Roosevelt didn't start the New Deal programs

He coined the name

Hoover initiated similar programs

Not nearly as effective. The New Deal created the TVA and the Grade Coulee Dam.

Yes... and after all that things got worse.

The New Deal was not unproductive

Recovering from a Depression is not an easy task

Yes, it is. Let the malinvestments clear.

Coolidge did that in '20 / '21

Major crack boom... cut spending... over in less than 18 months

Not quite sure that it saved the US from revolution but it did help the average citizen a lot

Help them by keeping them in a depression for 10+ years?

World War two was what recovered the country

How's that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

You don't create wealth from war

The US did

Pssh. Clearly you never met Rome.

In the US the government threw contracts at everyone with a plant, built new defense plants and made sure everyone had a job

WW2 and the US was a rather unusual circumstance

Jobs != wealth

War can be incredibly profitable, when you have the advantage.

You built cars but your plant got shut down? Now you have a government contract for 1000 tanks

Paying people to dig and fill ditches is not wealth

WW2 is what ultimately recovered everyone from the Depression, in large measure because of the US

This is basic economics

Government got money from where?

Government takes wealth, it does not create wealth.

Bonds as far as i understand it

Trapexis, the New Deal under Roosevelt was not "make work". Grand Coulee Dam. TVA. Bridges. Lots of infrastructure still in use today.

The New Deal did create wealth. Was it the most efficient method, that can be debated. But it DID create wealth.

Making use of something doesn't mean it wasn't mal investment

It also helped that the US had basically been acting as an arms supplier for the allies and been getting cash in exchange

Unless you're a salmon, the Grand Coulee dam was damn fine investment.

This is econ 101. If the market isn't investing in it it's a mal investment.

TVA - fine investment.

And if the market is investing?

People would have otherwise spent their money in other ways.

Bridges - fine investment

There was no money to spend

Not if people would have wanted other things

The banks were in shambles

Of course there was.

The economy was frozen for lack of money

Banks in shambles was in large part due to government.

They weren't in shambles in Canada

There is no such thing as lack of money

Indirectly, because the gov't didn't regulate banks effectively

That shows a complete misunderstanding of what money is.

Specifically the crash forced people into a saving mentality

The regulation is what lead to the problem. The Fed.

People were trying to get their money from banks that had no money to return to their depositors.

The banks had invested in things that evaporated.

Poof, no money.

where they didnt want to spend because they were unsure about their situation as a whole

People didn't save because they didn;t trust banks

Money only "disappears" due to fractional reserve banking

The FDIC exists today, and has saved us from similar issue since, because of Roosevelt response to the Depression.

https://www.fdic.gov/

FDIC is a bad policy

Didnt really save us from the housing crash

It subsidizes bad bank behavior

It monopolizes risk

It prevents regular citizens from losing everything

Instead of individuals taking bank behavior into account like they did prior.

No, it doesn't.

They didn't take bank risk into account. That's why so many people lost everything.

It happened over and over again, but not since the FDIC

They couldn't when the government regulated the hell out of everything and the Fed took over.

They really shouldnt have bailed out the companies

They clearly didnt need it

I'm not defending the companies, but I am speaking up for depositors.

What didn't? Bank runs certainly happen. And before FDIC there was private insurance and banks would cover one another.

There's a difference between depositors and investors.

Yes, one is the hostage taker and the other is a hostage

But bank failures still happened and people were out their deposits

Depositors are screwed by government allowing FRB and making that standard. It is no longer on anyone's mind to understand what deposits are.

How many people know what FRB is?

How many people know that deposit accounts are investments?

I want my deposits to be zero risk. They don;t make any money anyway. They should be safe.

It's not zero risk

abbreviating the federal reserve board doesnt make it more spooky ya know

The Federal Reserve Board. Yes, I know what that it.

fractional reserve banking

not federal reserve board

The only way your deposits are going to be zero risk is if you have a bank that doesn't do loaning.

and that is how a bank makes its money.

Fractional Reserve Banking - the idea that banks don't have to just sit on deposits?

And if there was such a bank they would likely charge higher fees

Or provide no intrest whatsoever

No, that's not what fractional reserve banking is.

That is where the government plays a legitimate role

Well, I myself would be fine with dealing with a yearly subscription for a bank if they don't do loans.

I wish loan companies and banks were seperate.

Fractional reserve banking is a banking system in which only a fraction of bank deposits are backed by actual cash on hand and are available for withdrawal.

