Move over "Dems r da reel rayciss", Cuckservatives have a new meme

A (((Goldstein))) concern trolling. Nothing new here. Is this really worth a thread? /s

Why should we care?

And here is why they've been trying to meme the alt-right into a thing.

youtube.com/watch?v=BrrRvHTfwgg

Oh yea. We are totally Leftists…

LAMPSHADES THIS TIME.

Repost w/ embed

"racist" aka race realists is bad! faggotry is a founding pillar of the west! we're the defender of faggots, muds are bad because they want to hurt faggots! leftist are the evil racists!

0/10

They really can't help themselves can they?

This. Also his babbling about America being a nation of "naturalization and assimilation" (aka civic nationalism).

Fucking cancer.

In other words, unlike Conservatism™ it is actually capable of challenging those things and unapologetic in doing so.

Something which is against everything the left stands for, is leftism!!!

Oy Vey, what a logic!!

Why care about labels? Just keep doing what' you're doing

oy vey goyim look at that delicious goy skin you have… you have s-so much in common with my other goyim you should come play with them in my basement

and if you talk to a leftist jew he's going to say racial identity is extremerightwingism.

…but only if you're white.

The "movement conservative" Trotskyist cabal are calling US "leftists"? HA!

this kind of shit pisses me off hard. especially cuckboys like glenn beck who harp on about "muh founding fathers".

this is what those founding founders thought of your shitty civic nationalism:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

But they are.

Lucky we're REAL RIGHT.

Jewish ideologies, whether left or right, are all materialistic and economically centered. What else could you expect from a race of moneylenders and usurers?

You are not fooling anyone, comrade.

Liberalism is the ultimate kike political position . It combines economic right (kikery and parasitism) with social left (social decay and degeneracy)

Neocohens are trying to mend this by applying "moderate" right social policies to the economical right.

"Leftists" are trying to mend this by applying "moderate" left economic policies to the social left

The anti-thesis of Liberalism is National-Socialism, the third position. And this is what they are trying to avoid at all costs. They must keep goyim materialistic and short-sighted, and divided into interest groups constantly fighting each other, so they can manipulate both.

Not buying your false dichotomy, Shlomo.

they're essentially guard dogs except instead of keeping people out they keep them in.

lol Jews trying to play the redefine game again and again. people can see through your tricks (((Goldstein))) they're old and tired.

the left and the right are both fueled by contrarianism nowadays

Not to mention they were the guys concerned about how many Germans were coming into the country since it could change the culture

Really, because pre-clinton spergout, I had the impression that alt-right encompassed every right wing ideology that does not have mainstream representation (which makes it debatable whether BUILD WALL qualifies anymore, especially if he wins).

Or "muh party of Lincoln". The same media kikes that get pissed off when Trump calls them out on their bullshit are actually idolizing a president that issued an executive order for the arrest and imprisonment of critical newspaper editors.

Nigger, how new are you? Being anti-usury goes hand-in-hand with counter-semitism.

I guess this will be the part where you claim to be some ancap old fag, but if you were anything but a new fag transplant from reddit or cuckchan who came here because you like Milo, you wouldn't expect to come here and defend a cornerstone of Jewry without being called out on it.

When did they start killing cops?

DELET DIS

Remember goy, the only thing that matters is your tax rate :^^^)

We need lower taxes to stimulate the job creators, also, minimum wage and paid vacation are communism!

No, no. We need lower taxes to help the MAKERS, goy. Mass immigration because it's THE AMERICAN DREAM, don't you know. And the minimum wage only makes less jobs!

We've gotta get this economy going, goy! Open your doors and your checkbooks and get spending!!

Actually we need to give tax money to the job creators and large banks because the society couldn't survive without them. Also benefits, and subventions. And asking to get paid in the first place is communism because you should be thankful for the opportunity to be a productive member of society. The very concept of salary is Marxist and godless.

And all those poor immigrants are here because we are very, very philanthropic and are giving them an opportunity to work (for less, and in worse conditions), or vote for our parties while self-helping themselves on your tax money.

HIDE ALL ALT RIGHT THREADS

IGNORE ALL ALT RIGHT POSTS

DO NOT REPLY TO ALT RIGHT POSTERS

we haven't had a good strike in forever because all these damn beaners work for 2 burritos and a corona. we have to get these spics out.

But that is free market, supply and demand. Why do you hate freedom, are you some kind of communist?

