Financial Repression

>I unironically think that the U.S. and possibly Canada will see a socialist revolution in the next 50 years
wont happen outside of the citys. the country will always be white, therefore republican and the countryside is producing all the food.
the socialists would loose a civil war/revolution by default

No wonder there are big efforts to take peoples guns away.

Republicans love increasing debt HW Bush was that last one who tried to balance the budget on their side and it cost him a 2nd term

it will happen because the boomers are going to be broke from healthcare costing $$$ and none of them saved enough to last. If the market crashes as they all begin drawing on their 401k's then they are all fucked

idk, i live in a rural area, and I could see plenty of working class people here going socialist, probably have no qualms about arming themselves.

Only financially responsible people should be allowed to vote.

But, that’s why the socialists need a defining point to sway the moderate republicans. That’s why I included it, such a point would be something akin to a gross overuse of power by a capitalist or a massive depression/recession. With something to bind together the left and sway the moderate right, a socialist revolution would be a cinch. The government wouldn’t dare to launch missiles or bomb cities, so they would rely on the national guard and the army. However, I believe that such a revolution would be covert funded and aided by the Russians. Also, is the U.S. dared to overstep their bounds in fending off the revolution by even an inch the international community would jump in to intervene

You get to vote if you pay more taxes than benefit from taxes. This is the system I want. Should stop government overspending and unbalanced budgets.

A violent revolution might not be needed because most people are dependent on the government benefits already. So they vote more and more socialist to defend their "entitlements" and other benefits.

Read it, everything is correct. It's already been well known that holding cash is a good way to lose purchasing power though, so I'm not sure why he talks about it like it's harming retirees and savers. Those people usually have their money in index funds tracking the whole market.

What is more harmful is the stagnant wages against the ever-decreasing dollar. Seems like every wagie is getting cucked by the system because of this.
What's the solution for this though? Metals will be manipulated forever, crypto (even though I still hold some) seems like it will be going the same way with manipulation, housing (at least in Canada ) is crazy overvalued compared to local salaries, what else can we do besides buy more ETFs and hope they're not already overvalued?

unrelated but I've increasingly seen posts confusing "loose" vs "lose" the past few years. Is everyone getting collectively dumber? Is it foreigners that don't have the familiarity of the english language? Is it that the misspelling is so common and uncalled out nowadays that it propagates further? Is it some conspiracy to change the intended meaning? Seriously what the fuck is going on?

It isnt that gold is objectively constant in value or that it cant be manipulated at all it's that everything else's value changes relative to golds. It is the value datum.

That is the reason it develops as money in all major civilizations independently because if you can price things better than your competitors you can allocate resources more efficiently.

Think of the rate of decrease in cost of consumer goods. what was the mb/ounce price in 1950 vs today, what about clothes, food, retail gasoline, furniture etc. Central banks dont debase your currency at that rate, they do it 3% against that rate and the reality is they dont even do that since 71 now they arbitrarily change the cpi so people can say its 3% inflation. Even if that were so why tolerate any inflation. The usd loses 10%pa average against gold, you cannot work your way out of that, no company can maintain that growth indefinitely.
This debasement is the sole cause of societal degeneration where humans are transmuted over generations from citizens made wealthy by their work and society proportional to the value they/it create vs units of resource whose wealth is extracted to those who parasitically live off the lie

>unrelated but I've increasingly seen...
i am a native german and edited the post several times before sending it, thats why the grammar is all fucked up. sorry fren, my posts arent usually like that.

no problem frend, thanks for answering. just a pet peeve of mine

Savers and retirees have big chunks of their wealth in government bonds that pay interest below inflation. Bank savings accounts also pay very little. This is why retirees are getting fucked. They "should" be earning positive real (after inflation) returns on their bond investments. All pension funds also have large amounts of these crap government bonds.

I don't think there is much that can be done. Someone must take the financial pain. I try to invest in stocks that are not clearly overvalued and I use low interest leverage to benefit from this situation. The hunt for positive real returns continues!

ah ya you're right, people keep a large percent of their portfolio in government bonds, generally as they approach retirement because they're "stable".

