The Myth of Property Ownership: Woman Sees Her Home Confiscated Over a Water Bill
-
Distind wrote:
are you aware there was inflation and deflation long before the fed?
Yes. I hope you've been reading the debates with Ian and Christian. And as a matter of fact, between 1789 and 1913, the dollar gained 13% in value, just because it was gold/silver, compared to the other currencies of the world. Yes, there is some inflation when using gold. But it's so minuscule that it gains value compared to paper.
Distind wrote:
That the instability in currency caused major economic and social issues?
This is mostly a joke, but when talking about bank runs, this is only because of the fractional reserve idea.
Distind wrote:
Or that the Fed has done a fair job of managing consistency compared to the 'invisible reach around of the market'?
Yeah. And it should be illegal, because it's at the very least immoral. But this is a matter of perception.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
This is mostly a joke, but when talking about bank runs, this is only because of the fractional reserve idea.
Not talking bank runs, I'm talking the people who don't make that much money but still have to eat and most likely have loans. They lose either way. Inflation, they get stuck paying more for food and probably didn't make any more. Deflation they get stuffed with loans which are now valued far higher than they were and they were probably making far less. I'm talking about the people who actually suffered from these changes regularly, not the people who had money in the bank to withdraw.
josda1000 wrote:
Yeah. And it should be illegal, because it's at the very least immoral. But this is a matter of perception.
Because as per usual, it's illegal and immoral if one person gets inconvenienced by a regulation, but perfectly moral to let people suffer due to a lack of it. Ran into this argument a lot against public health care too, doesn't make it work.
-
josda1000 wrote:
This is mostly a joke, but when talking about bank runs, this is only because of the fractional reserve idea.
Not talking bank runs, I'm talking the people who don't make that much money but still have to eat and most likely have loans. They lose either way. Inflation, they get stuck paying more for food and probably didn't make any more. Deflation they get stuffed with loans which are now valued far higher than they were and they were probably making far less. I'm talking about the people who actually suffered from these changes regularly, not the people who had money in the bank to withdraw.
josda1000 wrote:
Yeah. And it should be illegal, because it's at the very least immoral. But this is a matter of perception.
Because as per usual, it's illegal and immoral if one person gets inconvenienced by a regulation, but perfectly moral to let people suffer due to a lack of it. Ran into this argument a lot against public health care too, doesn't make it work.
Distind wrote:
Because as per usual, it's illegal and immoral if one person gets inconvenienced by a regulation, but perfectly moral to let people suffer due to a lack of it. Ran into this argument a lot against public health care too, doesn't make it work.
I agree with hearing this too. By and far the people who have are the ones saying this the most. It reminds me of the land in Gulliver's Travels when he's small and puny and explains to the queen how their economics functions. She finds this to be impish and small just like Gulliver.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
josda1000 wrote:
This is mostly a joke, but when talking about bank runs, this is only because of the fractional reserve idea.
Not talking bank runs, I'm talking the people who don't make that much money but still have to eat and most likely have loans. They lose either way. Inflation, they get stuck paying more for food and probably didn't make any more. Deflation they get stuffed with loans which are now valued far higher than they were and they were probably making far less. I'm talking about the people who actually suffered from these changes regularly, not the people who had money in the bank to withdraw.
josda1000 wrote:
Yeah. And it should be illegal, because it's at the very least immoral. But this is a matter of perception.
Because as per usual, it's illegal and immoral if one person gets inconvenienced by a regulation, but perfectly moral to let people suffer due to a lack of it. Ran into this argument a lot against public health care too, doesn't make it work.
Distind wrote:
Because as per usual, it's illegal and immoral if one person gets inconvenienced by a regulation, but perfectly moral to let people suffer due to a lack of it.
