Carly? Sure, she didn't know what was going on, however it is not an HP problem, this is America's problem. Actually this is a collectivist problem, a Marxist problem, a communist problem, a fascist problem.
This is a problem of government that grows based on inflation - creating money out of thin air and then pretending that inflation is good for you, while in reality it is used to prop up asset purchases by the US 'too big to fail' and it's used to prop up the failing USA welfare state. This is a problem of government, the very existence of government is the problem. There is no reason to have any centralised governments in a global economy, but never mind reason, there is no justification to have a monopoly on violence when when have already proven as a species that we do best when we are free as individuals to innovate, to create new ideas and businesses, to build supply, which increases competition and lowers prices.
The problem with HP and so many others is that they are operating in a non-free environment by the rules set up by the collectivist propagandists that are hell bent on ruling you, not on letting live.
Let's extend the so called 'problem' from TFS into another government area: war on poverty.
What if poverty ends? What would all those government 'workers' do... what is the next plantation for the slave owners to graze upon if the current one expires for the reasons that by some miraculous mistake that they allow, the poverty actually ends? After all, poverty wasn't an issue when 'war on poverty' started, poverty levels were going down, not up.
What would all those government officials do? Do you mean to say that they all should stay there, collecting their welfare checks anyway? (and when I say welfare checks I literally mean welfare checks, not salaries, government workers do not get legitimate salaries, they get welfare from the State, which steals that money from the legitimate economy).
The problem in your statement is obvious - red herring. If you have people asking the wrong question, then the answer will not matter. The right question is not 'which form of government is best?', the correct question comes from the first principles: 'what is virtue?' The answer is: 'non initiation of violence.' This requires that there is no form of government, since gov't by definition is monopoly on initiation of violence.
1911 is forever marked as the dark year in history of individual freedom as property rights were destroyed by the USA government with the Standard Oil antitrust case. The year that decided the future destruction of USA economy. Even IRS and the Fed came into existance 2 years later, so income tax slavery and inflation fraud had to wait 2 entire years after the first major crime against free market by USA gov't in the 20th century. State has a monopoly on violence and it uses that power to destroy our freedoms, and it is everyone's freedoms that are being violated. Some time in the future the people will see our time as yet another dark age in history, we are still the barbarians that hand monopoly on violence to a select group of skilled sociopaths that we allow above ourselfs because we are still obviously not ready to live our lives as free people.
Of-course the real problem is the fact that there 8s a government therr at all and that people are not free but instead are slaves of the system, with the government having the monopoly on 'legal' initiation of violence. Private transit would have to solve the problem of free riders without abusing monopoly power on violence and within free market competitive system the fair could not be raised significantly. Private store chains that I provide software solutions to have to deal with about 2.5-3% theft. People steal, that problem has to be addressed by many businesses.
Income taxes are ownership of the taxed under the barrel of a gun. It is slavery and the 'solution' that you call for requires more of that. Well, that is the wrong approach. The correct question must not be: how much slavery is just right? The correct question is: what is virtue? And the answer is: non initiation of violence. But that means that the State power cannot exist because it is predicated on a minority of political power holders using violence to ensure 'equal outcome'. Equal outcome can only be enforced upon a society through means of a political monopoly on violence. Some time in the future people will look back at us and view us in the same way we view the mideval times: barbarism. Barbarism and very little intelligent thought. Use of slavery and violence supposedly to resolve conflicts but in reality propagating conflicts and holding progress down by preventing individual freedom, the prerequisite to excellence.
There shouldn't be such a thing as a State, there shouldn't be a monopoly on violence handed over to a minority of real life psychopath, happy to sling their guns around to steal productivity (read LIFE) from people in order to provide government welfare recipients (you included - you are not earning, you are living on government welfare, money stolen under the barrel of a gun from people working in the real economy to subsidise your position, that wouldn't exist in a free market in the same form) with their cut of the loot.
Government is the monopoly on initiation of violence and just like the Internet based activities and businesses thrived before government involvement, the human culture will thrive once all State based monopolies on violence are eliminated. Oh, incidentally, you would then become a productive member of society, doing something useful for the first time.
