[quote]TooHuman wrote:<<< When you divert capital to “create jobs” where you feel it’s socially acceptable you have to first have prevented jobs from being created where there is existing demand in the market. >>>[/quote]This does not necessarily follow which I must say even though you and I probably agree on quite a bit. It is feasible for capital to be used for job creation (allegedly) and have there be no corresponding demand anywhere else in the market to be effected.
[/quote]
No it’s not possible. The demand of capital follows it’s supply. An arbitrary allocation of that capital by a third party under the threat of force will ALWAYS result in a larger miss allocation than in a voluntary exchange between 2 parties.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:<<< When you divert capital to “create jobs” where you feel it’s socially acceptable you have to first have prevented jobs from being created where there is existing demand in the market. >>>[/quote]This does not necessarily follow which I must say even though you and I probably agree on quite a bit. It is feasible for capital to be used for job creation (allegedly) and have there be no corresponding demand anywhere else in the market to be effected.
[/quote]
Thank you for saying that. Companies like GE are coming under fire right now because they did not pay any taxes and received huge returns from subsided for things like green energy. Government provided capital is the last tool to stop corporations from creating scarcity simply for profits sake in the above example. It could also be that GE has some leaders that realize a long term agenda can work with an immediate profit still being possible and provide for their success going forward. My fear is that these tax payer dollars have no strings to make those investments stay in the hands of Americans when the oil disappears or becomes to expensive to sustain a working economy.
Woodrow Wilson, 1916, said:
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men… We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized worldâ??no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.
President Wilson, in advocating the Federal Reserve Act, said:
We must have a currency, not rigid as now, but readily, elastically responsive to sound credit, the expanding and contracting credits of everyday transactions, the normal ebb and flow of personal and corporate dealings. Our banking laws must mobilize reserves; must not permit the concentration anywhere in a few hands of the monetary resources of the country or their use for speculative purposes in such volume as to hinder or impede or stand in the way of other more legitimate, more fruitful uses. And the control of the system of banking and of issue which our new laws are to set up must be public, not private, must be vested in the Government itself, so that the banks may be the instruments, not the masters, of business and of individual enterprise and initiative.
The issues we are facing are not partisan and cannot be solved with partisan ideologies. [/quote]
Governments prevent corporations from creating scarcity for profit?
REAlly?
Government forced the miss-allocation of resources IN THE FIRST PLACE by propping up GM with cheap credit and subsidies. Government CREATES scarcity by maintaining a company’s/sector’s profitability DESPITE them net destroying capital.
You are one stupid motherfucker.
These “investments” will help the price of energy from going up when the oil disappears?
NO you MORON, scarcity drives the development of substitution supplies ALL BY ITS SELF when prices rise. SHIT, you learn this is high school econ for fuck’s sake.
These subsidies only PREVENT resources from being distributed to substitute sources of energy when prices go up due to scarcity. WHY? Because they are ARBITRARILY MADE BY A THIRD PARTY instead of between VOLUNTARY PARTIES IN THE MARKET.
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
You can pretend that having huge campaign contributions made by corporations to both candidates does not impact policy but I will continue to argue that it does and to the point that the corporations will almost always get what they want before the american people.[/quote]
It’s the EVIL CORPORATIONS…lol
I agree term limits would fix at least some of the problems. But no one wants to give up their job willingly. And while most people favor term limits in theory for some reason the people will not vote out their own representatives. So in essence they want other peoples representatives to have term limits.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Governments prevent corporations from creating scarcity for profit?
REAlly?
Government forced the miss-allocation of resources IN THE FIRST PLACE by propping up GM with cheap credit and subsidies. Government CREATES scarcity by maintaining a company’s/sector’s profitability DESPITE them net destroying capital.[/quote]
This should have never happened. This was not in the best interest of the nation and the short sightedness of these actions by the bush administration only prove my point more that the elected Conservative and liberal parties bow to the interests of corporations and wall street above the middle class.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
You are one stupid motherfucker.[/quote]
If you are going to be in LA in the next 2 years private message me. I would love to see you say that to my face tough guy. Make it a rule that you speak to people in the same fashion you would in real life, you are a coward and a punk. Let me put it this way I have never had anyone say something like that to my face. Come be the first.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
These “investments” will help the price of energy from going up when the oil disappears?
NO you MORON, scarcity drives the development of substitution supplies ALL BY ITS SELF when prices rise. SHIT, you learn this is high school econ for fuck’s sake.
