Time for a dose of truth for once around here
-
josda1000 wrote:
Look back in time in the United States. You saw a healthy middle class, and now our incomes are dying down. It takes two incomes to feed a family of four, as opposed to one back in the sixties.
Well, that much is true. The main cause is the rise in house prices. i.e. capitalism. It's the same at home. You need two jobs for two reasons: 1 - people have higher expectations now 2 - they need a house to live in The amount people pay for food has steadily declined. Don't get me started on that.
josda1000 wrote:
Freedom breeds prosperity.
It breeds great prosperity, for some. I am not against freedom, but pure capitalism makes some VERY rich precisely because they can abuse the poor.
josda1000 wrote:
FTFY
So it's capitalist to have unions, minimum wage, etc ?
josda1000 wrote:
Yes. It's not exactly my generation, but can't you see the trend? It's called history. Usually written in books? Ever hear of it?
The definition of 'trend' is not 'we did something once and are ashamed' but 'our path continues to travel down this road'. Who are we locking up today ( well, you, I'm an Aussie ).
josda1000 wrote:
Yes, I expected more rhetoric out of you. I was debating on whether to use it or not. I decided to, because I expected debate. I had plenty of facts for you to dispute.
The Nazism thing is tired. Yes, the Nazis took people's guns. No, that does not mean that every society that doesn't arm itself to the hilt will end up Nazi. For example.
josda1000 wrote:
Why is that? Care to explain that one?
It's simple. Democracy means everyone gets a vote. Including all the people put out of work of those big car companies fail.
josda1000 wrote:
Papers, or other media, should not be going to the government to be cradled. They should truly be independent, and giving the truth, not opinion. Just the facts.
That is a fantasy. My reference to capitalism was simple. Papers are not there to provide facts. They are there to sell papers so that people read the ads, which pays for them. That's the bottom line.
josda1000 w
Wow... we're really good at this debating stuff. Anyway.
Christian Graus wrote:
The main cause is the rise in house prices. i.e. capitalism.
Wrong, that's regulation, i.e. fascism. Governments telling what the corporations to do, in this case actually, but fascism nonetheless.
Christian Graus wrote:
You need two jobs for two reasons: 1 - people have higher expectations now 2 - they need a house to live in
Agreed. People are now too caught up in living the "good life" during bubbles created by the central bank, i.e. the ultimate fascism.
Christian Graus wrote:
The amount people pay for food has steadily declined. Don't get me started on that.
Actually, I am kind of interested in your opinions on this. Because this is actually true capitalism. Through the competitive nature of the market, the prices went down, so people can buy more and be more gluttonous(I'm no exception).
Christian Graus wrote:
It breeds great prosperity, for some. I am not against freedom, but pure capitalism makes some VERY rich precisely because they can abuse the poor.
Disagreed. Pure capitalism breeds competition, just as in the food prices going down as you say. Totality of the state breeds the "very rich", because the power of the state allows corporations to create monopolies or cartels.
Christian Graus wrote:
So it's capitalist to have unions, minimum wage, etc ?
Unions are actually a smaller form of collectivism, creating a binding with the state to gang up on companies and corporations. I'm actually for the free creation of a union, but if your sector requires you to be in a union, that should be abolished. Minimum wages are antithetical to free markets, and actually create a much worse situation for the little guy. The little guy may not get hired, for the fact that the company can only hire so many workers, whereas if the company and worker were free to contract at any wage, the company may have been able to hire more and there would be less unemployment. Personally, I'd rather be employed at a smaller salary than not be hired at all. I could go on, but you stopped there lol
Christian Graus wrote:
The definition of 'trend' is not 'we did
-
Wow... we're really good at this debating stuff. Anyway.
Christian Graus wrote:
The main cause is the rise in house prices. i.e. capitalism.
Wrong, that's regulation, i.e. fascism. Governments telling what the corporations to do, in this case actually, but fascism nonetheless.
Christian Graus wrote:
You need two jobs for two reasons: 1 - people have higher expectations now 2 - they need a house to live in
Agreed. People are now too caught up in living the "good life" during bubbles created by the central bank, i.e. the ultimate fascism.
Christian Graus wrote:
The amount people pay for food has steadily declined. Don't get me started on that.
Actually, I am kind of interested in your opinions on this. Because this is actually true capitalism. Through the competitive nature of the market, the prices went down, so people can buy more and be more gluttonous(I'm no exception).
Christian Graus wrote:
It breeds great prosperity, for some. I am not against freedom, but pure capitalism makes some VERY rich precisely because they can abuse the poor.
Disagreed. Pure capitalism breeds competition, just as in the food prices going down as you say. Totality of the state breeds the "very rich", because the power of the state allows corporations to create monopolies or cartels.
Christian Graus wrote:
So it's capitalist to have unions, minimum wage, etc ?
Unions are actually a smaller form of collectivism, creating a binding with the state to gang up on companies and corporations. I'm actually for the free creation of a union, but if your sector requires you to be in a union, that should be abolished. Minimum wages are antithetical to free markets, and actually create a much worse situation for the little guy. The little guy may not get hired, for the fact that the company can only hire so many workers, whereas if the company and worker were free to contract at any wage, the company may have been able to hire more and there would be less unemployment. Personally, I'd rather be employed at a smaller salary than not be hired at all. I could go on, but you stopped there lol
Christian Graus wrote:
The definition of 'trend' is not 'we did
josda1000 wrote:
Wrong, that's regulation, i.e. fascism. Governments telling what the corporations to do, in this case actually, but fascism nonetheless.
How does that drive house prices ?
josda1000 wrote:
Agreed. People are now too caught up in living the "good life" during bubbles created by the central bank, i.e. the ultimate fascism.
Bubbles are created by capitalism. They are largely created by greed, by people trying to make money without looking at where their money is going. Real estate is an obvious example. Only an idiot buys a house they cannot afford if rates are low, because they ALWAYS will go up in the life of the loan. So, the borrowers are to blame, not the Fed.
josda1000 wrote:
Actually, I am kind of interested in your opinions on this. Because this is actually true capitalism. Through the competitive nature of the market, the prices went down, so people can buy more and be more gluttonous(I'm no exception).
The core issues are 1 - food companies can only sell more by convincing us to eat more than we need 2 - most of what is sold in the US is based on corn, one way or the other, and it's further and further away from being 'food' in any traditional sense. 3 - the price of 'food' is made artificially low by corn subsidies, which promote huge monocultures ( ever driven through Indiana or Illinois ? ), which are incredibly fragile and destructive to the environment
josda1000 wrote:
Pure capitalism breeds competition, just as in the food prices going down as you say. Totality of the state breeds the "very rich", because the power of the state allows corporations to create monopolies or cartels.