The forest for the trees.... lies, lies and gov't statistics. If inflation rate was measured the same way it was when Nixon (wrongheadedly) implemented price controls due to inflation hitting 4%, today's rate would have been counted at higher than 5 times what the represent it to you.
this should be obvious, but as always, the obvious things are somehow not obvious to the majority.
You are wasting your time in college. If you want actually to learn something you need to find a job, an internship, become a volunteer, doesn't matter, as long as you actually start doing something hands on you won't really know it (well, I am talking about most people, who learn by doing, not a minority of those who can really learn by listening).
I hired quite a few people like you, after 1 year of school, they learn more in two weeks of instructions here than in 1 year of college, I do not pay them until they are ready to work on a project. I would say that you would be better served working for free somewhere for a few months until you become productive enough to do some real work. Beats paying some university for years of almost fully useless shit while accumulating tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt and then coming out into the real world to compete in an ever more business hostile environment.
Government setting economic and monetary policies is the problem. Insane amount of inflatio that the Japanese central banks producex to prevent the healing effect of much needed deflation and restructuring has sickened that economy.
I do not mingle with "fortune 500", however every business owner I deal with is the key to their company's success, my clients run retail chains with 250 employees, customs brokers with over 200 employees, a bank and an investment company with over 300 people and a number of smaller firms with 15-80 people working there. All of those companies exist because their owners are extreme workaholics, never slowing down. You do not know what you are talking about. Larger firms require a ceo to set direction, without direction companies wither and die. With direction companies can grow from nothing to most valuable businesses in a couple of decades or less.
I am a CEO / chief architect. I built my own software, found my clients, eventually hired employees, trained them, managing them to do useful stuff my clients need and pay for. According to you none of what I am doing is work. Funny, none of my employees know what to do or where money comes from that ends up being payed to them. Lets eliminate my useless job and see what happens to the company in a week.
You are correct of-course, it is sugar. Of-course the reason why there is so much sugar in modern food and why nutritional foods are consumed much less is government impeding the normal free market from working (that is even part of what professor Lustig discusses in that video: Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. Series: UCSF Mini Medical School for the Public [7/2009] [Health and Medicine] [Show ID: 16717])
The main reasons for people eating too much fructose and not enough good food is government regulations, taxes and subsidies and inflation.
Regulations interfere with the normal market based food prices.
Taxes reduce people's pay and ability to shop for healthy foods.
Subsidies take those very taxes and use it to subsidise farmers, while promoting horrific food policies, such as subsidising sugar and starch. Subsidies are also used to feed the poor population processed foods.
Inflation is destroying people's overall purchasing power, the prices are going up by tens of percent per year in various food categories and nonsense is blamed for it (disease, weather even 'bandits', something that the world had to deal with forever, but all of a sudden in the last few decades these became prevalent but nobody pays attention to the inflation - money printing that the entire world is engaged in in an unprecedented manner).
The Europeans are going to pay for their larger and larger government (and what EU if not a larger and larger government), inflation, taxation, regulations, welfare state system with their standard of living, and this includes their health.
- and so will many businesses and so will many lower prices.
USA needs the H-1B entries to lower prices, USA needs to start competing on lower labour prices, because it clearly can't compete on business climate, the business taxes are highest in the world, the business regulations are most expensive in the world (and/. geniuses want more and then get upset when it is pointed out to them), the inflation is highest in the world, the trade deficit is highest in the world, the labour participation rate is lowest since 1978, the business creation rate is lower than business destruction.
USA inflation is insane, the Fed's chairwoman is as ignorant and pretty much as dumb as a doorknob or at least she is pretending to be and the crowd cheers as the Fed is actually driving economic policy via the monetary policy of self destruction.
More government regulations? Sure, a little salt on that gangrene invested wound wouldn't hurt much more at this point.
Right, because the government did such a fantastic job setting up AT&T that way (PDF, pp 56-58), except it destroyed all competition in that sector for almost hundred years, preventing prices from falling and choices from being created, technology from moving forward, people from having freedoms as well, by the way, not that somebody like you would care.