I guess the answer is to be aware of it and avoid bonds... although at the same time stocks can fall faster than the value of cash and as you're forced to sell when retired, then you're locking in those losses. Having a small amount of bonds to liquidate during those time could be beneficial then.. since it means you can ride out those bear markets longer. The question is what % is worth holding of a shit asset that is guaranteed to fall but not fall as dramatically as other assets?

Maybe businesses that everyone relies on regardless of market conditions, like telecoms would be the way to go. Small (3-4%) but consistent dividends in the long term. Even though it looks like the stock price fell a shit ton in 2008, the dividend payouts were consistent and increase with the stock price. Instead of the conventional 60/40 stock/bond split, putting that 40% into those sorts of businesses could hold value stronger in the long term and ride out bear markets stronger?
Seems like it's riskier though (like what if some new technology makes all these expensive telecoms obsolete or government regulation steps in and forces them to sell wholesale rates, etc.), so it's still a tradeoff of holding bonds that slowly lose value vs holding (what you believe to be) "recession proof" investments. Maybe there's a middle ground somewhere there too.

Why do americans equate the nordic model with communism? is this not what bernie sanders types are calling for? These are social democracies with things like universal healthcare, free tuition. Denmark, germany, norway etc are not venezuela...
help me understand this perspective.

Good ideas. It is hard to play a rigged game.
If investment returns will be lower in the coming decades because of bond yield manipulation and stock/real estate bubbles then that means we have to adapt by accumulating longer, finding better investment opportunities elsewhere or by depending on family and friends more in our old age.
One way to compromise on early retirement is to do part-time work if investment returns are not sufficient. If early retirement is a goal that is.

Agreed, hard to play a rigged game and it definitely seems like we have to do more now to get ahead.
I do software dev and my goal is to retire early and I've been doing side projects and small side businesses, basically a 2nd job on top of my full-time job and the time commitment and mental drain is killer. Generally 60-80 hour work weeks but once they reach the point where they can pay for my expenses I can quit being a wagie at least and get back to a sane work life balance. Having your own business seems to be the only place where you can get enough income (unless you get really lucky with a startup or something).

When the US was founded, only landowning males could vote. Why did that change?

Now, if you have your perfect voting criteria imposed, how would you prevent the exact same dynamics from playing out?

Note that much like "how can we make this communist system work?" there may not be an answer.

Venezuela implemented the Nordic model.

To a very, very large extent it's the people that make it work. And the US has a more Venezuelan population than a Danish one.

>When the US was founded, only landowning males could vote. Why did that change?
Not from the US but I'd guess because land was no longer given away for free as it became a more developed country. The demographics shifted away from pioneers that settled land to workers that worked on settlements and farmsteads that other people owned.

I agree we need a better criteria but owning land isn't it.

youtube.com/watch?v=JTOpBPI0L-g

>Not from the US but I'd guess because land was no longer given away for free as it became a more developed country. The demographics shifted away from pioneers that settled land to workers that worked on settlements and farmsteads that other people owned.
Great guess, but the land ownership requirement was gone from every state by 1856, while the US still had another 50 years of frontier settlement to go (including the homestead acts of that era that gave hundreds of acres if you showed up and farmed some land in Oregon or whatever).

It seems the two options are either scrounge around for a better criteria like you mention or contain the damage of universal voting.

Scandinavia has branded itself as socialist but they are in reality more capitalistic than people think.
USA has branded itself as capitalistic but are in reality more socialistic than people think. Over 50% of US budget goes to welfare and healthcare benefits etc. Just like sweden!

>Look guys, I can know nothing about macroeconomics and make an html page!
How do we get retards like this to stop being retards? Clearly having almost every fucking book in the world easily obtainable electronically for free isn't helping because they just "muh confirmation bias" themselves into retardation

I have to apologize for my grammar.

