Flint's pipes have been fixed to the point where water is safe. They've been like that for some time now

Fake news

Got proof?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=is+flint+michigan%27s+water+fixed

Seems it's not fixed.. As of March 2017 - 100 Million was granted for the fix. Unless you think they Repiped the city in a little over 3 months.

Plus, if it was completely fixed. I'm sure we'd have seen the slew of news articles that would've came out saying so.

Got proof?

Yeah I don't just spout shit off.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/michigan/flint-water-crisis/2017/01/24/flint-water-lead-levels/96995682/

And beyond the water being safe, they have millions set aside to make it better.

I was just making a joke,chill bro.

What? No they haven't? Where did you hear this?

The "politicians" in Washington DC don't even think about the people, let alone don't like them. US government has betrayed the people. US government is now populated with corporate CEO's, Banksters, Israel first zionist POS's and a complete assortment of corrupt criminal enterprising douchebags that are allowing, and most likely it is their agenda, to allow America to fall apart at the seams in every important aspect of maintaining a first world country. Education and infrastructure is crumbling to pieces...

America is only an afterthought to these people, to help out the people would mean they would have to divert money away from their scams, away from their satanic wars in the Middle East. If all the money that was spent on war in the last 15 years was spent on Education and infrastructure instead, America would be the most advanced country in the world...look at America now...pathetic what has been allowed to happen.

If the problem is that

US government is now populated with corporate CEO's, Banksters,

Then the solution is to depopulate it of those.

The first step to doing that is to recognize that the Republican Party has an official platform supporting unlimited money-speech in politics and has demonstrated that they will enforce this policy through 5-4 Supreme Court rulings -- against the wishes of the people. Further, the generalized deregulation agenda of Republicans encourages in many ways that the government is "populated" with these oligarchs. By supporting Republicans, or by believing that both parties are the same, the Republican agenda is rubber stamped.

On the other side, Democrats take all kinds of corporate money too. Nevertheless, Democrats have a demonstrated policy of opposing money in politics. In fact, the stealing of the Supreme Court seat by Donald Trump and the Republicans BLOCKED the reversal of this unlimited money corporate speech doctrine.

On the other side, Democrats take all kinds of corporate money too. Nevertheless, Democrats have a demonstrated policy of opposing money in politics.

Yeah, this is the key issue. Everybody is going to play by the same rules, but only the Democrats are trying to change those rules for the better.

Lmfao.

I haven't seen Democrats try to remove money from politics any more than Republicans. 2 different snakes, but they're both snakes.

Then you need to look.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,_Inc._v._Montana

Maybe I should've said "Democrat politicians"? I understand there are some Democrats serving their party, but so many more are self serving.

I guess I'm just jaded

Democrats suck. There's no doubt that they are well inside the Establishment and that they love war. If we look at the biggest conspiracy of our time at the World Trade Center, Republicans were in power, but Democrats went right along. Anyone who did not like Mike Gravel was tossed aside.

There are dissidents in the party and some are actually in power. That's what the whole Bernie Sanders thing is about. I don't see any serious dissidents in the Republican Party, and I don't find libertarianism to be a viable alternative.

The system is seriously screwed. The rise of Donald Trump is making it worse.

The thing that bugs me the most is how partisan Democrats have rushed to support MSM after Donald Trump declared it the "enemy." Democrats have been lured like sheep into believing that MSM is on their side, and this is the most amazing psyop I've ever seen -- even more so than 9-11.

There's a difference between supporting mainstream media and defending it against Trump who says he wants to replace current media with his own network so he can have someone parrot his inconsistent rambling.

I don't have to like Fox and CNN and Reuters to appreciate the fact that they exist!

You got it exactly right. I am seeing partisan Democrats rolling over to praise MSM now. I posted an article in it recently.

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2017/05/09103106/PJ_2017.05.10_Media-Attitudes_0-01.png

That's the opposite of my point.

I don't doubt that you see people praising the media when they hold a particularly corrupt opponent accountable for his words and actions, but the post you linked to also doesn't show democrats unquestioningly supporting the media, it just shows that they are now more than ever impressed that the media has the capability to track and oppose the immoral and potentially illegal actions of an authoritarian sitting president.

I don't defend anybody who says we should never question the motives of a news organization, but I also don't assume that praising a news organization for specific actions is somehow blanket support for the media!

To be fair, I am certain we would be far worse off without media, even without mainstream media. I prefer to put my money into local media that I perceive as less corporate and less corruptible, but I'm not going to pretend that I'd prefer a twitch-like stream of bloggers or a state run media conglomerate over current mainstream media.

Mainstream media might be the worst form of news dissemination... Except for all the others.

That's the opposite of my point.

Wow. I think you have everything exactly right, and therefore, I am in total agreement. Could we argue some more please? :P

also don't assume that praising a news organization for specific actions is somehow blanket support

Sometimes it is. Key word: Sometimes -- as in more often than it would have been two years ago. The study shows a major increase in generalized media support by Democrats.

That's all. Over and out.

I agree, I welcome our next opportunity to argue amicably on the interwebs!

I haven't seen Democrats try to remove money from politics any more than Republicans.

Campaign finance bills are always split down party lines. You just haven't paying attention.

My problem is probably that when I think "money in politics" I'm not thinking spending bills. I'm thinking lobbies. The ACA is one of the biggest hospital /pharmaceutical/insurance scams ever.

Honestly I'm the first to admit my understanding is limited, but I'm just going off what I see in the changing climate in the hospital.

Yeah, but look at what Democrats had to give up in order to pass it. They wanted a public option, but Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats wouldn't allow it.

As far as superpac money goes, that's a strictly partisan issue. Democrats push bills that restrict superpac money, Republicans want more money in politics.

I haven't seen Democrats try to remove money from politics any more than Republicans. 2 different snakes, but they're both snakes.

it's been the Democrats who have introduced regulations on campaign spending in the past, and it was the Democrats who opposed the Citizens United ruling that led to SuperPACs.

"Democrats have a demonstrated policy of opposing money in politics".??!!!! You must be mistaking the voters on the left who oppose the internal policies of the Democratic party, for those who actually run it. The current leadership in the DNC is EVERY BIT as controlled by a corporate agenda, as those on the right. that's why, when given the opportunity to reject corporate funding, they shot the idea down immediately, and have continued the fight to maintain corporate sponsorship as a cornerstone of the Democratic party. To quote Nancy Pelosi...."We are Capitalists, that's just the way it is".

You are simply incorrect. We can talk about Citizens United if you like, but I would hope most people know that my summary is correct. It is a basic fact that five Republicans on the Supreme Court overruled 100 years of campaign funding regulations, and four others (from both parties btw) opposed the deregulation.

To quote Nancy Pelosi...."We are Capitalists, that's just the way it is".

This is lazy and misleading.

What is capitalism? It simply means that the means of production are owned by private people. Laissez-faire capitalism means there should be no regulations. No regulations means unlimited money in politics.

Yes Republicans gave us C.U., but establishment Dems have embraced it wholeheartedly, actually out playing the right at their own game. Context on the Pelosi quote.-She was asked a question regarding the fact that younger voters have moved left regarding economics, and capitalism, about what the Democratic party might do to further embrace that sentiment. Her answer -"We are Capitalists, that's just the way it is" - basically amounts to "Nothing, so shut up, and get on board." Certainly not in line with the Liberal mindset some like to imagine exists within the DNC.

establishment Dems have embraced it wholeheartedly

No, actually they haven't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,_Inc._v._Montana

Seriously? You are going to try and use a state level decision from 2011 in Montana as an indicator for the current sentiment of the entire DNC?... Sorry, but nope, that just doesn't cut it. The fact remains that establishment Democrats have excelled at gaining corporate sponsorship, in many cases gaining more than their Republican counterparts. It is important to understand that since C.U. was passed, the general sentiment among the leadership on the left has been one of "We will beat Republicans at their own game, by using their own tactics against them". To a large extent, it has worked. This "success" has led to current party leaderships rejection of any attempts to disengage from that strategy. When Senator Sanders tried to add a rejection of C.U. to the Democratic platform, it was soundly rejected by the corporate friendly Democrats currently in control of the party. Again, not even close to the liberal ideals that many have been convinced the Democratic party still represents.

It's a United States Supreme Court decision, and the Wikipedia page has a section on that fact.

Here's the dissent:

Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan join, dissenting.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court concluded that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” 558 U. S. __, __ (2010) (slip op., at 42). I disagree with the Court’s hold-ing for the reasons expressed in Justice Stevens’ dissentin that case. As Justice Stevens explained, “technically independent expenditures can be corrupting in much the same way as direct contributions.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 67–68). Indeed, Justice Stevens recounted a “substantial body of evidence” suggesting that “[m]any corporate independent expenditures . . . had become essentially interchangeable with direct contributions in their capacity to generate quid pro quo arrangements.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 64–65).

Moreover, even if I were to accept Citizens United, this Court’s legal conclusion should not bar the Montana Supreme Court’s finding, made on the record before it, that independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana. Given the history and political landscape in Montana, that court concluded that the State had a compelling interest in limiting independent expenditures by corporations. 2011 MT 328, ¶¶ 36–37, 363 Mont. 220, 235–236, 271 P. 3d 1, 36–37. Thus, Montana’s experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court’s decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court’s supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so.

Were the matter up to me, I would vote to grant the petition for certiorari in order to reconsider Citizens United or, at least, its application in this case. But given the Court’s per curiam disposition, I do not see a significant possibility of reconsideration. Consequently, I vote instead to deny the petition.

OK, fine, it is at fed level. Unfortunately, that still offers Zero correlation to the sentiments of the current DNC leadership.

Nancy pelosi is Democrat

How did the net neutrality vote go down? You're drawing a false equivalency and it's no longer funny. Did you read the title of this post? Progressives and democrats want a strong EPA and welfare state, which would be the things to fix the water in Flint and feed the poor. Everything they've tried to do has been hampered for years by a Republican controlled congress. OWN YOUR BS.

I'm not saying he's right (because, though I haven't followed the issue well enough, I doubt he is), but are you seriously saying the Democratic Party is much better?

It's all shit, man.

Without a doubt, they're significantly better.

1. They don't immediately diminish our respect around the world.

2. They appoint people who Prosecuted Russian spies as chair of House Intelligence and Republicans put a guy with a background in Agriculture up there.

3. Dems did not abuse and then change Senate rules when they had a supermajority to cheat their way into a SCOTUS seat they never deserved.

4. Zero Democrats have voted to nix Net Neutrality.

5. Republicans made as much noise about Obama's suits, fist bumps, and made up nonsense like "death panels" as Dems are about actual issues like Russian collusion with a presidential campaign.

6. Republicans are trying to go back to the same failed economic policy of the laffer curve and supply side bullshit where lowering taxes is somehow supposed to increase tax receipts (data says no).

7. Republican politicians are telling Americans to trust Russian Government media over the New York Times.

8. This thread is about whether we have the money to feed the poor and help the environment. Republicans say we don't but are willing to give billions to the military that they say they don't want or need. Republicans disagree with scientists on anything to do with climate science.

9. Republicans claim to be in line with Christian values and elected a man as far from that as humanly possible.

10. Republicans had to investigate Benghazi how many times to find absolutely no wrong doing? Their line of thinking is that the secretary of state should be in charge of physical security at every building they operate around the world. That's like my CEO getting blamed for Anarchists breaking windows in our building on May day. Ridiculous. And now, even though they said that was a big enough scandal to that we needed to waste millions investigating, but can't see anything worth investigating with regard to Russia.

Clinton killed the good name of Democrats.

Trump saved the republicans lol.

You lost me at "the Republican Party has..."

If you are blaming one side of the equation, then you still don't understand how things work. Once you get off of whatever team you think you're a part of, you really start to see just how fucked the entire system is.

blaming one side of the equation

I am simply stating facts on an important issue.

still don't understand how things work

If you have any specific disagreement or correction on my facts, please speak up.

Once you get off of whatever team

I am on the accurate facts team. Join me. :)

theres no facts. obama was doing the same thing bush was doing that trump is doing now. shut up with ur left right bullcrap

Obama appointed two Supreme Court Justices and both sided against the Republican money-speech agenda in a very strong dissent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,_Inc._v._Montana

That has nothing to do with "left right bullcrap" -- it has to do with policy differences between Republicans and Democrats. :)

on the surface they are two camps, but behind the curtain they are the same people, the swamp was drained by trump to put in place his own swamp people...

Partisan politics has no purpose on this subreddit. Both sides sport a shiny veneer of difference between each other while they rot to the core.

Does this mean we say Republican George W. Bush caused 9-11 to happen? :P

Of course you can state facts about an elected official's or candidate's party affiliation, but to say that blue team is against money in politics is to play red team vs blue team. It has no business in this non partisan subreddit, and is largely untrue anyway.

Now, you've said it twice. Look at yourself.

David Brock, George Soros, etc.,

Why not mention Koch brothers or Mercer? You have chosen a side.

But not so fast, you see everything clouded by conflicting ideologies.

Apologizing for Donald Trump and subscribing to exactly the "libertarian" agenda that is represented by the Republican platform on money-speech:

I am excessively dismissive of Trump support, and I apologize for that. I think it stems from the fact that I hoped he would satisfy my few libertarian leanings

But then, in a total flip-flop, you support socialist ideology:

but I think socialism is more likely to create an armed, educated, activist population that can more easily resist centralization of power and wealth.

And you're so upset at my statement of plain facts that you are going to scold me twice? ROFL, whatever.

For sure, that's a great point. I did fail to specify the equivalent on the red team. It turns out I am fallible, too. I'm willing to admit my mistakes, are you?

The rest of your post completely misses the boat on the nuance of an individual's opinion. I do not apologize for Trump. He's a bag of shit. So is Obama, the whole Clinton family, the whole Bush family. I think people who still support any of these candidates are at least naive. If you read through the context of the post, you would see I was more harsh and dismissive than was constructive, so I was apologizing for that dismissiveness.

I'm scolding you for actively pushing the red team vs blue team agenda which exists to divide people. Most people share viewpoints from all over the political spectrum. Left vs right, libertarian vs authoritarian. These are all used by the media and malicious actors to divide us.

I think people who still support any of these candidates are at least naive.

I am in a "blue state." In 2008, I voted for Cynthia McKinney enthusiastically and in 2016 I voted for Jill Stein. Not a fan of Jill Stein, but we had the choices we had.

I'm scolding you for actively pushing the red team vs blue team agenda

I am simply pointing out a demonstrated policy fact. It happens to be a very important one. The stealing of the Supreme Court seat by Republicans I say is the gravest harm to our system that we have seen since 2001. As a matter of fact, if HRC was in the White House, the odds that unlimited money-speech would have been overturned were extremely high. Four Justices, in a very unusual and bold dissent, pretty much said they would overturn it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,_Inc._v._Montana

If you go back in my history, you will see no campaigning for HRC whatsoever, and quite a bit of criticism. In those days, not so long ago, many were preaching "anyone but Hillary." Now that Republicans have total power, we need to consider "anyone but Republicans."

which exists to divide people.

As long as we look at libtards and conservatards, it probably is. But we are smarter than that.

Most people share viewpoints from all over the political spectrum.

I am not interested in discussing the political spectrum for the simple reason that the meanings of the words have been so totally distorted as to make conversation impossible. And here is how it happened. http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm

I am neither a libertarian nor a socialist. No ideology -- NO IDEOLOGY EVER -- is an answer to any problem. Full stop.

These are all used by the media and malicious actors to divide us.

No doubt.

I disagree with the premise that blue team wants money out of politics, but it sounds like we're aligned on how basically everything else works, so I'll agree to disagree on the one point of contention. I'll concede, though, that members of blue team are slightly more likely to want money out of politics.

Thanks for the debate either way.

Democrats aren't as bad, but they're pretty bad.

Both are ultimately corrupt. We need a new party, a party for the people.

Not a new party, a new system.

"Democrats aren't as bad" Meanwhile the dnc literally murdered seth rich and rigged the primary for Hilary

Primaries aren't a democratic process, they're allowed to do it however they like. It's a shitty thing to do, but not illegal.

I would like to see the Seth Rich case go to court before I start painting people guilty.

The government can't betray the people because government was never ment to be for the people.

Government is there for the government. It's to protect the minority against the majority. And minority are the rich people including the government.

IMO, the worst part about your truth is the segment withing the majority who have been fooled into rooting for the minority.

Who really is the underdog though? The lines are getting blurred as fuck.

The underdogs are the people whose life goals are not all greed based.

to allow America to fall apart

No, not "allow"! To "cause" America to fail!

bernieforprez

I'm a Bernie gal, but he is no magic bullet.

If you look at his record, he consistently votes democratic, which is often nothing more than the foil for the "bad guy" R's.

Until we get rid of the permanent deep state, we will continue our succession of puppets that do exactly what this post says is happening.

Bernie may try to make change from within, but the status quo will remain or he would be assassinated just like Kennedy was.

Our best hope- and if I voted it would have been Stein- is that Trump is trying to make changes from within- without letting the deep state realize it.

Our best hope- and if I voted it would have been Stein

Just out of curiosity, why didn't you vote?

I didn't vote bc the entire voting apparatus is fraudulent- literally the voting machines are hacked and I'm not comfortable with the idea that my vote was used for one party or the other to steal. Who knows which candidiate got each person's vote?

No one will talk about what happened in the primary, almost like it's too much to bear.

But people were switched, and video evidence proves that the machines will literally take a vote for a candidate and assign it to the other candidate.

No way was I prepared to put my stamp of approval on a system that could co-opt my most fundamental beliefs and steal them for either trump or HRC, because I could not support either.

And I knew Deep state would steal Stein's votes and give to HRC.

With all the crap they're pulling, it's entirely possible that they could have given your vote to HRC, even though you never voted at all.

You're absolutely right. That's why I refused to enthusiastically participate.

How would adding more government to the situation help?