I think it's funny how the freech D&C fags out themselves as actually being Jews by using terms only a Jew has ever fucking heard of.

WHAT THE FUCK IS CHAIM?
WHAT KIND OF COMPLETE FUCKING RETARD SAYS 'NEO-COHEN'?
WHY ARE YOU SO UNBELIEVABLY INCABLE OF FORMING A WORKABLE MEME OR ANYTHING REMOTELY FUNNY? IS IT BECAUSE YOU'RE FROM SOMETHING AWFUL YOU FUCKING FAGGOTS? YOU'RE THE SAME GENIUSES THAT CAME UP WITH 'EL RATO' AREN'T YOU YOU STUPID SHITBAGS?

I'm not even mad, just disgusted with your patheticness.

The Alt-Right aren't conservative, they're leftists who were so narcissistic even the left wouldn't have you. You're SJWs who just don't hate white people, that's the only real difference between you and the left proper. You don't care about any conservative issue. That a single one of you could argue in favor of abortion on the basis that you're fine with millions of white babies being chopped up in the womb so long as a higher number of black babies are also being chopped demonstrates you're not conservative, you're just fucking edgelords.

I can hate political correctness, vote for Trump, fight for freedom of speech, promote pride in the white identity and make off-color jokes without having to associate with narcissist sociopath nobodies who wish to be ruled over by fags.

Banking is one the most important sectors in any economy. It ensures that up and coming businesses are properly funded by lending money at interest ("usury" ).
It is the mechanism by which businesses expand faster than their revenue stream, which allows them to get ahead of the curve and meet consumer demand that otherwise they would not be able to meet.
Anyone and i mean anyone who argues that a business (and banking is a business) should operate for free is either an idiot, a marxist or most likely both.

Do you also support non-backed fiat money because it's good for expanding business :>)

+$0.05

Or you could do things the way they used to be done, where if a business succeeds, an agreed-upon amount goes to the bank, but if it fails, it gets nothing, similar to the old Lombard Banking Houses. It would make banks look much harder at who gets a loan and make them partially-liable in who they invest in. As it is, the current system has zero liability for the bank. If the business succeeds or fails, the owner is always on the hook for the loan and the bank wins. There should be a penalty for financial institutions investing in bad businesses or deals, and right now, there isn't. They can pass the liability onto the debtor or society at large, (with bailouts).

archive.is/UaO0w

No one is arguing for infinite growth or fiat money here.
If your real stance is 'banking is always bad, defending banking is always bad' then you're an idiot.

Yes, but giving banks more penalties also reduces people's access to credit.
There's no free lunch

The point i want to make is that in a open market anyone is free to lend money at any interest rate.
As an anti-usery crusader you could even pay people to take your money. Pay them 20% annualy for the privilege of borrowing money from you. If sounds like a sensible business plan to you, then consider me your first customer. If you want to lend me your money for free, then i'd also be happy to be your first customer, because most people couldn't afford to hand out risky loans for free.
I haven't said a word about "infinite growith" (another leftist buzzword) or fiat money, both of which are separate issues.

Is anyone else really REALLY happy that the neocohens have basically been purged from the Republican party?

Even if we lose the election we'll still take over the party like the Goldwater guys took it over from the Rockefeller republicans in the 60's.

This hasn’t even remotely happened.

Chaim i think you would feel at home with the others who defend (((free markets))) in this board >>>/liberty/

You say that like it's a bad thing. The housing crisis was caused by banks loaning willy-nilly to people who should NOT have gotten loans. Similar things happen with businesses.

If the bank knew that if the person defaulted, they get nothing, period, full-stop, then they would be a little more careful about who they loaned to. Not just anyone could get a loan.

Sure, you'd have people who are high-risk that no bank would touch,and that's kinda the point, these people are toxic and a bad investment, but as the article says, you still had heebs loaning money at insane interest rates, so that was always an option.

It was a serious question, gentlemen from Jerusalem, why the fuck do you say that dumb shit? What the fuck is "chaim"? Why do you say "neocohen"? Is cohen a Jewish name?

I'm asking you seriously, because I'm sure you guys are up on what every Jewish word means, since you're clearly fucking Jews, so please explain all these mystery Jew words us "simple goyim" aren't familiar with, because for future reference, NO ONE FUCKING TALKS LIKE THAT YOU AUTISTIC PIECE OF SHIT.