Then why did such monopolies thrive before what you see as the downfall of your countries financial system ? Standard Oil, the meat cartels of the late 1800s, etc. Capitalism breeds competition. That is great for people who can compete. Those who cannot, just get eaten up as they have no rights or worth to a pure capitalistic system
josda1000 wrote:
Unions are actually a smaller form of collectivism, creating a binding with the state to gang up on companies and corporations. I'm actually for the free creation of a union, but if your sector requires you to be in a union, that should be abolished
-
josda1000 wrote:
Wrong, that's regulation, i.e. fascism. Governments telling what the corporations to do, in this case actually, but fascism nonetheless.
How does that drive house prices ?
josda1000 wrote:
Agreed. People are now too caught up in living the "good life" during bubbles created by the central bank, i.e. the ultimate fascism.
Bubbles are created by capitalism. They are largely created by greed, by people trying to make money without looking at where their money is going. Real estate is an obvious example. Only an idiot buys a house they cannot afford if rates are low, because they ALWAYS will go up in the life of the loan. So, the borrowers are to blame, not the Fed.
josda1000 wrote:
Actually, I am kind of interested in your opinions on this. Because this is actually true capitalism. Through the competitive nature of the market, the prices went down, so people can buy more and be more gluttonous(I'm no exception).
The core issues are 1 - food companies can only sell more by convincing us to eat more than we need 2 - most of what is sold in the US is based on corn, one way or the other, and it's further and further away from being 'food' in any traditional sense. 3 - the price of 'food' is made artificially low by corn subsidies, which promote huge monocultures ( ever driven through Indiana or Illinois ? ), which are incredibly fragile and destructive to the environment
josda1000 wrote:
Pure capitalism breeds competition, just as in the food prices going down as you say. Totality of the state breeds the "very rich", because the power of the state allows corporations to create monopolies or cartels.
Then why did such monopolies thrive before what you see as the downfall of your countries financial system ? Standard Oil, the meat cartels of the late 1800s, etc. Capitalism breeds competition. That is great for people who can compete. Those who cannot, just get eaten up as they have no rights or worth to a pure capitalistic system
josda1000 wrote:
Unions are actually a smaller form of collectivism, creating a binding with the state to gang up on companies and corporations. I'm actually for the free creation of a union, but if your sector requires you to be in a union, that should be abolished
Christian Graus wrote:
How does that drive house prices ?
Because of the extra overhead and needing to fit in line with government regulations/standards. Because of the overhead, the burden is passed on to the consumer. It's also because the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates on the housing market, allowing the banks to offer lower prices and interest rates that in a normal market would not work for the consumer but did work. When the interest rates went up, the market bubble collapsed. That's government intervention at its finest.
Christian Graus wrote:
Bubbles are created by capitalism. They are largely created by greed, by people trying to make money without looking at where their money is going. Real estate is an obvious example. Only an idiot buys a house they cannot afford if rates are low, because they ALWAYS will go up in the life of the loan. So, the borrowers are to blame, not the Fed.
Read above. Bubbles are created by the central bank (FASCISM). It's not capitalist to have the government intervene in markets. I can agree that the borrower is also to blame for stupidity, but not everyone is an economist either.
Christian Graus wrote:
Then why did such monopolies thrive before what you see as the downfall of your countries financial system ?
Do you know what a monopoly is?! Some banks failed, some didn't and were bailed out. That's called a cartel. No one business was bailed out. To the actual argument: it's the business cycle. Booming and busting. All should have failed in order to have a correction (depression) for only a couple of years. Now, instead, we drag out the pain and will have a much harsher correction in probably a couple years.
Christian Graus wrote:
Capitalism breeds competition. That is great for people who can compete. Those who cannot, just get eaten up as they have no rights or worth to a pure capitalistic system
Those who cannot don't have the mental will to compete and complain, and do not try to help themselves. You for example, sold your product on the market for a time and got money for it. Are you a capitalist? Should you be considered a greedy guy and thrown in societal jail or exiled? Do I not have rights and no worth because I haven't started a business? No, I have plenty of skill, and I'm co
-
josda1000 wrote:
Wrong, that's regulation, i.e. fascism. Governments telling what the corporations to do, in this case actually, but fascism nonetheless.
How does that drive house prices ?
josda1000 wrote:
Agreed. People are now too caught up in living the "good life" during bubbles created by the central bank, i.e. the ultimate fascism.
Bubbles are created by capitalism. They are largely created by greed, by people trying to make money without looking at where their money is going. Real estate is an obvious example. Only an idiot buys a house they cannot afford if rates are low, because they ALWAYS will go up in the life of the loan. So, the borrowers are to blame, not the Fed.
josda1000 wrote:
Actually, I am kind of interested in your opinions on this. Because this is actually true capitalism. Through the competitive nature of the market, the prices went down, so people can buy more and be more gluttonous(I'm no exception).
The core issues are 1 - food companies can only sell more by convincing us to eat more than we need 2 - most of what is sold in the US is based on corn, one way or the other, and it's further and further away from being 'food' in any traditional sense. 3 - the price of 'food' is made artificially low by corn subsidies, which promote huge monocultures ( ever driven through Indiana or Illinois ? ), which are incredibly fragile and destructive to the environment
josda1000 wrote:
Pure capitalism breeds competition, just as in the food prices going down as you say. Totality of the state breeds the "very rich", because the power of the state allows corporations to create monopolies or cartels.
Then why did such monopolies thrive before what you see as the downfall of your countries financial system ? Standard Oil, the meat cartels of the late 1800s, etc. Capitalism breeds competition. That is great for people who can compete. Those who cannot, just get eaten up as they have no rights or worth to a pure capitalistic system
josda1000 wrote:
Unions are actually a smaller form of collectivism, creating a binding with the state to gang up on companies and corporations. I'm actually for the free creation of a union, but if your sector requires you to be in a union, that should be abolished
I accidently hit Post... I need to continue.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, that has next to nothing to do with what happened to the Japanese, in that it's not racially motivated, for a start. It's stupid, but, you know, when I go somewhere, or if I live somewhere, I find out what the law is, and obey it. That's differnt to being locked up for your race.
I agree. It has nothing to do with racism. But life is getting worse for EVERYONE at the same time.
Christian Graus wrote:
No, I'm not. I'm simply saying that the reason they do this, is the system you love so much, they do it for money.
Fair. There's flaws in every system. But nobody seems to complain about it, and that's a problem.
