No.
It is just really stupid that “Marx” or “Socialism” equals basically anything that one side doesn’t like.
It sucks all meaning out of the words.
If you want to invoke Marx… then do it.
He wouldn’t be concerned with bank fees. He would abolish the banks.
I described exactly the methodology and philosophy of Marxism . . . not its final ultimate end goal.
Me: “The Steelers would run the ball here.”
You: “You don’t understand the Steelers. They are about winning Superbowls and making money for the franchise owner. If you don’t focua 100% of your statement around that then you don’t understand football.”
Not a single thing I have said was incorrect and you know it.
Marx wanted to replace Capitalism with Communism.
Regulation of bank fees isn’t anywhere on that road.
I get this feeling that there are those that believe that anything that isn’t absolutely pure Lassez-Faire Capitalism is just Socialist.
It’s really dumb.
Who would demonize free enterprise (and choice within it?)
A.) George Washington and Adam Smith
or
B) Karl Marx, King George and Joe Biden
.
.
“Duh . . . (drool slurp) Karl Marx wouldn’t demonize capitalism, He would try to set up communism. You don’t understand Marx at all he was never about demonizing free enterprise”
Who would, sidestep Congress, tell the people what to think (instead of listening to them) and declare one and only one type of business practice legal
A.) George Washington and Adam Smith
or
B) Karl Marx, King George and Joe Biden
.
.
.
“Snort, snicker swallow. Karl Marx wanted to set up a whole new system. The fact that he would do exactly precisely what you are saying means you don’t understand he wanted to set up a whole new system.”
We’re done here.
Biden isn’t a Marxist.
He is a center left neoliberal third way kind of guy.
Consumer protection regulations are not Marxist. Even Adam Smith wrote about regulating banks.
That is why the whole thing is silly.
Yes and George Patton is not Julius Ceasar but it is perfectly valid to note when they use the same tactic the same thinking, the same methoids etc.
You really are being obtuse.
Can’t defend your political beliefs.
Can’t defend your guy.
Result to childish antics. . . . Wow.
Sure I can. But this thread isn’t about political beliefs. It is about definitions. Defining anything that isn’t pure Lassez-Faire Capitalism as Marxist is just stupid.
Biden is probably going to lose. Wouldn’t be surprised if he takes down the legislature with him.
So…
Being Childish is screaming Marxism at literally everything.
I am not screaming.
I am calmly pointing out the obvious sameness between
Pretending you don’t see the obvious is not a mark of intelligence.
As I have said many times on this forum I liked libs better back when they pretended to be smart. Them always pretending to be stupid has gotten tedious, (and it’s not a very good basis for them to convince people to adopt their policies.)
What’s wrong with bashing corporations? Especially ones like Chase Bank that engages in millions of dollars of wage theft of it’s employees, has been hit in almost a billion in fines for market manipulation, paid nearly half a billion in fines for mortgage fraud has extractive fees on it’s customers that adds zero value and makes Billions in profit because of all of that? What is wrong with bashing them?
Is it Marxist to do so?
It’s called regulation. How can regulation be done if it isn’t applied evenly? Should there be a separate regulatory framework based on the bank?
The complaint makes zero sense.
What is obvious is that the words “Socialism” and “Marxism” have zero meaning now. It simply means something that I probably don’t like.
If one wants to cheer on banks being able to charge whatever fee that they want… then make that argument. I think that it is a dumb argument and is not in the consumers interest… but make that argument.
Pointing and saying “Socialism” when it is simple regulation is just plain dumb.
No, a company’s reaction to legislation is not socialism. This is a stretch even for you.
Ruh Roh. Looks like I might have been right.
US Banks reporting losses due to surge in delinquencies.
Getting rid of those ‘junk fees’ didn’t help after all.
So you don’t think raising banking fees on people who live within their means to subsidize losses incurred by those who live beyond their means isn’t a form of ‘from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs’?
Head scratcher.
I’m not seeing anything in that article about any impact of the fees?
Those fee caps were never enacted, and if they do, it wouldn’t go into effect until next year.
No, I don’t think that. It’s a restriction on actions that the bank may take with respect to other people, not a mandate to subsidize them. And even if it were the latter, that still wouldn’t be socialism.
That’s all laws. Are laws against murder now socialism, too?
Is murder a business model?
It is for contract killers. Anything can be a business model.