I hear this a lot, and agree in spirit, but unchecked capitalism will turn into what it has- just like unchecked socialism and communism turn into what they have.

Humans take advantage of weaknesses in systems.

I think government should be administered by computer.

We input a need: no job, for example, and and algorithm has already computed what a human needs to live where they live that week and hands them that amount of money.

Or they commit a crime, and a computer algorithm that has been previously programmed hands them the appropriate punishment.

I think that is the only way to remove 1) ever increasing gov involvement, and 2) ever increasing gov corruption.

Which is our problem today.

The biggest issue here: the programmers. Because even that can be polluted.

We don't have free market capitalism. Can you buy a 2018 Chevy? What does government even do besides make murder legal? There is literally nothing that can't be done by the private sector.

Um. Wtf are you even talking about?

He is saying that only in government can you commit mass murder (war). And he's saying that the free market does a better job at allocating resources and effeciency. Why give 30% of your income to Washington DC to have them trickle it back out to us through inneffecint programs that don't really help.

Thank you for that. Bc I really had no idea.

How can I buy car that doesn't exist yet?

So would you agree that communism has been done and doesn't work?

Self-learning totalitarian Artificial intelligence government could work. Just have it make all decisions.

He already endorsed Hillary. And have her your money. But ok.

amen. this stuff about 'we have to spend gigabucks, more than the rest of the world combined, on military to keep the evil russians at bay' Seriously if the Americans just stopped with all the military adventurism all over the world not only would have so much more money for constructive purposes, but you would not have so many enemies.

It'll be a great day when our schools have all the money they need, but the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.

This is why the second amendment exists.

yeh but how useful is that against the trillion dollar per year overt and covert military budget?

people don't even know there is a covert rogue "shadow government" outside the constitution for example. there are so many levels they set themselves up to stay in power. some people determined only avenue is bring to light there operations (snowden, dr. greer, ie, and others).

Globally, America already is near the top in per student spending. Results do not reflect that. More money has not helped and very little of the money makes it down to educators let alone students. Throwing more money into a broken and financially wasteful system will not work and rarely has.

The "politicians" in Washington DC don't even think about the people, let alone don't like them. US government has betrayed the people. US government is now populated with corporate CEO's, Banksters, Israel first zionist POS's and a complete assortment of corrupt criminal enterprising douchebags that are allowing, and most likely it is their agenda, to allow America to fall apart at the seams in every important aspect of maintaining a first world country. Education and infrastructure is crumbling to pieces...

Democrats and liberals want to fund education and infrastructure while imposing regulations against CEOs and the banking system, but a lot of people here always say that the two parties are "the same" while doing nothing to help elect people who want to do everything that you just said.

It's no use to complain if we don't vote, or if we don't vote for people who want to make a difference.

12 trillion dollars (Trillion is one million million, $12,000,000,000,000) have been created in quantitative easing in the US since 2008. This money could have been created to fund health, social care, education, infrastructure etc. Instead it has gone to financial institutions.

There literally is a "magic money tree", we just let bankers take all the fruit.

http://positivemoney.org/2017/06/magic-money-tree/

I hope the helicopter money idea takes off

ELI5?

Remindme! 24 hours

I will be messaging you on 2017-06-09 14:54:27 UTC to remind you of this link.

CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

^{Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.}

Remindme! 24 hours + 1

Dropping money from helicopters aka universal basic income.

That's when the rich build giant nets over cities and collect all of that delicious money-rain for themselves

Well then i'm getting in the net cutting biz.

Basically QE was set up to ensure that money supply didn't decrease when banks became averse to lending. What they did was add way more money to the supply than what they would usually do making inflation slightly positive (which is good for growth compared to deflation).

What helicopter money would do is put the money in people's bank accounts not bank's bank accounts essentially.

And why is that a good idea?

Because we are demand constrained. Real wages haven't gone up in decades and businesses suffer because they need more revenue growth.

So basically you propose giving a bit of cash for people to spend and setting the problem aside for a later time. Have you considered what would happen to prices? As people get more free cash (free not as in giving nothing in return but available), they will indeed want to spend it and it will inevitable raise the prices. It won't happen overnight but once prices get raised, some people will look the other way while others will take their place.

1) I haven't proposed this, national reserve chairs have.

2) the whole point of this policy is to fight deflationary pressures so what you describe is probably better than the alternative.

1) I know it's not something you came up with but you proposed using the proposal; hence, my choice of words.

2) Is it though? Has anyone done any calculations how it would affect international trade if it were applied in the US or any other major country or union? Since prices will inevitably increase, I will dare to speculate and say that the amount of free money would have to increase over time which will increase prices even more and so on. What effects will it have on the global market is well beyond current conversation.

What I'm trying to say is it doesn't address the problem which consists of multitude of factors - supply of jobs, geographic differences, possibility of outsource jobs, decrease of the value of certain specializations, culture of consumerism and so on. Throwing cash at people for them to spend is not sustainable in the long run.

Meanwhile the banker bailout devastated how many communities and ruined how many lives? Slightly higher prices or foreclosed neighborhoods that are ground zero for the current opioid crisis? There are others values in this world beside the price and cost of things.

You are missing the point. I am all for increasing the quality of life for people and fixing neighborhoods that are ground zero for many nasty things. However, the point I'm trying to make in one of my comments is that sooner or later prices will inevitably increase due to increased availability of free [read as available] cash. If all people have to pay higher price, then has there really been a change at all?

This principle is more or less universal and can be observed in many different areas of life. For example, free education. Not only the value of education will plummet since many more people will have effectively the same set of skills but also the quality of education will be decreased because it has to be dumbed down for slower people.

Free doesn't mean all inclusive in the educational sense.

"Not only the value of education will plummet since many more people will have effectively the same set of skills" -

I think this is quite the false statement. It is still up to the individual to seek out and invest their time in those classes to better themselves. Just because the education is free to attend doesn't mean everyone will grasp the concepts or pass the class. Not everyone will seek higher education or greater understanding of every subject. The only way everyone would have the same skill set would be if there was only a set of standard classes available and everyone was required to attend and grasp the concepts.

"but also the quality of education will be decreased because it has to be dumbed down for slower people who have enrolled in their free classes."-

Again this is a ridiculous statement. Not having to pay for a class does not mean the subject matter will have to change at all. In fact due to the availability of free education it is most likely that the overall societal education baseline will rise leading to a greater common understanding of more advanced concepts. If anything this would lead to innovation and a greater demand for your average American to be educated.

The only way everyone would have the same skill set would be if there was only a set of standard classes available and everyone was required to attend and grasp the concepts.

Opening up a program to a lot of people would effectively do the same. You can only have that many permutations. Chances are 80% of students will choose 20% of permutations and it will have more or less the same effect as having standard classes given enough time.

Not having to pay for a class does not mean the subject matter will have to change at all. In fact due to the availability of free education it is most likely that the overall societal education baseline will rise leading to a greater common understanding of more advanced concepts.

Have you ever seen what happens to a university program that became almost 100% funded by the State? I have seen a few cases and I've talked to prorectors of European universities. All of them experienced a decrease in quality because it's in their interests to get and keep as many students as possibly in order to get more cash. I'm sure you can find an exception to the rule as with any thing but this is the baseline.

You talk about greater common understand of more advanced concepts. What concepts are you talking about? It sounds good on paper but chances are you don't need a university for that.

If anything this would lead to innovation and a greater demand for your average American to be educated.

Can you show me an example where that's true?

I'll give you a hint. It's all about availability of cash and immediate need for a bigger party such as a large corporation or a State actor. Yes, now we are experiencing a movement of open sourcing all the things, but that doesn't generate you income except if you land a gig or get a job based on the open source project which is not what I'm talking about.

Look, I understand the value of education and appreciate having a conversation with an educated person. Doesn't mean they're intelligent though (not talking about this conversation). The biggest problem with free education is two-fold: market system and human psychology.

I'll start with the easier one. Humans appreciate free things much less than things they had to work for/pay for. It's a part of marketing theory and has been for quite some time. Most people will undervalue acquired knowledge. Some people, however, will hoard the knowledge. I've talked to quite a few people that have at least 3 bachelors degrees, 2 masters degrees and are either working on their doctors degree or already have one. The most extreme case was with a person who had 4 bachelors, 3 masters and 2 doctors. He got them all basically for free and he is not a happy person. He has all this education but he can't land a fucking well paying job because it goes against his established pattern. He doesn't know enough -> he'll get an education.

Onto the tough part - the market. Free education would work the best in a planned economy. You need more labor? Educated your students and off you go. That way you actually can get a job until you get laid off but having a job guarantee outweighs the risk. Under free market conditions you will get an education and then look for a job which will not be easy. The market changes very rapidly and the amount of information is just too much to handle for most people (I own a business dealing with this very issue) which is why they choose to plunge into the market with hopes and aspirations that will get broken. It requires planned efforts and most people don't have that.

How to fix all this? Stop making students go through all the bullshit courses because they have to pick one or more electives. Make universities class based instead of program based. Yes, programs offer some guidance in what you might need later on in life, but the established system is way too slow to react to market conditions.

When that's done, go a step further and make it 100% online based with real time collaboration between students and, if needed, offer to use university premises for students to meet up in person.

In other words, making education on-demand would fix that but it won't happen soon because the mechanism free universities have established to funnel money is too well created to be easily broken.

You're forgetting about AI, automation, and autonomous vehicles.

The goal isn't necessarily to supplement people who need things with free money, but rather to increase aggregate demand at the national level. If everybody in the country started spending an extra $200 every month, businesses have to increase output to keep up with demand. In order to increase output, businesses in turn have to increase spending on inputs, machinery, and most importantly, labor. When businesses all up and down the supply chain have to hire people to help meet demand, the aggregate increase in wages creates it's own increase in demand, allowing the government to reduce or eliminate the helicopter money now that the economy has reached a new equilibrium.

The classic example is world War II. The economy was in the great depression, the government started spending a metric fuckton of money on the war effort, then once the war was over we moved into some of the most prosperous years in our nation's history. The recovery had nothing to do with the fighting. If we had built all of those planes, guns and ships and buried them in a landfill, we still would have triggered a recovery due to the massive increase in demand that was driven by government spending on the war effort. Did it all crash down once the government stopped spending at wartime levels? No. Did prices rocket through the roof? Also no. We reached a new, higher level equilibrium of aggregate demand. Arguably we could do the same thing now with helicopter money.

Your argument is based on an assumption there's a correlation between having more cash at hand and spending more and that aggregate demand will increase.

While there is a correlation, marginal utility will become flat(-ish) relatively soon because you can only buy so many things before not needing them any more. Plus you don't cover the fact that people might be saving the money to pay off their debts. If we're talking about the US, it's not an unfair assumption given that nearly 69% of adults have less than $1000 in their savings account and most have mortgages on their houses. More money will go to businesses only after debt has been paid or, if we're being real, once people have sudden influx of cash they will become even more indebted. Cynical but realistic. The solution? Give more money to them.

Do you remember when the banks crashed in 2008? It wasn't a good time for lots of people. I know that welfare for bankers is appealing to some (the only welfare I want them to have is the guillotine), while they find welfare for the many unappealing or even problematic? Why is that?

Read the comment I made for your other comment:

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6g0epj/the_repitition_will_remain_we_have_enough_money/din6hie/

He's basically describing UBI. Universal Basic Income, and without it, you're going to see a depression that is pretty serious in the coming years. AI, Autonomous Vehicles, automation, it's going to put 75% of the workforce out of business. We're already seeing retail shutting down. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/retail-meltdown-of-2017/522384/

We've already went down this road a few hundred years ago when factories began utilizing machinery to increase the productivity multiplier and after AI there will be other things that will put 75% of the workforce out of business. We've experienced automation and look where we're now. People will have to specialize in other things and that's perfectly reasonable. However, giving cash to people who live in a culture where what you do determines who you are will only destroy them and, arguably, cause more harm than not.

these guys have a better idea: www.positivemoney.org.uk

Definitely, it's just political barriers that stand in the way. Helicopter money would basically circumvent the polItical system.

i'm not against this, but surely there's a better way, for example if the elite returned the political and economic power to the middle class so that plebs like me could do it on our own? Or is true freedom and independence too much to ask for?

I'm not saying this is the end all be all, just that it's easy better than QE. QE didn't use fiscal means and you are talking about things that would be funded by taxes not the Fed (afaik).

This money could have been created to fund health, social care, education, infrastructure etc. Instead it has gone to financial institutions.

All this does is just deflate the value of existing currency. If you have massive debt (like the backs did) it is good. If you have a savings (like people hoping to retire do) it is bad.

Money is created every day out of thin air, every time someone takes out a mortgage for example, that money is generated at that point, it comes in to being because someone went in to debt... you could change this by creating money in a different way - by spending in to the economy.

every time someone takes out a mortgage for example, that money is generated at that point.

You have no idea how it works, and the site you're linking too is giving half the picture and pretending it's a huge conspiracy that this free money exists. It doesn't.

Quantitative Easing is not free money, or a magical money tree. Every penny the banks get by issuing you a mortgage they don't have the money for has to be paid back at some point.

Imagine a different situation, imagine the bank as a person, Banky McBankFace. Banky always has money, but he's also constantly lending it out, spending it and getting new money to replace what he spent. One day you ask for a small loan, $10, but you promise to pay back $15 tomorrow, Banky says of course, but I don't have the cash on me right now, how about I write you a postdated check for tomorrow, just hand it over and everyone knows I'm good for the cash and by tomorrow you'll have paid me back, so everyone is good, which you happily accept.
Banky now has a debt($10), and an asset(your promise to repay $15), net +$5. Now Banky has $5 more than he had before he goes out and buys lunch, of course he doesn't have $5, but he has a good promise from you to repay him that, so he explains this to the store, and they're happy to lend him $12 for lunch, on the condition that he gives them the $15 when he gets it. Banky is happy with $2 profit out of the day and happily accepts.
Meanwhile you go out and spend you cheque, obviously the cheque isn't good yet, but Banky's word is, so when you go to the store to buy lunch they happily accept Banky's cheque, after all they're doing all sorts of business with him and he's good for it, right.

So now Banky has $12 of real money, you've got $10s worth of goods, and the $15 you owe is actually going to the store to pay off Banky's debt to them.
Well, the next day you repay your debt to Banky($15 giving him $27), and Banky goes to talk to the store, they've got his IOU for $15 and the cheque for $10, and he happily pays them the $25 leaving him with $2 profit, the store with $3 profit, and you out $5(but you got to spend your money a day earlier for the fee).

At no point did the money magically appear, every penny that was spent had to be repaid. Quantitive Easing is this on a huge scale. Banks lend out millions they don't have to people on the condition they pay back more, sell off that potential profit to remain liquid and able to continue operating, and then at some point later down the line when everyone pays in their debts everything balances out.

If free money existed in the way that website implies the whole economy would have collapsed decades ago.

Well... it did collapse in 2008 didn't it?

Yeah, the banks gave people loans they knew they couldn't pay back because the bank doesn't actually care(the bank sells on the debt, so you not paying becomes someone else's problem), eventually this caused a situation where people stopped wanting to buy the banks debts(known as toxic assets) and a bank that can't sell the debt can't run day to day and once a bank stops being able to operate people start panicking about how safe their money is and a bas situation becomes worse(not only can the bank not cover it's normal outgoings, but now it's got even more people wanting to take out the money the bank doesn't have on hand).

That should hopefully be resolved, there's regulations now that set up a situation where banks can't mis-sell assets any more(not to say that won't happen, but hopefully it shouldn't), and the government bought a bunch of the toxic waste for less than it was worth to free up the banks to start operating normally again.
Honestly there's no way to be sure this won't happen again as long as people are rewarded for making a profit on something that may not appear in a meaningful way until years later.

Thank you.

So what about fractional reserve banking?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

"fractional-reserve banking permits the money supply to grow beyond the amount of the underlying base money originally created by the central bank."

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 77609}

It's the same idea, except instead of a cheque to be cashed later it's "cash" that they get by immediately accepting a debt to the government for the same amount under some strict rules(they need to keep a certain amount of funds liquid to do it, they can't do this with very high risk investments, the cash that they owe to the government has to be repaid within a short timeline, etc). All that really happens is the bank takes the cash from the government to "create" it, then covers this with the sale of the debts owed to the bank by the person getting the mortgage or small loan. (and not, as a certain financial institution got in a lot of trouble for doing, accepting a new debt to cover the old debt before it expires). The cash is created by the government, but only as long as it's paid back in very short order(at which point it stops existing again because the debt + asset of cash balances back out).

Most of the trillions that is going though the financial system though isn't fractional reserve, it's just not viable for the size of money being passed around from banks to banks for anyone to bother converting it to cash at each stage, instead it just exists as a chain of debt until it can be cashed in and everyone along the chain makes a small profit out of it(either at the time of selling on or off the back of the debt by not selling the whole debt on). Fractional reserve is used for your mortgage or business loan,

Thank you, was going to make this point.

Maybe I'm not getting this right since I'm not good with the economy but how can I repay the extra $5 that I owe to Banky when that money technically never existed in the first place?

Bingo, you can't. That's the point.

Somebody doesn't understand fractional reserve banking. Jesus man, you spent a lot of time writing that example and it's entirely irrelevant to how our banking system actually works.

... not really. That's called credit and it actually operates under the assumption that that money doesn't exist but will eventually.

money from interest never existed and never will

Interest is just the payment that the lender gets for lending you the money

Yeah but that value is tied to time, which it shouldn't.

What's wrong with providing value and getting paid for it?

Nothing, but how are you providing value in the years it takes to pay back the loan? Your service was only the initial loan. The interest is infinite, but the resources on earth are finite, where are we getting that infinite value that the interest warrants?

I'm providing value by not having the loaned money. I had the potential to spend it on so many things but instead you still have it.

The value of the interest is not infinite, it is proportional to the amount financed.