Christian Graus wrote:
No, I'm saying THEIR market is in 'hidden stories' and 'disturbing facts'. They sell to their market the same as everyone else. I don't believe anything I read from a single source, and I'd consider an independant source as much as a mainstream one.
Yes, you would. But there are plenty of people, the majority, that doesn't care. And that's a problem.
Christian Graus wrote:
It's about a 3. I assume some basis in fact. And so I don't 'believe everything they say', you've completely misunderstood me, there.
Sorry. Agreed.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, then you need some government controls on the media, instead of a free market where they can publish whatever they like. (evil laugh)
There, I disagree. What we need is a smarter population. One that isn't dumbed down, and knows its history.
Christian Graus wrote:
No, they are easily replaced because it's manual labour that my 13 yo could do.
Ahhh, yes. And that brings up the point that kids should be able to work (though I'm NOT advocating child "labor", as in slave work for nothing.) Though I do believe they should have the choice to work or not.
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes, I don't deny this is an issue. But to tie the cost of health care to the employer is one of the most retarded things I've ever heard of.
VERY good point. I like it.
Christian Graus wrote:
-
Christian Graus wrote:
How does that drive house prices ?
Because of the extra overhead and needing to fit in line with government regulations/standards. Because of the overhead, the burden is passed on to the consumer. It's also because the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates on the housing market, allowing the banks to offer lower prices and interest rates that in a normal market would not work for the consumer but did work. When the interest rates went up, the market bubble collapsed. That's government intervention at its finest.
Christian Graus wrote:
Bubbles are created by capitalism. They are largely created by greed, by people trying to make money without looking at where their money is going. Real estate is an obvious example. Only an idiot buys a house they cannot afford if rates are low, because they ALWAYS will go up in the life of the loan. So, the borrowers are to blame, not the Fed.
Read above. Bubbles are created by the central bank (FASCISM). It's not capitalist to have the government intervene in markets. I can agree that the borrower is also to blame for stupidity, but not everyone is an economist either.
Christian Graus wrote:
Then why did such monopolies thrive before what you see as the downfall of your countries financial system ?
Do you know what a monopoly is?! Some banks failed, some didn't and were bailed out. That's called a cartel. No one business was bailed out. To the actual argument: it's the business cycle. Booming and busting. All should have failed in order to have a correction (depression) for only a couple of years. Now, instead, we drag out the pain and will have a much harsher correction in probably a couple years.
Christian Graus wrote:
Capitalism breeds competition. That is great for people who can compete. Those who cannot, just get eaten up as they have no rights or worth to a pure capitalistic system
Those who cannot don't have the mental will to compete and complain, and do not try to help themselves. You for example, sold your product on the market for a time and got money for it. Are you a capitalist? Should you be considered a greedy guy and thrown in societal jail or exiled? Do I not have rights and no worth because I haven't started a business? No, I have plenty of skill, and I'm co
josda1000 wrote:
Because of the extra overhead and needing to fit in line with government regulations/standards
So it's bad that I can feel safe that my house won't fall down ?
josda1000 wrote:
It's also because the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates on the housing market, allowing the banks to offer lower prices and interest rates that in a normal market would not work for the consumer but did work. When the interest rates went up, the market bubble collapsed. That's government intervention at its finest.
As I said, that's stupidity at it's finest. Ideally, the government would stop banks lending to people who plainly cannot afford it.
josda1000 wrote:
Read above. Bubbles are created by the central bank (FASCISM). It's not capitalist to have the government intervene in markets.
The government does not intervene, beyond setting rates, which are used to control inflation. You'd have more of a roller coaster ride without them.
josda1000 wrote:
but not everyone is an economist either.
Well, it's not rocket science, and, what is needed, is legislation to stop banks fleecing people.
josda1000 wrote:
Do you know what a monopoly is?! Some banks failed, some didn't and were bailed out. That's called a cartel. No one business was bailed out.
I was referring to the New Deal changes, not to the recent fiasco.
josda1000 wrote:
To the actual argument: it's the business cycle. Booming and busting. All should have failed in order to have a correction (depression) for only a couple of years. Now, instead, we drag out the pain and will have a much harsher correction in probably a couple years.
No argument there, but governments think in terms of the next election.
josda1000 wrote:
Those who cannot don't have the mental will to compete and complain, and do not try to help themselves.
That is an easy argument for people who have skills to make. But, it does not follow. The person working the shelves at Walmart is clearly no genius. That does not mean he has no work ethic.
josda1000 wrote:
You for example, sold your product on the market
-
I accidently hit Post... I need to continue.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, that has next to nothing to do with what happened to the Japanese, in that it's not racially motivated, for a start. It's stupid, but, you know, when I go somewhere, or if I live somewhere, I find out what the law is, and obey it. That's differnt to being locked up for your race.
I agree. It has nothing to do with racism. But life is getting worse for EVERYONE at the same time.
Christian Graus wrote:
No, I'm not. I'm simply saying that the reason they do this, is the system you love so much, they do it for money.
Fair. There's flaws in every system. But nobody seems to complain about it, and that's a problem.
Christian Graus wrote:
No, I'm saying THEIR market is in 'hidden stories' and 'disturbing facts'. They sell to their market the same as everyone else. I don't believe anything I read from a single source, and I'd consider an independant source as much as a mainstream one.
Yes, you would. But there are plenty of people, the majority, that doesn't care. And that's a problem.
Christian Graus wrote:
It's about a 3. I assume some basis in fact. And so I don't 'believe everything they say', you've completely misunderstood me, there.
Sorry. Agreed.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, then you need some government controls on the media, instead of a free market where they can publish whatever they like. (evil laugh)
There, I disagree. What we need is a smarter population. One that isn't dumbed down, and knows its history.
Christian Graus wrote:
No, they are easily replaced because it's manual labour that my 13 yo could do.
Ahhh, yes. And that brings up the point that kids should be able to work (though I'm NOT advocating child "labor", as in slave work for nothing.) Though I do believe they should have the choice to work or not.
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes, I don't deny this is an issue. But to tie the cost of health care to the employer is one of the most retarded things I've ever heard of.
VERY good point. I like it.
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote:
But life is getting worse for EVERYONE at the same time.
Not me, I have to tell you. But, that's kind of my point. The divide in society will always be there, and there's no reason everyone should earn the same. But everyone should feel there's a way for hard work to make a way for themselves and their families. Otherwise, you invite revolt.
josda1000 wrote:
Yes, you would. But there are plenty of people, the majority, that doesn't care. And that's a problem.