These subsidies only PREVENT resources from being distributed to substitute sources of energy when prices go up due to scarcity. WHY? Because they are ARBITRARILY MADE BY A THIRD PARTY instead of between VOLUNTARY PARTIES IN THE MARKET.[/quote]
You see how I use my real name as my screen name and how I have a picture of myself in my profile? you are a screen name with no conviction and the fear of anyone knowing that you are in fact a tiny little coward.
I agree with your high school explanation of how supply and demand should effect the development of a substitution commodities. Your assessment of the simplicity of the situation is Sophomoric so for a high school-er I give you an A. I have been able to sleep 4hrs in the last 36 and am beginning my next 16 hr stretch so I am going to do my best explaining a concept to you. The fact is that there are major profits to be made by a few in the short run, by not advancing alternative technology. These people will also benefit in the long term because they have no ties to this country and in fact would love to see us become more competitive.(Which means willing to provide work for less)
While I agree that there is an equilibrium at which point investing in these will make financial sense, the technologies themselves as they exist today are not substantial enough to fill the void for the worlds energies needs. Energy is only one small fraction of the oil scarcity issue. Again alternative means can be sought in production of oil, from algea for example, but this is still below the equilibrium that would make this a sound investment for a company at this time. Oil is used in almost every consumer product made. We use it is plastics, pesticides (commercial farming), rubber, pretty much everything. There are 7 gallons of oil in every tire produced. This is something that needs to be realized as well.
You have to ask yourself, when that point is reached where it is immediately profitable to invest in alternatives, what is going to keep those investments inside of the USA. Plus we are not leading the way on these technologies as it stands so is it in our long term best interests to allow foreign governments to control that technology? or is it prudent to encourage investment by the private sector now? This is presumptuous on my part to think that you care if the US leads on this issue, but I for one do care. You seem like a selfish hypocrite that will preach self reliance and doesn’t care about anyone but himself, not an ounce of pride or concern for this country. Your a self reliant little punk that will starve if they close down the local grocery store and be naked if wal-mart shuts its doors. A hypocrite that will preach against social security and medicaid and unemployment benefits but use them when the shit hits the fan.
We live in a Global economy. You can fantasize as much as you want that subsidies don’t encourage domestic production, but we are competing against cheap, almost slave labor, in third world and even communistic developed nations like China. I am exhausted. You compartmentalize issues and view them from a very limited perspective.
I am probably wasting my time so I am going to stop. If you address me with such little respect a second time don’t expect a reply at all. Don’t feel threatened to drop me a line if your in the area. I am not a violent person and would love to see how aggressive you are towards someone like me in real life simply for the experience of meeting such a bad ass.
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
You can pretend that having huge campaign contributions made by corporations to both candidates does not impact policy but I will continue to argue that it does and to the point that the corporations will almost always get what they want before the american people.[/quote]
[quote]ZEB wrote:
It’s the EVIL CORPORATIONS…lol
[/quote]
It’s the morally upstanding corporations with care for the American middle class, LOL.
I agree term limits would fix at least some of the problems. But no one wants to give up their job willingly. And while most people favor term limits in theory for some reason the people will not vote out their own representatives. So in essence they want other peoples representatives to have term limits.[/quote]
I agree we get the government we deserve.
I also understand that this is the basic philosophy behind what conservatives preach. There is nothing stopping someone from creating a Not-for-profit insurance company for example, other than people are not willing to pay more to ensure everyone is offered care. There is nothing to stop someone from dumping billions into Green Technology, but it is not going to be profitable in the short run. I get this concept I just don’t want to suffer the impending consequences of allowing this ship to run it s course because the majority of the population is distracted and/or apathetic.
For a different perspective on the GI Bill.[/quote]
I can grasp what he is saying but it is purely speculation. It is kind of a conundrum in that I do accept that it is possible, but it is not what happened or served the needs of the population at that time. You have to understand that what happened to the country following world war one, in particular to the vets returning home is what the government was trying to avoid repeating.
[quote]
This new world arrived almost immediately, as virtually every college and university in the country clamored for money and students, and willingly threw out traditional standards.[/quote]
Traditional standards being? No minorities, women, or blue collar men?
[quote]
They impose “diversity standards,” which attempt to tell colleges and universities what they should teach, who should teach it, and to whom it should be taught.[/quote]
This is just some racist/sexist speak.
This goes against his argument in that,
Surely with the flood of federal dollars going to secular schools there would have been a surplus of all of these private sector allocations and the religious institutions would not have had to sell-out to the federal government?
Lol, this is rhetoric for intellectual independence of the privileged white male has been lost.