I think you've got it backwards. With more regulations, all small businesses are somewhat inconvenienced in order to fit in line with them. The corporations have plenty of capital to fit in line with them, or to pay regulators off to not speak up about their cronyism. With fewer regulations, businesses are able to compete to get the best product to their consumers, and the consumer base is able to handle the situation fine. Small businesses are able to climb the ladder of success according to their merits, as opposed to fitting in line with what a government decides is good for you. Don't get me wrong, a government should always be there to protect from fraud and abuse. But that's about it. If you have the ability, see Stossel's last show. Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SXKCzhz_q8[^] The reason why America became great is because of its freedom. The reason why we're good here is because of our economic freedom, at the very least. Our standard of living is high compared to so many other countries, and not because of our democracy or regulations; it's because of the market.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
josda1000 wrote:
This is mostly a joke, but when talking about bank runs, this is only because of the fractional reserve idea.
Not talking bank runs, I'm talking the people who don't make that much money but still have to eat and most likely have loans. They lose either way. Inflation, they get stuck paying more for food and probably didn't make any more. Deflation they get stuffed with loans which are now valued far higher than they were and they were probably making far less. I'm talking about the people who actually suffered from these changes regularly, not the people who had money in the bank to withdraw.
josda1000 wrote:
Yeah. And it should be illegal, because it's at the very least immoral. But this is a matter of perception.
Because as per usual, it's illegal and immoral if one person gets inconvenienced by a regulation, but perfectly moral to let people suffer due to a lack of it. Ran into this argument a lot against public health care too, doesn't make it work.
I think we can both agree that corporations are the problem. But the only way they get away with things is through buying government votes. This is a symptom (THE symptom) of big government. The only way to change things is to not go after corporations with more legislation (because that will add to the burden of small business), but to actually shrink government. I know it goes against everything you've ever been taught, but this is the only way to do it. Notice that as government grows, life gets just a little bit more difficult here at home. This is because the corporations are growing, and because money is taken out of the private sector and handed to others in the private sector. The only way to fix it is to reverse the trend. The middle class is shrinking. Why? Because of the corporations? Yes, partly. But it's also because big government is an enabler.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
josda1000 wrote:
don't really ever have much to offer.
On the topics of conspiracy theories related to, central banks, centralised government control, one world government, government media gag orders etc no I have very little to offer other than the occasional attempt at mocking.
I bet you have lots to offer on the topic of cricket and sheep.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
I bet you have lots to offer on the topic of cricket and sheep.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
new interst in sheep css? have you changed your sexual leaning from mrs thumb and her daughters to wooly beasts?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
-
http://www.alternet.org/story/147118/woman_loses_home_over_a_%24362_water_bill_--_the_sneaky_way_investors_exploit_poor_homeowners[^] This is in response to Christian. At one point, he and I were discussing (I can't find the thread) about property rights, and how banks cannot lawfully or legally claim another piece of property (land, car, etc), at all, whatsoever, unless a loan has been lended to the party, in which it has not been paid back. In concept, we both agree here. HOWEVER, in the situation posted in the link, a lady did not pay a water bill to the government in the amount of 362 dollars (the property was bought and paid for in full by this time, they'd owned it for 30+ years). The government decided to, instead of collecting the amount owed, hand over the piece of land to banks and investors. This is theft, outright. I believe we may all agree on the concept here, but I would like people to sound off. Secondly, this goes along with two of Jefferson's quotes: "My reading of history convinces me that bad government comes from too much government." "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." As to the second quote, let's be clear here: There's no way, in our new "socialist/fascist" society, that we'd be homeless. If that were true, then there'd be no incentive for anyone to work for the corporations, IMO, and it'd be impolitic to do so. But the overriding principle of that quote is clear: inflation and deflation, what is now called the business cycle, is created to deprive wealth from the middle class. We once had a thriving middle class, as opposed to very popular belief to the pundits of this forum. Since the Fed was created, it has deprived the dollar of ~95% of its value through inflation, and creating busts through deflation, therefore having us work extra jobs that back in the 1800s the middle class didn't need. You'd also need to prove to me pretty clearly that the middle class was not
josda1000 wrote:
HOWEVER, in the situation posted in the link, a lady did not pay a water bill to the government in the amount of 362 dollars (the property was bought and paid for in full by this time, they'd owned it for 30+ years). The government decided to, instead of collecting the amount owed, hand over the piece of land to banks and investors. This is theft, outright. I believe we may all agree on the concept here, but I would like people to sound off.
