No System of Government Works (by itself)
-
Simon_Whale wrote:
Inflation affects the price of goods, the price of goods get higher with inflation (which is controlled by demand!). without having some form of wage / employement regulations you risk people not being able to afford the basic's of life!
So do alot of other things. Inflation not only pushes the price of goods and service up, but it also pushes wages up. Regardless of the cause of the inflation, prices and wages rise naturally without laws forcing them to. On the other hand their is deflation, why should people have to wait for the government to lower minimum wage so that they may find a job in a deflationary economy? That is not freedom, that is USSR style authoritarianism. However inflation is almost always caused by money printing, which is a hidden tax by the government or the central bank that is trying to "manage", "rig", or centrally plan the economy.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
On the other hand their is deflation, why should people have to wait for the government to lower minimum wage so that they may find a job in a deflationary economy? That is not freedom, that is USSR style authoritarianism.
Are you claiming that it's possible to live such a life of luxury on the US minimum wage that it should be lowered to create jobs ? You are insane.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
There is no problem with that, because things will finally balance themselves out and normalize.
Only in the sense that the rich will think things are fine, and the poor won't matter. Your theories worked in the 19th century, but in a world where you can get goods cheaply made in china, and then exploit local workers to keep the cost of selling them down, the only way to normalise, is for your standard of living to drop to the same as it is for workers in China. In a closed system, people need goods, so they need to pay local people enough to make them. That does not happen anymore.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The only thing government is responsible for are courts, police, highways and roads, and military.
So long as government does not provide schools, this will work, b/c the poor will be too stupid to know they are being screwed.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
If you negotiate a contract with a company to do this and that for X amount of money, the government has no business nullifying the contract because a law that says X has to be greater than Y. That is not freedom, that is authoritarian.
And it's a minority of workers who are specialised enough to be able to enter such a negotiation and have any power at all.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
s for your standard of living to drop to the same as it is for workers in China
There would be deflationary depression, but china wouldn't be as competitive then, and their quality and standard of living would also drop, which would cause a collapse of red china. However after the deflationary period is over, money would be worth quite a bit more, so our standard of living would only take a temporary hit as spending decreases, and then when prices become low enough, money starts flowing and the economy would be booming, without china (unless they changed their economic model).
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Whatever he learned, he has two degrees. How many do you have ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
People who have degrees are the stupidest of them all. You have to unlearn everything after you enter the real world.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Christian Graus wrote:
s for your standard of living to drop to the same as it is for workers in China
There would be deflationary depression, but china wouldn't be as competitive then, and their quality and standard of living would also drop, which would cause a collapse of red china. However after the deflationary period is over, money would be worth quite a bit more, so our standard of living would only take a temporary hit as spending decreases, and then when prices become low enough, money starts flowing and the economy would be booming, without china (unless they changed their economic model).
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
Wow - it seems like you're quite the expert. The trouble is, it is unlikey it would pan out this way in the real world. China OWNS the US, they have tons of your debt. They would not just roll over and play dead because you asked them to.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Wow - it seems like you're quite the expert. The trouble is, it is unlikey it would pan out this way in the real world. China OWNS the US, they have tons of your debt. They would not just roll over and play dead because you asked them to.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
We will force them to, and their slaves will rebel and they will collapse. If they don't like it, then they can die.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
People who have degrees are the stupidest of them all. You have to unlearn everything after you enter the real world.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
Yeah, a lot of uneducated people tell themselves that. Having a degree does not guarentee real world smarts. NOT having one just proves you have no discipline and stand a chance of knowing less than nothing about your chosen topic.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
We will force them to, and their slaves will rebel and they will collapse. If they don't like it, then they can die.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
We will force them to, and their slaves will rebel and they will collapse. If they don't like it, then they can die.
Ah, so it's not about a free market at all, it's about conquest and empire. Freedom for us, death for others. Lovely.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
James L. Thomson wrote:
but nowhere in the constitution is your property protected from private citizens or businesses
The Constitution doesn't give people rights. It lays out the framework for a system of government to protect people's inherent God given rights. The constitution isn't something that lays out all of the laws that exist into a small document. It is a framework. You are born with rights, privileges are given to you by authority. The constitution exist as the architecture of the government.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The Constitution doesn't give people rights. It lays out the framework for a system of government to protect people's inherent God given rights.