Well, probably. But, it's also true that society is built on the basis that most people inhabit the bottom levels. It's the 80/20 rule. My point is not that they need to be given a house and a car, just that they have to feel they can succeed enough to not starve, if they work hard.
josda1000 wrote:
What we need is a smarter population. One that isn't dumbed down, and knows its history.
And yet most fans of pure capitalism I speak to are against government paying for education. I'm not sure if you feel that way, but others do, how does that make sense. I agree, we need people to be smarter.
josda1000 wrote:
And that brings up the point that kids should be able to work (though I'm NOT advocating child "labor", as in slave work for nothing.) Though I do believe they should have the choice to work or not.
The 'choice' invariably leads to kids leaving school and working basic jobs b.c their family is poor.
josda1000 wrote:
No really, welfare is a way to take out competitors. Especially the minimum wage laws, that's a killer.
If it was not for the fact that the minimum wage in the US is a joke, you might have a starting point to argue that. I can't imagine getting out of bed for the minimum wage, nor can I imagine trying to live on it.
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.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Because of the extra overhead and needing to fit in line with government regulations/standards
So it's bad that I can feel safe that my house won't fall down ?
josda1000 wrote:
It's also because the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates on the housing market, allowing the banks to offer lower prices and interest rates that in a normal market would not work for the consumer but did work. When the interest rates went up, the market bubble collapsed. That's government intervention at its finest.
As I said, that's stupidity at it's finest. Ideally, the government would stop banks lending to people who plainly cannot afford it.
josda1000 wrote:
Read above. Bubbles are created by the central bank (FASCISM). It's not capitalist to have the government intervene in markets.
The government does not intervene, beyond setting rates, which are used to control inflation. You'd have more of a roller coaster ride without them.
josda1000 wrote:
but not everyone is an economist either.
Well, it's not rocket science, and, what is needed, is legislation to stop banks fleecing people.
josda1000 wrote:
Do you know what a monopoly is?! Some banks failed, some didn't and were bailed out. That's called a cartel. No one business was bailed out.
I was referring to the New Deal changes, not to the recent fiasco.
josda1000 wrote:
To the actual argument: it's the business cycle. Booming and busting. All should have failed in order to have a correction (depression) for only a couple of years. Now, instead, we drag out the pain and will have a much harsher correction in probably a couple years.
No argument there, but governments think in terms of the next election.
josda1000 wrote:
Those who cannot don't have the mental will to compete and complain, and do not try to help themselves.
That is an easy argument for people who have skills to make. But, it does not follow. The person working the shelves at Walmart is clearly no genius. That does not mean he has no work ethic.
josda1000 wrote:
You for example, sold your product on the market
Christian Graus wrote:
So it's bad that I can feel safe that my house won't fall down ?
What, you can't do it yourself? Can't you get another company to inspect it for a fair price? If you open up the market to that kind of thing, prices would come down probably quite substantially.
Christian Graus wrote:
As I said, that's stupidity at it's finest. Ideally, the government would stop banks lending to people who plainly cannot afford it.
How is it stupid, without you thinking about it? Especially where you're actually contradicting yourself: You say capitalism breeds greed. I'd agree with that; especially when it comes to banks. And now, you're saying "ideally" the govt would stop banks lending to people who plainly cannot afford it. This is the problem with big government... the ideals are rarely met. Banks will loan to whomever they feel, and the "regulators" are already in collusion with them (easily corruptable), and we have a problem. It's obviously an oversimplification, but it's the truth.
Christian Graus wrote:
The government does not intervene, beyond setting rates, which are used to control inflation. You'd have more of a roller coaster ride without them.
I've already had this debate with Ian, and I stand firmly against all of this. Because they do set rates, they cause the chaos. They create the bubbles, through inflation and deflation of the money supply. Inflation is not, as opposed to popular belief, rising prices. That's just the effect of inflation.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, it's not rocket science, and, what is needed, is legislation to stop banks fleecing people.
That's totally backwards. If people were a bit more educated, then they wouldn't take out the loans they can't afford, therefore the fleecing wouldn't happen in the first place.
Christian Graus wrote:
No argument there, but governments think in terms of the next election.
Agreed. And to add to that point, the people electing don't think at all, therefore causing the problems.
Christian Graus wrote:
That is an easy argument for people who have skills to make. But, it does not follow. The person working the shelves at Walmart is clearly no genius. That does
-
Christian Graus wrote:
So it's bad that I can feel safe that my house won't fall down ?
What, you can't do it yourself? Can't you get another company to inspect it for a fair price? If you open up the market to that kind of thing, prices would come down probably quite substantially.
Christian Graus wrote:
As I said, that's stupidity at it's finest. Ideally, the government would stop banks lending to people who plainly cannot afford it.
How is it stupid, without you thinking about it? Especially where you're actually contradicting yourself: You say capitalism breeds greed. I'd agree with that; especially when it comes to banks. And now, you're saying "ideally" the govt would stop banks lending to people who plainly cannot afford it. This is the problem with big government... the ideals are rarely met. Banks will loan to whomever they feel, and the "regulators" are already in collusion with them (easily corruptable), and we have a problem. It's obviously an oversimplification, but it's the truth.
Christian Graus wrote:
The government does not intervene, beyond setting rates, which are used to control inflation. You'd have more of a roller coaster ride without them.
I've already had this debate with Ian, and I stand firmly against all of this. Because they do set rates, they cause the chaos. They create the bubbles, through inflation and deflation of the money supply. Inflation is not, as opposed to popular belief, rising prices. That's just the effect of inflation.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, it's not rocket science, and, what is needed, is legislation to stop banks fleecing people.
That's totally backwards. If people were a bit more educated, then they wouldn't take out the loans they can't afford, therefore the fleecing wouldn't happen in the first place.
Christian Graus wrote:
No argument there, but governments think in terms of the next election.
Agreed. And to add to that point, the people electing don't think at all, therefore causing the problems.
Christian Graus wrote:
That is an easy argument for people who have skills to make. But, it does not follow. The person working the shelves at Walmart is clearly no genius. That does
josda1000 wrote:
What, you can't do it yourself? Can't you get another company to inspect it for a fair price? If you open up the market to that kind of thing, prices would come down probably quite substantially.
Of course I get an inspection. When people build houses that fall down in the next hurricane, for example, how is that a good thing for society, or an advantage of free markets ?
josda1000 wrote:
How is it stupid, without you thinking about it?
People who borrow money they cannot pay back, are stupid.
josda1000 wrote:
Banks will loan to whomever they feel, and the "regulators" are already in collusion with them (easily corruptable), and we have a problem. It's obviously an oversimplification, but it's the truth.