I'd love to read several accounts to get detail on this, I find it hard to believe that she was a week late and came home to find it was not home anymore. More like they did this because they exhausted all other avenues, and I'd expect that some history would also exist. This sort of thing just does not happen to normal people who pay their bills.
josda1000 wrote:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
I assume this is something he really said ? I don't have reason to doubt it, but I know that the Lenin effect causes people to invent quotes to give their words weight. Either way, I'm sorry to say that the odd person who lost their home in circumstances we can't claim to fully know, does not prove that there's anything like an epidemic, or any reason for me to fear losing my home more than, say, being killed in a school shooting ( in America at least ). Not trying to start the gun discussion, just trying to think of an example of something that happens in America, yet will not affect the vast majority of people. It's a long way from what the quote is saying. And the banks STILL have nothing to do with it. The banks had nothing to do with this woman not paying her water bill, or losing her home.
josda1000 wrote:
As to the second quote, let's be clear here: There's no way, in our new "socialist/fascist" society, that we'd be homeless. If that were true, then there'd be no incentive for anyone to work for the corporations, IMO, and it'd be impolitic to do so.
This is, again, not based on any real facts in the real world.
josda1000 wrote:
But t
-
I bet you have lots to offer on the topic of cricket and sheep.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
ROTFL - there I was wondering what you had to offer in a discussion on property ownership. I see it was nothing of value.
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:
HOWEVER, in the situation posted in the link, a lady did not pay a water bill to the government in the amount of 362 dollars (the property was bought and paid for in full by this time, they'd owned it for 30+ years). The government decided to, instead of collecting the amount owed, hand over the piece of land to banks and investors. This is theft, outright. I believe we may all agree on the concept here, but I would like people to sound off.
I'd love to read several accounts to get detail on this, I find it hard to believe that she was a week late and came home to find it was not home anymore. More like they did this because they exhausted all other avenues, and I'd expect that some history would also exist. This sort of thing just does not happen to normal people who pay their bills.
josda1000 wrote:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
I assume this is something he really said ? I don't have reason to doubt it, but I know that the Lenin effect causes people to invent quotes to give their words weight. Either way, I'm sorry to say that the odd person who lost their home in circumstances we can't claim to fully know, does not prove that there's anything like an epidemic, or any reason for me to fear losing my home more than, say, being killed in a school shooting ( in America at least ). Not trying to start the gun discussion, just trying to think of an example of something that happens in America, yet will not affect the vast majority of people. It's a long way from what the quote is saying. And the banks STILL have nothing to do with it. The banks had nothing to do with this woman not paying her water bill, or losing her home.
josda1000 wrote:
As to the second quote, let's be clear here: There's no way, in our new "socialist/fascist" society, that we'd be homeless. If that were true, then there'd be no incentive for anyone to work for the corporations, IMO, and it'd be impolitic to do so.
This is, again, not based on any real facts in the real world.
josda1000 wrote:
But t
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: As to the second quote, let's be clear here: There's no way, in our new "socialist/fascist" society, that we'd be homeless. If that were true, then there'd be no incentive for anyone to work for the corporations, IMO, and it'd be impolitic to do so. This is, again, not based on any real facts in the real world.
USSR. Germany. Zimbabwe. GREECE. Do your homework.
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: But the overriding principle of that quote is clear: inflation and deflation, what is now called the business cycle, is created to deprive wealth from the middle class. No, it's created BY the middle class, who drive most of the economy. It's not invented to rob anyone. That is a fantasy.
Again: Zimbabwe, Germany, Rome. Try again. Do your homework. Read history. I'm not doing this for nothing. And you definitely have to read up on how the Federal Reserve was created. It was created by the money trust. JP Morgan, Rockefeller, and one Senator. Middle class, indeed.
