal-Mart is being outcompeted by Amazon. Google fiber is also an example of competition being brought into a currently monopolized field. However regulations imposed by local government are preventing its installation and catering towards companies such as Comcast that have a protected monopoly.
>>72002911
They are a necessity to any nation that wants to expand its sphere of influence and reach.
Funny how the Fed was formed during WW1 and not before it, just after those two world wars America became powerful.
Right after the establishment of the B.O.E, the UK becomes powerful.
Not seeing the link here? Also, with that you also see the complete corruption and disgusting behaviour of the state against its own people.
We see it with America today because it's happening and been happening in an age of free and easily obtained information.
>>72003284
>The thing is Wal-Mart is being outcompeted by Amazon.
Are they? Got a source for that?
>>72003380
https://www.google.com/search?q=Wal-Mart+is+being+outcompeted+by+Amazon.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=Wal-Mart+is+being+outcompeted+by+Amazon
It's the writing on wall, m80.
>>72002889
No comcast survives because competition is made illegal
>>72003435
Thank you for providing the classic example of Shifting the Burden of Proof.
>>72003476
>>72003476
>No comcast survives because competition is made illegal
[citation needed]
I cannot talk for your town but Comcast moved into mine about twelve years ago and pushed out the local telecom that offered ADSL and a local cable company.
>>7200338
See >>72003435
Such monopolies are either forced to catch up or are forced to compete with an innovative competitor in a naturally free economy. The problem we face now, specifically with Comcast, is that they are given special access to zoning and other beneficiaries that are made unavailable to local businesses.
>>72003626
>Thank you for providing the classic example of Shifting the Burden of Proof.
M80, there is a shit ton of news out for the last year that Walmart is fundamentally restructuring because it has over expanded and can't keep on competing with new players in the market as is. Like you can literally google "Is Walmart doing well financially?" and receive this news.
>>72003742
>M80, there is a shit ton of news out for the last year that Walmart is fundamentally restructuring because it has over expanded and can't keep on competing with new players in the market as is.
Then there is no excuse for your failure to provide a single specific link.
>>72002578
>In purely competitive terms, a bigger business with a highly efficient distribution chain is going to beat out smaller businesses as it can undercut and underprice them at every opportunity.
It will certainly try, until it can't, and then it will throw all its weight into lobbying for protections.
Being bigger doesn't have only advantages - when you're a business employing tens of thousands rolling out any change to your process is slow, risky and costly. Meanwhile you're besieged by competitors of all sizes, on all fronts, iterating faster than you, fighting for your customers. You beat out one, another takes its place immediately. It doesn't take a lot of leniency to lose ground, and if you can out-price and outperform everyone at all times, you deserve to be number one.
>>72003866
http://lemonparty.org/
I don't give a fuck. Literally, all your arguments have been without substantial proof besides "I HAVE THIS ANECDOTE, FREE MARKET PRINCIPLES ARE A LIE"
>>72003952
>It will certainly try, until it can't
When can't it except when the government regulates the industry?
>>72004001
>your arguments have been without substantial proof
It is not anyone's obligation to "prove you wrong" and creating an expectation or justification of your own righteous on such relativity is foolishness in the extreme.
>>72002089
that image is retarded because person one essentially paid 50 dollars for a 40 dollar box, which is why person 2 made 10 dollars on his original 20.
person 1 - 20
person 2 - 20
person 2 + 30 from -20 = +10
person 1 + 40 from -20 and -30 = -10
>>72004051
When it can no longer compete. I don't suppose you have a lot of Blockbusters near where you live.
>>72004130
But you fucking autist, the original argument is fucking gone because you moved the fucking goal post.
Your argument has gone from
>People not trusting big banks is false because of Walmart
to
>Walmart is not losing ground
Like I don't give a fuck. What is your argument, you huge retarded logical fallacy grasping faggot?
>>72004231
>>People not trusting big banks is false because of Walmart
Pardon? Did you just fail at basic reading comprehension?
Let's quote the actual line again:
>big banks that are run corruptly will be out competed by smaller banks as they earn the trust of consumers easier.
The point was not about trust but about competition.
>>72004210
>When it can no longer compete.
It can't compete when it can no longer compete?
Now there's a persuasive argument.
>>72002287
http://walmartsubsidywatch.org
>>72002578
The only reason it has done so is because of low prices which is a direct result of government subsidy.
>>72003866
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=is+walmat+doing+well+financially
>>72004657
>low prices which is a direct result of government subsidy.
[citation needed]
Last I checked it was because they offshored a lot of labor, have a killer chain of supply and an ungodly distribution network.
>founding founders opposed socialism
Thomas Paine fucking wrote in support of socialism you dunce. Our country was built up on protectionist practices too. We were never a free market nation.
>>71999917
He hated the idea of a state run bank aka central banking. The provision of private credit through individual lenders was not a problem, just not the use of credit for the running of a state because public debt essentially enslaves a populace through no personal choice of their own. Also its not socialist at all, Hayek advocated for the abolishing of central banks and for private banks to issue their own competing currency.
>>72004458
Every year some company started in a garage becomes a leader in an industry, and some decades-old corporation downsizes to nothing, because no one in their right mind will pay for their product anymore.
The only thing that obstructs this process reliably is a bureaucrat with a desire to fill his own pocket, and a mandate to spend the money of millions of others.
>>72005240
>Every year some company started in a garage becomes a leader in an industry
Those are few and far between. Most companies that start in a garage at best gets to be competitive in its industry. There's a reason why we have movies about Apple and Facebook and not IBM and Google. You're trying to say the exception is the rule.
It's all just a giant pyramid scheme designed for us to pay for our own prison while they build and horde advanced technologies that will allow them to leave this prison planet.
>Founding Fathers opposed socialism
Actually they were just elitist. They would have seen nothing wrong with what FDR did. All that mattered was that they or people like them were still in charge.
>>72005453
>Most companies that start in a garage at best gets to be competitive in its industry.
Exactly. They don't get immediately beaten down by a bigger business, as you said earlier. And out of all those hundreds, or thousands of small companies eeking out some living and putting some pressure on the big guys, a scarce few turn out truly successful and industry-changing.
That's what's supposed to happen. That's what the free market uniquely allows for.
>>72006040
>They don't get immediately beaten down by a bigger business
Did you miss this part when you thought "Exactly?"
>at best
In other words, most _do_ get beaten down by bigger business and maybe a select few make it to being competitive with a bigger business.
>>72006275
I didn't miss it and at this point I don't even understand what you're arguing for. Big or small, companies aren't supposed to last forever. The faster an uncompetitive business is pushed off the market, the better.
A free market isn't naturally skewed toward producing bigger and bigger eternal enterprises. I explained the drawbacks here >>72003952
It becomes skewed when the planners try to plan their way around economic realities with other people's money, and play right into the hands of people who don't have a competitive product, but have a lot of resources to dedicate to coaxing subsidies and favorable legislation out government officials.
>>72007516
>Big or small, companies aren't supposed to last forever.
No one claimed that businesses are supposed to last forever.
>>72007516
>A free market isn't naturally skewed toward producing bigger and bigger eternal enterprises.
Explain how Standard Oil would not have continued to grow or monopolize the industry without government regulations (specifically anti-trust regulations)?
>>72007692
>Explain how Standard Oil would not have continued to grow or monopolize the industry without government regulations (specifically anti-trust regulations)?
I don't have a free day to study US oil industry in depth, write your own homework.
>>72009032
It seems you have no idea what you are talking about and no inclination to ever learn.
