Why does debt mater?

Rune said:
So....Canada imports nothing...That's funny. You can keep your Canadien resources too, they have been driving prices down here for too long already.
What are the names of those car companies again?
Click to expand...

Really? We stop our natural gas, oil exports and electricity from Niagara and half of America would be in a blackout.LOL Not to mention, prices would sky rocket. How old are you again?

Who cares if we have no car companies. We can make our own. We already have tons of car plants. And we can easily make much more. It wouldn't be all that difficult.
 
Rune said:
No, you already lost in post#11, confirmed in post#13 but apparently you are so retarded that you didn't realise it yet.
Click to expand...

Sure I did. Damocles was evasive in the greenback debate and now he is being evasive here. He does not answer the questions asked. He just repeats the same verbal diarrhea and ignores everything I say.
 
Actually, Canada does make cars. I drove by a GM plant when I was in Ontario last summer. I believe they also manufacture the "Smart" car.

That said, "wiseone" is still an idiot.
 
General Burnside said:
Actually, Canada does make cars. I drove by a GM plant when I was in Ontario last summer. I believe they also manufacture the "Smart" car.

That said, "wiseone" is still an idiot.
Click to expand...

OK. Maybe you can explain why Canada cannot rack up a 100 trillion dollar deficit?

SInce your so smart, you should be able to come up with a legitimate reason, but you yoyos have not.
 
Damocles said:
Ironic post is ironic.

:facepalm:
Click to expand...

Again. He shows his lack of capacity to reply with anything remotely intelligent.lol

You can do better then that can't you? All you can see is blah blah blah weimer republic blah blah blah weimer republic. Sorry but Canada is no weimer republic.
 
The problem is it's not necessary for everyone to work as far as supplying needed products. Many jobs are done simply to earn money.

Do we really need "Greeters" at Wal-Mart? Do we need so many people behind a McDonald's counter so we can get a hamburger 30 seconds sooner?

As we progress there will naturally be fewer and fewer jobs and that's the whole idea behind progress. Machines and technology replace man.

We take the bizarre position that unemployment is bad. If the store shelves are full and there is no shortage of products/items it shows it's not necessary for everyone to work. The problem is how to structure society so that people who lack jobs do not suffer. With a one world government jobs can be apportioned so each individual has the opportunity to earn money. That is the primary reason behind the unemployment problem. It has little to do with actually supplying goods and services.

Take computers, for example. Why do we throw out the entire computer rather than just replace the necessary parts? Instead of designing products to be thrown away we need to design ones that last and replace only the defective/worn out parts. Of course, a lot of companies making the metal enclosures for desk-top models wouldn't be in business very long nor the companies making all the other parts which are still functioning.

There needs to be a major change in the way the world operates. A coordinated plan. A one world government.
 
Last edited:
apple0154 said:
The problem is it's not necessary for everyone to work as far as supplying needed products. Many jobs are done simply to earn money.

Do we really need "Greeters" at Wal-Mart? Do we need so many people behind a McDonald's counter so we can get a hamburger 30 seconds sooner?

As we progress there will naturally be fewer and fewer jobs and that's the whole idea behind progress. Machines and technology replace man.

We take the bizarre position that unemployment is bad. If the store shelves are full and there is no shortage of products/items it shows it's not necessary for everyone to work. The problem is how to structure society so that people who lack jobs do not suffer. With a one world government jobs can be apportioned so each individual has the opportunity to earn money. That is the primary reason behind the unemployment problem. It has little to do with actually supplying goods and services.

Take computers, for example. Why do we throw out the entire computer rather than just replace the necessary parts? Instead of designing products to be thrown away we need to design ones that last and replace only the defective/worn out parts. Of course, a lot of companies making the metal enclosures for desk-top models wouldn't be in business very long nor the companies making all the other parts which are still functioning.

There needs to be a major change in the way the world operates. A coordinated plan. A one world government.
Click to expand...

Take your one world government and go pound sand.

One to beam up, Scotty, and make sure Apple goes straight to a psychological assessment and then confinement.
 
apple0154 said:
Do you have a better plan or just continue along with people losing their jobs and homes?
Click to expand...

How about one where people take responsibility for where they are.
How about people stop trying to buy homes that they can't afford and trying to stop keeping up with the Joneses.
How about people stop living beyond their means.