Lurk more and stop being so autistic, this is not cuckchan

They do this every day in every one of their journalistic fabrications that touches on the alt-right. They are trying to meme the alt-right into something they can grasp, and then deal with or otherwise subvert.

But the alt-right can't be defined by Jews, not without being destroyed.

Are you suggesting spending more time on Holla Forums will get me better acquainted with Jew culture?

Are you even aware of what you're saying about this board?

In all seriousness, most probably.

Names are power.

Name something and you can control it.

It's like know the true name of a daemon gives you power of it.

Go to bed, Mordecai.

I am not opposed to that, but that would still be "usury", because the bank is getting money for making money.

If a bank wants to bet on whether or not a business succeeds, they can do that, but if the business is not on the hook, there would be fewer bets and fewer loans would be made.
As soon as a business says, "Listen, don't worry. If something goes wrong, we'll sell inventory and machinery and pay you first" the loans start flowing again, and you are back to a traditional banking operation.
There are two parties involved; Banks & Businesses who are looking for credit.
Businesses like low interest loans in exchange for putting up collateral. For the businesses it's an easy way to get cheap money and for the banks it's a safer way of getting money. Don't pretend that we have no bankruptcy laws in this country. If a business goes bankrupt the banks or any other lender for that matter may very well get nothing. It's a risky business that deserves compensation.

Kikes out

Kek. I don't think you understand what conservatism is, because anti-abortion is a Christian thing, not a conservative thing.

So I immediately know from what angle your coming from.

It's not our fault that you can't be assed to learn our lingo.

Lurk for 2 years before posting again you fucking faggot.

Actually that would be a logical extension of your argument. If you defend banking in the context of "expanding business" and meeting the consumer demand (consumerism), the next logical step is to defend fiat money and infinite growth.

"Leftism" is a buzzword neocohens use to label anything challenging their parasitical economical policies. And "infinite growth" is an actual economical policy.

Your line of thinking is that of a petty merchant and an opportunist. How about saving money to start a business instead of taking loans?

But i am not advocating against banking, i'm actually for nationalization of central and major banks, with smaller ones being heavily regulated.

Kek.

Do you have an argument that goes beyond name-calling and reddit invocation?

To be fair if Lincoln had lived he would have deported ALL the niggers and we wouldn't be in this situation today. I'd say that the idea of a united nigger free America was worth fighting for.

Lincoln did nothing wrong.

Also like 3/5 of the conspirators in the assassination where Jewish.

I'm an atheist, eat shit. You know nothing as you've clearly demonstrated. That's you're even trying to argue that being against abortion isn't conservative demonstrates exactly what angle YOU are coming from. You're not going to subvert the conservative movement because the alt-right is inherently shit. Milo embracing the alt-right is a big part of why he stopped being a huge e-celeb. Yours are the politics of garbage. Memes aren't fucking policy. "I want to watch the world burn" isn't something people fucking vote for.

You're pretty much just admitting what you are at this point.

I've been posting on Holla Forums since I was back on halfchan before the GG exodus. I come to this board pretty much daily. The "chaim" "neocohen" shit reeks of a very specific, tiny segment of this board. It's clear all the overtly hateful "HURRAY FOR THE DEATH OF CONSERVATISM!" faggots are the ones spewing it. You suck, you say the exact same shit over and over. You're the people who say you want Trump BECAUSE you think he'll destroy the country.

Not exactly, the bank is getting a return on it's RISK.

In the example given in the article, if the merchant ships fail to return from the voyage, the merchant captain AND the banks lose. Everyone loses if there is a failure. If the ships return, the banks recoup their investment, plus the agreed upon amount and everyone wins. In usury, if the business fails, the owner is still liable for the loan. So the banks win if the business succeeds and they also win if it fails, so they don't give a fuck. They loan to anyone, even bad debtors, and when the inevitable happens, they walk away whistling.

Got about 8-900 so far, and growing every day.

Here, have a redpill.

except that, at least in europe, we are the majority AND our ancestors lived in our lands for centuries.

totally the mirror image of bugango and 'mbagongo wanting their piece or gibs, right?

No, because there are other problems with fiat money which we also acknowledge.
Are you dead set against expanding business and meeting consumer demand?
Then you must be for fiat money aren't you?
No, are neither are we

One of the rulers in the board is to stay on topic and not derail the thread. this is not a thread about economics,free markets, interests, bonds or any economical or socioeconomical discussion. If you want to talk about any of this topics you can create the thread.