Providing a safety net of last resort for the price of regulating banks to prevent the need for taxpayers to pay out.

At least thats what Investopedia says

That's what I learned in school, @Blackhawk342

Admittedly, 30 years ago

Yes, which means that money is pyramid on itself.

And why bank runs are 1) possible and 2) so dangerous to those who participate in the system.

You deposit $10. A 10% ratio means they lend out $9 and keep $1.

Meaning there appears to be $19 in the market now but really only $10.

In the 1800's you had lots of competition in banking and note issuance which kept ratios in check.

After the Federal Reserve came about they monopolized that value.

FDR technically announced that the US was bankrupt and broke the law by refusing to redeem notes for money (gold,silver). Which was a way to keep banks in line with regard to their reserves.

Will Article 13 impact Tims videoes?

i personly dont think it does but i might be wrong ... does someone know more about Article 13 for EU that was passed recently

people of the world

do you think there will come a day when Discord will be censored too?

It is only a mater of time

it already is

The purpose of copyright law has always been government control of information.

I didn't sign up for these yellow/black pills

ARticle 11 and 13 will impact Tim as he reads News Sites.
They are mainly designed to save the Mainstream Propaganda Apparatus, and the Idiot Politician want to try the "Google Tax" again, and fail again.

What we really need in Europe is a boycott of Mainstream Media who lobbied for this crap.

I alreadt boycott media. Business as usual

Regarding copyright :-)
https://lifehacker.com/these-1923-copyrighted-works-enter-the-public-domain-in-1825241296

yeah disney is going to shift to defending mickey with trademark instead of copyright, since trademark lives as long as the company

black & white mickey may enter the public domain, but anything resembling him from fantasia onward will be disney's forever without them needing to get copyright extended every few decades

temptation is the lack of self restraint rather than the existance of vice. potentiality is omnipresent, limitation is a set boundry. while one can exist in a state of ignorence to temptation and maintain a status quo, given that potentialitys are an omnipresent, any creature with the ability to imagine the nonexistant can find temptation. personal restraint and priorital discipline is a conscious effert, maintainence can only be maintained, another conscious effert by an entity able to choose its behavior in any given time

We are all driven and motivated by the nature of our being.

We all have the potential to experience the same
possible range of motives, drives, fears, emotions... exedra.

All humans have human limitations by definition.

Our will can not oppose our nature; our will can only change our nature.

Anyone can choose not to try addictive substances, but 95% of addicts are addicts for life.

Can you say that the addict has free will if there is a 95% probability that his brain will compel him to keep seeking a fix?

The addiction is a malformation of the brain's functionality incarnate.

The symptom is the sign of a physical existence of a type of impediment in the brain structure itself.

To fix the brain would cure the addiction, but by doing so you would change the very nature of that being's consciousness.

The notion of "personal restraint" and "discipline" begins to take on a new meaning.

"Conscious Effort" or "Will Power" come from the essence of what we are comprised of.

If you observe the ways that the macrocosm and the microcosm inevitably resemble one another;

no amount of conscious effort will resist your nature if you do not change your nature.

Ladies and Gentlemen, that is my dissertation in a nut shell...

Any philosophizers here?

our being is not souly a creation of our own, a mix of genetic possibility, contrasted by 1/3 to 1/5 of our lives being taught some shadow of the principles of those who came before us, and then tested by the reality that either begs the choice of us at any stage in our lives while also throwing to us circumstances of occurrence that we will be forced to have.

it is from this frame work we at any point in time have a will that can not oppose our nature but only change it, at various times in life with an idea of a person who is both who we are and what we would like to be, being the mold in which our will, which itself is a part of our nature may be exerted to change our forms into.

my proposition is that for one whom would look out on the world and see others who suffer a life of growing dysfunction due to the draw of a temptation of the world, to not target the temptation as the source of the problem for those whom are drawn to it but to instead target those drawn to it in an effort to fortify those whom you can against it.

propagation of the way of living that ultimately benefits those around you is the only effective method of repelling a lifestyle that detriments those around you.

Equality is a total lie and we must all accept personal accountability if we are going to progress as a civilization.
Once again, the Microscopic and the Macroscopic resemble each other.


"1/3 to 1/5 of our lives being taught some shadow of the principles of those who came before us"

You bring up a good topic, now suppose thousands of years of progress and wisdom were somehow subverted by political ideologues who are motivated by 200 year old writing that came from a drunkard.