So, the controls are corrupted and that proves that having control is bad ? Or does it prove that collusion ( which is done in self interest, i.e. capitalism ) is bad ?
josda1000 wrote:
Because they do set rates, they cause the chaos. They create the bubbles, through inflation and deflation of the money supply
Are you claiming they seek to cause the bubbles ? Bubbles are caused by stupid people. Cheap money just gives them a chance to be stupid. You're, in essence, suggesting another form of regulation, keeping rates high to lock poor people permanently so they have no access to credit.
josda1000 wrote:
I'd agree with that. It's just that they need to work on their skills to make themselves more competitive in the marketplace.
You don't get it. Stupid people, are stupid. They have no ability to build skills. And, you know what ? I need someone to stock the shelves, or make my latte. They are not worthless to society. They simply cannot defend themselves in the market as they have no great individual value.
josda1000 wrote:
Agreed. And to add to that point, the people electing don't think at all, therefore causing the problems.
Well, they think about the short term promises being made..
josda1000 wrote:
Oh no assumption there, I'm so far in debt it's ridiculous lol
*grin* I know how that is. I am very glad to be out of that trap, it's all too easy.
-
josda1000 wrote:
But life is getting worse for EVERYONE at the same time.
Not me, I have to tell you. But, that's kind of my point. The divide in society will always be there, and there's no reason everyone should earn the same. But everyone should feel there's a way for hard work to make a way for themselves and their families. Otherwise, you invite revolt.
josda1000 wrote:
Yes, you would. But there are plenty of people, the majority, that doesn't care. And that's a problem.
Well, probably. But, it's also true that society is built on the basis that most people inhabit the bottom levels. It's the 80/20 rule. My point is not that they need to be given a house and a car, just that they have to feel they can succeed enough to not starve, if they work hard.
josda1000 wrote:
What we need is a smarter population. One that isn't dumbed down, and knows its history.
And yet most fans of pure capitalism I speak to are against government paying for education. I'm not sure if you feel that way, but others do, how does that make sense. I agree, we need people to be smarter.
josda1000 wrote:
And that brings up the point that kids should be able to work (though I'm NOT advocating child "labor", as in slave work for nothing.) Though I do believe they should have the choice to work or not.
The 'choice' invariably leads to kids leaving school and working basic jobs b.c their family is poor.
josda1000 wrote:
No really, welfare is a way to take out competitors. Especially the minimum wage laws, that's a killer.
If it was not for the fact that the minimum wage in the US is a joke, you might have a starting point to argue that. I can't imagine getting out of bed for the minimum wage, nor can I imagine trying to live on it.
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:
If it was not for the fact that the minimum wage in the US is a joke, you might have a starting point to argue that. I can't imagine getting out of bed for the minimum wage, nor can I imagine trying to live on it.
I made $1 more an hour than minimum wage. It hurt, a lot. I refused to go on welfare, even though I qualified. I could not get a better job because I couldn't afford the time off to go to interviews/pound pavement for a job. rent sucked up more than half a month's pay, bills ate up about a third. I used the rest to buy food, get the occasional clothing, and saving up over months I could afford entertainment. I found the entertainment budget was more sacred to me than anything else. I could go without 2 meals a day if I could afford a movie the next week, or a video game that month. I could live because that little bit of fun made it okay to not have health insurance, paid vacation, or other benefits. Eventually I was making around double the minimum wage, and it was still hard to get by. At least then I could afford clothing that were fit to go to interviews. The current minimum is almost twice what it was then. I make around twice what it is and I am making ~30K/yr. Imagine living on less than 15K/yr when rent is 600/month around here for a dive.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
josda1000 wrote:
But life is getting worse for EVERYONE at the same time.
Not me, I have to tell you. But, that's kind of my point. The divide in society will always be there, and there's no reason everyone should earn the same. But everyone should feel there's a way for hard work to make a way for themselves and their families. Otherwise, you invite revolt.
josda1000 wrote:
Yes, you would. But there are plenty of people, the majority, that doesn't care. And that's a problem.
Well, probably. But, it's also true that society is built on the basis that most people inhabit the bottom levels. It's the 80/20 rule. My point is not that they need to be given a house and a car, just that they have to feel they can succeed enough to not starve, if they work hard.
josda1000 wrote:
What we need is a smarter population. One that isn't dumbed down, and knows its history.
And yet most fans of pure capitalism I speak to are against government paying for education. I'm not sure if you feel that way, but others do, how does that make sense. I agree, we need people to be smarter.
josda1000 wrote:
And that brings up the point that kids should be able to work (though I'm NOT advocating child "labor", as in slave work for nothing.) Though I do believe they should have the choice to work or not.
The 'choice' invariably leads to kids leaving school and working basic jobs b.c their family is poor.
josda1000 wrote:
No really, welfare is a way to take out competitors. Especially the minimum wage laws, that's a killer.
If it was not for the fact that the minimum wage in the US is a joke, you might have a starting point to argue that. I can't imagine getting out of bed for the minimum wage, nor can I imagine trying to live on it.
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:
most fans of pure capitalism I speak to are against government paying for education. I'm not sure if you feel that way, but others do, how does that make sense. I agree, we need people to be smarter.
I think I'll wrap it up with a response to this. Yes, I do subscribe to that notion. Government schools waste money... they're always clamoring for "more money!" and it's pointless, because of the teachers unions and such. I'm not saying that they get overpaid, and I'm not saying that there are only bad teachers. What I am saying is that money can only buy you so much... you need quality educations, and if you freed up the market to private schools, then you'd have competition. But this is the problem... once you invite that idea, government schools are against it, because it breaks up the monopoly. I'm not saying they shouldn't exist altogether, but if you take a look at the quality of the output students, there's a big difference in govt vs private. There should be a choice.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Christian Graus wrote:
So it's bad that I can feel safe that my house won't fall down ?
What, you can't do it yourself? Can't you get another company to inspect it for a fair price? If you open up the market to that kind of thing, prices would come down probably quite substantially.
Christian Graus wrote:
As I said, that's stupidity at it's finest. Ideally, the government would stop banks lending to people who plainly cannot afford it.
How is it stupid, without you thinking about it? Especially where you're actually contradicting yourself: You say capitalism breeds greed. I'd agree with that; especially when it comes to banks. And now, you're saying "ideally" the govt would stop banks lending to people who plainly cannot afford it. This is the problem with big government... the ideals are rarely met. Banks will loan to whomever they feel, and the "regulators" are already in collusion with them (easily corruptable), and we have a problem. It's obviously an oversimplification, but it's the truth.
Christian Graus wrote:
The government does not intervene, beyond setting rates, which are used to control inflation. You'd have more of a roller coaster ride without them.