I am all for that, but that's not the issue here. The issue is whether or not banks are justifies in charging interest.

A business that saves up and uses their profits to fund investments can expand only very slowly, which is okay some types of businesses, but for many it isn't. Popular sectors of the economy need additional funding, because the demand is so high that businesses can't afford to hire people and buy machinery to keep up with the demand. The only way to fully fund popular companies is by lending them money so that they can expand more quickly. Think cellphones, computers in the 90s, automobiles in the early 20th century. There's so much demand that if businesses were not allowed to take out loans, there'd by a line of angry customers waiting for their products.

But still everybody would want to make loans like that so the interest rate would be close to zero.
There should also be loans which actually cost interest, but only if they're successful
Why not have freedom?

>>>/liberty/
>>>/oven/

Your choice

Fuck off newfag, if you want to be here respect the existing culture.

...

The people who complain about usury are not putting their money on the line to fund a business that may or may not succeed. I want to know "who are these people who'd make "usury"-free loans?" I've never met any.

Go away lolberg scum

Sustainable growth is the key. Banks usually lend much more money than they can pay out, so they are essentially making profit on the money that doesn't even exist. This is usury as well.

Risk calculation that modern banks do is entirely provisional, and highly incorrect. They heavily overestimate the risk so they could charge higher interest rates. To the point that the portion of an interest rate that's dedicated to profit is way smaller than the profit portion of the "risk" portion.

Of course, the actual risky business gets low rates because of market pressures. They overcharge safe businesses and literally gamble with the risky ones.

And every company meeting the economic demand must be a monopolist or what? If they don't have money for expansion, other companies do.

So appealing to the childish consumerist degenerates is your primary concern? Consumerism is Jewish cancer.

Hershel you're not even trying.

But it's not "interest" as is commonly used today.

If I get a loan from your bank for $5000 for my business, (to pick a number), and the deal works out, you want your initial $5000 back, along with an additional $5000, giving you a 100% return on investment. You came to this figure based on the risk profile, the projected profit from the venture and other factors. I agree to this, since I am also putting up $5000 of my own money, and I will also get $5000 profit. Everyone wins.

But if the venture fails, I am out my initial $5000, and so are you. No repayment, no interest. This makes me a risk in the future, so I as a businessman make DAMN sure I REALLY need the loan and my plan is pretty damn solid. Things happen, but that is risk. As a lender, if I think a guy can't pay me back, I won't lend to him, period.

As as the article said, there WERE lenders, heebs, who loaned with "traditional" interest, but they charged around 50%, so only retards or people who were shitty debtors went to them.

Freedom.

Now, this has been fucked up by laws in the 1970s and later in the 1990s, who FORCED lenders to loan to people who are high-risk, niggers, spics and trashy whites, and shit like credit score, history and income mean little in the equation to determine if someone should loan to them. Liberal government fucked up again. Freedom, indeed.

The risk and time component is already baked into the interest rate.
If a business is risky the interest rate is higher and if a business is relatively safe the interest rate is low.
When the business goes bust both parties lose. The businessman goes bankrupt and the banker loses his loan, but in many cases the bankers loses more, because he's pumping more money into the business than it is worth.

But as the business owner, you're still on the hook for the loan, even if you fail.

That's because you're Jewish.

While traveling through a well-known third world country, I explained to my taxi driver that the countryside appeared like a shithole, like a never-ending city dump. As he tossed another piece of trash out the window, he allowed as how all countries, and everywhere where people live, must be trashy. I said, no, it's not like that. He was stunned. I think he couldn't even imagine what personal responsibility for country's cleanliness was like.

I guess i'm Jewish for calling you a Kike.

Fuck off Kike.

Eat shit Goldstein

SuperlativeKek, keep those knee-slappers coming

Let's say people didn't want iphones (which they did) and instead wanted a generic smartphone.
There was still more demand than the market was able to meet. Where would the capital for the new companies come from? Where would the capital for apple's competitors come from? When you have more demand than a sector is able to handle, the only way to properly fund it is by diverting resources to it from other sectors, which is what banking does. It allows important sectors of the economy to outbid unimportant sectors for resources with borrowed money. Banking is crucial in this regard.

We understand there are loans which you might have to pay back even if you fail.
But if that's the case, a lot of people will want to give out money and earn interest since they're sure they'll get it back.
The result is that the interest rate is low.