Thousands of years of natural selection culling, sometimes, entire civilizations out the global population, only the belief systems that fulfilled an endless list of strict criteria could even have the potential of thriving.

Suppose all of that was replaced by the writings of some lone drunkard who thought all of those traditions were ludicrous.

What would happen to the society's progress when the cornerstone of the civilization's philosophy is yanked out from under it and forcefully replaced with inaccurate, absurd, notions of equality?

In what way are you equal to a Moron?

oof, you guys and your big boy words. I want to jump in on this but my eyes are glazing over. anyone have a tl;dr?

@Wulfolme Disney is one of the companies who have completely fucked our copyright system to defend the mouse.

I'm sure they had the support of the music industry too.

That's why I support the shift to trademark, which is the only explanation I can think of for why we haven't seen a new extension act start to happen.

Disney probably has too many enemies now to push for extension. Or didn't manage to pay enough favorable judges in.

As a musician who has to pay royalties for a dude who wrote his music in the 1800S(!!!) I'm so glad it's not extending again

Lol

But really, tho. Richard Strauss wrote his horn concerti in the 1880-1890s and I still can't download a version of it to perform for myself because he died in the 20s and his music has now been copyrighted for over 100 years

Copyrighted material should not last longer than 10 years after the lifetime of the Creator. Public domain is the best source for creativity in all of entertainment and production

Tim gets pulled on the Trump Train, one millimeter each day.

the trump train, or the right train? cuz they're very different

its more that tim is just tired of crazy people and dishonest people

honestly, though.

i think what i mostly hate about sans from undertale is his horrible taste in pants

wtf is he slav or something get some real pants

are you criticizing slav culture AND sans undertool!?

heathen, to the 8-bit gulag for you

dude he has great pants

and if he is a slav then that is great for him

... sans blyatman memes when?

So, should comedy be a "safe space" from political correctness?

Historically it has been the satirists and comedians who challenged autocracy. The niche for free speech in a censored world.

Anyone here actually study Shakespeare? Or do they even teach him in school anymore?

The LGBT movement was normalized through comedy.

Now they're trying to close the door. :-(

Race is funny. Trans is hilarious. Gay is goofy. Age - what, I can't joke to kids to "get off my internet/lawn" anymore?

I don't think gen z is conservative so much as they want thier fun back. To quote a band back in my day and age, "you gotta fight...for your right...to paaaaartyyyyy" :-)

Fight on, kids 🤙

```So, should comedy be a "safe space" from political correctness?```
No. Because that implies letting PC culture run everything else.

Comedy should always be free to say whatever it wants. And anyone can be a comedian.

if you don't like what someone says, stop listening/watching. You have the right to control YOUR intake.

NOT the intake of others.

So you are saying that it's wrong to limit the voice of people who want to commit mass genocide

At what point is the line drawn?

Like let's say for example, a guy is walking down the street yelling bomb threats at every store.

Do we just not listen or do we take him down?

No one likes what he is saying, but we cant limit in the intake, even though what he is saying threatens violence.

At what point is speech more than speech, when they are holding the gun, or when they say the next time they will be.

You get my drift? Freedom of speech is limited, we gotta draw the line at an agreeable position. You cant threaten me, I cant threaten you.

Pretty agreeable to me

It's kinda like that thing where it's not protected speech to yell fire in a crowded theater.

The reason being, you are lieing to cause a panic.

Well if your telling the truth its okay

but there will always be someone who belives you are saying the truth and somone who doesnt so i dont think the Free speech should be regulated it should be Free as its name implies and is your choice to believe the person and make preparations about possible outcomes because you cant protect yourself from words but can protect yourseflves from actions

we already HAVE laws punishing incitement to violence

yes, speech should be free.

at the same time, we need to teach people not to believe anything they hear.

or read, in the case of the internet.

And what about Mainstream Media?
Like the lies about the AfD, Trump and all other regime critic?

first of all, that would be mitigated by people not believing everything they read/hear. Second of all... don't we have a law stating satire doesn't class as satire if it's not explicitly stated to be so?

If they lie they should have the right to, and then be sued for defamation if they don't retract blatantly false statements. And the court of public opinion should also work against them.

IDK if that's viable though...

I wasn't talking about Satire. I was talking about them beeing serious.

and lying about violence and claiming that it was right wing radicals burning shit.
When in reality it was left wing radicals.

so no, your idea is bullshit because you miss 2/3 of the Problem. Because the Legacy Media is the main problem right now, less the shit of the Internet. Most people realize that it ain't true.

but the old pensioner still believe the lies on TV and in the Papers.

Which idea is bullshit, Stefan?