Surely accepting vouchers would be optional to the private schools. They don’t have to sell out if they don’t want to.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I was about to jump in when you mistakenly said the federal reserve was part of the federal government, but I can’t bit my tongue on this.
Ayn Rand advocated individualized selfishness as a virtue. She claimed that socialism(s) always fail because the individual is selfish and will abuse the system for individual advantage. Her life, including dieing on medicare and social security, is actually the opposite of being hypocritical. It actually proves her point.
But even further she advocated a system without things like social security, she did not advocate not using it once a government has already made you pay for it. The 2 are not logically equivalent. And there is no hypocrisy in her getting what she can out of the system.[/quote]
If i did say or imply that the Fed is a part of the Government you are correct in that it was a mistake on my part. It is a private entity and that is why it is so grotesque.
Also, I am certainly not arguing for pure socialism.
I have to disagree that there is no hypocrisy in getting what she can out of the system. It shows a lack of conviction in her own ideology. At least admit that she ended up that way because she was weak not because she had to contribute to social security and medicare. Why is being a martyr for your beliefs such an under valued act these days?
As for her actions proving her point, I can see what you are saying, she was a weak, and selfish, if that makes you happy I will contest that she stood by the selfish part of her philosophy in accepting the social services that only the weak would rely on. Wow what a hero.
Society without compromise or consideration for your fellowman or anything that might benefit the whole before simply benefiting yourself. What a beautiful world that would be. Someone should rewrite John Lennon’s Imagine with her ideals that would be great!
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
As for your 2nd paragraph, if I don’t believe in unemployment compensation but take advantage of it when I’m laid off, does that make me a hypocrite? After all, I’ve been paying into the system for years. Same deal with SS, medicaid, etc., IMO. It’s not that I (hypothetically speaking, of course) am advocating a principle and not following it, but am forced to follow a system which does not adhere to my principles because I don’t have a choice in paying into those systems.[/quote]
I kind of think that it does make you a hypocrite. Especially if you have utilized those funds and have no appreciation for how they affected your livelihood. That would make you an unappreciative hypocrite. You are not forced to accept unemployment benefits, and let me tell you I don’t feel sorry for you and your plight of having been forced to participate in unemployment. I actually denied accepting mine following a hurricane that displaced my wife and I for 6 months a few years back because I actively sought and found temporary employment and had the funds to hold out for a few weeks. In addition, those funds are contributed by your employer not through a direct tax on the employee so you are not paying into unemployment. But I’ll be Damned if it doesn’t sound like you feel entitled…
Also, if you did not have unemployment benefits and lost your job what would you do? I am just curious why you would be against something that provides stability to the economy and peoples households for temporary periods of time and which often are the result of things beyond the control of the average employee? They are funded by an appropriated tax on your employer which is completely constitutional. What is the problem?
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
As for your 2nd paragraph, if I don’t believe in unemployment compensation but take advantage of it when I’m laid off, does that make me a hypocrite? After all, I’ve been paying into the system for years. Same deal with SS, medicaid, etc., IMO. It’s not that I (hypothetically speaking, of course) am advocating a principle and not following it, but am forced to follow a system which does not adhere to my principles because I don’t have a choice in paying into those systems.[/quote]
I kind of think that it does make you a hypocrite. Especially if you have utilized those funds and have no appreciation for how they affected your livelihood. That would make you an unappreciative hypocrite. You are not forced to accept unemployment benefits, and let me tell you I don’t feel sorry for you and your plight of having been forced to participate in unemployment. I actually denied accepting mine following a hurricane that displaced my wife and I for 6 months a few years back because I actively sought and found temporary employment and had the funds to hold out for a few weeks. In addition, those funds are contributed by your employer not through a direct tax on the employee so you are not paying into unemployment. But I’ll be Damned if it doesn’t sound like you feel entitled…
Also, if you did not have unemployment benefits and lost your job what would you do? I am just curious why you would be against something that provides stability to the economy and peoples households for temporary periods of time and which often are the result of things beyond the control of the average employee? They are funded by an appropriated tax on your employer which is completely constitutional. What is the problem?
[/quote]
That was all hypothetical, I never lost my job and have not been or ever needed unemployment benefits, sorry for the miscommunication. That being said, suffice to say I disagree with your hypocrite argument.
Also, I’m not against the safety nets we have set up in America, however, I feel they’re too easily abused and strict term limits need to be put on how long people can use them. It’s one thing to fall down and need some help getting back on your feet, it’s quite another to fall down, refuse to get up, and have taxpayers drag you for the rest of your life.