Do you keep all of your cash in your checking account to avoid earning interest?

It's proportional to time also, don't forget that.

Isn't everything? Time is factored into the interest rate. A subscription to Netflix also has a total cost that depends on time.

It could be depending on what you are financing, the concept is tied to time, hence you have 5 year and 10 year rates ... they are even recently proposing 50 year rates (Japan & Italy).

Why shouldnt it be tied to time? If I give you $100 at an interest rate of 5%, and you keep it for 10 years shouldnt it be fair that i get $50? (Obviously it would increase each subsequent year).

Why should interest just be a one time payment?

Exactly. It's payment. Not imaginary money that comes from nowhere.

Money to pay interest will and does exist. If I buy something for $5 and sell it for $10 because I want to make a profit it's the same damn thing.

That's not even close to the same thing.

If you own a house and sell it to somebody, they take out a mortgage from a bank that has the ability to lend the money but doesn't really control but based on the assets of the bank would be able to liquidate inan emergency situation can lend. Charges an interest rate on money it technically doesn't have creates inflation.

If the banks had to pay out all the money they are lending at one time and at the same time everyone took their money out of the bank the banks would go bankrupt.

It's all based on the idea that not all the money will be needed all the time. If you have a backup of funds that can operate day to day functions of the bank and investment plus some emergency funds you can essentially run the industry on minimal funds without actually having physical cash to do it.

But if something major was to happen it's all fucked.

So it's a question of whether you take that risk and grow the economy and hope nothing bad happen, or play it safe and the economy grows slowly but safely.

Unfortunately everybody wants tons of money so you sacrifice safety for profit, hoping in the mean time you don't get screwed.

It's happens in every industry, and every once in a while someone takes a hit and goes bankrupt.

A bank can't lend money it doesn't have. JFC

No it's the same fucking thing. Whether you sell something for a profit or charge interest you're "creating money that didn't exist before".

Selling something for profit isn't "creating money that didn't exist before".. it's exchanging something for money that was in someone else's possession, which already existed. Dude just because you found a quote of someone saying "A bank can't lend money it doesn't have" doesn't mean it's true lmao. It happens all the time.

Describe to me the difference between paying $200k for $100k house upfront vs paying $200k for $100k house over 30 years. Yeah I bet you fucking can't

Fractional reserve banking is based on deposits meaning a bank still can't lend more money than it has.

Of course there's no fucking difference, you used the same amount of money for both scenarios; what's your point?

The banks lend the money that's been deposited by other people, meaning it isn't the banks' money. And what makes you think the Federal Reserve doesn't print more money?

Of course there's no fucking difference, you used the same amount of money for both scenarios; what's your point?

That paying interest is no difference than mark up. How much more clear can I make that?

People deposit their money and the banks use that money to lend it. The banks still can not use money that isn't in their possession. Deposited money is in the banks possession.

Federal reserve prints money. So what?

Say that I have no money and I take out a loan from a bank for $100 at 10% interest. At the end of the year, I have to pay back the bank $110, but I only have $100. In order to do this, I need to borrow money from another borrower. This then creates a problem for the other borrower; he too has to pay back $110 to the bank, but he only has $90, so he must borrow from yet another borrower. This problem propagates through the borrowers until eventually somebody goes bankrupt. Individual borrowers can pay the bank back the interest they owe by borrowing from other borrowers, but the borrowers as a collective cannot because the total amount they owe to the bank is more than the debt (loan) that the bank created in the first place. Thus, the bank has created money with the interest incurred by the loan.

You are not creating money. You are selling a product for more money. Somebody has to take money out of their pocket to pay you. You are inflating the value of that product. But you are not creating​ money.

Somebody has to take money out of their pocket to pay you

guess what bud? That's what you're doing when you pay interest

So if I loaned you all the money in the world, where would the extra money come from to pay back the principal (all the money in the world) plus interest?

Where exactly does the money come from to pay the interest?

As the guy above me said, it doesn't exist and it never will. The sooner you realize this the sooner you will understand how you are getting ass fucked on the regular.

I'm quite aware that money is a social illusion.

Mainly inflation. But to directly answer your question then yes more money would have to be created. That is a complaint to be directed at having a fiat currency. If there are only x amount of dollars in the world and they're all in the possession of Bill Gates type person, what then? If you loan all the money in the world to somebody how does the rest of the world make money? So your question really has absolutely nothing to do with interest.

It is a hypothetical to make the point clear. Sure loaning all the money in the world to one person doesn't make sense but you can replace "one person" with an arbitrarily large number of people and it would not change the math. . . . So now we have to print more money to pay back the interest, except the money printed is loaned to the government from central banks with an attached interest rate. Then we need to borrow additional money from central banks to pay back that interest. As you can see we are now stuck in a loop of borrowing more money to pay off interest on borrowed money.

When someone like the banks or government institutions request money from the federal reserve, it is printed for them, with an initial interest. So if the government takes out a loan at 1.6% interest, there is already a deficit attached to that dollar before the money reaches the hands of any consumer. We are in a constant state of debt, to the magic money tree. How does that make sense? Simple. It doesn't.

So our tax dollars go to "paying the national debt", (it really doesn't it goes to other bs) but there will never be enough money to pay off the national debt, no matter what. There is more debt than there is promissory notes.

We'll split this pie in 2

You get a quarter, i get 3 quarters. Two pieces. You see?

It is potential though - real potential.

Especially with all the brokers taking a piece. Mortgage broker, then the mortgage syndicator, the banks securitizing it, the broker selling it, to the manager buying it on your retirement account.

Banks are allowed to lend more money than the deposits can cover, effectively "creating money".

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/multipliereffect.asp

This isn't true. A single bank can never lend beyond it's capital requirement which is a percentage of it's deposits. We have a fractional reserve banking system and the multiplier effect happens when there is more than one bank which is one banks lending becomes another banks deposits which they can then lend.

Yeah, I misspoke. In my head I oversimplified the system and was referring to a bank loaning money which is then re-deposited by the seller, a portion of which is then loaned again and so on. My statement was certainly misleading.

Even if there was only one bank, $10,000 could be turned into several times that via this system. That's what was in my head but it came out wrong.

bro what the fuck are you talking about.

a bank has like a 40 to 1 lending capacity now; meaning that a bank can lend out 40 dollars for every one dollar it has. so then you collect 20% of 40 dollars and you get 8 dollars. so they created 8 dollars from one dollar.

you are wrong, playa.

You are factually incorrect. Banks lend beyond their capital requirements whenever they want to because the Federal Reserve stands ready to loan them the necessary reserves. That's what the Federal Reserve system is. There is no multiplier effect. Money is created when a loan is made, and money is removed when a loan is paid back.

Ahhh, finally someone else who has actually educated themselves on this.

https://youtu.be/RDciI6pRGjM

yes really. you've been duped.

That's not how credit works. The money absolutely exists. You cannot get credit unless you have some security on a certain amount of borrowed money. Car? House? Any belongings? These are all fair game if you don't pay your creditor. Nobody is is offering credit to people like you or me on hopes and dreams of magical free money.

Explain the 2008 housing market crash then bud. What's the point of ever using a credit card if you're expected to already have that money in the bank? Credit is used when you do not have that money. Obviously you're supposed to pay it back eventually, and the way companies are reimbursed for that non-immediate compensation is through interest.

Not exactly. That money gets added to circulation.

Let's say there are $100 in all of existence. You have 10 and I have 90. I'll loan you $50 if you pay me back $75. We have just created money, and a form of slavery at the same time.

I suggest you educate yourself on this issue:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf

"In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood: the principal way is through commercial banks making loans. Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money."

https://youtu.be/RDciI6pRGjM

If you're saying taking out a mortgage increases the money supply, then I don't see how you make that connection.

Might I suggest you educate yourself on the matter then?

This is a good starting point.... a quarterly bulletin issued by the bank of England: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf

Copypasta of first paragraph:

"In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood: the principal way is through commercial banks making loans. Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money."

Um, no.

I've worked at secondary market desks for a mortgage lending side of a major bank and that money is being borrowed from a person, group, or institution that has the money to lend.

Look at your checking account paying .01% or your savings account paying .1% at Major Banks. They have billions in deposit accounts just like yours. They can lend that money at 4% and make millions.

Or they can work with Texas United Teachers Union Retirement with billions in retirement savings. That pension group can get 2% return and agree on a 30 year payback and invest that in mortgages.

Or Sovereign Wealth Of The Kingdom of Suad can invest in Mortgages and take a low risk investment in mortgages.

This is why the mortgage meltdown was so scary. It wasn't just made up money. It was billions of money belonging to a hugely diverse group ranging from banks, to kingdoms, to teachers, to people with 401k savings, etc. It was Bernie Madoff institutionalized.

You are wrong sir. I highly suggest you educate yourself on this matter. Might I suggest this as a starting point. Its a quarterly bulletin issued by the Bank of England: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf

I'll copypasta the first paragraph for you: "In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood: the principal way is through commercial banks making loans. Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money."

Hard to believe, but that's the way it works.

Erm, QE has like double everyone's retirement plans since 2008. I'm not saying it has been good for those living paycheck to paycheck, but it has definitely been good for people with 401ks and IRAs.

So, good for the people who are already doing pretty damn well in this fucked yo system

Don't most people (more than 50%) have some sort of retirement plan? If not those people are in a lot of trouble, lol.

Nearly 70% of the US has less than $1,000 in savings.

savings account is different than retirement account

That's just savings though -- most people have retirement plans. I just looked up the figures and apparently 45% are actively contributing to a retirement plan, but as many as 9 out of 10 have one (but may not be contributing to it right now).

I find that staggeringly hard to believe. 9 out of 10 American workers have a retirement plan through their employer?

The article I found while I was at lunch (believe it was on Forbes) stated 9 out of 10 Americans have some sort of retirement account, yes.

Again, I find that shockingly difficult to believe. 90% of the workforce? Including all people who work fast food jobs? I believe you, I just think there's a flaw somewhere in those numbers, or some missing context.

To clarify, I just looked into it again:

They define working age as between 30 and 64. I guess because people younger than 30 have a high likelihood of being only employed part-time, if they are employed at all, due to school.

"So here's my test: What percentage of households aged 30 to 64 with per capita earnings in excess of $20,000 have either a 401(k) or IRA-style account, or entitlement to a traditional pension? The answer, according to the Survey of Consumer Finances, is 89 percent. That's nine out of ten, for those of you who don't like percentages."

Again, apparently, only 45% of people are actively contributing to those accounts.

Lots of fast food chains offer 401(k) matching.

"Those people" are your fellow humans and eventually you or somebody one you know will be in their predicament.

Thank you for saying that, have a great day.

You as well friend.

QE is simply delaying the inevitable.

That would be the case, but my understanding is that US currency is to some extent exempt because of the petro-dollar.

You don't know what deflation is. Also, where is this hypothetical inflation that was supposed to result from quantitative easing?

The Fed used the tool it had. If Congress hadn't been interested in putting the screws to Obama instead of fixing the country, the Fed wouldn't have had to use QE and the money could have been spent the ways you mentioned.

QE is not very efficient...but it kept us out of what could have been a worldwide depression.

Id argue the bailouts are what prevented world wide depression. The qe has kept us plodding along at 2% growth for the last 8 years.

2% is better than contraction. That's what the Republicans were looking for, so they could blame Obama.

All this does is just deflate the value of existing currency.

Technically yes, but if the people given that money use it make more money than they were given, then it's a net gain.

Technically, making "more" money really means aquiring money that's already in existence, so there is no real net gain on a national/global level. The money is only changing hands; the actual supply doesn't change unless the Fed prints more currency.

so there is no real net gain on a national/global level.

Yeah but we aren't evolved enough to the point where any of us give a shit about taking money from other countries.

Have you heard of the libor scandal?

Five of the world's largest banks have plead guilty to federal charges including manipulating the global foreign exchange market and rigging a benchmark interest rate that affects the cost of credit card, vehicle and other loans.

Citicorp (C), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Barclays (BCS) and Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) agreed to pay more than $5 billion for conspiring to fix the price of U.S. dollars and euros, the Justice Department said Wednesday. The main banking unit of UBS Group plead guilty to charges tied to interest-rate manipulation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/in-rare-admission-of-guilt-wall-st-banks-admit-they-rigged-markets/

Here are a bunch of sources on bank scandals, including banks laundering money for drug cartels, the reason the government decided not to prosecute bankers for the 2008 financial crisis, and other price-fixing scandals.

This event was the one that convinced me to give up working for a salary, minimize, acquire a means to purify water and learn what i need to survive. The maniacs WILL run this off the cliff.

QE is theft from the people.

if you have a savings (like people hoping to retire do)

Not sure if you're aware of this but 50% of retirement age Americans have $0.00 in their savings.

The actual problem here is inflation not deflation. And despite everyone's fears, we have not seen massive inflation, largely due to low velocity of spending the money. Companies and individuals by and large are hoarding cash, which has prevented the rise you'd expect to see.

Hyperinflation: a how-to guide

there has been no hyperinflation at all due to QE...

The government has been changing up how they calculate inflation. Much of the QE has remained as entries in a bank, not getting out into the economy. If it gets into the economy (which you propose) you would see corresponding inflation.

What? Quantitative easing has been the purchase of government bonds, dramatically increasing demand and pushing down interest rates across the board.

This lower interest rate has absolutely affected the economy as it makes it less profitable for banks to store money in us bonds, incentivizing them to extend loans to businesses and individuals at lower rates.

The reason we don't see much inflation is not because of changes in inflation calculations, although those do change slightly, but because businesses and consumers are still wary of taking risks and spending money, whether borrowed or earned. The effective money supply has remained low as banks and businesses across the board are willing to give up potential future gains for current safety.

As for changes in inflation calculations, they're really quite reasonable. The use of a geometric mean estimator simply accounts for the fact that consumers tend to substitute cheaper options as some items become more costly.

Furniture is a great example. It used to be hand crafted and overengineered out of beautiful hardwood. It was heavy, expensive and extremely durable.

Now the price of hardwoods has skyrocketed because we cut down most of the old trees and they take a long time to grow. We also have ultra low cost flat pack (Ikea) options that cost 20% or less.

Is my quality of life 80% lower now that I buy a dramatically cheaper option than even pine furniture? Is tracking the value of hardwood bookcases even relevant to the average urban consumer?

If beef prices rise 50% one year, supermarkets will sell a lot more chicken and pork which haven't shot up. Shouldn't we acknowledge that prices haven't increased significantly for the majority of people who are just as happy with a different meat?

There's no one right answer, but I'd argue tracking the price of standard desktop PC is nearly meaningless unless you allow for substitutions for laptops, netbooks and even mobile phones. Otherwise you're not meeting the goal of CPI -- measuring changes in the prices for what people buy, not just static prices.

I also note that CPI very closely tracks MIT's billion price index -- tracking a huge number of easily aggregated online prices. I'd expect a significant deviation when none is present in the data (certainly not on the order of multiple percentage points that would be covering up alleged inflation due to QE).

You're probably correct on that point. I think the scale of money creation has been absolutely ridiculous! My point though was that money ought to be created by spending in to the economy, rather than created as debt, as it is in the current system.

Listen I love this sub and I agree with the overall message the OP is making ...but I work in the financial industry and this is just a kind of ignorant viewpoint.

If the financial industry collapses ... Trust me.. the poor and need aren't going to be getting fucking shit for a century or two

I guarantee they will eat the rich if the rich try this. The populace is armed. Millions of armed men and women could literally walk across this country and slaughter every rich person. If the people are organized the wealthy are going to die.

You work in the financial industry...ok. Can you explain in layman's terms then what the "economy" ie money is based on then if there is actually nothing physical to back it. If everyone wanted their money at once what would happen? If the answer is anything but...."everyone would receive their money" how is this not a pyramid scheme?

trust. Humans are unique animals in this way.

Read Sapiens by Yuval-Noah-Harari

Blows up and articulates how strange human culture is, and how weird that we just accept "the way things are"

https://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-Humankind-Yuval-Noah-Harari/dp/0062316095

How can someone superimpose a view of normalcy when we are the only species that we of know that has civilized culture?

For example, wtf is a corporation? We still respect the idea that it exists, even if every building they owned was destroyed, and every human who worked their died. The "organization" still exists.

Why did humans spend so much time being good, putting off earthly pleasures for the after life, in service of a Lord land owner? Only humans have these shared ideas and trust that allow for organization. The author can explain this stuff better than i. I fully recommend the book

I've always thought about this. If everyone went to get all of their money out at the same time, the bank would certainly not have it.

Banks only insure 250,000. Anything over is considered gone! Lol

Why money with no physical back works is because everyone believes money has value. That's the basic principle behind fiat currency.

However, it is also backed by the fact that (in the US) the US currency is legal tender, meaning if there is a debt you are legally required to accept US currency. Meaning if you owed me $1 and offer me a $1 in US currency I can't really refuse it. There are some notable exceptions, but in general it stands true.

As for if everyone wanted to take their money out of the bank. Well, assuming there was enough actual cash made (there isn't) they would get all their money. In reality since there isn't enough cash they shut down the bank and tell people they aren't able to take out their money. It's call a "Bank run" and it usually happens somewhere around the globe every couple of years.

Fiat currency = pyramid scheme then. Everyone that invested with Madoff thought they had money as well, correct? Isn't this the same thing that the US govt tries to sell us as well when we contribute to Medicare etc. As someone else pointed out that every time someone takes out a loan nore money is "created". It is laughable (actually pretty sad) that everything we base our material lives upon is a sham basically. We devote our lives to it, worship it and some just can't get enough of it. One really has to wonder then of the realities of this social construct....hmmmmmmm

Except the government can always make more physical cash if people decided they wanted all their money in physical cash. Madoff did not have that ability. Regardless, you are completely of base with your thinking. You are welcome to criticize a fiat system due to the fact that the currency has no backing, but the idea that fiat currency is a pyramid scheme (also, the phrase you are looking for in Ponzi scheme) is flawed. A dollar does not derive it's value from being a piece of cotton paper with ink on it. It derives it's value from the fact that people will exchange it for something, regardless of whether that physical dollar is there or not. Why would stores accept credit cards if the value was only in the physical money?

