Comments by "James Adams" (@ExPwner) on "The Jimmy Dore Show" channel.

You clearly don't know dick about economics. Your arguments are full of fail, Jimmy. In fact it's just a giant appeal to emotion and argument to the stone fallacy. 1. You're not entitled to goods and services at an "affordable price." 2. In this conversation, healthcare is a good/service just like healthcare. You're not entitled to it just because you need it. 3. Someone pointing out that your inability to afford something doesn't make you entitled to it doesn't make them dumb. 4. None of this conversation addresses why healthcare is expensive. You're a dumbass, Jimmy. No one is denying people medicine by opposing theft.
1
Well, you're right that it's dishonest to compare the two. However, it's not rational to suggest that it's a good idea merely because a lot of people like it. Further, your analysis shows a gross misunderstanding of QE. QE wasn't used to pay off bad debts or MBSs. It was used to lower interest rates to banks. It's not equivalent to the government giving money. This isn't a magic trick, and though it is quite arbitrary, it wasn't GIVEN to big banks. It also didn't go to worthless assets. They bought troubled assets, but they aren't worthless. The student loan equivalent would be buying the student loans and then collecting the debt from students, not just forgiving them. Glass Steagall didn't crash the economy, and anyone with a basic understanding of finance or economics can confirm this. Wall Street was never "deregulated" either. Less Kool-Aid, more studying. You're right that the Fed just creates money whenever it wants to do so. In a sense, the ensuing inflation actually is a tax. It is a tax on savers. It is wrong to say that the president calls the shots with QE. That is solely decided by the Fed chair. It's not the president doing it, it's the Fed.
1
@shway1 yes there is. Theft is immoral
1
@shway1 it is. There is no such thing as moral theft just as there is no such thing as moral murder. Recovering stolen funds is not the same as stealing the funds, and killing in self defense is not murder, but neither murder nor theft can be theft by definition since they are forced upon others against their will.
1
@shway1 nope, it is akin to murder. All takings are not theft.
1
@shway1 no, that is not fine. That is a violation of other people’s rights and under a just system at a minimum requires restitution to make the victim whole. It is not “relative” because subjective preferences are not forced onto others. Me liking chocolate ice cream over vanilla is a preference. A person looting is not.
1
@shway1 what you think is irrelevant. It is wrong, because again, an action is no longer subjective opinion once it is forced upon others. An opinion or subjective preference is only mere preference so long as it is confined to you. A murderer thinking that his actions are moral is entirely irrelevant. His act of murder is immoral because the victim did not consent.
1
Read Bohm Bawerk
1
That's not by accident. He peddles that propaganda on purpose.
1
Noam Chomsky is a dumbass. "Take them out of the hands of government which is somewhat accountable...put it into the hands of private tyranny..." No, it isn't at all accountable. Nor is the private industry unaccountable or a tyranny. This talking point was dumb when he first used it, and it's even dumber now. Private industry is accountable through the market and the law. If you don't want to do business with someone then that is your right and vice versa, plus they answer for their crimes under the law. The government doesn't operate on the market and has sovereign immunity for its crimes. The private market is decentralized compared to the centralized government. This man is a liar and propagandist.
1
He always does that because he's a liar. He blames everything bad on government or capitalism and takes none of the failures of socialism as being attributable to socialism.
1
Excellent conversation! It is so great to see those who don’t agree on all of the issues come together and agree on some of the things that really matter. Most proponents of UBI and M4A just do not care to listen to the other side. Glad that you care about having that conversation, Jimmy. I am not a regular viewer, but I think if you had more dissent you might change your view on these topics yourself.
1
Debate requires good faith, and he doesn't do that.
1
@nicolasm400 no it isn’t
1
@acceptable1514 no it isn’t
1
No it doesn’t
1
@syourke3 stupid reply. Look at data.
1
Wrong. They already pay more than a fair share
1
@owlnyc666 according to the IRS data. And no, that is not how taxes work. Someone else paying less in taxes does not make your taxes go up. There is no quota that is demanded in total. If someone pays less in taxes the state just gets less revenue.
1
@williamcarter7977 correct, which it does anyway since governments keep increasing their spending like drunken sailors. It’s not a sustainable model really, just a giant house of cards.
1
@shway1 the value of a good or service has fuck all to do with the labor that went into it. Value is subjective, not determined by labor.
1
@shway1 so is capital. Doesn’t mean that we derive value from labor per se. Labor is a means to an end, and there are other required and valued means, not just labor. Producers of goods and services value labor, capital and raw materials as means to an end. Consumers value the final product or service for the various reasons they have for those things. And if customers do not have a desire for such things then labor is meaningless there (as you are well aware of the uselessness of mud pies).
1
@shway1 labor is employed but that does not mean that labor “creates” value. Value is in the eye of the beholder. Labor can be valued or it might not be, just as any other thing may or may not be valued depending upon the person doing the valuing. This is more than semantics because value is not something objective or directly observable about the object itself.
1