Oh this is rich. The constitution was created to be a system to allow a central government to rule. That was it. The problem was it never would have been ratified as it was. Demands were made and the Bill of Rights was tacked on. This was made specifically to constrain the government on how it dealt with individuals. The constitution would have happily ignored those rights had the states not demanded those rights put in. And it only says what the Federal Government can and can't do. As was shown when the Supreme Court said imminent domain is fine to hand private property to another private investor. States can do whatever their own constitutions allow as long as it doesn't go against a stated constitutional provision. As for the BP thing, the property rights of the fishermen hosed by the spill would mean nothing. They didn't have property hurt. Their income being destroyed was not property being damaged... So it's okay for them to be bankrupt thanks to an oil company, right?
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
We will force them to, and their slaves will rebel and they will collapse. If they don't like it, then they can die.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
We will force them to, and their slaves will rebel and they will collapse. If they don't like it, then they can die.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
We will force them to, and their slaves will rebel and they will collapse. If they don't like it, then they can die.
Ah, so it's not about a free market at all, it's about conquest and empire. Freedom for us, death for others. Lovely.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I'd like to see the US force China to do anything. Before moron...er..W, we might have had a chance. But now, no way. Our armed forces are stretched too thin, our military complex is worn out and our troops are tired and while now very combat trained, would be fighting a different kind of war against an army numbering in the millions if necessary. If we even tried conventional war. Which would be smart since they could nuke us as easily as the USSR used to be able to. The US doesn't have the economic might to bury China like it did the USSR. So that's out. Yea, we got jack here...
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Again I say... Upon seizing power I promise to be a benevolent dictator. Thrakazogism Ideal: Unregulated market without government interference. Innovation is rewarded,laziness is punished by 24 hour reality show involving tazers. Reality: Revenue from the show tazing the lazy will be used to feed/educate them. End Result: Entertainment, World peace.
I find your words intriguing and wish to subscribe to your publications.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
We will force them to, and their slaves will rebel and they will collapse. If they don't like it, then they can die.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)I quoted it so he could not change it. your way is better.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I'd like to see the US force China to do anything. Before moron...er..W, we might have had a chance. But now, no way. Our armed forces are stretched too thin, our military complex is worn out and our troops are tired and while now very combat trained, would be fighting a different kind of war against an army numbering in the millions if necessary. If we even tried conventional war. Which would be smart since they could nuke us as easily as the USSR used to be able to. The US doesn't have the economic might to bury China like it did the USSR. So that's out. Yea, we got jack here...
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
Oh, I know, but it's still the case that CSS wants to be able to promote freedom by oppressing others.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, for the most part, but I think it should be clear by now that NONE of the discussed systems work by themselves... Take any one of them to its logical conclusion, and what do you get? Communism
Ideal: Everyone is equal, so there are no rich and no poor, no powerful and no weak. (Including those elected to lead) Reality: This goes against natural human greed. Inevitably, those in charge turn it into a communist dictatorship (See: USSR). End Result: Authoritarian regime by the chosen rulers Socialism
Ideal: The state controls everything and takes good care of the populace Reality: The state controls everything and screws the populace. End Result: Authoritarian regime by the chosen rulers Capitalism
Ideal: Unregulated market without government interference. Innovation is rewarded, laziness is punished Reality: Wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of the rich, the poor are reduced largely to slave labor. End Result: Authoritarian regime by whichever companies grow largest So what's the solution... Put them together... Take the best parts of each and find some way to make them complement each other. Basically, what we have now, but with the scales adjusted a bit. How much to adjust them, well, that's where the different political viewpoints come in.Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)An authoritarian regime is in itself not failure, though. The USSR worked, for a while anyway, but somehow they failed, even though China didn't. China works. The Roman Empire worked - until they overstretched. The French Empire (Napoleon) worked - until they overstretched and broke in two. The Eastern Roman Empire worked for over a thousand years, beat that. The Third Reich might have worked - but it overstretched before it even got that far so we'll never know and that may not be a bad thing. So, what's with the overstretching? If an authoritarian regime can hold back a bit, it works fine.
