Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "Intercollegiate Studies Institute" channel.

  1.  @ExPwner  Ah yes, the CPA that thinks taxes are theft. Very solid source you have there. Catch a grip James, you're a fool.
    1
  2.  @willnitschke  "As a side note the problem with welfare tends to grow over time, and it has the negative consequence of disincentivizing members of the community to contribute goods and services." This is total nonsense. Housing first programs in Finland have already shown that giving people unconditional housing leads to better outcomes than constantly requiring something from them. There was also an experiment done recently where they straight up gave money to the homeless in California in $500 installments over 6 months rather than trying to provide for them. It was a massive success, with two thirds of the participants finding housing. The truth is that you think of poor people as "lesser" and always will. That's why your ideas fail, and you don't even consider it a bad thing when they fail. You don't view them as worthy of human rights, and don't give a toss if they are disgarded by society. Afterall, they're just laggards and criminials, so who cares. What's a little slave labour from the criminals of society, am I right? Hating the poor isn't productive Will, it just allows you to put your blinders on and ignore poverty because it doesn't effect you personally.
    1
  3. ​ @willnitschke  Banks were welcome to choose their own interest rates. Their poor investments and the change of the rules in 2020 under Trump that allows them to invest 100% of their deposits with no backup is their own fault.
    1
  4.  @ExPwner  Fed rates are minimums champ. Anyone can set a higher rate. Want to guarantee lower risk on mortgages? Set higher rates. Duh.
    1
  5. ​​ @willnitschke  So you're blaming the free market for bank failures? The free market after all decides the rate a bank can survive on right? You do realise that with no lower bound set by the Fed it would be a race to the bottom right? Of course you realise it, you just said it. So thanks for confirming that banks need to be stopped from taking really dumb risks.
    1
  6. ​​ @willnitschke  You can intend it however you want. According to you banks cannot charge higher interest rates due to competition. This puts them at a higher risk for their loans. When the Fed raises rates they can give out loans with a lower risk. If the Fed doesn't set a minimum then banks are in a race to the bottom, and some will bet too low and fail as a result. It's not hard to figure out Will.
    1
  7. ​​ @willnitschke  If the interest rate is higher then the risk to the bank is lower you utter buffoon. You're saying I'm wrong then agreeing with me lol. If competition forces them to offer lower rates then the risk to the bank is higher. You are confusing the risk to the bank with the risk of the borrower.
    1
  8. ​ @ExPwner  "Getting cheaper Fed money" That's not how that works. Again, banks lend from deposits. 1. Yes, higher. I just said that. They can lend higher. Thank you for coming full circle. 2. It isn't. Any more questions, because you seem very confused on how the Fed works.
    1
  9.  @ExPwner  I do, you do not.
    1
  10. ​ @willnitschke  Watching you continue to not understand how loans work is actually just funny. Again, continuing to argue about competition just proves my point, the Fed minimum rate saves banks from betting too low and failing as a result. And you seem to have misunderstood how down-payments work as well. Honestly, this is not a good loon for you.
    1
  11. ​ @willnitschke  Oops, did you figure out your mistake. Probably not, but we can dream. If I increase interest rates without any change in risk am I making more or less profit for more or less risk?
    1
  12. ​​ @willnitschke  Again, you are just proving that competition drives banks to overly risky loans, and the Fed is the only thing stopping them from eating eachother. In your effort to prove your point you just agreed with me.
    1
  13. ​ @ExPwner  But they aren't artificially low. The Fed sets a minimum, anyone can set a higher rate.
    1
  14. ​​ @willnitschke  Again, the Fed rate is a minimum. If it didn't exist then banks would be racing to the bottom, with even lower rates. You're arguing against yourself.
    1
  15. ​ @willnitschke  Again, you're proving me right. The Fed is a minimum rate, without that minimum rates would only be lower, not higher. You really don't get how the Fed works though. Banks don't compete against the Fed rate. That's not how it works at all.
    1
  16. ​ @willnitschke  So you admit that the Fed sets a lower bound, not an upper bound. Thanks for proving me right.
    1
  17. ​ @willnitschke  Lower number, not a required number. You openly stated that banks loan out at a higher rate than the Fed rate, so why lie and claim they force banks to loan at their rate?
    1
  18. ​​ @willnitschke  Oh good, so you agree with me. Banks don't borrow to make loans, they use deposited funds. That's how banks work. Is this the issue, you think banks work differently to how they actually work?