Now imagine you decided you really didn't want to be on the hook for debt if your business failed. You make it clear to prospective loaners of money. They are now less willing to loan you money, so you have to pay them a higher interest rate (provided you're successful)

There's personal bankruptcy and if the business owner created a corporation, the corporation goes bust and his personal wealth remains untouched. Not saying that is just, but there are protections for entrepreners and creditors.

this really is the worst thing about subhumans.

You are being intelectualy dishonest because you know real demand is way easy to manipulate, monopolies and companies invest millions in marketing in order to create and manipulate numbers without generating any real wealth to the nation.

Not only the shareholders are indifferent to the quality of the goods produced to the nation by the company in which he invest, all markets already diverted production from its legimitate task of fulfilling real needs to that of stirring up though Marketing thecniques artifical needs among the public that will bring in greater profits.

But to get that loan, in many cases, the business owner has to put up collateral; sometimes a real part of the business, like property or assets. If he defaults, he loses those assets, and now cannot create ANY wealth. How does that help the economy as a whole?

In the Lombard system, money is lost, but the businessman retains his ability to generate more wealth and try again. Seems more logical to allow for happenings or mistakes, with the ability to recover. If too many mistakes are made, or too big of a single mistake, then obviously the business will go tits-up, but the current system where a single mistake or happening will torpedo a businessman's livelihood and usually permanently cripple his ability to make future earnings is a fucked system.

Yes but to the extent he's better off under that system the businessman will also pay more interest for the loan

You can issue stocks to many small investors, create a joint venture among many smaller companies, or, oy vey!, this is worse than the shoah, get sponsored by the government investment banks. (Provided that the government is legit and not some kike bureaucratic monstrosity)

There are countless ways to pool money without usury. The key point is that people, ordinary people (unlike the economically chosen of today) would have surplus income in the first place, which is rarely the case in jewish-owned economies.

Right, but he should lose those assets. Why should an inefficient, perhaps even incompetent businessman be left in charge of a business that he ran into the ground?

The business doesn't disappear completely, it simply changes hands or it merges with a nother business and the facilities and machinery is sold, so it's not lost. The machines don't explode or turn into dust once a business goes bankrupt.

We're killing and celebrating the death of conservatism because you fucks have conserved nothing.

No we don't want to conserve shit anymore, we want to take back our birthright that was stole from us. We're gonna take back what we lost.

How do you figure? Because he has to pay back a set amount if the deal works? That's not as nefarious as usury, in which the interest paid back is often orders of magnitude bigger than the loan. With 30-year mortgages, a $200,000 home at Prime, which is low as it gets, ends up costing what, like over $400,000 when you factor in the interest? Something is fucky with a system like that.

Let's hear them. I say there are no people who'd lend money to strangers for free None.
And if people don't lend money for free, then there's a business opportunity for people who would lend money for less than their competitors and the banking sector (+ usury) is born.

Kikes are over-represented in the real estate business as well. They are artificially pumping the real estate and rent prices up, and use their kike mafia connections to buy all the best locations and control the prices.

And that goes hand in hand with banking.

You quoted the wrong post Moishe, and i have clearly stated some examples in mine.

Nonsense.

It's a mirror image of jewish identity organisations and movements.

Remember what Goebbels said, we learned from the jew.

Will this kike call out his own kind?

Because it's not always all-or-nothing. An otherwise successful business could be trying to expand or dip toes into a new market or whatever. If they have to leverage at least part of, or the even the entireexisting business against the expansion, then if it fails, the whole thing potentially goes under, but under the Lombard system, the business can at least "regroup" back to where it started and try again, or at least keep on plugging away as it always was.

It would potentially mean slower expansion and growth, as risks would be calculated more harshly, but the "safety net" would be bigger, and the gains would be in real growth, real wealth and real products. Not speculation and moving numbers around on paper. Besides, what's wrong with an economic system that is at a healthy equilibrium with sustainable, steady growth? Why the "need" for constant expansion and growth at cancer-cell rates?

You must live in a diverse, low-trust society.

You said that businesses can form joint ventures, which does not actually increase the amount of resources in the business sector. If there are two phone companies with a combined net value of $2B it doesn't help them at all if they join forces to meet consumer demand for $200B worth of products.
They need capital, they need investment and they need competition. Give me an example how they'd get $200B for free without "usury".