```at the same time, we need to teach people not to believe anything they hear.
or read, in the case of the internet.````
The last part of that.
Its not limited to the Internet, that's bullshit.

Agree

People should always scrutinize data before they make it information.

That's science.

oh that thing leftists have rejected for years now?

yeah, they've replaced it with a true upgrade: feelings and hearsay

Don't forget Taboo and religious dogma.

leftists use religious dogma? I suppose... that'd be the only religious stuff they'd use XD

@GoldenPhoenix they have their own religion

religion of political correctnes

you know how fanatics of religions cant make good jokes or cant take a jokes it is basicaly church of political corectness call the modern “Left”

I can see that. I have a personal aversion to citing religious dogma and such for reasoning, because that's not all that religion is. Religion is important and healthy to society (conceptually, not always in practice), but it should be used together with rigorous logic and science, rather than in place of it during decision making.

you even have religion of science (thats where mad scientists are created)

everything

takem to extremes

is bad

Yes. Moderation is the key. We can discuss all day how much government or economic policy or religion or science we should use, and there's a lot of nuance, but we can at least mostly agree that the all-or-nothing mentality is bad

should "free speech" extend to private forums (private as in created by individuals for express purposes)? discuss

Not by law, but the people who are building those platforms should 100% be applying it to their forums. If you don't keep the principles in habit in your private life you aren't going to be voting for people who do.

Is nudism the ultimate expression of freedom of speech?

That depends

Are you a hot lady? If not then no.

Lmao

Hey, I make no apologies for what I want. A Hot lady naked is useful to me..a fat bald guy naked? Not so much.

Why does it matter about what you see. Wouldn’t it matter more how comfortable you are? Or, is the idea of the government prosecuting people for not wearing what the government wants them too preferable?

i don't think being naked in public is a federal law, idk about most states. but if it was a local law, thats where you get into a bit a conundrum. Can a community enforce its own standards for those those who wish to join it?

You're basically asking if a community can govern.

The answer is, of course.

Naturally, but should they hold this opinion? Is it well informed? Obviously I am not arguing that people shouldn’t be allowed to hold such ideas, I am merely asking if such ideas are based on an accurate rendition of reality

If the opinion that...people should be clothed, is well informed?

I have no idea, because I don't know what their reasoning is. The opinion is accurate, and can be well informed.

This is especially important as companies first censor because nudity=porn in the public consciousness (even though it clearly doesn’t) before they censor political opinion. They do so under the justification that it is just part of what the people want (safety from offense).

Should your local government have the right to enforce a dress code?

Under current legal code, I think that right would be left to the state.

But states are free to delegate to local authority on the matter.

I see no reason why states or local governments do not have the right to enforce dress codes.

Ah, but then expression through dress could be considered speech.

Damnable freedoms.

Lol

well you can also see it in reaction how that comunity that you are in reacted to you so in extreme cases you might as well say that with that decision u ruined yout life 😅

Eh, I don’t care what others feel about me. I think it is dumb for people to be in a state of panic for simple nudity

I think giving the state the power to regulate clothing is a mistake. In Michigan it is hypothetically possible to be put on the sex offenders list for peeing on a tree on the road

What about around minors? I think the state has a vested interest in protecting children.

As a parent I want nudity, at least of the groin area, to be limited to areas restricted to children.

Nudist families are a thing, and there exists many nudist resorts that are family friendly

Cat demands the closure of locker rooms.

children who grow up in nudist environments are less likely to be sexually assaulted and abused, and have an easier time reporting it if it happens.

Fair enough.

I guess there's a time and a place.

you want to teach your kids to video nudity as a sexual thing?

God no

we are borne naked and used to live naked. Seeing someone naked and linking that to sex is a learned behavior

Some girl started sexting my son. Fortunately he brought us into it immediately and we kaiboshed it.

how old is he?

How old is she?

And we let the kids drink with us during dinner to keep alcohol from being mysterious

He was 16. She was something like 13.

Yeah, that screams "I NEED AN ADULT! I NEED AN ADULT!"

Yup.

He's got a good head on his shoulders.

and she might need a police investigation as well

She's Canadian. In any case we stored all the logs and told her no more. I honestly think she thought it was funny and was kinda shocked when we went nuclear over it.

she was 13? tf? i know females mature faster but damn

was his reaction "is this even legal?"