Christian Graus wrote:
You can live the way the middle class lived in the 1800s on one job, easily.
Facts? I think even Ian and I agree on this one, according to our discussions. I'm pretty sure I'm right about this one, and this just further proves you really are living in a fantasy.
Christian Graus wrote:
The middle class had a good standard of life, and a good education. The reasons for that, according to you, are speculation designed to support your views, not statements of fact.
And you're doing the same.
Christian Graus wrote:
CSS is a blathering moron. I hope you're not wanting to lump your lot in with the stupidest, most deliberately ignorant, rudest and least capable of coherent thought person I've ever met.
I think you and Ian pointed out that even though CSS and I are of the same opinion, I back my stuff up. Possibly a little too far. But yes, he and I ARE of the same mindset. And you have a mindset of your own, to be sure.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: As to the second quote, let's be clear here: There's no way, in our new "socialist/fascist" society, that we'd be homeless. If that were true, then there'd be no incentive for anyone to work for the corporations, IMO, and it'd be impolitic to do so. This is, again, not based on any real facts in the real world.
USSR. Germany. Zimbabwe. GREECE. Do your homework.
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: But the overriding principle of that quote is clear: inflation and deflation, what is now called the business cycle, is created to deprive wealth from the middle class. No, it's created BY the middle class, who drive most of the economy. It's not invented to rob anyone. That is a fantasy.
Again: Zimbabwe, Germany, Rome. Try again. Do your homework. Read history. I'm not doing this for nothing. And you definitely have to read up on how the Federal Reserve was created. It was created by the money trust. JP Morgan, Rockefeller, and one Senator. Middle class, indeed.
Christian Graus wrote:
You can live the way the middle class lived in the 1800s on one job, easily.
Facts? I think even Ian and I agree on this one, according to our discussions. I'm pretty sure I'm right about this one, and this just further proves you really are living in a fantasy.
Christian Graus wrote:
The middle class had a good standard of life, and a good education. The reasons for that, according to you, are speculation designed to support your views, not statements of fact.
And you're doing the same.
Christian Graus wrote:
CSS is a blathering moron. I hope you're not wanting to lump your lot in with the stupidest, most deliberately ignorant, rudest and least capable of coherent thought person I've ever met.
I think you and Ian pointed out that even though CSS and I are of the same opinion, I back my stuff up. Possibly a little too far. But yes, he and I ARE of the same mindset. And you have a mindset of your own, to be sure.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
USSR. Germany. Zimbabwe. GREECE. Do your homework.
Taking some societies where things went bad and looking for any correlation you can find, without proper analysis of the overall societal and situational differences, is not homework. It's squeezing the facts to fit your worldview.
josda1000 wrote:
Try again. Do your homework. Read history.
You may read as much history as me, I doubt you read more.
josda1000 wrote:
And you definitely have to read up on how the Federal Reserve was created.
I've read a lot about that, too. I didn't invest in the stock markets before reading some histories to understand where they came from.
josda1000 wrote:
I'm pretty sure I'm right about this one, and this just further proves you really are living in a fantasy.
People in the 1800s did not have 3 cars, did not pay for cable and 4 cell phones, did not have long holidays, or computers. The main issues are complex. House prices have been driven up by scarcity of land. Population growth pushes the poor further away from jobs, and thus increases their travel costs. People not being willing to live with extended family increases living costs for everyone. There's a ton more going on than 'the fed came along and inflation went nuts'.
josda1000 wrote:
And you're doing the same.
I didn't even present any reasons, I just said that what you're saying is simplistic and made to fit your views.
josda1000 wrote:
I think you and Ian pointed out that even though CSS and I are of the same opinion, I back my stuff up.
Absolutely. That you believe the same things says nothing about your personality vs his. It's just a sad thing for you to align yourself with, without any caveats. He has his worldview, but it's plainly based on ignorance and blind acceptance of alternative media sources. I suspect there's more people like him, than like you, in the 'movement' as a whole. He comes to agree with you by accident, not by rational thinking, so that he does, does not help you at all.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out