Why would stores accept credit cards if the value was only in the physical money?

Are you serious ?

Because it just represent real cash money dude...

Just as cash money was meant to represent something real and valuable.

And that's where the problem lies, cash is now only representing cash and its value is only based on what people agree it to be. It's like money has become something on its own.

Thus, we entered a perpetual forward flee... In order to keep it valuable, it has to worth lesser and lesser over time...

So imagine you get paid 5 bottles of water for a job. You drink one of them. One year later, you're left with 4 bottles of water.

Now, if you get paid "the value of 5 bottles of water in cash"... You buy one bottle and drink it. One year later, you're left with less than the value of 4 bottles of water.

Do you realize now ? Yes, you were right... Speculative money doesn't come out of nowhere... It's actually slowly sucking value out of everything else while producing no goods nor services.

Because it just represent real cash money dude...

It does not represent cash, it creates a deposit, which is exchangeable for cash. Which is an important distinction in the context of the discussion I was having. The idea that money can exist without a physical form is a hugely important concept.

Regardless, your point, while valid, is entirely different than the previous fellow's point. You did miss something though, which is that having fiat currency fixes a problem that all physically back money. Fiat money solves the problem of the availability of money. There is no physical substance that is both valuable due to intrinsic properties that is common enough to be used to back the amount of currency that is needed. So, while we do have inflation we are also not falling into stagnation due to the fact that no one has any money to use.

The only problem that fiat currency has fixed is the power that banking institutions lost to control the game. That is the exact problem with this system now, I don't think there is 1 person in this world that can explain cogently and coherently what the cake is based on. We have come up with so many inter-connected things to base it on that there really isn't anything at all to base it on in reality.

cake

I think you accidentally a word?

*value...lol....stupid auto correct.

I don't think there is 1 person in this world that can explain cogently and coherently what the value is based on

The "value" is the ability to exchange it for goods and services. My barber accepts cash because it allows him to buy groceries. His grocer accepts cash because it allows him to buy clothes. His tailor accepts cash because it allows him to buy a house.

If you don't think cash has value, feel free to turn all your cash into some other asset. The beauty of money is that you can! And there's no shortage of people willing to accept your cash for actual "valuable" assets.

You might say there's no firm ground here, but it's like that team building exercise where you all stand in a circle and sit in each other's lap. The circle completes and no ones left on their ass holding "worthless" cash.

Of course you won't accept this or any other explanation of fiat money because you've made up your mind clearly that it's a scam.

debt slaves = value.

Fiat currency only solves the problem of the availability of currency/credit for banks. Money is gold and silver.

I know this is a ratchet in some of what you're saying TIFWIW, I think a lot of the value of money, that most people don't think about, and I know it's not in any econ books, is the fact that in most serious countries, there is legal recourse. Without the ability to enforce contracts, you've got issues. Credit seizes.

It is a scheme, Central Bank Fractional reserve banking and the fact that FED balance sheet is basically what I call "counterfeited money" or fiat money lent out that is due interest so there is a net negative number of dollars in existence. They only create the money they lend and not the interest due. This gives the currency value not the fact that people "believe it has value". The value is due to the fact that the majority of the population is in debt so they have to work/produce for money or borrow it with interest.

What could it be backed on? Gold? Gold has a finite amount on Earth and the econly constantly expands.. a gold standard doesn't work.

Watch the scene in It's a wonderful life when George explains where "your money is" when everyone what's to withdraw the cash from their account..

Again, I agree overall with the OP but attacking QE is just silly

"Oh trust me starving person, if my boss had to sell his Ferrari you would be much worse off".

I'm sorry, I think you have failed to see my point. I am not advocating the collapse of the finance industry, m point was that money ought to be created by spending in to the economy, rather than created as debt, as it is in the current system.

While healthcare and education is cool, a losing battle against terrorists is pretty dope too.

It's a lot easier if you just don't let them in.

Or create them and arm them.

Sooo. A wall it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0

People need to watch, understand and share this video.

It's amazing how many economics professors and people in finance don't understand how money is created. I knew two guys who were studying economics at Cambridge University and I had to spend an hour or so showing them quotes from the Bank of England until they believed me!

and people wonder why bitcoin is so popular.

21 million limit. you cannot create bitcoins out of thin air. issuance is at a controlled, steady, and predictable rate. No counterfeits. The fed/government doesn't run it.

Electronic gold.

There is a finite amount of gold in existence. Can't make gold unless you figure out how to using nuclear fusion.

Gold is mined at a steady rate.

You can't fake gold, it's an element.

The Fed doesn't own all the gold. Alot of it but not all of it.

A wild Alot appeared!

^{This Action was performed by a bot - Please message eto_eskape if you have any problems}

Problem with gold is that it has inherent value.

for materials science.

For Muslims as well. Muslims must use gold and silver as currency not fiat.

If the world used gold there would be no need to create an artificial demand for US dollars.

Muslims would demand it so much there would be no need to topple governments to keep the price of gold high.

Muslims must use gold and silver as currency not fiat.

Wow I never knew that. Mind nearly blown. Usury/interest earning is also forbidden.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_in_Islam

Except Gold is physical, it is not electronic.

"Electronic Gold" is not gold.

There is NOT a finite amount of it.

It CAN be faked.

That's why Bitcoin exists.

I'm calling bitcoins electronic gold.

ooops ok then

Gold is incredibly difficult to trade in. Is this bar you're holding real gold, or are there tungsten bars hidden inside of it? Is it 99.99% pure or is it mostly alloy? Is your scale accurate enough to track $0.25 worth or are you getting surcharged on inaccuracies?

Gold definitely can be faked and testing for fakes is not trivial.

Gold is incredibly difficult to trade in.

Thats what the bank is for. You put your gold in the bank and write a check or use a debit card and the bank would take care of the physical transfer.

Is this bar you're holding real gold, or are there tungsten bars hidden inside of it

That is what an XRF machine is for. I'd assume the bank would carry those if the economy were gold based. Many jewelry stores have them as well.

I'm sure if more people purchased them the price of each XRF unit would go down and be affordable.

Is your scale accurate enough to track $0.25 worth or are you getting surcharged on inaccuracies?

Are you serious? An impure bar of gold is way more valuable than the equivalent amount in paper money.

There's a reason we adopted paper money.

To oppress Muslims?

yet Satoshi (the creator) holds like 700K of them.....

Yep. and he's probably dead.

Those coins will likely never move because if they ever did the price would collapse on itself.

But that defeats the purpose of an altruistic currency. The loss of bitcoins decreases access and only serves to create those with a lot of bitcoins richer due to increased valuation.

At the end of the day I dont feel humans could ever unite together...divisiveness and corruption run rampant.

Yep. Creates an incentive to buy even a small portion.

We will always need to transfer value.

Something like BTC evens the playing field.

Yep. and he's probably dead.

Hell, read his wikipedia page. He might not have been one person but a whole team.

Seems like a group of guys had an idea and ran with it and swore it to secrecy. Kind of bad ass.

But you can create a competing bitcoin. And people have.

There's nothing special about bitcoin compared to competitors, except it was the first.

The problem was the amount of liquidity needed for the swaps that happened with AIG. It was a zero sum game. My take on it is that instead of fines induced on companies for gross negligence, they should fine them in ownership. Take 1% from each owner to the new owner's equity. If they are not a public company, they can either do a buyout of that 1%+ to those affected or something similar. This would stop ignorance more than what they did. Citigroup and AIG ended up fine but their gross negligence in managing those swaps were awful.

Can you expand? Explain swaps a bit better? I realize I could do my own research, but you seem like you could eli5.

Basically, it is like if you have a doctor and a movie star both have salaries. The movie star wants to stabilize his salary so he decides to enter an agreement with a few doctor's salary to swap his salary to stabilize his income. The movie star loses his career and cannot find a job and goes bankrupt. Luckily, in the agreement, there was a required insurance on the salary. Suddenly, the doctors are out of money and they cannot run their business because they don't have any sort of salary so they all claim their insurance on the movie salary at once to save themselves except the insurance company cannot pay everyone at once so they either go bankrupt as well as all the doctors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swap_(finance)

There is a really good book called Physhing for Fools that has a great chapter on what happened. It has a great amount of other "scams" that have happened and a lot of information that is really a great read. But this kind of stuff gets more complicated. This is what happened and in a sense why the US needed to bail them out and why 12 trillion was needed.

What is the purpose or reasoning behind wanting or needing to stabilize the salary. What does that even mean? Can't the movie star just keep his salary to his own danged self, be responsible and not over complicate the matter. All this seems like some type if racket. I'm very grateful to your time and effort breaking this down for me/us.

It bordered a racket. The main reason is that the doctor's salary (Cash flow) may be better for the expenses of the movie star and vice versa. There is also likely a tax advantage as well but I don't know. There is a portfolio theory too where you could do a mix of different cash flows so that you create a balanced and stable salary if it is highly variable. Like a cold/flu doctor whose money is made in the winter but is dry in the summer but he still needs money to keep his business afloat. He could take a portion of the Movie star's salary as a way to ensure expenses can be paid and he does not have to worry about saving as much money for the summer season.

Thanks a lot, that makes a little more sense now.

It was a complicated issue but there were also speculators involved. The claims happened all at once and AIG's banking failed because they did not get it right.

The problem was the word insurance. That would require a certain percentage that could guarantee the insurance. It was my understanding AIG was underwriting their SWAPs with their credit worthiness. When that turned to shit the finance industry turned to the government to bail them out.

gross negligence is our right! the feds bailing them out is terrible crony capitalism though.

I think it was either that or let a lot of banks and businesses fail left and right. I don't know the severity of it but it could have created more unemployment than what happened for a longer duration. Capitalism is not the problem. It was the negligence and dependence of banks in this situation. Capitalism is the only system that rewards improvement of distribution systems. It allows for great progress when done right. The only problem is that the systems tend to behave like ADHD in that they will not look too far ahead and plan accordingly.

Bitcoin = freedom

Not really, being able to deploy arbitrary amounts of cash anywhwre in the world is a financial weapon and will likely be used as such or be regulated away.

Who the hello would want inflationary crappy and worthless pieces of paper controlled by banker and politician parasites if they have p2p money?

What does what we WANT have to do with my cynical outlook on what will happen?

We arent set up for how disruptive decentralized currency can be to small markets. Part of why normal folk have a cap on moving large sums about especially across borders.

Not that we cant be, just that we arent right now.

Holy shit, when did this place become r/BernieBros?

How long have you been an eater of exotic dicks...?

what point are you trying to make here? Grow up mate, and join the conversation with actual comment, not mindless shit posts.

The point is obvious if you're not a fucking communist you dumbass.

Have some common decency. Being rude isn't going to convince anyone of whatever asinine point you are making.

Useful idiots can't be convinced of the truth

money literally grows on trees ok well paper is made from cotton now not a tree but still. just print more.

Cryptooooooo's tiz the way of the future where their tree is no longer in use

That 'magic money' tree is what will ultimately lead us having a currency like Zimbabwe.

This is a subreddit of people who've never taken an economics course in their life that think they're Adam Smith. Jesus fucking Christ. I can't even go into how ridiculous your statement is to anyone who's taken even an entry level macroeconomics class. This level of economic illiteracy brings me physical pain.

So USD is crash proof and hyperinflation proof?

I wouldn't bother. The guy is either a troll or he has drank a little too much of the Keynesian cool aide. Either way I wouldn't hold my breath that he would admit to it even if he did think his macroeconomics class wasn't the be all end all of economics.

My point though is that if you are going to create money at this scale... at least give it to a good cause.

I'm on board with that.

They should lose their license. The jobs won't 'disappear'. What's left of the business gets liquidated and the people at their desks (most of them) just get a new company to work for. Why we allow losers to continue working when they put their company at risk is beyond me.

I like this comparison to put it in perspective.

1 million seconds is equal to 11.5 days. I trillion seconds is 31,710 years. (1 billion seconds is equal to 31.75 years).

I like using that too... makes it much easier to picture

Holy economic illiteracy Bateman

Take a fucking economics class and all your reservations will be answered in like 2 weeks you dolt. This like basic fucking stuff.

be civil you nincompoop.

What background in economics do you have?

What are you even trying to say in your post? It is just vitriol and makes no clear point.

So bad, about time this post popped up though lol

What do you think the financial institutions fund? Jesus sometimes this sub is too much

Or you seriously trying to tell me you think the money from QE has "trickled down"? What a joke! The Bank of England has said publicly that wealthy families had been the biggest beneficiaries of QE thanks to the resulting rise in value of shares and bonds.

fucking disgusting shit going on jesus fukin christ man wtif with that bullshit the fuck lmao smh

We could just keep the money we give Israel daily and fix our problems quickly.....but nooooooo

whatever?! mohammed

How much money do you think we give to them?!

38 billion a year

And the estimated cost of universal health care is 2.2 trillion per year. So how is a 38 billion going to "fix our problems quickly"?

actually we give them 2.2 trillion a year in terms of wasted wars we pay for them

Actually we spend significantly less than 1 trillion on the entire defense budget each year. So tell me again how that will "fix our problems quickly"?

Easy, they want us distracted. Leave the issues standing so you can either blame the other guy or use it as a talking point

• That's why issues like abortion keep coming up, easy dividing topic.
• 'I'mma gonna fix that there pipe!'
• Why keep marijuana banned? Easy to get old voters on your side by calling it devil's herb.
• Why don't we fix the healthcare and eliminate the middleman, who is simply there to pocket money? Because it keeps us divided. Fuck your neighbor! Those extra few cents I would pay on my paycheck is mine! Even though if we all paid that extra bit, everyone would have healthcare. Everyone would be healthier. But usually healthier means smarter and happier, and you can't use fear tactics as easily.
• Why would we actually try to solve international problems diplomatically with all parties? Why not just pick a side and bomb the other! That way we get some $$ and act like we're patriotic and defendin' freedom.

Sure, these issues are more complicated that what I just said, but those are some of the basic concepts on why there is so much political divide.

I pay about £40 per week in National Insurance contrubutions.

For that I get as many doctors visits as I need, free prescriptions (in Scotland), free eye and hearing tests, and it helps to pay for all those who can't work.

Honestly, if I had to, I'd pay another £40 to keep it running.

Someone else said something along the lines of: I'm happy to pay that extra little bit on my paycheck each month, as I can look around the bus each morning and think, yep, I'm helping to ensure each bloke here can go and get his heart pills if he needs, or kid get his broken leg fixed, or elderly lady getting her exams. I pay a little bit more on my paycheck, because that means the other guy won't pay 1700+ each month to treat his problems that he couldn't prevent.

Hit the nail on the head there.

I've been around a bit, and I'm glad to live in a country where almost no-one struggles to see a doctor, or has to pay silly money for meds.

It's well worth every penny.

You folks are pretty lucky. It's literally life and death here in the U.S.
"Obamacare" was labeled as scary "Socialism!!" but in reality was a huge giveaway to insurance companies.
Got better for a very brief period, now most insurance rates have skyrocketed again. Even company plans for employees suck worse now. Employees have to pay much higher percentages, for much worse insurance packages. (Example: Employer deducts a percentage of employee's pay each week for insurance plan, but the employee still has to pay $5,000 to $10,000 out of pocket for medical treatment before insurance kicks in.)
Finally, it's keeping natural allies divided -- working class are envious of poor because they can get some insurance. At the same time, the working class usually can only purchase insurance either as individuals or through work --- and either way, its verrrrrry expensive and often doesn't end up covering whatever illness arises.
It's not a health care system, it's a disgusting criminal enterprise.

Honestly, your system fucking scares me.

I hear about $800 for a ride in the ambulance? Your local hospital may not be included in your insurance plan? Upwards of several thousand dollars a month for medication?

Fuck that noise. I'm glad that our NHS levels the playing field. Sure, we can go private, and be seen more quickly, be treated more quickly... but at least everyone gets the basics right now.

That ambulance price is for real. Even if you are on Medicare (that's U.S. healthcare for people over 65 - funded out of payroll taxes). About ten years ago, my mom needed an ambulance and when we got the bill for $675 I couldn't believe that Medicare didn't cover it!
And yes, people are getting used to the idea that they have to factor in the cost of an ambulance in the decision on whether to use one or not. Can I risk it? Do I really need medical attention on the way to the hospital or should we just try to get there on our own and see if we make it?
This particularly hits hard on people who are struggling financially, but do have some assets. Because the debt collectors will come after them, and after them.
Conversely, if you are poor enough, then you don't have to pay. So, once again, it pits the working class against the poor.

There's honestly nothing I can say to that, you live in a different world.

Don't take this the wrong way, but there's no way I'd ever emigrate to the US.

Don't, it's a fucking shit hole.

Not likely. I've not fired a weapon in 15 years. Don't ever want to have to again.

It's been about 2 weeks since I fired a weapon.

I've gone over 40 years without ever pointing a weapon at a human being.

Hope it stays that way.

Way I look at it, only people who have firearms over here are military (active duty, in barracks), a select number of cops (on duty), or hardcore, professional gangsters.

I don't mess with the gangsters, they don't mess with me.

Over there though, so many young, angry fuckers have handguns. I don't need that in my life.

I've gone my entire life without having a gun pointed at me and 5 years of those were spent doing security work in a shitty part of a city with high crime. It's not as bad as the news makes you think.

Outside of going to places specifically to shoot or buy guns and hanging out with friends, I've seen maybe 10 visible handguns not counting cops. Just regular folks at restaurants or buying groceries that happened to being open carrying a handgun.

There's definitely a cultural difference. The idea of seeing someone at a restaurant with a gun on their hip probably sounds absurd to you. The idea of not being able to carry a pocket knife or own a handgun sounds absurd to me.

