Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Finance, the economy & Economics The Debate: Is America’s future capitalist or socialist?

That's a republican trait too. Even when it's just made up rubbish.
I don't want this thread to twist itself around until Republicans=Capitalists and Democrats=Socialsts. Cause it just aint so.

Neither one has delivered fair pay for workers. One side is marginally less corrupt and self serving than the other.

New Billionaires are being created every day! One of the Jenner/Kardashians is a "Billionaire" now. Self made I'm told. At twenty something.
Millionaires are a dime a dozen. At them wages you'll still probably struggle to keep up with your debt.


"Something is happening here, what it is aint exactly clear, there's a man with a gun over there...."

But if you turn your rheumy eyes toward the plight of the common man you'll see a society crumbling from the bottom up. And the reason becomes very clear. The rich and the secure will be the last to find out because they deny any problem exists and blame the victims of capitalism for their own misfortune.

Our society has become a pressure cooker. People are beginning to crack. Suicides, depression, anxiety, opiate addiction, tobacco and alcohol addiction...folks are hoping marijuana addiction will help cure these...we have daily mass shootings and a government in thrall to the gun lobby. Three jobs and you still can't eat and pay the rent.

Sh*t's coming apart at the seams down in the trenches while the rich party their asses off.

If America hopes to have a future then it is going to have to stop catering to corporate interests and start catering to the welfare of American citizens.

You said that the Smoot Hawley Act wasn't introduced until six months after the crash of 1929. If it wasn't introduced until then why does your article about it say that the House passed it's version in May of 1929? Which came first , May 1929 or October 1929?

Banking regulations didn't help cause the Great Depression? The regulations against branch banking, which prevented a bank from diversifying it's loans, were common prior to and during the Great Depression. Diversified loans and client base that branch banking creates greatly reduces the risk of a bank failing. While greed, which has always existed, did contribute t the Great Depression more than your bogeyman, Capitalism.

Here's a chance to implement some bloviation reduction.

It doesn't matter when the SH Act was introduced because it couldn't have any effect until it became law - which was 1930.

The article you led off with many posts back asserted that SH was the main cause of the GD. Which is boolshite since it wasn't in existence until after the GD began.

See how easy it is to not make tedious response posts? Facts are useful that way.

And just for what it's worth the thread topic is about the future.

Please argue about the past somewhere else. History informs the present but it does not predict the future.

Yes, facts are useful. Here are some facts about how the Smoot Hawley Act affected our economy before it was passed.
Without the Smoot Hawley Act what was a recession might have stayed a recession. Because of the Act the recession turned into the Great Depression.

The lesson of the Smoot Hawley Act and the Great Depression it helped cause should teach us about the dangers of government intervention in the market. Although the Act was not the sole cause of the Great Depression it was one of the main causes of it. A lesson that can't be learned until the facts are known.

Looks to me like the stock market was the main culprit, working more like a casino than an investment vehicle. Same as today... I think it needs more regulation!

Just for a refresher, didn't your article say the SH was the main driver for the GD? I don't think anybody here is arguing that it wasn't a contributing factor.

I agree that there should have been a lesson learned about tariffs (but Trump is too stupid to learn any lessons).

I don't agree with your vague generalization, extracted from this one example, that all government intervention in "the markets" is bad.

Stupid or a genius? He is stupid if the negotiations he has started don't improve our trade. A genius if they do.

I did not say that all government interventions are bad. But to try to list those that are good or those that are bad would take too much time. I have a radical suggestion, that will never be implemented, get rid of every government intervention. In a short period of time the good and bad ones will sort themselves out.

I thought the Smoot-Hawley tariffs caused the Great Depression? I thought tariffs were heinous and evil government intervention? This kind of inconsistency is why I decided I shouldn't interact with you. Too much time wasted in being yanked around by a... what are you, anyway?