According to this data from the Brookings institute, more businesses are shutting down than are being created and this is interesting, given the latest fake employment numbers by the government, which boasted that 288,000 jobs were created completely failing to mention that 234,000 of them were not actually created but assumed, because government assumed that new businesses started hiring last month, that's the so called 'birth-death' model. ASSUMED that 81% of the jobs were created, not counted them. That's in the month that saw near 1,000,000 people leaving the labour force, so now the labour participation rate in USA is lowest since 1978. This is on top of the 44+ BILLION USD / month trade deficit.
So now tell me, do you think that new businesses will be created in the USA with more regulations or will there be fewer businesses created (if any)? Do you think that more regulations will cause lower prices given what we know about government created monopolies, such as AT&T, which did by the way have the common carrier title? That was the POINT of creating that gigantic barrier to entry into the telecommunications business, creating that title to prevent competition from entering the field and from lowering prices.
Given what is going on with the USA economy, trade deficits, labour participation rates, basic inflation (money printing), I am wondering how can you not see that anything that you can come up with that government could do in order, supposedly to reduce your costs will only take the costs higher?
It's an interesting dichotomy, you are not looking beyond your nose and you are clearly oblivious to everything, history, economics, politics.
I on the other hand do not see what is 'astonishing' to 'rise above tribalism. Having one central government is astonishingly stupid, immoral (everybody is forced into the same set of rules, that many people will not accept on their own and will be punished for breaking) and bad for the economy (all eggs in one basket and one set of corrupt politicians).
No, there is nothing astonishing about 'rising above tribalism', I do not want to join with you in any universal harmony of whatever ideology you prefer, I defy and deny all of your ideas and ideology out of hand, don't care about your ideas, don't want them. I don't work with collectives. I don't consult. I don't co-operate. I don't collaborate.
Wrong, people that use government to steal are thieves. The government is the thief, income taxes are theft, payroll taxes are theft, property taxes are theft, money printing (inflation) by the central banks is theft. Business regulations that end up in higher cost of doing business is theft.
What Steve Jobs was doing was wonderfully refreshing for once, I wish everybody was doing exactly the same thing: constantly breaking the eillegal unauthorised laws created by those, who stole our freedoms as individuals to be free people.
I don't like most Apple's products, I do like the iPad but that's irrelevant what I like and I do not like. I am completely on the side of Steve Jobs breaking all of these illegal rules that are established to destroy our personal freedoms.
Somebody here said that Jobs was a 'sociopath', well how wonderfully refreshing it was, to see a person who did not give a shit about the illegal freedom destroying rules that the rest of the thieving collective set up to steal from those who could and to redistribute to those who coveted the stolen goods.
If you are an American, you will find it exceedingly difficult to open a foreign bank account because USA government forces insane reporting requirements upon foreign banks to give up customer info so that most foreign banks simply refuse to deal with you if you have American citizenship. USA used to be a free country one could be proud of 100 years back, today its passport is a liability not an asset thanks to the massive collectivist take over.
Well, if we are going to talk about what the "guy wants", at least lets quote his actual words and not put any into his mouth here, what do you say?
Quote:
I was looking more at it until that recent thing [sic]. And actually my theory, if I were setting it up, I'd make it exchangeable for stock. And then it'd have real value. And I'd have it pegged, and I'd have a basket of 10 big retailers⦠I think it would work, but I think, because I'm sort of a believer in currency having value, if you're going to create a currency, have it backed up by -- you know, Hayek used to talk about a basket of commodities? You could have a basket of stocks, and have some exchangeability, because it's hard for people like me who are a bit tangible. But you could have an average of stocks, I'm wondering if that's the next permutation."
Now, is your position that Rand Paul shouldn't be able to design and release his own attempt at a Bitcoin like currency, that he then would promise to exchange to a fixed value of stocks or other goods? Why would you not let him? Or are you saying that he is stupid for suggesting this and that nobody should ever try that?
Or what exactly is your problem with a guy saying something anyway?
Individual liberty is more important than all things, not just 'most things'. As an anarcho-capitalist, libertarian objectivist, my position of-course is that there should be no central government at all and that there must be no market regulations by any central government authority. In any given locality, if a group of people want to choose to have government, it is their voluntary decision to do so, but nobody should be forced to abide by their ideals.
From my POV the only purpose for any form of government is to occupy space to protect individual freedoms from another government arising that would coerce people into involuntary compliance to any ideology that the new government would be based upon. The only purpose for government is to protect individual freedoms, not to regulate business or money.