Attached: 1545716544184.jpg (238x192, 9K)

Correct but incomplete. I'll caution you against two common mistakes:

1) Culture is just as or more important than laws on the books or political stances towards regulation. Liberia copied the US constitution almost verbatim but has been a shithole for 200 years. In Scandi's case, culture's where socialism turns up en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante

2) People are not interchangeable economic units. The video only kind of hints at it, but that's why Norwegians get a check from their oil while somewhere like Qatar which can hire all the best consultants and afford all the college educations it could want has to make do with "an awful economy". Same for "entrepreneurs fleeing Sweden's taxes" resulting in lower entrepreneurship rates in subsequent generations. The ARI will probably blame "regulations" as Sweden starts its demographic downtrend in becoming 20% Somali, even if their only change is being copied into Arabic.

>Over 50% of US budget goes to welfare and healthcare benefits etc. Just like sweden!
You have to account for budget size relative to the economy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio

Notice how America is waaay the fuck down there.

Good points.

>>To be fair, I think normal people caused this mess to begin with by demanding copious amounts of "free shit" from the government. Thus the big pile of debt.
Government mostly implemented these policies to gain more control over its subjects, or in the case of the US, to pacify disgruntled minorities.

The US will have a Latin American left-style revolution in which the elite get the blacks and indios all riled up about racial wealth inequality or similar nonsense. they will actively invite the rest of the world in to fight, in exchange for land/monetary rewards.

>what are your opinions on this?
war.

>The US will have a Latin American left-style revolution
Keep dreaming, faggot.

You can already see Democrats becoming a Latin American-style left party. It's only going to get worse, it'll be like "Chavez goes to South Africa". This is not a good thing.

this is why i shorted the market back in 2011, lost everything. thanks

>completely ignoring the massive amount of guns and ammunition tucked safely away in the hands of red-white-and-blue blooded Americans
Keep dreaming, faggot.

>he doesn't realize that the qualities of sound money attract crime and not the other way around
>he doesn't realize that the overwhelming majority of crimes are done in the US dollar
hey fucking mongoloid, crime is actually the canary in the coal-mine that your currency has inherent value to begin with.
are you forgetting that BTC was like $12 when the original silk road was around? oh yeah, you didn't buy any of those TERRORISM COINS either, didja, huh wagie?
amazing that you can't see this.

Attached: OH_sHIT_THE_fBI.png (885x901, 282K)

>The US will have a Latin American left-style revolution in which the elite get the blacks and indios all riled up about racial wealth inequality or similar nonsense
This.

The newest generations (i.e. Gen Z) are already overwhelmingly non-white. With each new generation the percentage of coloreds increases. Considering how psychotic Americans are about white privilege and patriarchy, something like colored authoritarianism is inevitable at this point.

Attached: changingface.jpg (600x600, 118K)

>What is modern warfare?

>massive amount of guns and ammunition tucked safely away in the hands of red-white-and-blue blooded Americans
>mount of guns and ammunition tucked safely away in the hands of red-white-and-blue blooded Americans
The problem is, the U.S. army is getting more colored day by day, and their allegiance is self-evident

Attached: 1543947412924.jpg (852x604, 61K)

Not shit.
You don't get high in rank without loyalty. I don't give a shit about spics and niggers thinking they are one-upping the white man. They'll die or turn-coat once they see they are done.

There is happening something interesting in Scandinavia atm; a lot of these "socialist constructions" are beginning to wither.
Union memberships have been declining for the last 10 years.
Private pensions have been steadily increasing, also other government subsidized money pools (essentially variations of pensions) have been declining.
Private investments have been increasing (people essentially buying stocks on their own, instead of participating in these government controlled saving funds).

I think this signify that the economically aspect of socialism (unions and collective savings) no longer is an attractive option for most people in this century.
This is at the heart of "Scandinavian socialism", so i think this model is dying.

Same here, software dev waiting for my big break. Though unfortunately I'm signed on a restrictive NDA so I'm going to have to find a new job first.