I'd probably feel different about guns if I lived where you did, and vice versa. You have to keep in mind in my country we literally have more privately owned firearms than we have people.

Oh, I'm not taking it the wrong way - you're just being rational. It wasn't always like this.
Back in the mid to late 80's the price of insurance wasn't so bad, and it was fairly easy to get through your job. Now, whether you buy it through your job, or on your own, it's really very expensive AND more people have to pay a huge deductible before the insurance even kicks in.
Here's how the deductible works: on a regular basis, you pay the insurance company for your medical insurance coverage. But before they'll pay for medical expenses, you have to pay the first $5,000 or $10,000 (or more, depending on the insurance plan that you choose.)
And God forbid you didn't buy the insurance through your job or through some other sort of group coverage. If you buy insurance as an individual, the insurance company is MUCH more likely to reject any claims you make. Why? Because you're just one little person. What are you gonna do about it sucker!

Don't forget that your deductible rolls over yearly...

Good point. And this is how it is under the supposedly socialist "Obamacare" American healthcare system. Good thing its not a bunch of ruthless extreme capitalist psychopaths running things for the benefit of huge corporations. But wait a second...

So, like, why don't they just raise the monthly premiums? Jeez, pay more per month, no big bills?

It's a bloody racket, in my opinion. And not a very sneaky one, at that.

That's just... Inhuman :(

your credit will be ruined if you dont pay big medical bills...leading you to high interest rates....and in the working class...

God forbid you have to be airlifted somewhere - good luck paying that bill.

One thing that bothers me the most about for-profit health care in the US is that you can never truly trust what you are being told. Every person in that industry has a motivation or requirement to screw you over (as with all things in capitalism), or least give advice/treatment/medicine that you may not need at all.

For example, if I do to the doctor for a given problem and there are two treatment options - one being less expensive than the other - which option do you think they will go with? Obviously, if there is more profit to be made from one option, even if that option is not necessarily ideal for the issue at hand, that is probably what they will recommend.

Before anyone burns me down, I know I made some blanket statements here and I know that isn't really true. There are plenty of good folks in the healthcare industry and they aren't all out to get you. That said, when there is a profit motive that means, at least some of the time, that profit is being put ahead of the care being administered.

My Mom has been a nurse for over 40 years now, keep in mind, so this sentiment is despite my personal connection to the industry.

I've said it in other comments... I'm honestly so sorry that you guys have to deal with that type of healthcare.

I really cannot imagine what goes through your head when you are ill/injured.

Here, it's "Ok, phone an ambulance!"

There, well... "Can we afford an ambulance? What is the closest hospital that my insurance company will cover? Fuck, we're talking $20,000 at least here!

Like I say, I just can't even.

I definitely envy those of you out there who don't have to make these considerations in times of crisis.

I remember one time during a meeting with my company's health care provider they actually had a whole section on what to do in a crisis to make sure you are covered. For example, if you are in need of a life-saving operation you have to make sure that not only the facility you are going to is in-network, but also the doctors who will be working on you. It is completely insane.

If I have a heart attack they expect me to get on the phone with their customer service team while I am in the process of dying to source providers that they will cover under my plan. Keep in mind, I always get the best possible health care plan but even then you have hoops to jump through.

I just remembered a funny/infuriating story related to insurance. I had to have my wisdom teeth taken out and I assumed this would fall under my dental plan. Big mistake. It was a surgical procedure and, while the dental office I went to was covered for dental procedures, they were not covered for surgical procedures. I ended up having to pay for the whole thing out of pocket. I wasn't well off financially at the time so I had to finance the whole thing. All told, it cost me a couple grand.

Once, we had a guy didn't feel too well. A little dizzy. No idea what it was, but he couldn't stand up straight.

Phoned an ambulance. He was diabetic, had low blood sugar. Gave him about 45 mins treatment in an ambulance in the loading bay.

That was that. Wham-bam, thank you paramedics. Our company insurance would have nailed us to the wall if we hadn't called that ambulance out.

Weird. Well, someone paid for it unless there is some altruistic ambulance company out there that likes to lose money.

Yep. All of my colleagues paid for it. Everyone pays for it. It get's taxed from our salary before we get anything.

Very few UK residents will complain about the NHS.

Oh, sorry. I thought you were in the US (my bad). I think the same thing would happen in the US (company would call an ambulance for liability reasons) but the person and/or their insurance company who end up footing the bill. Can you imagine their relief when, after receiving life-saving treatment, that they are able to empty their bank account to pay for it. Feels good to be an American.

Start of the year, my wife spent four weeks in hospital.

They ran at least 20 blood tests, 7 or 8 MRIs, 5 or 6 CT scans, half a dozen X-rays... two PET scans...

Wonder what that would have cost us in the US...

I think the average cost per day in the US is about $2,000 USD. So, four weeks would have cost about $56,000 USD. With insurance the out of pocket cost would have been a lot less depending on the plan. That said, if you have a $10,000 deductible then that is what you would have been on the hook for.

Wow, thanks for that. I would have never known how to crunch those numbers.

All it cost me really was petrol, and keeping her full of sandicckes and magazines...

Was this in the U.S.? Did they just forget to send a bill?

UK. We pay National Insurance out of our pay cheques.

No big bills for basic healthcare.

"The Crying Room": A friend’s girlfriend used to be a health insurance customer service agent. The insurance company rigorously trained them on how to delay and/or deny treatment or the payment of claims. These lowest paid people on “the front lines” of the insurance industry were not heartless, but if they resisted company directives, their jobs were put at risk.

If an insurance company denies approval for treatments, or even delays approval, that can mean life or death. This is brutal.

Imagine being the person who listens to these people’s stories over and over, every day. And then you have to tell these desperate people no, once again. And maybe that means their husband or mother or child may die because treatment is delayed.

Anyway, my friend’s girlfriend said that every day, people broke down because it was unbearable. And they would rush to the bathroom to sob. This was "the Crying Room". There was always at least one person, if not more, crying in the bathroom. These customer service reps aren’t psychopaths or sociopaths. (If they were, they would have their own nice offices, fat paychecks and executive titles.) These customer service reps are just normal people trying to make a living. Maybe they have kids. Maybe they really need the health insurance that the job provides. So they go through this emotional and mental torture every day, all day long. Either deny coverage to people who have paid for it, or lose your job. And if you lose your job, then you might end up on the other end of the phone begging for help.

Sounds like a Black Mirror episode, but it’s real.

A friend is a manager for one of the largest banks is the US. For her, her husband, and 3 children, she pays over $800 per month for insurance. Then, the first $5000 of the family's medical bills have to be paid out of pocket for each calendar year. Only then does her insurance kick in, but she still has to pay co payments for each doctor visit or prescription. And she only makes about $45K per year.

Oh, and the best part? For two years in a row now, once she has met that $5,000 out of pocket max for the year, the insurance company tends to deny any big procedures right off the bat, so the don't have to pay for it. Her doctor wanted her to get an MRI because she lost all hearing in one ear rather suddenly (and he wanted to rule out a brain tumor or tumor on the auditory nerve). Denied. Still fighting with the insurance company to get it covered, two months later.

I was walking home from work and get hit by a car. Was concussed so I wasn't sure what my name was etc., and for some reason no one bothered to check for my wallet (Including me, but I was out of it).

When I finally came to enough to call family, I was sitting on a $12,000 bill for having an ambulance take me to the hospital, and the hospital doing a few x-rays and saying "Nope, no skull fractures, you'll probably be ok"

12 grand for a ride less than 6 miles and an xray. $12,000.00

Shits retarded.

Fucking hell.

I got hit by a car once. Compund fracture in my leg. Five night hospital stay. Numerous xrays, etc...

And I paid... my £50 per week.

I was out of work for a month and spent 6 months fighting with insurance. All while I received medical bill past due statements daily and got my phone spammed constantly and couldn't walk normally and had a baby on the way to top it all off. Definitely one of the worst moments of my life. To top it all off the cops didn't charge him with jack shit even though he was clearly in the wrong and we obtained video to prove it without a doubt.

That's just, well... evil.

I'm honestly on the fence as to whether I even want to visit the US on holiday. There are a few places I'd love to see... New York City, LA, the New Mexico desert... I'll have to do a few more years of thinking though, to be honest.

It has some amazing geography, amazing food and wonderful people. We have some seriously retarded policies though. For example:

• We jail people for years for smoking weed
• Murder is ok if the person you kill is riding a bicycle
• Healthcare? LOL. You're either rich or will be in debt for decades.
• Voting? Doesn't matter what you think, majority rules in your state for a national election, instead of simply counting all the votes each candidate receives.

1- I quit toking a while back.

2- I only do mountain biking. Probably ok there.

3- I'll have travel insurance. That I've probably paid a ton for, and I've ensured covers us in advance.

4- I won't have to vote.

Like, I know you're going to say that it's safe for tourists. Thing is though, I'm a confident bastard. I walk around shady neighbourhoods regularly, been to some right dodgy parts of the world, and it doesn't phase me too much.

How dodgy are the dodgy neighbourhoods, if I'm not looking for trouble?

In my experience, not very. You'd have to specifically poke your nose into someones shit to get into trouble based on what I've seen. Most people are pretty chill. I've spent a lot of years living in shitty areas because the rent was low and the location convenient. Most trouble is between gang members, drug deals gone wrong, stuff like that.

If you want something to get done, don't rely on the government to do it. Except for security and tax collection, and a few other things, the government wastes a lot of money and isn't capable of redistributing wealth in a fair way.

If you want something to get done, don't rely on the government to do it. Except for security and tax collection, and a few other things, the government wastes a lot of money and isn't capable of redistributing wealth in a fair way.

Unfortunately, I think you're right, at least here in the U.S. The government is so disfunctional because our supposedly representative democracy is tied inextricably to the concept that extreme capitalism is the same thing as freedom. Therefore, our government has helped to created a Frankenmonster system of capitalism on steroids whereby anything that uber wealthy global corporations want is put into effect by their government stooges.

Precisely why as an American I live in East Africa or Asia almost all of the year. Cheap as chips international insurance that covers everything for helicopter evac to flight delays and stolen personal items. Foods even cheaper, and much better, fuck in Zanzibar I pay 50 cents/gig for internet, have yet to find it cheaper!

what do you do?

Video production studio and macadamia oil processing in Nairobi and own/operate some small beach bungalows in Zanzibar. Karibu (welcome) anytime.

You folks are pretty lucky. It's literally life and death here in the U.S. "Obamacare" was labeled as scary "Socialism!!" but in reality was a huge giveaway to insurance companies.

First off, you are wrong on every single count. NHS doesn't see for all things you think you pay for. Plus, the Reason the UK left the EU is because of dumb ass shit like medical care coverage that nobody can afford.

As for Obama care, it has almost no major providers, some state's exchanges are not even in business any longer since the costs to the insurers is multiple times what the exchange pays back.

0bama is a one-world gov't CIA plant, same as his mother Stanley Dunham, a CIA asset. 0bamacare was never supposed to work, as evidenced by Rep. Pelosi's comments on it.

Why can't the USGovt just mandate no insurance companies. Enough already; they can sell excess or something, but healthcare should be handled by the govt.

They won't do that because the U.S. government is owned by the highest bidders. Politicians make laws and agency heads make regulations. Politicians need money to get elected. They get the big money from places like - ta-da! - insurance companies! And don't forget about non-elected officials---- agencies like the EPA, FDA, DEA all have revolving doors. In exchange for writing industry friendly regulations, agency employees get paid off with cushy industry jobs.

lobbying

"Obamacare" was labeled as scary "Socialism!!" but in reality was a huge giveaway to insurance companies.

They fucked US good

America: Why can't the other guy help himself? Instead he wants a handout, taking money out of my pocket??

Everyone needs a hand, from time to time.

Multiply that by the UK population of 60,000,000... lots of people need help every day.

I see no harm in chipping in a few quid for that. Ok, I wasn't ill this week, but thousands were. I'll help pay.

Man, what's wrong with that way of thinking, honestly?

Compared to the other shit we endure here, this would be the least of our problems and could potentially be helpful.

The problem in the US is that the politicians long ago learned who to serve first. In our current system the biggest companies, which are legally recognized as people in our courts so that they may have constitutional rights, these "persons" donate far more to campaigns than regular "blokes" like me ever could or would. Thus a voice like mine, it's very quiet to the ear of a politician.

We'll have universal healthcare one day, but it won't be for the little people. It'll be just like it is right now, for the "big" people i.e. the loudest voices monetarily speaking.

Thats called society and good government.

I would agree after it's required to obtain a contraceptive license or mass sterilization.

Wish I could emigrate.

Depends on your circumstances, I suppose...

Where was your passport issued? Do you have dependants?

Issued by US. I do currently have dependents.

Then I hope you voted labour.

SNP dude. SNP all the way.

Didn't realise you were up there. Good luck to ya.

Cheers. Good luck to you guys too...

America spends 3× more than y'all in the UK for shittier HC. Part of that comes down to the alchohoism and obesity, the rest is the fact that the republicans chief donor is Pfizer (big pharma) and the rest is a lack of public will. The idea of civil service is basically dead here, even among the left.

The idea of health and education being for societal benefit rather than self benefit are probably why social health and education haven't yet caught on here. I found this video quite informative https://youtu.be/YcZXbfp1oRk

In addition, the forms of social healthcare we have implemented have been disasterous (look up VA scandals and kidney dialysis). In addition, because Medicare/caid cannot negotiate drug prices, we are overcharged hundreds of billions of dollars annually (much of the defecit) for drugs. This is a part of the high insurance costs.

Paying another £50/week would still be less than the ~£6000 or $9000+ cost of us health care.

Also houses are much better built in the UK as well. That's just something that you don't here much but boy is it true.

Video linked by /u/Nitra0007:

$quote The long overdue part two in this series. here is part...

^{Info | /u/Nitra0007 can delete | v1.1.1b}

America spends 3× more than y'all in the UK for shittier HC. Part of that comes down to the alchohoism

I'd love a source considering the UK has higher rates of alcohol consumption across the board.

Like I said above, I wouldn't grudge paying double what I do now, to keep te same service.

Thing is though, the current Government over here seems hell bent on pursuing the US model. Bastards.

This is all part of Sheldon Wolin's political theory of "inverted totalitarianism". Don't overtly suppress people's ability to speak freely. They can argue about anything they want. In fact that argument is great because it divides them and keeps them from uniting against TPTB.

Perfect theory and very valid. While there are probably many political theories that are applicable, this one is certainly true right now.

Re reading Brave New World now, scary shit. "You feel emotion or anger, here take some soma. Half a gramme is better than a damn"

And Big Pharma's constant push of more and more drugs, for more and more people, fits right in with that idea.

Another reason I don't live in the US, Americans make up 5% of the worlds pop, yet consume 70% of the worlds prescription pills.

Yeah but if you did live here nothing is forcing you to take them so that's not really a reason to not live in the us(there are thousands ofc)

Who is the middleman for healthcare? Not sure you are knowledgeable about this

Uh, insurance companies making a profit?

Companies are by definition established to make a profit, if they don't they go bankrupt. The US spends more on healthcare by many multiples by GDP than anyone else. You have medicare, medicaid, employer insurance. People are igorant to think that the system needs more money. Why can my country, Canada, do with less money?

I'm not sure about the point you're arguing, because I'm advocating for removal of the profit seeking middleman (insurance) in favor of a single payer system that represents a huge body of people. Medicare, Medicaid, and insurance (except some additional, premium insurance for those that pay extra) would all go away. Single payer, negotiate costs down, everyone is covered, everyone is healthy, and no more middle man trying to keep a profit going.

What benefit is there to have insurance as a middleman? Obviously all it has done is drive healthcare costs up.

First of all, you can't convince people to vote to cut their medicaid and medicare. The benefit to having insurance companies is the argument of a fiscally conservative government who lets the free market do its work. The alternative is not that you will pay a few pennies more, it's that your taxes will literally double. We pay 40% to 50% income tax here in Canada, we have carbon taxes, technology taxes, sales taxes. At the lowest bracket of income its still way more than US tax. Not to mention we pay more for everything because our dollar is weak because the economy doesn't function well because we are taxed too high.

We pay 40% to 50% income tax here in Canada

your taxes will literally double

Hah, no you don't. I work in Canada/Alberta, my tax rate is less than it was in MN. While the average tax rate is a bit higher, it's not 40-50%, US average sits at 26% while Canada's average sits at ~31%. Specifically, MN is near 30% (Fed+State), Alberta is 29% (Fed+Prov). Here's the Data. Taking the Average Canadian Salary of $76k (80k we'll say), Quebec sits at 32.8%, all the way down to Nunavut at 24.3%.

we have carbon taxes, technology taxes, sales taxes.

Yes sales tax is more in some provinces and carbon tax is on industries for pollution contributions.

Not to mention we pay more for everything because our dollar is weak

CAD is weak but Canadian salaries are generally higher. The USD equiv purchasing power of each household remains relatively equal between Canada and the US.

taxed too high so companies dont move here

Partially true, they usually move to the country that has the most lax rates or most rule loopholes, which Canada keeps their corporate rates modest (lower than the US), they actually have fewer loopholes so the effective tax rate is higher. Canada is 15% + 11-16% local, US is 35% + 0-12% local.

The US could easily pay for universal healthcare if the lawmakers put their minds to it, but since it can keep the nation divided and unhappy, why not keep the troops riled up and fighting each other?

Did you include the Bush tax breaks, generous write-offs on income tax, and other variables that come into the calculation? In Canada, we can't write off much, and they are even cutting our ability to write off more things beginning with this year, disadvantaging the poor. We are facing the looming threat of more capital gains taxes as well. Meanwhile, your Donald Trump is going to pass another tax cut? While Trudeau is planning on increasing all our taxes?

Did you include the Bush tax breaks, generous write-offs on income tax, and other variables that come into the calculation?