I've already had this debate with Ian, and I stand firmly against all of this. Because they do set rates, they cause the chaos. They create the bubbles, through inflation and deflation of the money supply. Inflation is not, as opposed to popular belief, rising prices. That's just the effect of inflation.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, it's not rocket science, and, what is needed, is legislation to stop banks fleecing people.
That's totally backwards. If people were a bit more educated, then they wouldn't take out the loans they can't afford, therefore the fleecing wouldn't happen in the first place.
Christian Graus wrote:
No argument there, but governments think in terms of the next election.
Agreed. And to add to that point, the people electing don't think at all, therefore causing the problems.
Christian Graus wrote:
That is an easy argument for people who have skills to make. But, it does not follow. The person working the shelves at Walmart is clearly no genius. That does
josda1000 wrote:
What, you can't do it yourself? Can't you get another company to inspect it for a fair price? If you open up the market to that kind of thing, prices would come down probably quite substantially.
Why do people always trumpet this? The open market is not a fair market. Look at debit/reward cards. Visa had companies accept these cards as if they were Credit cards. This was fine and dandy. Except that instead of charging the companies less, they charged them more for the option and so did Mastercard. Instead of competing, they simply all raised prices and giggled because the customers weren't going to not take new price. You can only control prices as a customer if the businesses are willing to compete and you can refuse them. Something that is your livlihood or life on the line, you pay, you do it according to what they charge and you shut up.
josda1000 wrote:
And what of the fact that central banks have all the gold? Why do we not need it, but they do?
I hear this a lot. But I have never seen one of these gold filled rooms. I seriously doubt the head of a central bank is swimming in a vault filled with gold like Scrooge McDuck...
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
most fans of pure capitalism I speak to are against government paying for education. I'm not sure if you feel that way, but others do, how does that make sense. I agree, we need people to be smarter.
I think I'll wrap it up with a response to this. Yes, I do subscribe to that notion. Government schools waste money... they're always clamoring for "more money!" and it's pointless, because of the teachers unions and such. I'm not saying that they get overpaid, and I'm not saying that there are only bad teachers. What I am saying is that money can only buy you so much... you need quality educations, and if you freed up the market to private schools, then you'd have competition. But this is the problem... once you invite that idea, government schools are against it, because it breaks up the monopoly. I'm not saying they shouldn't exist altogether, but if you take a look at the quality of the output students, there's a big difference in govt vs private. There should be a choice.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Yes, I do subscribe to that notion.
But we need people to be smarter. Great.
josda1000 wrote:
Government schools waste money... they're always clamoring for "more money!"
They are still using books from the 1950s !!!!
josda1000 wrote:
What I am saying is that money can only buy you so much... you need quality educations, and if you freed up the market to private schools, then you'd have competition.
Are there no private schools ? If there are, are you suggesting that someone on minimum wage could afford to send 2 kids to one ?
josda1000 wrote:
I'm not saying they shouldn't exist altogether, but if you take a look at the quality of the output students, there's a big difference in govt vs private. There should be a choice.
Is there not ? My kids go to private schools at home, but a public school will still provide a decent education.
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.
-
josda1000 wrote:
What, you can't do it yourself? Can't you get another company to inspect it for a fair price? If you open up the market to that kind of thing, prices would come down probably quite substantially.
Of course I get an inspection. When people build houses that fall down in the next hurricane, for example, how is that a good thing for society, or an advantage of free markets ?
josda1000 wrote:
How is it stupid, without you thinking about it?
People who borrow money they cannot pay back, are stupid.
josda1000 wrote:
Banks will loan to whomever they feel, and the "regulators" are already in collusion with them (easily corruptable), and we have a problem. It's obviously an oversimplification, but it's the truth.
So, the controls are corrupted and that proves that having control is bad ? Or does it prove that collusion ( which is done in self interest, i.e. capitalism ) is bad ?
josda1000 wrote:
Because they do set rates, they cause the chaos. They create the bubbles, through inflation and deflation of the money supply
Are you claiming they seek to cause the bubbles ? Bubbles are caused by stupid people. Cheap money just gives them a chance to be stupid. You're, in essence, suggesting another form of regulation, keeping rates high to lock poor people permanently so they have no access to credit.
josda1000 wrote:
I'd agree with that. It's just that they need to work on their skills to make themselves more competitive in the marketplace.
You don't get it. Stupid people, are stupid. They have no ability to build skills. And, you know what ? I need someone to stock the shelves, or make my latte. They are not worthless to society. They simply cannot defend themselves in the market as they have no great individual value.
josda1000 wrote:
Agreed. And to add to that point, the people electing don't think at all, therefore causing the problems.
Well, they think about the short term promises being made..
josda1000 wrote:
Oh no assumption there, I'm so far in debt it's ridiculous lol
*grin* I know how that is. I am very glad to be out of that trap, it's all too easy.
Christian Graus wrote:
Of course I get an inspection. When people build houses that fall down in the next hurricane, for example, how is that a good thing for society, or an advantage of free markets ?
That's going to happen, and it should not be regulated honestly. You can't get everything perfect... and the business that created that house (architect, engineers, whoever) will go out of business if people make enough of a stir. (You'll say it's oversimplification, I think it's the truth if the free market capitalism were to work the way it's supposed to.)
Christian Graus wrote:
People who borrow money they cannot pay back, are stupid.
Truth.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, the controls are corrupted and that proves that having control is bad ? Or does it prove that collusion ( which is done in self interest, i.e. capitalism ) is bad ?
Yes. If the controls are corrupted, what's the point in having them? If you don't know if something is working or not, it's not enough to try to replace it with the same garbage. Also, it does not prove that collusion is bad... it proves that collusion with the GOVERNMENT is bad, because they are the real monopoly. Collusion with other companies to make a good product can only be good for the consumer, who has the real choice and final say in whether the company continues to exist or not, not just the government.
Christian Graus wrote:
Are you claiming they seek to cause the bubbles ? Bubbles are caused by stupid people. Cheap money just gives them a chance to be stupid. You're, in essence, suggesting another form of regulation, keeping rates high to lock poor people permanently so they have no access to credit.
I'm not claiming they seek to cause bubbles. They could be, but that's not the argument. They do cause bubbles though, and that's the argument. Yes, bubbles are caused by stupid people. Governments are always stupid. Actually, more precisely, large groups of people are always stupid. AKA corporations and governments. I am also NOT suggesting locking interest rates at high levels. I've said time and again, we do not need a central bank, therefore not having interest rates dictated by the state.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.
< -
josda1000 wrote:
What, you can't do it yourself? Can't you get another company to inspect it for a fair price? If you open up the market to that kind of thing, prices would come down probably quite substantially.
