Time for a dose of truth for once around here
-
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.
-
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:
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.
I wasn't talking about the consumer. do some research into how those cards charged the banks and companies. Visa makes the companies pay a flat transaction fee and a % of the total. You want to process a credit card and get all that extra business, you need to play ball. A debit card is <10% of the purchase as a fee. A normal credit card is around 15%. A reward card is close to 20%. Visa pushed the banks into offering more of the reward cards by upping the fee to the companies and it didn't allow them to opt out. If they wanted to be able to do normal credit cards, they had to allow reward cards. Debit cards are the best deal for the companies, but are being killed because people would rather have the rewards. Visa charges a ton for each reward card transaction, gives a little to the banks, and cackles. Mastercard was also getting into the business, was told by Visa what they were charging and followed suit.
josda1000 wrote:
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.
Ft. Nox hasn't had jack all for gold in ages.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
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.
Christian Graus wrote:
What, that they are underfunded ?
No, I'm saying that the money is pointless to the education system... it's wasted. You'd think they'd be able to spend the money on new books by now.
Christian Graus wrote:
If they exist, then they CAN exist, then they exist to the degree that the market wants and will support them.
Here in Massachusetts, about three months ago, there was a debate on whether or not to open up a charter school in Gloucester. There were more people wanting it to be opened, while the governor definitely didn't want it to exist. I don't know what the outcome is, but I do know that he was one of very few to be against it, and he was working to get it shut down.
Christian Graus wrote:
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 ?
Sorry about that, but I'm apparently living a dream. Within the argument, I was expecting the value of the dollar to rise substantially with it being linked to gold/silver, or made of gold/silver. If you put the two arguments together, you have a full argument.
Christian Graus wrote:
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.
I'm glad you see you're making a difference. And I hear you. Though I do have one argument. You said, "private school kids in SOME schools are taught to think like they are better than other people". Just realize that that's the point... to stave off the notion that all kids have to be treated equally badly or equally well would be a disaster, IMO. So if you have multiple types of schools with different teaching methods, that's a great thing.
Josh Davis
Always look -
Christian Graus wrote:
What, that they are underfunded ?
No, I'm saying that the money is pointless to the education system... it's wasted. You'd think they'd be able to spend the money on new books by now.
Christian Graus wrote:
If they exist, then they CAN exist, then they exist to the degree that the market wants and will support them.
Here in Massachusetts, about three months ago, there was a debate on whether or not to open up a charter school in Gloucester. There were more people wanting it to be opened, while the governor definitely didn't want it to exist. I don't know what the outcome is, but I do know that he was one of very few to be against it, and he was working to get it shut down.
Christian Graus wrote:
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 ?
Sorry about that, but I'm apparently living a dream. Within the argument, I was expecting the value of the dollar to rise substantially with it being linked to gold/silver, or made of gold/silver. If you put the two arguments together, you have a full argument.
Christian Graus wrote:
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.
I'm glad you see you're making a difference. And I hear you. Though I do have one argument. You said, "private school kids in SOME schools are taught to think like they are better than other people". Just realize that that's the point... to stave off the notion that all kids have to be treated equally badly or equally well would be a disaster, IMO. So if you have multiple types of schools with different teaching methods, that's a great thing.
Josh Davis
Always lookjosda1000 wrote:
No, I'm saying that the money is pointless to the education system... it's wasted. You'd think they'd be able to spend the money on new books by now.
So, you either claim the teachers are too stupid to know what to do with money ( perhaps because they are so poorly paid themselves ), or that the people attracted to the job in the US don't care about education. It doesn't occur to you that they don't have new books b/c of lack of funding ?
josda1000 wrote:
There were more people wanting it to be opened, while the governor definitely didn't want it to exist. I don't know what the outcome is, but I do know that he was one of very few to be against it, and he was working to get it shut down.
Well, then the system is broken.
josda1000 wrote:
Within the argument, I was expecting the value of the dollar to rise substantially with it being linked to gold/silver, or made of gold/silver. If you put the two arguments together, you have a full argument.
Again, you want to make the people who are rich, richer, and the people who are poor, poorer. How would that help anyone ? I just don't see any logic there, sorry.
josda1000 wrote:
So if you have multiple types of schools with different teaching methods, that's a great thing.
I don't think that it's ever good to teach kids that the world owes them a living b/c of who they were born to, but yes, we do have schools with different teaching methods, and that is a good thing.
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. 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:
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 ?
I'm going to break this up into two groups. PERSONAL DECISIONS: 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 ? GROUP DECISIONS: If your president is proven to be a liar, you should overthrow your political system and replace it with anarchy ? I don't suggest anarchy, however, it'd be better than the present system, IMO.
Christian Graus wrote:
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.
I'd agree with this 100%. So then, why do you subscribe to the notion that we need a central bank, which is in fact a monopoly on money, the most essential product we have (arguably, second to food and such)?
Christian Graus wrote:
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 ?
The market would set the rates, the commercial banks themselves, and would rise and fall according to the demands of the different sectors. If you have the time and capacity, I want you to look up Tom Woods: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Di-_cfuAVk[^] This is an 11 part series, I think it's about 2 hrs in length. I realize it's a tall order, but try it out.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.