Those all factor into the media rates above. The data is from the last few years, nothing major has changed in either tax code recently.

disadvantaging the poor.

If it's a fair rewrite, this will affect the rich much more, as that is how they avoid those large tax rates of 40%+ at 200k income. They write off a lot of it.

Meanwhile, your Donald Trump is going to pass another tax cut?

On the rich, he's already increased taxes on middle income by raising mortgage insurance rates. He can't cut taxes by himself, and the deep cuts he's proposing so far haven't floated well with Congress.

OK so from your data Canadians pay 5% more on average?

Looking at Purchasing Power, the US has (roughly) a 5% advantage, or 5% higher than Canadians.

For the benefits and cost reductions universal healthcare brings, 5% is tiny, and could easily be made up by either closing corporate tax holes, increasing capital gains taxes, and/or modifying Medicare/caid.

Increasing capital gains tax is a disaster for investors, it would tank the brittle economy and we will all be out of jobs. Americans need to greatly simplify and re-organize tax code and healthcare, there's no doubt about it.

The US has one of the lowest Capital Gains taxes in the world, without even factoring in the loopholes that some are trying to close. They haven't been increased in years and should be increased, as the amount of money that goes through Wall Street is insane. Money is being made off of speculation, and if investors destroy the economy like they helped to do in 2008, they face few repercussions.

The economy is not brittle, maybe after a few years of deregulation we will be, but currently the US economy is strong.

We aren't all going to lose our jobs if capital gains taxes increase. If anything it'll make the economy less volatile by limiting the speculation (more cost to speculate = less speculation).

And I agree, we do need to rework our tax code and healthcare, but not in the deregulation sense, but rather smarter, less 'holey' tax code. Deregulation got us into the 2008 mess, we don't want to see that again.

The economy is about to crash. Bernanke didn't raise interest rates for far too long. It's not strong by any measure. If Bernie was voted in, it would have probably been a lot worse right now.

That is 100% speculative. While what the Fed did may be a contributing factor, what the House just voted through today is much more likely to lead to a collapse. The Choice Act destroyed any hopes of regulation on the markets, Dodd Frank will not exist if Choice passes the Senate.

Get ready for bank and mortgage collapses again. We'll see if they also allow the Student Loan burden to be sold off to private entities, causing another bubble.

According to Bernanke in his NPR interview recently, and macroeconomic analysts, we are on the verge of another crash. Regulation stifles growth, and the elimination of regulation will make us all better off. Bank and mortgage collapses are due to individuals borrowing money they have no business borrowing and people trying to buy homes instead of renting because they consider their home an investment instead of a place to live. Smarter consumers means less bad loans. People need to be smarter and most haven't forgotten about 2008 so I don't think there will be another problem like that.

Smarter banks would have also prevented the collapse, but we know money trumps logic, in both cases (consumer and bank).

Regulation stifles growth, and the elimination of regulation will make us all better off.

In certain cases and only if we do it correctly, the CHOICE act is not a smart or selective act, it is the biggest role back in a generation and destroys many of the oversight facilities of the Govt. If the economy collapses again, this will lead us even deeper down that the last recession.

I honestly think our health car problem has more to do with outrageous run away costs than the actual insurance. How much health care costs in the US is complete bullshit and not necessary and we need to address why it is so damn expensive.

health car problem

I don't know where you're from, but where I live, it's called an ambulance. :P

the middleman argument is one that should be pursued.

the top medical insurance companu by market share is united health

united reported a profit of about 2 billion in 2016. from july - september of 2016, Aetna stated a 700 million dollar profit.

a fucking profit. that is above the money used to pay for medical bills, for administration costs... hell, why not cut them all the fuck out and use that money to make it cheaper or better coverage.

Is the US perhaps the most selfish country in the world?

Healthcare is good in America because it is expensive. You can't have cheap Healthcare and expect it to be quality.

That is complete bullshit. I am from the US and work in Canada, the Canadian Universal system is easily on par with the US in terms of quality.

An elderly person I know needed some surgery and the Canadian hospital didn't want to do it because she was too old. She had to come to America to get the surgery. They held a dollar amount in higher regard than her life. Fuck that.

You're talking about risk, not money at that point. She could have easily gone to India or Mexico and gotten anything done for cheap, because they don't care about risk usually.

You're fucking wise my friend

A lot of people are under the false impression that the government is an organization that looks out for them and the welfare of their society.

The problem is that the government is only interested in the breakaway civilization, and how us serfs can be forced to contribute to it without benefitting from it.

Or perhaps in preventing a breakaway civilization.

Preventing?

I'm confused, as in keeping us serfs from preventing the breakaway civilization?

Too late for that, prevention comes before the thing you're trying to prevent actually happens.

I mean being able to develop and unite behind something other than rehashed18th century ideas about government and the social order in general.

The future is coming...Fast. And these current systems cannot manage the increase of connectivity, sharing of ideas and problem solving without resorting to the old tried and true divide amd conquer tactics.

As some off the cuff examples:

An emergent democracy based on blockchain voting and distribution of a mix of mandatory and voluntary taxes for the general welfare provided by agile cooperative and transparent agencies is a possibility.

Interlinked communities of interest and efficient distribution and delivery of essential goods and services on a global scale is also possible.

The acknowledgment and enforcement of individual rights and liberties paired with citizen duties is also possible and sustainable in perpetuity should even a small scale organization prove superior to the dominant order.

Rapid and effective response to any emergency with the preservation of life and liberty being the motive is also possible.

Laws are written and zealously enforced to prevent alternatives to the political and economic system (s) from arising to compete. It's an ongoing process.

However many brilliant minds work on these fundamental problems, though in a vacuum surrounded by a void and hidden by a sphere of distractions.

It was an offhanded comment that made snarky sense to me because I am aware of the struggles well intentioned and highly competent people face in creating alternatives.

Good points, but I am guided by the beauty of our weapons. Worth every cent.

When u have a huge zionsit jewish lobby in all areas of public life...its hard for the politicians to even care about the people.

We do feed the poor. We have food banks and food stamps for them. Whay do you mean "we don't feed the poor?" What would you have us do instead?

And they did give Flint money to fix their pipes, the corrupt leaders of Flint just squandered it.

Those solutions are like throwing a can of water on a house fire.

They will never, ever solve the problem.

What do you think the problem is and what is your proposed solution?

It's way bigger than small scale food programs (which are awesome "on the ground" for those families, don't get me wrong).

It's systematic. I mean, we could literally end world hunger right now, but it's a logistical and political nightmare. Just look up how much food is wasted every day.

Not to mention income equality, which drives the food disparity (food deserts, etc).

Unfortunately, this is just another problem that will require a complete 180 in society for anything to get fixed. So... Nothing will happen besides the small scale stuff you mentioned.

The easy way to solve hunger is to stop feeding our food to our food.

Yeah that's a huge part of it, I absolutely should have mentioned it. That's quite honestly the biggest thing, thank you :)

No, that doesn't solve anything. You still have the massive logistical and political problems...the amount of food isn't an issue here.

Id also add that the biggest driver of homelessness and hunger is poverty. Obviously, right? Once you acknowledge what the root cause is, you start to realize just how truly challenging the problem is though. We have fought poverty for years as a society, and honestly were not that much closer to solving it then we were when lbj rolled out his great society plan. Things have improved to be sure, but these are very tough problems.

The root cause is poverty is the fact that TPTB are more than fine with poverty.

This. Since when is r/conspiracy so uninformed? Further, there are hundreds of cities who have lower quality water than Flint; some in California.

Where? Which ones?

In terms of child lead exposure, thousands of locations are doing worse than Flint http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-lead-testing/, Missouri on average is slightly worse than the worst affected region in Flint.

Thanks. Informative. They seem to be reporting lead poisoning not water quality.

Forget lead, how about fluoride in water? That's in every city's water supply

Some cities don't have fluoride in their water. Kind of absurd it's in anyone's water at all.

yeah, you're going to wanna google the flint water crisis a little harder if you think the federal money has even made it here. we didn't get money to fix shit. the only pipes that have been replaced were in the highest lead level area, and the mayor set aside funds for this before the feds approved this mysterious money we've never seen. i live here, it's all fucked and we all still use filters and we all HAVE to pay the city for water we cannot use or risk being evicted (water must be turned on in order to rent).

Can you show me evidence that your city didn't get the money? Because alcove seen is that both the Obama and Trump administrations sent millions of dollars to Flint to fix their pipes, and I believe I heard about private donations that were made as well. I'm more inclined to believe that the local elected government just stole the money and used it on bullshit for themselves.

Food banks, you can only visit those once a month, and you might get enough food to feed one person for two maybe three weeks tops.

Masses of well nourished, educated, people might peel back the veil and organize an uprising. Too risky for TPTB.

Eh, in practice, it tends to go the opposite way. Nourished and educated people tend to be happy people. It's the poor and disenfranchised who rise up in rebellion.

It has pretty much always been the middle class that brings together the lower class in rebellion. The best example is the French revolution. MLK. Etc. Typically the lower class cant keep things organized through adversity.

You're right, you need both. The leaders of these movements are often middle or upper class. However, you need far more of one than the other. There only needs to be a few leaders to organize and fund, but there needs to be thousands of discontented rabble willing to fight. There's a reason most of the modern-day violent uprisings tend to happen in the poorest nations.

No, the best way to prevent rebellion is to keep the masses complacent. Feed them, give them a comfortable lifestyle, and make sure they have something to lose if they ever make the wrong decisions. Maybe give them internet so they can watch cat videos all day or post about how corrupt the government is on Reddit while being too apathetic to actually try to do anything about it.

When the latitude of free expression is constrained by a code of behaviour backed by violence, and this is tolerated for generations, what results are people who are generally unable to think outside of the box, and generally unwilling to do so for the social consequences. It's made worse when the code of behaviour is badly designed. What you see now is what you get. Most people are unable to parse things that are outside of their experience. This especially applies to bureaucrats and apparatchiks. So, as I said earlier. What you see is what you get.

One way of correcting this fundamental social design error that we've perpetuated for the monarchy/priesthood-class is to coalesce along lines of conformity. The conformists will kill themselves off anyway defending their priests - that's just how stupidly constrained they are. The others will, ideally, try to avoid these people.

The other problem to note is that free will necessitates that the set of all opinions will not be compatible with one another. So who gets to decide what opinion is right? Well, nobody, really. We should just fract ourselves out along lines of different opinion, and to organize our systems of collective management around that, in a spectrum. That means no single global gov. If there are to be any global rules, they should be meta-rules like "be polite", or language-rules that everyone can agree on so that communication is facilitated. Also, having a common design language would help us articulate our systems designs to the cohort such that we don't get caught up in the DSL jargon trap we have now with the legal system. It's all solvable - the barrier to putting these solutions in play are TPTB themselves. We have shitty rulers, and they've made it so that we always have to play in their systems of shitty rules. Well, we really don't. Removing oneself from the gov tit is doable, and doable on scale.

🙇

the latitude of free expression is constrained by a code of behaviour backed by violence,

This shit is real.

"be polite" ain't gonna cut it with the gangbangers...

"be polite" ain't gonna cut it with the gangbangers...

people who tend to use violence to get what they want aren't usually the smartest people because their philosophy is rooted in truncating the potential around them. if we can't deal with those dummies, then we're not really strong enough to survive, anyway.

My perspective on this is strongly anti-capitalist, but give me a chance.

First define capital, from Latin capítulo, meaning head, short for a year of cattle, today it usually means wealth that can be transferred (bought, sold, traded).

So now ask yourself is a free person capital? Is a slave capital? Is a dead person capital.

Imagine a cave. If someone has been living in it for a thousand years is it capital? Depends on whether the people in it are willing to sell to you, but what if they died?

Say there is a large vein of copper made inaccessible by a large population living above it. Can you really consider that copper capital (remember usability and transferability are important) until that population is relocated or destroyed?

We need air and water so much they are such basic necessities of life we have a hard time considering them capital, but what if there were no more people to fight you when you tried to "buy" the whole planets water supply, or air supply. What if the people are out of the way though? When you don't need people to control the planets resources anymore (drones and automation replace them), then the only impediment to considering the entire planet a piece of capital that could potentially be owned by a single, fallible, self interested individual, is the fact the planet is inhabited.

Thankfully our champion capitalists, like Elon Musk, already are well into development of subterranean systems, and the means to survive in hospital atmospheres. Perfect tools to protect yourself during a total depopulation of the earth. At which point it becomes capital, and the capitalist left after becomes the greatest champion of capitalism to ever have lived, because now he owns a business of a planet that he can send his drones to harvest as he pleases, and under capitalism this is very good, because since he is the one with the most resources, it means he is best equipped to allocate it (hence why interfering with capitalists allocation of capital through taxation and regulations is bad). Of course he is the last one left, so if he makes a single mistake the entirety of civilization, possibly a good chunk of the progress of evolution, could be reset to nothing.

Sound like a good plan to you? This is the logical extension of capitalism (acquire the most capital), and from this perspective the spending priorities you are complaining about make perfect sense.

Depopulation is a necessary part of increasing your holdings, because at a certain point you cannot accumulate more resources without collecting resources others need to live (accessible resources are finite), and those whose survival is threatened by you collection of capital, will more than likely be willing to give their lives to interfere with your collection of capital.

I honestly think tptb have something more sinister planned than murdering the human race. It's too easy a way out for all the dead folk, and it would be hard to accomplish.

I think they plan to destabilize the first world and allow them to devolve into chaos. They would extract a few highly educated folk (millions or tens of millions of people) before stepping up the chaos.

Very true, but what form the depopulation/capitalization of the earth takes doesn't matter to me. Who gets extracted from the chaos doesn't matter to me.

It doesn't change the motivations, and it doesn't significantly mitigate the risk to life and civilization that comes with putting all your eggs in one basket. So I really don't care. I could be the first one in line for extraction, and it would make no difference to me. It could be the most humane depopulation possible (perhaps simply indoctrinating people not to have children) I would still die to stop it, though not kill.

So I really don't care, but of course you are right, just murdering everyone would be stupid. Ideally (for them) half the population would work the other half to death as slaves, and then repeat, or something like that, don't you think?

I don't know enough about the cutting edge of automation to say how many people it would take to fully manipulate the earths resources, but your range sounds good.

We need to decouple the concept of democracy/freedom from its ironclad, (in the U.S.), link to unfettered capitalism.
You touch on the "logical extension of capitalism" which, taken to the extreme is: one person owns everything.

I have a sort of "prescription" for a way forward that I advocate:

1. Remove the exception to the ban on slavery. No brainer for me.

2. Make membership in the united States voluntary. If you love something let it go.

3. Each vote in congress should represent the same number of people. Simply apply the 1960s supreme court doctrine "one person, one vote" to the federal government, because "do as I say not as I do" doesn't fly for me.

All big problems, all written in the Constitution. I advocate general strike, and hunger protest for constitutional reform on those points.

Problem is Israel.

We go to war against Israel's enemies. Why is the US military always used to defeat Israel's enemies?

Why are our politicians beholden to Israel BEFORE the interests of the US?

Why do we give Israel $38 billion in aid?

Charity is great and all, but let's give at home first.

In other words, fuck those land-stealing terrorists.

Problem is Israel.

Isreal may be problematic, but they don't represent the underlying problem globally. That problem is, simply put, systems that support a Hero class. Where you see this is where you see retardation of humanity's potential.

We want the regional influence. The problem you outlined is also saudi arabia, quatar, iraq etc and our country will spend trillions to keep it and expand.

it sucks but the jews gotta move out.

Until they arent an asset that will never happen

Israel is a big ass symptom but not the root of America's problem. If you could strap Israel to a rocket and send them 8 trillion light years away we'd still have greed and corruption. We'd still have to find a way to keep our government in check, which we suck ass at.

Players wanna play, lovers wanna love...

What's the point of throwing money away on the people of Flint? That won't make me richer at all. Defense contractors are a much better investment to secure my office and my pocketbook! /s

The more you feed the poor, the more "poor" there suddenly are. Especially the generational poor who have learned from mother and grandmother that this is how you live, it's normal.

None of this is backed by evidence.

Oh really do you have any proof feeding the poor causes more poverty or do you just like making up shit

This is the thing! We have enough money to solve all of our problems, if we would just spend it sensibly. But, someone wants us to police the world for them, and take the blame, while our people suffer.

I thought we didn't have enough money for those wars so the government took out bonds to pay for them. Am I wrong?

yep you're wrong it's just used as an excuse for austerity

Endless global warfare. No problem! Lead free pipes? Fucking socialist hippie.

I did not vote for Trump! However unemployment is at 4.3% (the lowest it's been in 16 years). The reality is nowhere near as grim as you make it out to be. There are 43 million on SNAP (food stamps), that is well over 11% of the population getting assistance.

And what percentage of those employed hate their jobs? How many people are trapped in a system whereby they do shitty work, that makes the shareholders and owners rich, while their entire existence is controlled and manipulated by others just in order to meet their basic needs? Where's the misery quotient here? That combination of desperate fear and exhaustion that characterizes much of what we term, "employment"?

A lot of people hate their jobs, but that is not always a good metric. A person making 500K a year could hate their job more then i hate my $9 an hour job. People could quit and ban together to do their own thing, then they will not be making any shareholders or owners rich, but they don't. I would still rather be a poor american now then a king in the 1700s, because I like things like AC, highspeed internet, food variety, cars, not dead because of a cold, ect.

That's because places aren't giving full time jobs and wages are so low even with a full time job you can barley live off the money you make

You're a starving poor person in Flint?

US Spending 2015: $ 3.68 Trillion Dollars

DoD Spending 2015 (est.): $ 600 Billion Dollars

FNS Spending 2015 (est.): $ 110 Billion Dollars

The US Spends more on Military then the next 8 nations combined (2016)

As of January 2016, 45.4 million persons were participating in SNAP.