I know those go against those who believe in the Allencompasing Nanny State; but their good ones.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
How about one where people take responsibility for where they are.
How about people stop trying to buy homes that they can't afford and trying to stop keeping up with the Joneses.
How about people stop living beyond their means.

I know those go against those who believe in the Allencompasing Nanny State; but their good ones.
Click to expand...
I find myself in the akward position of agreeing with Freedom. When you buy something you accept the responsibility for paying for it, when you use a credit card or a loan, you are accepting that in the future you will pay for it over time. When people complain that "The bank shouldn't have offered me the loan." What they are actually saying is, "I just signed papers because I wanted the new house, the new car, or the new tv and assumed that it would all be ok." Stop doing that, take responsibility for what you do, and stop trying to do the "We're american so we should all be equal middle class and all be able to get the latest stuff." If you're working Walmart, you won't be able to afford a new house every year.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
How about one where people take responsibility for where they are.
How about people stop trying to buy homes that they can't afford and trying to stop keeping up with the Joneses.
How about people stop living beyond their means.

I know those go against those who believe in the Allencompasing Nanny State; but their good ones.
Click to expand...

When people lose their job it doesn't really matter the size of their home. Most people would have difficulty paying a mortgage on UI.
 
apple0154 said:
When people lose their job it doesn't really matter the size of their home. Most people would have difficulty paying a mortgage on UI.
Click to expand...

It does if they were attempting to purchase one, that was already straining their ability to pay.
Being responsible doesn't start WHEN you're in a problem, but way prior to that.
 
wiseones2cents said:
Who cares if no country accepts our looney? We are a self sustaining nation. How about if we dont accept your over valued currency? If you wanted our resources you would have to bartor no?

Canada doesn't make cars?LOL Do you think we drive sleds? You dont think Canada has the know how to manufacture cars?lol And you guys ridicule my posts? ROTFLOL!!!!
Click to expand...

What would you do if we invaded?
 
apple0154 said:
When people lose their job it doesn't really matter the size of their home. Most people would have difficulty paying a mortgage on UI.
Click to expand...

Is it possible that people who signed contracts understand that they take this risk when they sign them? They may not be able to afford their McMansion, but should we have to do it because you feel bad for them? What limit would you place on this?

Personally, if I didn't have personal savings enough to survive a shortfall, I would take my family and live in an apartment until I could afford to once again purchase a house, or even continue living in an apartment afterward to stack more in savings.

Sometimes dropping our cash on other people just because you feel guilty that good things happen to you really isn't a bearable solution that society can or should afford.
 
Damocles said:
Is it possible that people who signed contracts understand that they take this risk when they sign them? They may not be able to afford their McMansion, but should we have to do it because you feel bad for them? What limit would you place on this?

Personally, if I didn't have personal savings enough to survive a shortfall, I would take my family and live in an apartment until I could afford to once again purchase a house, or even continue living in an apartment afterward to stack more in savings.

Sometimes dropping our cash on other people just because you feel guilty that good things happen to you really isn't a bearable solution that society can or should afford.
Click to expand...

Lots of these mortgages were sold with the promise of two things, the market would keep rising, and the buyer would always be able to refinance.
Many people were also talked into option/ARM mortgages, again with the lie that they could refinance later.
Obviously it should be caveat emptor, however, when I bought this house and the previous one, no one made any false promises to me.
 
Rune said:
Lots of these mortgages were sold with the promise of two things, the market would keep rising, and the buyer would always be able to refinance.
Many people were also talked into option/ARM mortgages, again with the lie that they could refinance later.
Obviously it should be caveat emptor, however, when I bought this house and the previous one, no one made any false promises to me.
Click to expand...

None of this would change any of what I said previously. Just because somebody can't afford their McMansion, or even a more humble abode, why does it become our responsibility to pay it for them? Where would you draw the line?

This isn't unrecoverable loss, nor does it mean they will be homeless. It only means that they will have to move.

Anyway, each time I purchased or refinanced I had to sign documents about the risk and with an understanding that if I couldn't pay I'd have to move out. If I lose my job and, therefore, my house I will move. I do not assume that the government (meaning everybody, including you) have any responsibility towards paying off the house so I can keep what I can no longer afford.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top