Bernie Is Economically Ignorant

Whatever else you may think about Bernie Sanders, the guy is on Mars when it comes to economics. He has said that we don't need "23 different kinds of deodorant when children are starving."

To non-socialists not intending to seize the means of production, it would seem like if this is what we thought we would just tax more and spend it on kids' food programs. Nope. Also let's remember to mention that fact that fewer children are starving under capitalist nations, i.e. those nations that allow their people to serve one another with deodorant.

Massive fail #2: Bernie has said that "Bread lines are a good thing, because that means the poor are being fed." I (*)(*)(*)(*) you not.

#feelthebreadline

[video=youtube;NvVazKY3Qpw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvVazKY3Qpw[/video]

Massive fail #3: Bernie has said that it's wrong that student loans have a higher interest rate than mortgages, though the discrepancy here reflects the fact that lenders take on more risk with a student loan because there's no collateral.

All in all, it seems like Bernie doesn't understand that there might be a difference between the intentions and effects of policy-- of course, why else would he be a socialist?

 

Sanders says that bread lines is in some ways is a positive thing, which is true. A society that relocates funds to feed the needy is a better and more caring society than the ones that don't. History is filled with examples of societies that let the needy die even when the wealth was there to help them.

Pure capitalist societies have never and will never care for the needy. Neither do they care for the well being of their citizens.

You failed history. To use your words. You failed every political science and history class available massively.

 

If they are government backed and cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, they are a lower risk than mortgages.

 

What "pure" capitalist society has existed?

History class is largely filled with indoctrination. We're living past the Progressive Era, the winners write the textbooks. UCLA economists found that interventions by FDR and Hoover extended the Great Depression, but of course that never finds its way into history books.

The closest you can find to laissez-faire capitalism in the United States is the Gilded Age, which was a period of massive wage growth and deflation in commodities (due to the evil robber barons).

Food lines are necessary in socialist countries because they're poor. It's better to advocate for wealth (i.e. capitalism) than to advocate for people to still live in squalor with a little more food.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/01/19/bernie-sanderss-misleading-comparison-of-mortgage-rates-and-student-loan-interest-rates/

 

Most societies were capitalist. The most pure was probably the Roman.

History class varies from country to country. Every one and all have biases, glorified history and indoctrination. Advanced societies should teach how to remedy this. Even if they don't you still have all information available without censure so it is your own responsibility to learn what is and isn't bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Laissez-faire has been a massive failure as acknowledged by all economic theory whether right or left.

All societies have poor people, people who can't work and so on. How we take care of them is a measure of our humanity and how caring our society is.

 

Scandinavian socialist nations have a lower level of poverty than the US.

 

Those loans are at 4 and a quarter.

Bernie's statement comes from the typical liberal statement, "I'm poor because somebody else is rich". Basically it uses two ideas with no causal relationship, and creates a cause and effect out of it.

 

Poverty is relative so yes, the poor are poor because a lot of somebody else's are richer.

 

The article pointed out that some student loan rates are high and some mortgage rates or low, it did not address the risk associated with loss. I did note that the pro-Clinton post said that Bernie said "most" when none of his statements they cited contained that word at all. As for the security of them, if you default on a government backed student loan it never gets discharged and you can end up in federal court over it as was illustrated in a case cited in a post a month or so here.

 

There are no Scandinavian socialist countries.

 

The fact is that we are a socialist country. That is a fact. The only thing is that we have socialism in favor of the wealthy. Sanders wants to spread some of that socialism to the people and that just p*sses the rich off something fierce. How dare those poor and middle class people want a piece of the pie. The pie is the birthright of the wealthy and that is where the government should be spending its socialist giveaways.

 

Of course ! He is a socialist. History, will anyone use it to learn?

 

Anybody that still thinks socialism is a successful economic theory is off their rocker.

He means well, I'm sure, but he's the intellectual equivalent of a happy hog in a slaughterhouse.

 

So the US does not have a successful economy?

 

You don't know what socialism is, do you?

 

Sure, it is when you steal from one group to give to another.

 

Not quite

 

That's it in a nutshell, but socialists are thieves to begin with so lying is no problem for them....

 

Most of the children of WWII Vets (who got THEIR college free on the GI Bill) had college loans in the 1-2% range when mortgages were 7%

We have a nation full of people (those over 50 anyway) who got their college essentially on the government nickel...and the nation lead the world because of it

Now kids have higher education bills and interest rates that are double mortgage rates.

That seems reasonable to you?

- - - Updated - - -

I always thought socialism meant the government controls the means of production.

That sure isn't the case

 

Hoover?

Get real.

And FDR "extended the Depression" when he listened to people like you and cut back spending in 1937. That created a "Recession within a Depression"

The truth is it took so long to get out of the Depression for two main reasons.

It was an ENORMOUS Depression...and FDR didn't spend ENOUGH

It took the massive spending of WWII to finally get us out of the Depression.

 

A lot of the student loans are not fixed rate, especially consolidated loans, if they are through the Department of Education. That is more problematic for me if the rates are subject to change as the fed rates rise. In that sense, they are more comparable to ARM's than 30 year fixed rate mortgages.

I have posted on this topic many times. I would prefer college didn't cost anything other than maybe your living expenses if you are a solid performing student. I would be fine with requiring volunteering or work study as part of earning that free tuition as well. I would also be fine with the government treating student loans like healthcare reimbursement rates by establishing an allowable tuition for students getting government backed loans. The schools could do whatever they want with other students, but if they were getting a government backed loan, their tuition would also have to be lowered to something more comparable to the cost of instruction only and not the cost of instruction plus all the other things schools blow cash on--basically half of what current tuition is at most 4-year state colleges.

 

Actually, it is. We are talking, in case you forgot, about a man who wants to be president so he can use the IRS in order to force people to pay for things like health care and education as bribes to get elected.

and of course he will also use the power of the state to dictate what kinds of healthcare and education those institutions that accept this stolen money can provide.

That's socialism, dude.

 

I like your location!

 

Taxpayers have been paying for education and healthcare for a very long time.

 

This doesn't make it any less socialist. Why do you think public education and healthcare is so abysmal?