    1
  19. ​ @willnitschke  From the Fed dumb dumb. You're just agreeing with me again.
    1
  20.  @willnitschke  You claimed that banks are restrained by their borrowing costs due to the Fed rates. Fed rates do not effect banks borrowing costs as banks lend against depositor savings accounts, meaning they do not pay depositors the Fed rate. This means your entire argument makes no sense, meaning your reply agrees with me.
    1
  21. ​ @willnitschke  Again, the existence of competition just proves that without the Fed interest rates would be a far more dangerous race to the bottom. Because people need regular access to their money, which they can't get in a money market fund. Banks do not offer good interest rates on savings, and are regularly below Fed, but still manage to get people's deposits because of access. The more you know.
    1
  22. ​ @willnitschke  Take it out and put it where Will?
    1
  23. ​ @willnitschke  If I take my money out of a money market with the click of an app, where does the money go?
    1
  24.  @willnitschke  Your bank account...in a bank...are you hearing yourself?
    1
  25. ​ @willnitschke  Looks like you got confused again. First you claim people don't really keep money in banks, then you openly state that you regularly transfer money to banks for personal use. Now you just can't read at all.
    1
  26. Well exactly. Advocates for increased capitalism, a more laissez-faire approach, inevitably end up arguing in favour of more corporate power to exploit people, ruin the environment, use their funds to influence public policy both directly and indirectly, and much much more. It's hard to take someone seriously when they claim moral superiority while advocating for corporation power, and advocate against basic human rights like food, shelter and healthcare.
    1
  27. ​ @ExPwner  Are you feeling okay?
    1
  28.  @willnitschke  Human rights are the opposite of all of those lol. How ignorant can you be Will?
    1
  29. ​ @ExPwner  It's not slavery James, you just hate the idea of people coming together to make something better than any individual.
    1
  30. ​ @willnitschke  I already explained how you were wrong.
    1
  31.  @ExPwner  So the person claiming that human rights are not really human rights is here to tell me what slavery is? Okay champ.
    1
  32.  @willnitschke  I agree. Good job I'm not advocating that isn't it Will
    1
  33. ​ @ExPwner  The fact that it isn't slavery makes it not slavery. Here, let me put it this way. Is sales tax slavery too? Do you differentiate the sort of tax, or is it just all tax?
    1
  34. ​ @ExPwner  Nah, it's not. Aside from the societal consent, there is also the fact they already took from the system. Refusing to pay into a system while receiving all the benefits is just selfishness.
    1
  35.  @ExPwner  Awww, selfish James wants to have his cake and eat it. This is the sad part about ancaps. They want society to cater to them, then whine when asked to help out.
    1
  36. ​​ @ExPwner  You're sounding more and more like Will. You always were a bit of a sponge when it comes to usage of language. Always nice when you call someone looking to contribute to a society, to do their part, a whiny child. It really puts into perspective the views of people who winge like little babies over helping to maintain society's schools, roads, legal systems and more. 😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  37. ​ @ExPwner  So nothing from you again. Is being pathetic your raison d'etre or do you just do it when you get called put?
    1
  38. ​​ @ExPwner  I need to back up the idea that regulating a market less leads to the market doing things that the current market is banned from doing, and that the former market used to do? It's not rocket science. Corporation are out to make money. Tell them it's illegal to dump metals and chemicals in a river that supplies drinking water and they won't do it. Don't ban them from doing that and they'll do it to make money.
    1
  39. ​ @ExPwner  Nah, that's reality.
    1
  40. ​ @willnitschke  Right, like workers rights, environmental protections...you know the stuff that actually helps people. You would rather a bunch of regulations that stop businesses from stealing from getting kickbacks, and literally nothing else.
    1
  41. ​ @willnitschke  Total rubbish. Regulations increase worker rights and environmental protections. Just look at CFCs.
    1
  42. ​ @ExPwner  Oh dear, lying James is lying again.
    1
  43.  @willnitschke  Except more money doesn't necessarily mean more for the environment. If you have to cut corners like not creating regulation that stops a coal mine dumping into drinking water then you are trying to make more money just to use it to clean up the mess you made trying to make more money. It's just stupidity. Does reality confuse you?
    1
  44.  @immortalnightbody  Target practice.