How much are going to lend me and where can i pick up the money?
I need $1.5M, but $100k is enough for starters.

of course not
We're nationalists and third positionists
Conservatism is dead ideology that shifts leftwards every 20 years and is populated by former leftists trying to defend the gains they made when they were younger

Exactly. There is no free lunch. If people are not compensated for giving up money and resources for a period of time, there won't be a viable banking sector and businesses would have to make due with their existing revenue stream, which would make quick moves in the economy and rapid investment impossible.

Yea, and I need about 30-40 billion to start mine. It would genuinely improve the world in sooooo many ways, but it won't get off the ground as long as the wisdom of such a social organization can't be recognized.

Most people in the alt-right excepting Jews, of course have recognized that diverse, low-trust societies cannot sustain a modern Western civilization. It's time to build-up boundaries, not tear them down.

You have a large chip manufacturer company, a large case manufacturing company, a large microphone manufacturing company etc. They can't start producing phones individually, but they can make a joint contract to pool their current resources (or increase them within their capacity) to meet the new market demand. If their current capacity is not 100% utilized that is.

And what about stock issuing? As long as you have individuals with disposable income, you can pool money without usury. Of coruse, kikes want to make everyone equally poor so they are entirely dependent on banks for anything they want to do.

And what about government investment banks?

If we follow the consumerist approach, which belongs in the oven along with it's creators.

I trust you, but apparently you don't trust me, because you're not willing to lend me a pityful $100k. I'll pay you back! I promise! Just gimme a month or two!

How is rapid and uncapped growth really a GOOD thing though? It leads to labor-shortages, which are good, since they drive up wages, but then businessmen import shitskins or other immigrants to do the jobs.

What's wrong with a society that is pretty much at equilibrium in birth rates, the economy and other shit? Everyone has a role and a job and growth is organic and measured to work FOR the people and nation, not against them or their interests.

This is Holla Forums. I do not trust you.

I gotta run, but I'll be back.

Conservacucks think that any amount of likeability makes you a leftist

I hate to pull the dying children card, but what about the children, the poor dying children who need blood transfusions (or whatever), but can't get it because the hospitals can't afford to store blood properly. Anyway, my point is that there are technological developments that we all want to take advantage of, some are not that important, but others are extraordinarily important to us and these things need a special priority, which is why they must be fully funded. Personal computers, Cars. These were such amazing technological innovations that everyone wanted to have one. If we didn't have the investment and banking industry, it would've taken much longer for these technologies to spread. Do we really need cars? Are they really good thing? Ask the poor dying children who are rushed to the hospital on horseback.

growing overpop of certain ethnicities doesn't need to be enabled

if an ethnicity contained within its region cannot self-sustain, it would be criminally irresponsible of others to enable its continued growth

This applies to young and old alike.

I gave you a fictional scenario for a reason. You can't just alter the variables of my fictional scenario and call it a day.

If there are only two companies who have little to no money and no resources for investments, there is no way that they can service an avalanche of consumer requests.
How would underfunded companies deal with a massive increase in consumer demand?
They'd go to the evil "userer" get the money, pay him back the principle and interest with the profits and laugh all the way to the bank. Everyone wins with "usury"

Good stuff. Almost got your tripples too.

Jew, we are not all alike.

What economic system works for one group of people, when superimposed upon another leads to depression, suicide, and mass utter failure.

Each people oughta, by all that's right, be self-determining, not run by an insular group of Jewish oligarchs.

you know not whom you banter with

You keep ignoring my point about individuals having disposable income to micro-invest (or seriously invest) and keep shilling for the usurers to hold most of the capital that society has (because they are Gods chosen and all that), for no apparent reason other than to have complete control over society and eternally leech on it. You are presenting banking in it's most basic, crude, and simplified form, and ignoring all the problems that arise when it becomes more "complex" .

Healthy society has capital everywhere, it just needs to be pooled or redirected. Sick society has none, and must rely on usurers.

You haven't made the case that usury is evil and you haven't made the case for an alternative.

Saying that "usury" is jewish is not an argument.
I am not jewish, but i would not lend money to strangers for free and i couldn't lend money to friends for free, because there's a chance that they may lose the money.

Lincoln did everything wrong.
He made the USA corporation a thing.

I am all for micro-investments, but it's still "usury". small investments differ in size, but not in principle.

I agree, and it's the role of the banking sector to direct it into the areas where it is needed the most.