Of course I get an inspection. When people build houses that fall down in the next hurricane, for example, how is that a good thing for society, or an advantage of free markets ?
josda1000 wrote:
How is it stupid, without you thinking about it?
People who borrow money they cannot pay back, are stupid.
josda1000 wrote:
Banks will loan to whomever they feel, and the "regulators" are already in collusion with them (easily corruptable), and we have a problem. It's obviously an oversimplification, but it's the truth.
So, the controls are corrupted and that proves that having control is bad ? Or does it prove that collusion ( which is done in self interest, i.e. capitalism ) is bad ?
josda1000 wrote:
Because they do set rates, they cause the chaos. They create the bubbles, through inflation and deflation of the money supply
Are you claiming they seek to cause the bubbles ? Bubbles are caused by stupid people. Cheap money just gives them a chance to be stupid. You're, in essence, suggesting another form of regulation, keeping rates high to lock poor people permanently so they have no access to credit.
josda1000 wrote:
I'd agree with that. It's just that they need to work on their skills to make themselves more competitive in the marketplace.
You don't get it. Stupid people, are stupid. They have no ability to build skills. And, you know what ? I need someone to stock the shelves, or make my latte. They are not worthless to society. They simply cannot defend themselves in the market as they have no great individual value.
josda1000 wrote:
Agreed. And to add to that point, the people electing don't think at all, therefore causing the problems.
Well, they think about the short term promises being made..
josda1000 wrote:
Oh no assumption there, I'm so far in debt it's ridiculous lol
*grin* I know how that is. I am very glad to be out of that trap, it's all too easy.
Christian Graus wrote:
You don't get it. Stupid people, are stupid. They have no ability to build skills.
Who are you to know who has skills and who doesn't? That's a very arrogant mentality, therefore I could be the one to call you stupid. You don't know one person's abilities to the other. You also don't have the moral right to tell someone they're stupid. There's different kinds of education and experience, and that's why there are tons of sectors of the economy.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, they think about the short term promises being made..
And not long term. Agreed. And that's the problem with the central banks, mind you. They think about short term, therefore setting interest rates articificially. Then 2 years down the line, BUST!
Christian Graus wrote:
Money is only a promise of value, that is true.
That's a true statement, to be sure. But why would gold be less valuable (or more) than paper? I think you just proved the point actually, when you say
Christian Graus wrote:
It does need to be backed up with something real, to at least some degree, just like a bank needs enough liquid funds to be able to protect itself from a run on it
They're one in the same. That's my opinion at least.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
josda1000 wrote:
What, you can't do it yourself? Can't you get another company to inspect it for a fair price? If you open up the market to that kind of thing, prices would come down probably quite substantially.
Why do people always trumpet this? The open market is not a fair market. Look at debit/reward cards. Visa had companies accept these cards as if they were Credit cards. This was fine and dandy. Except that instead of charging the companies less, they charged them more for the option and so did Mastercard. Instead of competing, they simply all raised prices and giggled because the customers weren't going to not take new price. You can only control prices as a customer if the businesses are willing to compete and you can refuse them. Something that is your livlihood or life on the line, you pay, you do it according to what they charge and you shut up.
josda1000 wrote:
And what of the fact that central banks have all the gold? Why do we not need it, but they do?
I hear this a lot. But I have never seen one of these gold filled rooms. I seriously doubt the head of a central bank is swimming in a vault filled with gold like Scrooge McDuck...
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
I hear you loud and clear. I really do. I mean, I'm there with you. The problem is, it's still theoretically "fair". Reason is, you accepted the card in the first place. You could have paid cash. Rewards are jokes, and to be suckered by such a thing is nonsense. Notice that there are only like four "major" credit cards... visa, mastercard, discover and american express. I call that a cartel. You have to GTFO of those cards, honestly. I know I am, I've been using mostly cash now for everything.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I hear this a lot. But I have never seen one of these gold filled rooms. I seriously doubt the head of a central bank is swimming in a vault filled with gold like Scrooge McDuck...
Read into Fort Knox. Looks like you need a history lesson. Realize that I said the "central banks" have all the gold, not the commercial banks.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
I hear you loud and clear. I really do. I mean, I'm there with you. The problem is, it's still theoretically "fair". Reason is, you accepted the card in the first place. You could have paid cash. Rewards are jokes, and to be suckered by such a thing is nonsense. Notice that there are only like four "major" credit cards... visa, mastercard, discover and american express. I call that a cartel. You have to GTFO of those cards, honestly. I know I am, I've been using mostly cash now for everything.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I hear this a lot. But I have never seen one of these gold filled rooms. I seriously doubt the head of a central bank is swimming in a vault filled with gold like Scrooge McDuck...
Read into Fort Knox. Looks like you need a history lesson. Realize that I said the "central banks" have all the gold, not the commercial banks.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Notice that there are only like four "major" credit cards... visa, mastercard, discover and american express. I call that a cartel. You have to GTFO of those cards, honestly. I know I am, I've been using mostly cash now for everything.
Yeah, if four is a cartel, that proves that competition does not automatically exist. I use my card a lot, for the flyer miles, but I pay it off every month. That's different to being trapped in debt, and I've been there, too.
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.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Yes, I do subscribe to that notion.
But we need people to be smarter. Great.
josda1000 wrote:
Government schools waste money... they're always clamoring for "more money!"
They are still using books from the 1950s !!!!
josda1000 wrote:
What I am saying is that money can only buy you so much... you need quality educations, and if you freed up the market to private schools, then you'd have competition.
Are there no private schools ? If there are, are you suggesting that someone on minimum wage could afford to send 2 kids to one ?
josda1000 wrote:
I'm not saying they shouldn't exist altogether, but if you take a look at the quality of the output students, there's a big difference in govt vs private. There should be a choice.
Is there not ? My kids go to private schools at home, but a public school will still provide a decent education.
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:
They are still using books from the 1950s !!!!
Proving my point.
Christian Graus wrote:
Are there no private schools ? If there are, are you suggesting that someone on minimum wage could afford to send 2 kids to one ?
I'm not saying there aren't any, however, there aren't enough. And someone on minimum wage won't afford it... but if we got rid of the wage req, then maybe more people could actually afford it, for the fact that more people would be paid more!
Christian Graus wrote:
Is there not ? My kids go to private schools at home, but a public school will still provide a decent education.
It's subjective obviously, but I'd say yes, there is a wide difference. Private school kids are taught to be leaders, public schools teach to be followers.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Christian Graus wrote:
You don't get it. Stupid people, are stupid. They have no ability to build skills.