It won't be colored authoritarianism, they won't actually be in power. white progressives, who will actually have the power, will lead a bunch of poc they rile up, while claiming to be oppressed the entire time.

>revert

and none of them can do shit without their army of migrant workers.

>You have no political representation in central banks, there is no legal action you can take to change central bank policy.
You only have the rights you're willing to kill for

Attached: by-thomas-sully.jpg (341x406, 13K)

>this might be too high level for biz
>spews out the same Tinfoil hat shit from 5 years ago

This has a point, but at the same time the period it describes as a time of repression that eroded people's wealth, the time from 1945-1970 is the period in which normal Americans were the best off financially.

In fact, only after "liberalization" did our current problems really start - all powerful big banks, outsourcing, stagnating wages decoupled from rising productivity etc. everyone got fucked in that process that eventually led to the crash in 2008 and whatever we're out to face.

>like colored authoritarianism is inevitable at this point.
You can look up bioleninism. Short version is that class mobility dismantled the appeal of Leninism/Stalinism, but the west is now suffering under a mutated version based on biology. Which means we're now in a race (kek) between when people are able to change their skin color and when a fat, black, queer, disabled lesbian Stalin equivalent is able to ban or destroy genetic engineering.

Without US tradition breathing down their neck, the brave PoC armies of the future won't have the "one hand tied behind their back" asymmetry of 4th gen warfare. They'll just blanket Montana in chemical weapons and drop a hellfire on any remaining heat signatures.

More whites in the military than all other races combined, still. Get lost, faggot.

Imagine someone else posted
>More whites in the country than all other races combined, still.

Retirements, selective recruiting, and purges all exist. They are things. They happen.

And they change armies.

That's getting hard to believe. Maybe, but it won't likely last long.
I live in Utah and sure the bulk of military is white, but MANY are increasingly becoming mexican in particular. Everything is increasingly mexican. Not just Utah either but all over the place in other states at least out here in the west. EVERYTHING is becoming more particularly mexican.
I've been turned down from a factory job interview before because the short, fat, brown guy interviewing me named pablo kept giving me the stink eye the entire time and obviously hated me. I worked in that same position in the same department in the same company, but at a different location, and some of the guys on the floor (black and native american) were already giving me a tour of the place and getting to know me because they thought me starting was a sure thing.
Naturally I couldn't cry racism even though I didn't see any other white people on the floor there.

The bush tax cuts are directly responsible for 1/3 of our current federal debt. Federal Bailout in 2009 was another 1 trillion dollars. War on terror was another 2 trillion. Together that accounts for roughly half of the national debt. That's money gone straight into the pockets of wealthy capitalists, bankers and defense contractors that the rest of us will be on the hook for paying.

we don't have political representation in any bank, anons, that's the whole problem.

Most agricultural production is done by large corporations these days, taking over such corporations is a relatively simple matter.

Socialists are not the ones taking your guns away. Socialist gun clubs have been popping up like rabbits the past few years.

You're right about Bush tax cuts being ~$6t, but TARP ended up being revenue neutral, so it's Obama's stimulus that racked up that $1t, and the War on Terror's now up to $3t (and $5-6t long term).

Thats the thing. Slavery is considered employment.

Youre telling me a robot can put together a supercar but it cant make a burger, or a pizza??

ALL fast food workers are SLAVES. Menial, obsolete, redundant, soul destroying work with no other purpose than to distract them from the political process and repress dissent.

That's pretty gloomy, mate

This has nothing to do with paying debts. Debts were just the excuse for continuing the practice of exploiting people as slaves. The recent innovation was to convince these people that they were not slaves, and that has been very successful. The next innovation involves replacing human slaves with machines, and exterminating the humans that no longer serve a purpose.

Yeah, but the US military is pathetic, we lose in war simulations all the time.

The US military can't defeat a bunch of homeless subhuman retards in 20 years . . . And yet the defense budget is 700 billion dollars or some bullshit. What a fucking joke