    1
  45. ​ @ExPwner  Yes yes, James the liar is pointing the finger.
    1
  46.  @shgalagalaa  What individual freedoms are restricted when people have their human rights met? Surely a society where some go without food, shelter and healthcare is far less free overall.
    1
  47.  @shgalagalaa  "I love how you are completely unable to engage a topic without sounding like the most biased individual ever. Your very first sentence implies that people can only have their human rights met under socialism which is a hilariously bad take." No, it implies that socialism guarantees human rights, while capitalism does not. Nothing about capitalism guarantees human rights, and in fact any capitalist system that does is usually doing it by other means. Now, could a capitalist nation meet the human rights of all of its citizenry? Sure, for example Finland. But these days nations tend to do that by implementing some form of socialism. Housing first initiatives, food stamps, TANF, energy bill assistance and a whole host of other government initiatives paid for by tax dollars to help those at the bottom and provide them with human rights. Programs which have long been attacked by businesses and complained about by politicians funded by said businesses. "Regardless. If one is to be the owner of their own body they must be free to do with their body as they please and be entitled to the fruits of their labour aswell as spend it as you see fit." This is besides the point. Being free to do as you please is all well and good, right up until you have a need that cannot be paid for. Would you argue that someone with a disability that renders them unable to work is "free" as they can "be the owner of their own body"? In a capitalist system that which cannot be paid for is simply impossible to gain. Want to pay rent and buy food? Too bad, you don't make enough money, time to pick one. It's also odd you talk about being entitled to the fruits of your own labour, but capitalists remove a portion of those fruits for their own gain, that is in fact the entire basis of capitalism. Now here is the real kicker, is your right to keep some portion of your income, income that was made possible by the many government systems put in place to guarantee the infrastructure and legal protection for the business you work at to survive, greater than the rights of people needing food, housing and healthcare? Should people die from preventable diseases just so you can avoid taxes? "That is someone who is more productive will be forced to give up what they deserve due to to their higher productivity to someone who has a lower productivity." That does depend on the type of socialism and the sort of system you are critiquing. Market socialism for example would have the same free market and same payment systems as current capitalist companies, however the leadership of the company is elected by the employee members, and the ownership of the company is evenly distributed among said employee-memebers, meaning any dividends are paid to all workers and any leadership decisions are subject to a the will of the people lest the leadership are removed due to the unpopular decisions. As such, people can still be fired, including leadership. On a more national scale you are talking about welfare, but welfare systems are not paid for by people who will have reduced freedom from the payment. You don't lose out on buying food to pay your taxes, because taxes are graduated to allow those at the bottom to get the help they need. Instead, tax dollars are taken from those that can afford it based on their income. "Also not having capital markets restricts individuals from spending what they earn as they see fit given that all means of production have to be owned collectively for it to be socialism." Again, not in market socialiam. Free markets still exist, the companies are just cooperatives. They are collectively owned by their own employees. In fact, as Will likes to point out, most companies are owner-operated and therefore would not change at all under a system like this. "Socialism by definition revolves around restricting what people can do with their money aswell as stopping them from earning according to their productivity. This is the core of socialist beliefs and the above sacrifices are admissable as the benefits are perceived far larger in magnitude." I mean, it sounds like you need an education on market socialism. Your entire argument revolves around government ownership and planned economies. Market socialism has neither. In fact, market socialism rewards workers more, not less, allowing them to keep more of what they earned, without a company removing their labour to turn a profit or add to a market cap that they have no control or
    1
  48.  @willnitschke  You're confusing being free FROM things with being free TO things. You're free to buy a billion dollar yacht, but you won't because it's outside your financial reach. Natural freedoms are all well and good, but that does nothing to help with social freedoms, especially with those at the very bottom of society. If you have freedom from everything that doesn't suddenly mean you can afford things. Social freedom however gives people freedom proactively. It gives people the freedom to support themselves, to have a roof over their heads, to be fed, to get around when it is otherwise difficult. Freedom from is great, right up until people with disabilities are dying of starvation. It's just not a humane or realistic approach.
    1
  49. ​ @willnitschke Social democracies that provide social freedoms. You're proving my point.
    1
  50.  @willnitschke  That capitalism cannot provide for people and must add elements of socialism. Or are you now lying again to claim that state welfare is capitalism. Weird argument since you already admitted it was bullshit.
    1