WIC serves 53 percent of all infants born in the United States.

And the US spends $222 billion a year in interest payments which is probably greater than the next 8 nations combined but the total number is worthless because each country has a different amount of debt.

I.e.

• most of the budget goes to services other than the military
• millions of people get free food from the government

They're going to like you even less when automation and AI's replace much of the need for humanity.

It's not the governments job to feed the poor. It's the job of the poor man to find ways to feed himself. The only thing the government needs to do is build roads and bombs.

It's not the government's job to build roads and bombs. It's the job of the poor man to find ways to transport and protect himself. The only thing the government needs to do is [insert my preferred pet project here].

What if we had anarchy everywhere everyone takes care of themselves and it solves all our problems.

I've always wanted to be a warlord's concubine! I'm sure my neighbor's pandemic flu laboratory in their garage won't cause any problems either.

Yes so let's have people suffer and cause a higher crime rate hurting everyone in the surrounding area because America, right? Awful logic that only makes the country worse for everyone but those at the very top

So should people work for what they need and want, or should thy take what the people at the top have? Because you say you want it to be better for those at the bottom and worse for those at the top, but our government is the one on top. You are giving the government more power to control the ones on bottom. So you say you want the ones on bottom to be better but by giving them everything you are making it worse. People have to work for what they need and want. It's called life. Charity is a thing people should do, but you can't treat a 40 year old homeless man like a child.

No I just want employers to pay a livable for wage. No reason for people who work 40 hours to be on welfare taking money from our taxes. It's a pretty simple concept the government isn't controlling anyone at the bottom

What i meant by its life is, life is unfair. You just have to learn to move on from the unfairness. And yeah I get that. I owned a business for two years and taxes took 55% of what I made. So as a business owner it's hard to pay a decent wage due to taxes and inflation. As soon as they raise the minimal wage inflation goes up and the cycle starts again. The only way to stop this cycle is to cut back on taxes and for some good honest business owners to lower prices. With lower taxes and lower prices you get theoretically the same profit allowing better pay for employees.

The minimum wage needs to rise because people are greedy and know others need the work no matter the pay

Do you mind rephrasing that?

There needs to be a minimum wage law and it needs to go up

Military Industrial Complex

As long as Americans keep believing that welfare only makes poor people lazier, this is not going to change.

I don't usually upvote r/conspiracy but you make a great point. "Richest country on earth" yet Mexico has healthcare and we don't. What?

Truth.

Other cities fix their own pipes.

But muh wall.

the scary brown people are here to take away your freedom

Flints pipes are working on being fixed right now. They do have the money and are working on it, it's not an overnight project. It will take years.

Exactly. We gave them the fucking money. Let's see how their corrupt leaders give it away to their friends.

I'm all for whipping the shit out of bad actor countries that hurt the planet, but you're right, a lot more could be going towards helping people rather than hurting them.

If you haven't learnt this yet then i should probably tell you the US is all about self sufficiency, don't expect handouts. However the state should fix the flint pipes crisis asap.

Flint is the way it is because the city managers ran it under. Don't blame the federal government. It was the voters that put thieving incompetent people in charge.

I'm not entirely sure the people in question are aware enough to like or dislike the voiceless victims of their poor decision-making skills.

Id say we where gearing up for a really big war if thats the case maybe interstellar in nature

it's evident at this point they don't like us.

I've had that thought so many times. That they are a weird and evil bunch is obvious and doesn't even require you go outside the official story on anything.

It's not that they don't like us, they just don't give a shit about us or what happens to us. It's actually worse than don't like, it's complete "indifference".

Sounds like 1984

The poor will always be with us. Jesus said that two thousand years ago, and he wasn't wrong -- the poor are still here today. There is no getting rid of poverty. It will always be here, because it is a relative value. As the wealth of society increases, the wealth of the poor increases also, but they remain "the poor" because they are at the lowest income bracket.

The problem with Flint's pipes is as the man said it was, when he was banished in disgrace from his position ... blacks don't pay for water. They don't like to pay for something they already received months ago.

Your concept is bullshit. Remove money and the Earth has enough to provide for every man woman and child in this fucking planet. Poverty is a forced false dichotomy. In developed countries it would be no problem to provide everyone a reasonable living wage. many European nations do it already and their citizens pay even less taxes than Americans. It is all brainwashing and those in power trying to keep the power.

What's the conspiracy here? These are facts.

Its not that they don't like me, they just haven't met me.

Unaknowledged is a great doc that spells out pretty well why the war machine is the way it is

It's more about maintaining control than anything. It's what they deem is necessary to "keep us safe"

We have to find people who will resist the urge to pillage.

I read an article about a pvc company that wanted to install new pipes in flint for free but can't get approval because of some law... Found the article. They want to donate all the pipe they would need but leaders in Flint want copper pipe plus there is a law prohibiting the use of pvc, probably was passed some time ago when plastic wasn't a good alternative to copper. Times have changed though. Cronyism?

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20160522/NEWS/160529947/offer-of-plastic-water-pipes-to-flint-remains-untapped

That's a good article. I don't understand why Flint officials haven't acted on this offer. If its true that city regulations do not allow for the use of plastic pipe (while nearby towns actually use it), then they need to change the regs!
Its astonishing how, in a supposed representative democracy, people act is if laws (and regulations) are written in stone. If they suck, change 'em! (Anyway, good comment.)

This isn't conspiracy. This is logic. The US hasn't been overthrown by the rest of the world, thanks to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS focus on military.

Why hasn't MICHIGANS STATE GOVERNMENT fixed the pipes yet is a matter or poor voting habits and lazy people.

i am sure it has more to do with voting habits and lazy people, and DEFINITELY NOT a corrupt link on these bureaucratic chains /s

The poor and homeless don't have lobbies.

Budget money is for kleptocrats, my friend.

Trump supporter here, but what's right is right. Too much corporatism still exist.

If you "hope" it changes, does that mean you want it to change?

I see it changing. For starters it looks like they are going to save the dollar. No small thing. That said, miles to go.

Kleptocracy! Good word! I haven't seen it, heard it or thought of it for quite a while. Made me consider how that fits in with plutocracy and oligarchy.
I'm thinking that what we've got is a plutocracy aided by kleptocrats. The wealthy have the true power, but the kleptocrats are allowed to enrich themselves if they act as puppets and as "cover" for the wealthy, i.e., the government officials are the actors in the "show" that we call representative democracy.

I think it's a descent from plutocracy into kleptocracy. It's a natural arc, and we've seen it happen in the past, e.g. Teapot Dome.

It's unsustainable, since it means the state is being operated for the benefit of a minority, and at some point the majority will rebel.

There was this guy who was trying to free America of Middle Eastern wars and oil. His name was Obama and you hate his guts.

Most Americans oppose single payer healthcare, so you shouldn't blame "them" if the government doesn't provide it.

More like 50,000 nukes

“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government...”

― Thomas Jefferson

Trigger warning Humanity is based on sclavitude and money is a drug. If we had enough money to live, (with all our needs covered) nobody would sacrifice themselves to earn it. Nobody would try to solve new complicated problems for society. The true value of money is precisely the struggle to get it. At the end the only thing that has worth on it's own is the time spent to do a task.

The problem with this is that when resources are limited and we don't want to share we use violence. What's the point on feeding the poor if their hunger makes us cheaper T-shirts?

The only way we can ever be free is when robots become our slaves and we share their production...

flint is really a travesty, especially when trump wants to increase military spending by 54 billion.

Cant he increase it by 53 and sent 1 billion michigans way? Trump do something GOOD. TRY to win us over.

It is absolutely mind-blowing the amount of cooperative, positive, and critical thought that exists in the dialogues in threads that don't mention Trump, the DNC, or SR.

Almost like the negative responses are...automated...

Yeah, there's almost a total lack of sarcasm in this thread too. It's really refreshing.

While this is a possibility, it seems equally likely that people from partisan subs browse here specifically to push their agenda, and only click on posts that mention Trump, Hillary, the DNC, etc.

I hate these comments.
Feeding the poor is too over budget?
The starvation rate in the US is 0%. In 1990 we spent 20 billion on food stamps, it's now around 70 billion, over 300% increase. The biggest expenditure the "poor" use their food stamps for is Mountain Dew and Monster drinks. So this is bullshit.
Not enough money to fix Flint's pipes?
The water was deemed safe almost a year ago. Flint Michigan, the State of Michigan the the federal government has give several hundred million dollars over the last several years. All the money is there, by a WIDE margin to fix the Flint issue. So this is bullshit.

There are a lot of valid issues you could have picked, next time pick some real ones.

Get out of here with your facts and reasonable arguments /s

I believe work for welfare is gaining steam in some states. A hand up, not a hand out. That should trim the numbers.

That's silly. Average food assistance is $125 a month and poor people buy the same crap as everyone else.

That's more indicative of American eating habits than anything else. However these programs are loaded with administrative waste and Puritan hypocrisy.

Not as much profit bled out for tptb as there is in the DOD's grotesque R&D and supply gravy train (talk about dependency and sucking on the government tit!).

Your tax dollars throwing another billion into the Boeing family trust through murder and mayhem on a global scale=awesome. Black ops drug epidemic created by tptb ends up with some crack head getting $125 bucks in EBT credit to not starve on the street like elsewhere in the world=no fucking way!

But the awful truth of the matter behind poverty is it is a created and managed state, as is the emotional programming that causes us to despise the poor. All of that is mind control through cultural indoctrination passed down by those fucktard Puritans. The solution? Get off your moral high horse and just give them cash, it works much better than piecemeal programs and there's data to back that up:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/welfare-reform-direct-cash-poor/407236/

I'm an American and I work for my money and I don't eat that bullshit.

Mountain Dew should NOT be on the approved list of food. Nothing from gas stations. No convenience stores. Go to the goddamn grocery store like I do and buy produce and real food.

Oooh. An American who never drinks soda and has a job. Well jeez, I guess that means your sanctimonious opinion is something other than just programmed knee jerk bullshit. You have a right to that though and I fully support your right to express your programming within the safe spaces you so desperately need. But when and if you get injured and have to start sucking on the government tit for your delicate condition, do us all a favor and don't spend that fortune on anything other than what I say you can spend it on.

Beggars can't be choosers. If we are giving support to people, that should be used to support their nutritional needs.

There is absolutely NO reason people should be buying Mountain Dew with taxpayer aid. There is absolutely NO reason people should be buying candy or junk food with taxpayer aid.

You are damn right I don't drink soda and I take care of my body. If people are too stupid to realize they are harming themselves, that is their right. But, the taxpayers have zero obligation.

If we should have a welfare program to support those who cannot, that is fine. But the money should be spent on actual FOOD.

People get prosecuted for fraud when they violate the rules. Remember that guy who got busted buying disallowed items and them reselling them (mountain dew amongst them)?

In general, as it is it more or less works. But there are a LOT of misconceptions about both the recipients of these benefits and the effectiveness of anti-poverty programs in general, most of them coming from elites with either a profit motive or a lack of cognitive flexibility to put it politely.

To your point, that's exactly what the rules are for SNAP and frankly you and I contribute pennies a year to these programs through our taxes while we pay out hundreds to "givernment" contractors for pure bullshit each year: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items

That's silly.

What's silly? I gave you factual information.
Nutrition assistance increased over 600%.
The starvation rate in the US is 0.
The money for flint was fixed a year ago.
While you're little "fucktar Puritans" rant was amusing, you get an F for backing up your little hissy fit.

Lol. I'm sorry I triggered your cultural sensitivity. Have a hanky. You earned an A for sensitivity but an F for critical thinking.

You didn't trigger anything.
Mildly annoyed when people lie to get attention.

Well, the answer to solving government corruption is to not give them more authority to force people to fork over more money to "fix" society's problems (AKA "feeding the poor"). That should be left up to the people to take care of through voluntary participation.

We can both agree though that the military budget could be cut, but we can afford to keep it this way. It's easy to look at the raw numbers and think we are spending way too much but in reality it stays within 3-5% of our GDP, which is what most other countries do.

North Korea's and Saudi Arabia's raw military budgets are much lower than ours, for example, but the % of GDP they spend is massive in comparison. It's all about perspective. But yes, we could easily take advantage of our economic superiority and slash the military budget in half (as well as our inflated welfare programs) and still be more powerful than all other countries on Earth. That money could be used to fix infrastructure or pay down debts, which is what we need the most.

And getting others to pay their fair share. It's happening!

Bitcoin is the way the truth and the light

Normally I'm entirely dismissive of /r/conspiracy but this is certainly a post I can get behind, as it is absurd that we spend so much to actually get so little. I'm sure we could retain the same military strength with a much lower budget if government spending stopped comfortably lining the wallets of executives in the military-industrial complex.

And the medical industrial complex and the education industrial complex and the...

People/businesses get rich because of war. Helping others makes no one rich. Follow the money to find the truth.

You know it's funny when it rains it pours. They got money for wars But can't feed the poor. Say there ain't no hope for the youth But the truth is There ain't no hope for the future. - Tupac 1993

https://youtu.be/t1pqi8vjTLY

Well, yeah. Problem is, "they" aren't a clandestine cabal of secretive Washington powermongers. "They" are guys who dress up in Minuteman outfits and hold signs that say "Keep your government hands off my Medicare".

We've always been at war with Eastasia

What is Michael Moore doing to help Flint? Too busy working on a Trump movie to help? What a liar piece of shit.

"We have enough money for 50 nukes to be launched, but not enough to fix Flint's pipes"

Do you not know how that works? The nukes are already build, staged, and ready to go at a push of a button. Does not cost anymore than making a phone call for the POTUS to launch them.

Who doesn't like who? Be specific.

It astounds me that people don't realize the top tier senators, politicians, corporate interests, and beyond care one iota for the common man. History, especially recent history, has repeatedly proven otherwise again and again and again.

The Trump presidency, as well as the fight Bernie put up, have made me realize something. Whenever a politician says or does something, it's because someone out there wants to see it or hear it. And I don't mean some rich crony, I mean your neighbor down the street. I can't tell you the amount of insane stuff people believe and say around here, an 80%+ Republican county, start to believe just because any given candidate says it. He says some of the most insane shit I've ever heard a politician say, and the people lapp it up wanting more.

simple point which answers your statement. the govt is not responsible for clothing, feeding or sheltering people. its responsible for our defense and yes upkeep of infrastructure.

they looove us and understand all of our issues during election year though

For the sake of a hypothesis. Let's support the opposite.

Groups of people get together and create and identity. This later grows to become a nation

Nations then realise that bartering isn't an efficient method, so they invent the concept of a currency, and is based on a physical value, or not.

Now these groups of people intend to trade amongst each other. And somewhere down the line, the possession of money got related to possession of value. The more money, the more the value. And this money was sent down to your kids.

Then come the banks, they decide to give you a small rate for keeping your money with them. Simultaneously, if you are of value, you may be able to borrow money worth x times your value, where x is typically > 1.

Now, to protect these systems, you would most probably protect things of higher value. This is because the loss of something with high value is a bigger hit to the nation, rather than lots of things of lesser value. Therefore it is essential to protect high value things

So now people with money can borrow more money, and leverage to earn more money. However, a guy without anything has nothing that can be turned into a liability, therefore is infinitely difficult for him to earn

Therefore, the ease at which you can earn an extra unit of a particular currency is exponentially easy as you have more. Inversely, it is exponentially hard to earn when you very little.

Given that this is how the system is, how/what do you change it to?

Let's be real folks our government like many others worldwide simply don't give two shits about its citizens.... enough said! Until we unit together and put our petty differences to the side we will never beat them.... just the price of say one b2 stealth bomber could essentially end hunger in this country-

250000 people are taken out of abject poverty every day

Of course they don't like us. To think that is a surprise or something new is completely naive. Debt slavery is the elephant in the room evidently. But what hasn't been mentioned much is how they keep getting away with it. They manipulate the masses to dislike each other enough that we don't have the energy to do anything about they are doing. And they use our resources to do it.

Things would be different if we could allocate our taxes like a 401k. Invest where we see fit as individuals.

A conspiracy by definition is a secret plan.

The relentless assault upon the poor by the rich is not a secret plan, it's aggressively publicised, it's just a whole chunk of poor people either don't give a shit, or have been convinced it's actually a good thing.

Elites don't give a shit about the poor. Worldwide gentrification is upon us folks.

Man I love being white

The elite see us as groveling monkeys incapable of higher thought. Of course they don't give a shit.

Funny how posts like this get to r/all but the rest of the sub is drowning in T_D sloppy seconds which rarely get over 1K votes.

A it run similarly in the us?

Sane stuff on r/conspiracy?

Bullshit, we feed the fuck out of the poor in America.

Yet so many poor children are hungry every single day.

Yeah that's why so many poor Americans are obese.

repetition*

Good post, it need to be said over and over that we've lost control of this thing and they're lording over us under the pretense of it being our choice

No of course they don't. Imagine you have a plow horse. Now imagine this plow horse has opinions and doesn't want to work unless you not only meet its basic needs but give it a profit on resources. Why would you get a horse that cares whether it makes a profit?

Hell, why get a horse you have to feed in the first place if you can help it?

we do feed the poor... ... but only the poor who are also in prison.

I'm pretty sure we haven't launched 50 nukes...

Who is "they"?

That's not even a conspiracy. It's neoliberalism

Just figure that out?

It's evident at this point they don't like us.

Exactly. The rest of the world hates us, hence the military budget.

Israel receives $3bn annually. Go figure.

3.8 billion a year for military over the next 10 years. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/09/14/united-states-military-aid-israel/90358564/ Israel is the 40th wealthiest nation in the world, New Zealand is 56th wealthiest nation. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/GDP

It's been increased up from $3bn annually between 2007 and 2017. The thing is, they made sure Obama signed the renewal for the following decade [2017-2027] before it even expired because they didn't know who would end up president and whether or not it's going to be yet another AIPAC puppet even though the majority go through the AIPAC pledge of allegiance during the campaign.