For a different perspective on the GI Bill.[/quote]
I can grasp what he is saying but it is purely speculation. It is kind of a conundrum in that I do accept that it is possible, but it is not what happened or served the needs of the population at that time. You have to understand that what happened to the country following world war one, in particular to the vets returning home is what the government was trying to avoid repeating.
[quote]
This new world arrived almost immediately, as virtually every college and university in the country clamored for money and students, and willingly threw out traditional standards.[/quote]
Traditional standards being? No minorities, women, or blue collar men?
I don’t agree with all of your criticisms of that article but overall I agree the article was short on factual, identifiable evidence, just as your argument that the GI Bill was a great help to the economy after WWII.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
That was all hypothetical, I never lost my job and have not been or ever needed unemployment benefits, sorry for the miscommunication. That being said, suffice to say I disagree with your hypocrite argument.
Also, I’m not against the safety nets we have set up in America, however, I feel they’re too easily abused and strict term limits need to be put on how long people can use them. It’s one thing to fall down and need some help getting back on your feet, it’s quite another to fall down, refuse to get up, and have taxpayers drag you for the rest of your life.
[/quote]
Up until recently unemployment was limited to 25 weeks once every 4 or 5 years. Now we have the 99ers, but never has anyone been supported through unemployment for the rest of their life.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
I don’t agree with all of your criticisms of that article but overall I agree the article was short on factual, identifiable evidence, just as your argument that the GI Bill was a great help to the economy after WWII.
[/quote]
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
That was all hypothetical, I never lost my job and have not been or ever needed unemployment benefits, sorry for the miscommunication. That being said, suffice to say I disagree with your hypocrite argument.
Also, I’m not against the safety nets we have set up in America, however, I feel they’re too easily abused and strict term limits need to be put on how long people can use them. It’s one thing to fall down and need some help getting back on your feet, it’s quite another to fall down, refuse to get up, and have taxpayers drag you for the rest of your life.
[/quote]
Up until recently unemployment was limited to 25 weeks once every 4 or 5 years. Now we have the 99ers, but never has anyone been supported through unemployment for the rest of their life. [/quote]
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the length of unemployment increased significantly with the increase in unemployment benefits.
Also, under the term safety net I’m including medicare, medicaid, welfare, SS…basically entitlement programs which people become dependent on for their entire lives and even pass that dependence onto future generations.
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
I just don’t want to suffer the impending consequences of allowing this ship to run it s course because the majority of the population is distracted and/or apathetic. [/quote]
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Also, under the term safety net I’m including medicare, medicaid, welfare, SS…basically entitlement programs which people become dependent on for their entire lives and even pass that dependence onto future generations.
[/quote]
I agree that these are insufficient in design. Social security is fixable with a rather small and painless increase to payroll taxes, and because there is a rather larger portion of the population that is planing or going to need to rely on this, for me the argument of if one agrees with is takes second seat to the fact that it is and should be maintained at this point.
Same goes for medicare and medicare. The phasing out idea on future generations is fine, but pulling the plug or placing unreasonable caps on care is not going to change the reality that we have a rather lager portion of our population reaching an age where health care costs are going to be significant. Stipulation based on income should be looked at if they do not exist. If they can afford private health care then they should pay for it themselves.
Phasing out FTMFW. I don’t care if I don’t see a dime of SS $, I’m planning my own retirement. I don’t even care if they keep taxing me for the next 5 years. But at this rate I figure I’ll be taxed for the next 20 years and still not see a dime.
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
I just don’t want to suffer the impending consequences of allowing this ship to run it s course because the majority of the population is distracted and/or apathetic. [/quote]
So what are you going to do about it?[/quote]
Try and support movements/candidates that align with my ideas. Have discussions with people and share those ideas.
I am also a realist and know that there may not be anything I can do. That is why I am working 2 jobs and paying off all unsecured debt. I also am planning on buying a piece of land and raising animals and growing food, and attempting to become as self reliant as I can. I would have started this already if I didn’t have to move to California for 5 years. 2 1/2 years left until I get out of here.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Governments prevent corporations from creating scarcity for profit?
REAlly?