More than an ethnicity, religion, or statist tribalism, 'Jew' is a state mind.

Again, i agree, but it is not relevant to the question whether or not usury is acceptable.

Usury is acceptable for some groups of people, but not for others.

Economic systems are not universal.

I've tried to combat the whole 'right-wing sjw' thing, but no one who says that is interested in the truth so it never goes anywhere

this
interest is central to economics, but the neetest of the neetsocs see nothing but jews and central banks fucking shit up and decide that the only answer is more government control

I visit a liberal forum and yes this seems to be the case. It just makes debating easier for them.

>Alt-right is ___

it's not a coincidence that you're not feeling welcomed and that everyone tells you to lurkmore.

a (((cohencidence))).

...

Vox Day is a pretty cool guy. I really enjoyed his interviews with Molyneux.

I hope he starts a regular podcast.

Actually neocohens use the biblethumpers to hand them power, but whatever

Make sure you to check out Vox's website.

voxday.blogspot.com/

this alt right shit is just another jew fuckery to mess with those who pose a threat to their satanic deeds. i never knew an alt-right and as far as i'm concerned people should stop posting bs regarding that agenda here. no alt right here, let's keep it that way. who cares what the kikes do, nobody.

It's the mechanism whereby we have a phony economy of one bubble after another, unsustainable debt, unsound currency, and fiscal and monetary policy based on wishful thinking and cults of personality.

It's almost like we shouldn't have a private banking sector that profits off of making the government and citizenry debt slaves but instead banking functions should be nationalized.

left or right?
I thought this was about Nationalism vs Globalism
checkmate nevertrump faggots

The banks only lend out virtual money backed by the deposits they hold, they don't lose, their depositors lose.

How do i create "unsustainable debt", "one bubble after another", and an "unsound currency" by taking out a loan?

Frivolous vanity businesses?

Why is banking different from any other business?

we da real racists
therightstuff.biz/2016/09/03/the-alt-right-are-the-real-racists/

...

Fractional reserve banking is one part, debt-based interest-bearing fiat currency issued by a private central bank is the other part. Having private banks magic up virtual money many times beyond the level of deposits they hold and dumping it into the economy by the trillions and placing all their risk on taxpayers and the public at large. That's how you create those things and much, much more!

Because banking subverts a government function vital to the national health and integrity (the creation of currency and the control of monetary policy and supply) and hands it over to non-national interests.

People don't have a right to make money off of gambling on business ventures but they do have a right to live in a society whose foundation isn't debt-slavery.

By people I of course mean white Gentiles only.

You're thinking of woodrow wilson

I don't disagree, but i was talking about "usury".
It's hardly the fault of the banks that congress has forced them to use the dollar or that the federal reserve is increasing the money supply.

The allocation of resources in society has - with the exception of communist countries and emergencies always been left in the private sector. You could take any industry and label it vital to the national health. We all need salt and water and clothes and food, so why are those industries not vital to the economy?

We are the Party of Lincoln.

What you call gambling is actually investing. The people who "gamble" in the investment world have long gone bankrupt. I have a right to take out a loan and it's none of your business how high it is or what the interest rate is. I am not a debt-slave when i voluntarily take out a loan.
I am however a slave if i have to obey you and your arbitrary financial decrees.

This is my new favorite song

They are not bankrupt because they can help themselves to our tax money whenever they want. And they would never be able to do that, if the capital didn't concentrate in the hand of few (((groups))). Which you are essentially promoting here.

The number of banks alone that has gone bankrupt since ww2 must be in the tens of thousands.
The amount of private investors who have gone bankrupt must be in the hundreds of thousands.
The bailouts, which you are probably refering to were made available to a handful of politically connected banks, not the banking sector as a whole. It's not to the benefit of banks nor their customers that congress is bailing out a few banks at the expense of all others.

Hahaha yeah goy, it's just a sheer (((coincidence))) that jew-owned banks are bailed out while goy-banks are doomed to being bought piecemeal in bankruptcy sales to the former!
Oh that's what you mean by (((politically connected)))? Ha!

Horseshoe theory is
NOT AN ARGUMENT

"VOX" and all vox shit has been propaganda for all time
theres videos you can find on youtube where they deny race exists and try to use THE EXACT SOURCES DISPROVING THEM and refer to them as proof race doesnt exist
jewish to the core

Vox Day has nothing to do with the website vox.com