Useless eaters, but soon they'll be one of us

It's been obvious, but they want to keep their privilege at any and all cost.

It's called logistics. The military has a cadre of managers and computers dedicated to analyzing allocations.

Poor people do not.

In essence all the money in the world can't stop the homeless epidemic without proper logistics.

Establish a pathway and process and we can fix anything

repetition*

Most poor people are fat.

Its the Gervais Principle: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle/

the amount of classism in this post is really disturbing

I think its something like the amount of money needed to house, feed and educate everyone who needs it for a year is what the world spends on military every 2 weeks

You can't be serious. You're comparing apples to oranges. The defense budget has nothing to do with the social problems you described.

I believe OP was just stating that there seems to be plenty of cash until it comes to problems at home

(((They)))

Trump gave 100 million to Flint months ago

100 mill for flint. Americas poor better off than most of world. You are fake news.

"You are fake news"

God do you ever get tired of parroting vapid meaningless phrases?

You are a clueless idiot spouting bullshit that you've been programmed to believe; despite massive evidence to the contrary. Aka you are fake news Happy now?

Is there massive evidence that runaway armament purveyed by the USA is anything but theft from the american people?

I was specifically criticizing OP's attempt to frame the argument as though America's people are neglected due to the largesse of military spending when in reality America has achieved the highest standards of living in the world. I'm generally against the mil. Ind. complex, Ike said it best in his famous speech. That said, posts claiming that we could create paradise on earth If we spent less on military are completely naive. The reason we have so much money is because of our military. It's used as a bargaining chip in dealings with nations that need protection, it prevented us from becoming a part of USSR, and it has insured dominance of the dollar long beyond its natural course. Again I'm generally against it, but I fully understand that a weakening of our military will not magically solve all of our problems, let alone sensationalized problems that don't even exist.

Removed, violation of rule 10, repeated violations will result in a ban from /r/conspiracy.

Who was the last American to die of starvation? Probably anorexia?

Food insecurity affects millions in the US. I haven't looked into it for a few years, but it was a lot.

Out of those I would be surprised if it was several hundred dying of malnutrition today.

Without the wars bankrupting the country, you wouldn't have poor who need feeding. And then where would the government be?

Reminds me also of the old Chris rock stand up where he talks about those drug commercials where they literally just list symptoms until there's one you have. "Fatigue, constipation, bad knees, joint problems, diarrhea, headaches, problems at home."

It's because the city state Washington DC is in charge of the military side. The city state London is in charge of the financial side and the Vatican is in charge of the spiritual side to these satanic greedy service to self fucks.

"The real difficulty is with the vast wealth and power in the hands of the few and the unscrupulous who represent or control capital. Hundreds of laws of Congress and the state legislatures are in the interest of these men and against the interests of workingmen. These need to be exposed and repealed. All laws on corporations, on taxation, on trusts, wills, descent, and the like, need examination and extensive change. This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations. — How is this?" -Our 19th President, Rutherford B. Hayes

You just said what I've been thinking for the past 5 years.

I really don't see why it's the Fed's issue of something like the poor or Flint. It should be the state's problem. Michigan should of dealt with Flint, but today they still can't.

TPTB, international banks and corporations, finance and supply both sides of every conflict. They are the only winners. After they bankrupt all the nations they will create a crisis that will drive the overthrow of the governments, and then they will offer the solution. One world government, and they will supply the leaders.

Well your nuke point is kind of nonsensical.

Indeed if the government didn't use money on building, storing and keeping nukes ready to launch at any time it would have more money for other tasks.

The issue that the current relative world peace is held together more by the threat of mutual destruction due to everyone having their own nukes to launch at the other rather than by all countries being satisfied and friendly with each other.

So yeah maybe the pipes would get fixed if all the nukes got abandoned. But that might also lead to a huge imbalance in the world's geopolitics possibly escalating to war.

Now I don't know what your priorities are. Broken pipes suck for sure. But I'm gonna say that another world war or another country taking advantage of another one because the first one has nukes and the other doesn't because it decided to fix pipes sucks even more.

The system as a whole sucks since it's built on the possibility of mutual destruction which is unstable af but it's better than the alternative you're suggesting.

THIS is the kind of post I love seeing on this sub

Our money system is much reliant on our belief in its existence. No one is willing to destroy the money they have therefore it will continue to exist and become less valuable over time as it continues to be printed. It is however just a receipt to the federal reserve. It literally says so on the bills. Federal Reserve Note Vsauce actually had a pretty solid video on how our money system works called "How much Money is there on Earth?"

It's sad comments and ideas like these need to be confined or are relegated to a conspiracy ideal.

Didn't Trump allocate resources to fix Flint?

Wtf are they waiting for?

LOL Im so sorry to tell you. 'Dont like us' implies that there is even a thought of us.

They love money over all. More money than they will ever possibly need.

They dont like or dislike us. The opposite of love is not hate, but indifference.

Whats killing Americans is not terrorism or war AT ALL but illness.

Yet trillions spent on perpetual war 'to keep you safe'.

Over and over over and fucking over. The formula repeats itself and only a handful listen.

TRUTH! PREACH IT brotherman, PREACH! Their plan for us is war, famine, pestilence. divide, conquer, then exterminate. And in the meantime? They relish our suffering and struggling against each other. You can't pull against the system if you're each at opposite sides of the rope.

Flint Mayor Karen Weaver has pledged to dig up and replace the city’s almost 30,000 lead service lines, but so far only about 700 have been replaced. Weaver blames the slow pace on inclement weather and a lack of state funding. At the town hall last week, officials said it could take up to three years for a complete overhaul.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/4634937/flint-water-crisis-criminal-charges-bottled-water/%3fsource=dam#ampshare=http://time.com/4634937/flint-water-crisis-criminal-charges-bottled-water/

Budget money is precisely the struggle to get all of that is to stop feeing our food to our food.

Would love to see this on a t-shirt or bumper sticker. If I still screen printed, I would ask your permission to makes patches and shirts with this on it.

We print the money and air drop it to other countries.

Our company insurance would have been a nurse for over forty years now, chilling shit.

There are people who deserve to be killed.

No one deserves help.

War turns a profit.

Charity makes us weak.

Are you unaware that the US government already spends more money on social security, unemployment benefits, and health care than the entire military budget?

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

I've always fucken said this!!!! Damnit OP, it pisses me off so much that so many people can't see this!! It's doesn't take some far fetched and stretched out conspiracy to see that the federal government truly doesn't have our best interests in mind, only theirs!

Well, maybe. The Cold War built up a lot of social and political momentum that has proven very difficult to dismantle. If nuclear weapons didn't exist the Cold War would have become a hot war and would have been World War III. So, we avoided that.

But the aftermath of a 50 year long Cold War is that we have an absolutely gigantic standing army and a legion of contractors who care for and feed that army.

We need to make no mistake that the biggest waste of money they US is making is the 600-700 billion a year going into the military. Without that expense we could easily afford to make America amazing. The Peace Dividend never came to be as we've remained on a war footing now for decades.

Who to blame for this? I'd say primarily defense contractors who refuse to let go of constantly agitating for "defense" spending. Further, over the course of a 1/2 century defense contractors have become very smart and have placed important construction plants all across the US in key congressional districts. It's almost impossible to go against them politically.

Answer? I don't know. I don't think it's really the political class that "hates" us. I think it's a defense industry that absolutely refuses to let go of its death grip on the political process.

If they asked me to pay more taxes to help feed the poor, I would honestly say no. I feel like a lot of you agreeing with OP probably don't even have jobs.

Except we are fixing the water pipes? It takes time to dig them out and replace them, this isn't something that can be done in a year. It's supposed to be done by 2019-2020. In fact Michigan has allocated $87 million to replace them.

When did we launch 50 nukes?

They don't like us the same way you don't like office appliances at work.

You don't want their lip. You just want them to do their job and give you exactly what you want.

When they have served their purpose you don't want to retire them and continue honoring them with a paycheck. That is ridiculous. You want them thrown out into the dumpster to make room for a newer model.

Welcome to all of recorded human history, thanks for ever reading a single history book

Nice try communist.. We see through your bullshit.. We also know you prey on the gullible just like reddit..

Someone gotta stay hungry, uninformed, dependent so the giant well oiled welfare system can do its controlling thing.

If we had an uprising who would take over? Who would call the shots? How would that work? Would it be better than it is now? How can you be sure? I would love a sincere answer with conviction and persuasion, I want hope.

We even have the resources, how much land does the BLM own? Surely enough to house a few thousand homeless, there's even people who would likely be willing to do the infrastructure work already.

America Why can't get caught up in the net cutting game.

It's not enough to say that at this point they don't like us. What the people of the world need to internalize is that "they" have never liked "us". As long as there's a large gap between the quality of life between them and us the cycle will continue.

We are living 1984 and there is nothing we can do to stop it just read the book so you can prepare yourself.

You realize it's not the same budget, right? The city of Flint, MI, doesn't have any nuclear weapons.

Why should the government feed the poor? Whose fault it is if those people are worthless and add nothing to the society they live in? Maybe if they had some skills to get a decent job, they wouldn't be poor. I grew up in a poor town, in an averagely wealthy family, and now I have a better salary than my parents combined. And I don't have a degree either, not even studying. I taught myself Linux and Python and now I have a great job. What's stopping them? If one truly wants to work, to get more money, he will. The rest will keep on complaining.

Feeding the poor isn't going to keep the bankers and military industrial complex in business.

Fucking hell and Trump is just pushing for more of this shit. When will we get a pres who will do the right thing.

I agree with the main point, but it should be known that Flint has been given a ton of money. The local government has just squandered it all away.

I'm gonna get a flood of downvotes, but here it is. We are war at this point due to a necessity that we have created. First, we bomb opec countries because they want to switch to a gold standard, leaving our dollar worthless. Then this creates people who fight back, any way they can. Now we're stuck in a cycle.

in their defense i don't like us either

Honestly, your system fucking scares me.

I hear about $800 for a ride in the ambulance? Your local hospital may not be included in your insurance plan? Upwards of several thousand dollars a month for medication?

Fuck that noise. I'm glad that our NHS levels the playing field. Sure, we can go private, and be seen more quickly, be treated more quickly... but at least everyone gets the basics right now.

Everyone needs a hand, from time to time.

Multiply that by the UK population of 60,000,000... lots of people need help every day.

I see no harm in chipping in a few quid for that. Ok, I wasn't ill this week, but thousands were. I'll help pay.

Man, what's wrong with that way of thinking, honestly?

Your concept is bullshit. Remove money and the Earth has enough to provide for every man woman and child in this fucking planet. Poverty is a forced false dichotomy. In developed countries it would be no problem to provide everyone a reasonable living wage. many European nations do it already and their citizens pay even less taxes than Americans. It is all brainwashing and those in power trying to keep the power.

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 77609}

It's the same idea, except instead of a cheque to be cashed later it's "cash" that they get by immediately accepting a debt to the government for the same amount under some strict rules(they need to keep a certain amount of funds liquid to do it, they can't do this with very high risk investments, the cash that they owe to the government has to be repaid within a short timeline, etc). All that really happens is the bank takes the cash from the government to "create" it, then covers this with the sale of the debts owed to the bank by the person getting the mortgage or small loan. (and not, as a certain financial institution got in a lot of trouble for doing, accepting a new debt to cover the old debt before it expires). The cash is created by the government, but only as long as it's paid back in very short order(at which point it stops existing again because the debt + asset of cash balances back out).

Most of the trillions that is going though the financial system though isn't fractional reserve, it's just not viable for the size of money being passed around from banks to banks for anyone to bother converting it to cash at each stage, instead it just exists as a chain of debt until it can be cashed in and everyone along the chain makes a small profit out of it(either at the time of selling on or off the back of the debt by not selling the whole debt on). Fractional reserve is used for your mortgage or business loan,

And why is that a good idea?

Very true, but what form the depopulation/capitalization of the earth takes doesn't matter to me. Who gets extracted from the chaos doesn't matter to me.

It doesn't change the motivations, and it doesn't significantly mitigate the risk to life and civilization that comes with putting all your eggs in one basket. So I really don't care. I could be the first one in line for extraction, and it would make no difference to me. It could be the most humane depopulation possible (perhaps simply indoctrinating people not to have children) I would still die to stop it, though not kill.

So I really don't care, but of course you are right, just murdering everyone would be stupid. Ideally (for them) half the population would work the other half to death as slaves, and then repeat, or something like that, don't you think?

I don't know enough about the cutting edge of automation to say how many people it would take to fully manipulate the earths resources, but your range sounds good.

money from interest never existed and never will

Or create them and arm them.

Or perhaps in preventing a breakaway civilization.

Sooo. A wall it is.

And the medical industrial complex and the education industrial complex and the...

If you want something to get done, don't rely on the government to do it. Except for security and tax collection, and a few other things, the government wastes a lot of money and isn't capable of redistributing wealth in a fair way.

If you want something to get done, don't rely on the government to do it. Except for security and tax collection, and a few other things, the government wastes a lot of money and isn't capable of redistributing wealth in a fair way.

Thank you, was going to make this point.

Banks are allowed to lend more money than the deposits can cover, effectively "creating money".

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/multipliereffect.asp

Describe to me the difference between paying $200k for $100k house upfront vs paying $200k for $100k house over 30 years. Yeah I bet you fucking can't

Fractional reserve banking is based on deposits meaning a bank still can't lend more money than it has.

Fiat currency = pyramid scheme then. Everyone that invested with Madoff thought they had money as well, correct? Isn't this the same thing that the US govt tries to sell us as well when we contribute to Medicare etc. As someone else pointed out that every time someone takes out a loan nore money is "created". It is laughable (actually pretty sad) that everything we base our material lives upon is a sham basically. We devote our lives to it, worship it and some just can't get enough of it. One really has to wonder then of the realities of this social construct....hmmmmmmm

SNP dude. SNP all the way.

yes really. you've been duped.

Precisely why as an American I live in East Africa or Asia almost all of the year. Cheap as chips international insurance that covers everything for helicopter evac to flight delays and stolen personal items. Foods even cheaper, and much better, fuck in Zanzibar I pay 50 cents/gig for internet, have yet to find it cheaper!

Of course there's no fucking difference, you used the same amount of money for both scenarios; what's your point?

That paying interest is no difference than mark up. How much more clear can I make that?

People deposit their money and the banks use that money to lend it. The banks still can not use money that isn't in their possession. Deposited money is in the banks possession.

Federal reserve prints money. So what?

Did you include the Bush tax breaks, generous write-offs on income tax, and other variables that come into the calculation?

Those all factor into the media rates above. The data is from the last few years, nothing major has changed in either tax code recently.

disadvantaging the poor.

If it's a fair rewrite, this will affect the rich much more, as that is how they avoid those large tax rates of 40%+ at 200k income. They write off a lot of it.

Meanwhile, your Donald Trump is going to pass another tax cut?

On the rich, he's already increased taxes on middle income by raising mortgage insurance rates. He can't cut taxes by himself, and the deep cuts he's proposing so far haven't floated well with Congress.

How long have you been an eater of exotic dicks...?

You folks are pretty lucky. It's literally life and death here in the U.S. "Obamacare" was labeled as scary "Socialism!!" but in reality was a huge giveaway to insurance companies.

First off, you are wrong on every single count. NHS doesn't see for all things you think you pay for. Plus, the Reason the UK left the EU is because of dumb ass shit like medical care coverage that nobody can afford.

As for Obama care, it has almost no major providers, some state's exchanges are not even in business any longer since the costs to the insurers is multiple times what the exchange pays back.

0bama is a one-world gov't CIA plant, same as his mother Stanley Dunham, a CIA asset. 0bamacare was never supposed to work, as evidenced by Rep. Pelosi's comments on it.

Until they arent an asset that will never happen

Another reason I don't live in the US, Americans make up 5% of the worlds pop, yet consume 70% of the worlds prescription pills.

That's not how credit works. The money absolutely exists. You cannot get credit unless you have some security on a certain amount of borrowed money. Car? House? Any belongings? These are all fair game if you don't pay your creditor. Nobody is is offering credit to people like you or me on hopes and dreams of magical free money.

Food insecurity affects millions in the US. I haven't looked into it for a few years, but it was a lot.

Out of those I would be surprised if it was several hundred dying of malnutrition today.

Not exactly. That money gets added to circulation.

Why can't the USGovt just mandate no insurance companies. Enough already; they can sell excess or something, but healthcare should be handled by the govt.

He is saying that only in government can you commit mass murder (war). And he's saying that the free market does a better job at allocating resources and effeciency. Why give 30% of your income to Washington DC to have them trickle it back out to us through inneffecint programs that don't really help.

Thanks a lot, that makes a little more sense now.

Let's say there are $100 in all of existence. You have 10 and I have 90. I'll loan you $50 if you pay me back $75. We have just created money, and a form of slavery at the same time.

It is a scheme, Central Bank Fractional reserve banking and the fact that FED balance sheet is basically what I call "counterfeited money" or fiat money lent out that is due interest so there is a net negative number of dollars in existence. They only create the money they lend and not the interest due. This gives the currency value not the fact that people "believe it has value". The value is due to the fact that the majority of the population is in debt so they have to work/produce for money or borrow it with interest.

"Obamacare" was labeled as scary "Socialism!!" but in reality was a huge giveaway to insurance companies.

They fucked US good

It has pretty much always been the middle class that brings together the lower class in rebellion. The best example is the French revolution. MLK. Etc. Typically the lower class cant keep things organized through adversity.

be civil you nincompoop.

What background in economics do you have?

What are you even trying to say in your post? It is just vitriol and makes no clear point.

what point are you trying to make here? Grow up mate, and join the conversation with actual comment, not mindless shit posts.

I suggest you educate yourself on this issue:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf

"In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood: the principal way is through commercial banks making loans. Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money."

https://youtu.be/RDciI6pRGjM