Who are you to know who has skills and who doesn't? That's a very arrogant mentality, therefore I could be the one to call you stupid. You don't know one person's abilities to the other. You also don't have the moral right to tell someone they're stupid. There's different kinds of education and experience, and that's why there are tons of sectors of the economy.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, they think about the short term promises being made..
And not long term. Agreed. And that's the problem with the central banks, mind you. They think about short term, therefore setting interest rates articificially. Then 2 years down the line, BUST!
Christian Graus wrote:
Money is only a promise of value, that is true.
That's a true statement, to be sure. But why would gold be less valuable (or more) than paper? I think you just proved the point actually, when you say
Christian Graus wrote:
It does need to be backed up with something real, to at least some degree, just like a bank needs enough liquid funds to be able to protect itself from a run on it
They're one in the same. That's my opinion at least.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Who are you to know who has skills and who doesn't? That's a very arrogant mentality, therefore I could be the one to call you stupid.
Someone who is smart enough to do something else, and chooses to work at walmart their whole life, is not very smart.
josda1000 wrote:
You don't know one person's abilities to the other. You also don't have the moral right to tell someone they're stupid. There's different kinds of education and experience, and that's why there are tons of sectors of the economy.
Sure. I mean, I can't rebuild a car, or any one of 1000 other worthwhile manual jobs. I started talking about stupid people only to point out that some people ARE lacking in any sort of skill, and THEY are the sort of people who need the protection of things like minimum wage laws. My point was never to look down on anyone, just to say that someone who works hard, but has no real skills, is still a human being who deserves some protection from the society that relies on their labour.
josda1000 wrote:
And that's the problem with the central banks, mind you. They think about short term, therefore setting interest rates articificially. Then 2 years down the line, BUST!
That's your assumption. But the fact remains, low rates give poor people more access to credit, and it does not always end badly.
josda1000 wrote:
But why would gold be less valuable (or more) than paper?
Because we agree that it is. The same paper, the same raw material, can be worth $100 or $1. So, the only reason that is true, is because we agree that it is.
josda1000 wrote:
They're one in the same. That's my opinion at least.
I'm not sure I understood this. Gold needs to back up money just like a bank needs to not have runs made on it ? The value of money is not just set by what you say it is, internationally, how much you print changes how much it is worth. The USD has been in the toilet for a while but seems to be recovering.
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:
Of course I get an inspection. When people build houses that fall down in the next hurricane, for example, how is that a good thing for society, or an advantage of free markets ?
That's going to happen, and it should not be regulated honestly. You can't get everything perfect... and the business that created that house (architect, engineers, whoever) will go out of business if people make enough of a stir. (You'll say it's oversimplification, I think it's the truth if the free market capitalism were to work the way it's supposed to.)
Christian Graus wrote:
People who borrow money they cannot pay back, are stupid.
Truth.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, the controls are corrupted and that proves that having control is bad ? Or does it prove that collusion ( which is done in self interest, i.e. capitalism ) is bad ?
Yes. If the controls are corrupted, what's the point in having them? If you don't know if something is working or not, it's not enough to try to replace it with the same garbage. Also, it does not prove that collusion is bad... it proves that collusion with the GOVERNMENT is bad, because they are the real monopoly. Collusion with other companies to make a good product can only be good for the consumer, who has the real choice and final say in whether the company continues to exist or not, not just the government.
Christian Graus wrote:
Are you claiming they seek to cause the bubbles ? Bubbles are caused by stupid people. Cheap money just gives them a chance to be stupid. You're, in essence, suggesting another form of regulation, keeping rates high to lock poor people permanently so they have no access to credit.
I'm not claiming they seek to cause bubbles. They could be, but that's not the argument. They do cause bubbles though, and that's the argument. Yes, bubbles are caused by stupid people. Governments are always stupid. Actually, more precisely, large groups of people are always stupid. AKA corporations and governments. I am also NOT suggesting locking interest rates at high levels. I've said time and again, we do not need a central bank, therefore not having interest rates dictated by the state.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.
<josda1000 wrote:
Yes. If the controls are corrupted, what's the point in having them? If you don't know if something is working or not, it's not enough to try to replace it with the same garbage.
So, if your car is broken, you should not buy another one ? If your marriage fails, you should never remarry ? If you buy an apple and it's rotten, you should never buy another apple ? If your president is proven to be a liar, you should overthrow your political system and replace it with anarchy ?
josda1000 wrote:
Collusion with other companies to make a good product can only be good for the consumer, who has the real choice and final say in whether the company continues to exist or not, not just the government.
Not at all. If collusion forms a monopoly, in a product you need, then it just means you get charged more. It's not any different.
josda1000 wrote:
I am also NOT suggesting locking interest rates at high levels. I've said time and again, we do not need a central bank, therefore not having interest rates dictated by the state.
How would it be different than it is now, if interest rates were set by someone else ? Why would it be, beyond the 'I hate government' mantra ?
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:
They are still using books from the 1950s !!!!
Proving my point.
Christian Graus wrote:
Are there no private schools ? If there are, are you suggesting that someone on minimum wage could afford to send 2 kids to one ?
I'm not saying there aren't any, however, there aren't enough. And someone on minimum wage won't afford it... but if we got rid of the wage req, then maybe more people could actually afford it, for the fact that more people would be paid more!
Christian Graus wrote:
Is there not ? My kids go to private schools at home, but a public school will still provide a decent education.
It's subjective obviously, but I'd say yes, there is a wide difference. Private school kids are taught to be leaders, public schools teach to be followers.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Proving my point.
What, that they are underfunded ?
josda1000 wrote:
I'm not saying there aren't any, however, there aren't enough.
If they exist, then they CAN exist, then they exist to the degree that the market wants and will support them.
josda1000 wrote:
And someone on minimum wage won't afford it... but if we got rid of the wage req, then maybe more people could actually afford it, for the fact that more people would be paid more!
I'm sorry, but WHAT ? More people would be paid more money, if the government didn't say, you can't pay anyone less than XXX ? If the market was prone to do that, a minimum wage law would stop it from happening, how ?
josda1000 wrote:
It's subjective obviously, but I'd say yes, there is a wide difference. Private school kids are taught to be leaders, public schools teach to be followers.
Why do you think this is so ? At home, private school kids in some schools are taught to think like they are better than other people ( but not in the ones my kids go to ), and public schools, by definition, have more discipline problems b.c they get the kids whose parents don't care about education. I choose to pay because I do care. But, what they are taught is not that different, it's more that they have better resources. And take pressure off the public system, which is one reason I'd use them. I can afford to, and that helps the system to work.
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.