Government forced the miss-allocation of resources IN THE FIRST PLACE by propping up GM with cheap credit and subsidies. Government CREATES scarcity by maintaining a company’s/sector’s profitability DESPITE them net destroying capital.[/quote]
This should have never happened. This was not in the best interest of the nation and the short sightedness of these actions by the bush administration only prove my point more that the elected Conservative and liberal parties bow to the interests of corporations and wall street above the middle class.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
You are one stupid motherfucker.[/quote]
If you are going to be in LA in the next 2 years private message me. I would love to see you say that to my face tough guy. Make it a rule that you speak to people in the same fashion you would in real life, you are a coward and a punk. Let me put it this way I have never had anyone say something like that to my face. Come be the first.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
These “investments” will help the price of energy from going up when the oil disappears?
NO you MORON, scarcity drives the development of substitution supplies ALL BY ITS SELF when prices rise. SHIT, you learn this is high school econ for fuck’s sake.
These subsidies only PREVENT resources from being distributed to substitute sources of energy when prices go up due to scarcity. WHY? Because they are ARBITRARILY MADE BY A THIRD PARTY instead of between VOLUNTARY PARTIES IN THE MARKET.[/quote]
You see how I use my real name as my screen name and how I have a picture of myself in my profile? you are a screen name with no conviction and the fear of anyone knowing that you are in fact a tiny little coward.
I agree with your high school explanation of how supply and demand should effect the development of a substitution commodities. Your assessment of the simplicity of the situation is Sophomoric so for a high school-er I give you an A. I have been able to sleep 4hrs in the last 36 and am beginning my next 16 hr stretch so I am going to do my best explaining a concept to you. The fact is that there are major profits to be made by a few in the short run, by not advancing alternative technology. These people will also benefit in the long term because they have no ties to this country and in fact would love to see us become more competitive.(Which means willing to provide work for less)
While I agree that there is an equilibrium at which point investing in these will make financial sense, the technologies themselves as they exist today are not substantial enough to fill the void for the worlds energies needs. Energy is only one small fraction of the oil scarcity issue. Again alternative means can be sought in production of oil, from algea for example, but this is still below the equilibrium that would make this a sound investment for a company at this time. Oil is used in almost every consumer product made. We use it is plastics, pesticides (commercial farming), rubber, pretty much everything. There are 7 gallons of oil in every tire produced. This is something that needs to be realized as well.
You have to ask yourself, when that point is reached where it is immediately profitable to invest in alternatives, what is going to keep those investments inside of the USA. Plus we are not leading the way on these technologies as it stands so is it in our long term best interests to allow foreign governments to control that technology? or is it prudent to encourage investment by the private sector now? This is presumptuous on my part to think that you care if the US leads on this issue, but I for one do care. You seem like a selfish hypocrite that will preach self reliance and doesn’t care about anyone but himself, not an ounce of pride or concern for this country. Your a self reliant little punk that will starve if they close down the local grocery store and be naked if wal-mart shuts its doors. A hypocrite that will preach against social security and medicaid and unemployment benefits but use them when the shit hits the fan.
We live in a Global economy. You can fantasize as much as you want that subsidies don’t encourage domestic production, but we are competing against cheap, almost slave labor, in third world and even communistic developed nations like China. I am exhausted. You compartmentalize issues and view them from a very limited perspective.
I am probably wasting my time so I am going to stop. If you address me with such little respect a second time don’t expect a reply at all. Don’t feel threatened to drop me a line if your in the area. I am not a violent person and would love to see how aggressive you are towards someone like me in real life simply for the experience of meeting such a bad ass. [/quote]
Eh, actually I should apologize about the name calling. I’m not usually so brash. I was just having a stressful moment that day that i took out online.
Your assessment of my position in life is funny, though because it would have been fairly accurate about 10 years ago. You are terribly inconsistent in your general arguments, though.
I own a business and refer people to this site a lot. Unfortunately, I don’t express my political/social views because minimalist government tends to make me a social pariah(it did in high school).
I don’t plan on going to L.A., but if you want to talk further, Skype or some non-text chat would be easier for me since the points I would make are pretty nuanced.
Edit: I forgot to actually apologize. Sorry about the name calling.
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
I just don’t want to suffer the impending consequences of allowing this ship to run it s course because the majority of the population is distracted and/or apathetic. [/quote]
So what are you going to do about it?[/quote]
Try and support movements/candidates that align with my ideas. Have discussions with people and share those ideas.
I am also a realist and know that there may not be anything I can do. That is why I am working 2 jobs and paying off all unsecured debt. I also am planning on buying a piece of land and raising animals and growing food, and attempting to become as self reliant as I can. I would have started this already if I didn’t have to move to California for 5 years. 2 1/2 years left until I get out of here. [/quote]
Don’t forget to build a shelter in your basement and store up food and bullets.