-
Oh, I know, but it's still the case that CSS wants to be able to promote freedom by oppressing others.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
to promote freedom by oppressing others.
Hell, that's the American motto. We became a nation and what did we do? 1: Killed those dirty indians keeping us from our land. 2: Told them canadians (eh?) to get lost and if we saw em again we'd strap em to some moose and send em packin 3: Freed the slaves, by shooting anyoen that thought having them was okay. 4: picked on Spain cause it was fun. And we got Cuba as buddies along with Guam and Puerto Rico. 5: Killed some no good Mexicans for daring to expect Texas to remain part of their country when those guys wanted to be FREE!!!! And then they joined us. 6: Killed more no good indians for getting mad when we took their land without askin, how dare they get in the way. 7: Killed a bunch of no good germans for attackin the frenchies. We like our fries! 8: Killed those germans again, cause England needed help, and the Japs bombed a bunch of ships (bastards) 9: Koreans needed to be free, so we shot the northern bunch. 10: Vietnamese needed to be free, so we bombed them a lot. 11: Killed a bunch of Iraqis for being such warmongers and attacking a place that gives has rich people with oil. 12: Killed a bunch of dark people for blowing up our twin towers. Association with the ones that did, minimal. But hey, they hate freedom! 13: Told the french their fries suck and are not free enough for having the gaul to question #12.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
There is no problem with that, because things balance themselves out. Products, services, and wages will be set to their true value. If however the government interviens, that causes imbalances, and some people are going to get screwed without choice because of the way the law fucks them over.
Very true... And what's the "true value" of someone who works an assembly line in a factory? How about a pizza delivery boy? Janitor at a department store? If companies could get away with paying these people less, they could lower the prices of their products and better compete in the marketplace. That's how unregulated capitalism works, and that's why we have things like minimum wage and government-supported trade unions. Explain to me how the "free market" would fix that little snafu.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. Sir Winston Churchill British politician (1874 - 1965)
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
riced wrote:
I studied economics for eight years (two degrees) and lectured in economics for six years.
Keynesian economic theory no doubt. Ben Bernake knows a bit about that, and look at the economy now.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
Actually both Keynesian and Monetarist along with a whole bunch of other stuff, including general equilibrium theory and welfare economics. You may be surprised to learn that fundamentally there is no difference between Keynes' and Friedman's prescriptions as far as monetary policy is concerned. Where they differ is in the their views on the role of government in the economy, and that's politics not economics. If you think there is I suggested reading 'The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money', followed up by a 'Treatise on Money'. You might also try Alex Leijonhuvfud's 'On Keynesian Economics and the Economics of Keynes'. The alternative is to accept the popularizations of politicians, the media and self publicists such as Friedman.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
There is no problem with that, because things balance themselves out. Products, services, and wages will be set to their true value. If however the government interviens, that causes imbalances, and some people are going to get screwed without choice because of the way the law fucks them over.
Very true... And what's the "true value" of someone who works an assembly line in a factory? How about a pizza delivery boy? Janitor at a department store? If companies could get away with paying these people less, they could lower the prices of their products and better compete in the marketplace. That's how unregulated capitalism works, and that's why we have things like minimum wage and government-supported trade unions. Explain to me how the "free market" would fix that little snafu.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Man I hate coming in on his side.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Explain to me how the "free market" would fix that little snafu.
The problem is that you are not describing a free market, where goods and information can flow freely. You are discussing the construction of monopolies, and the government regulation that keeps them in place. Often, regulations made with the best intent end up going awry. What ever regulations you make, people game. Even if it did not 'distort' the market, originally, someone will run with it make it distort the market. If people have free flow of information, they know about the risk of funds backed by subprime mortgages the government is generating. They know where jobs pay more. They know where people want more of a product. Free market is not the same as monopolistic capitalism.
Opacity, the new Transparency.