People in this story misunderstand Rand Paul of-course, who is not proposing that any government ties value of stocks to bitcoins, he is proposing that people should try experimenting with a version of bitcoin that they themselves would back with something else, for example with stocks.
So just hoh daft are you, not seeing clearly that it is Keynesian socialist crap that destroyed the economy? That is the mainstream cralp, government approved and shrink wrapped by these humanity profs for your consumption. Last time USA had real economics was before Sherman act was used for the first time and private property rights were destroyed.
It's all fine and dandy except for one tiny problem: "humanities" that are described there are all nonsense government propaganda aimed at creating a herd of collectivist borg. Who is teaching real economics and not Keynesian crap? Who of them is teaching people to understand what freedoms are? (ability to be free from government intrusion rather than some ideology based around everybody getting equal shitty outcome based on immoral ideology of redistribution of people's lives to others?)
Humanities COULD play a crucial role in creating an actual individual, instead they are today nothing but propaganda in the hands of the ruling elite, whose only purpose is to ensure that people are poor, violent, uneducated slaves.
Slashdot Mirror
Carly? Sure, she didn't know what was going on, however it is not an HP problem, this is America's problem. Actually this is a collectivist problem, a Marxist problem, a communist problem, a fascist problem.
This is a problem of government that grows based on inflation - creating money out of thin air and then pretending that inflation is good for you, while in reality it is used to prop up asset purchases by the US 'too big to fail' and it's used to prop up the failing USA welfare state. This is a problem of government, the very existence of government is the problem. There is no reason to have any centralised governments in a global economy, but never mind reason, there is no justification to have a monopoly on violence when when have already proven as a species that we do best when we are free as individuals to innovate, to create new ideas and businesses, to build supply, which increases competition and lowers prices.
The problem with HP and so many others is that they are operating in a non-free environment by the rules set up by the collectivist propagandists that are hell bent on ruling you, not on letting live.
Yes, he does, he killed a bunch of people in a somewhat disturbing manner.
The entire problem is that the government exists to ask permission from in the first place. But like TFS says:
Yesterday, a California court announced the was voluntarily dismissed.
- from this I can't figure out if
Let's extend the so called 'problem' from TFS into another government area: war on poverty.
What if poverty ends? What would all those government 'workers' do... what is the next plantation for the slave owners to graze upon if the current one expires for the reasons that by some miraculous mistake that they allow, the poverty actually ends? After all, poverty wasn't an issue when 'war on poverty' started, poverty levels were going down, not up.
What would all those government officials do? Do you mean to say that they all should stay there, collecting their welfare checks anyway? (and when I say welfare checks I literally mean welfare checks, not salaries, government workers do not get legitimate salaries, they get welfare from the State, which steals that money from the legitimate economy).
The problem in your statement is obvious - red herring. If you have people asking the wrong question, then the answer will not matter. The right question is not 'which form of government is best?', the correct question comes from the first principles: 'what is virtue?' The answer is: 'non initiation of violence.' This requires that there is no form of government, since gov't by definition is monopoly on initiation of violence.
1911 is forever marked as the dark year in history of individual freedom as property rights were destroyed by the USA government with the Standard Oil antitrust case. The year that decided the future destruction of USA economy. Even IRS and the Fed came into existance 2 years later, so income tax slavery and inflation fraud had to wait 2 entire years after the first major crime against free market by USA gov't in the 20th century. State has a monopoly on violence and it uses that power to destroy our freedoms, and it is everyone's freedoms that are being violated. Some time in the future the people will see our time as yet another dark age in history, we are still the barbarians that hand monopoly on violence to a select group of skilled sociopaths that we allow above ourselfs because we are still obviously not ready to live our lives as free people.
Of-course the real problem is the fact that there 8s a government therr at all and that people are not free but instead are slaves of the system, with the government having the monopoly on 'legal' initiation of violence. Private transit would have to solve the problem of free riders without abusing monopoly power on violence and within free market competitive system the fair could not be raised significantly. Private store chains that I provide software solutions to have to deal with about 2.5-3% theft. People steal, that problem has to be addressed by many businesses.
Income taxes are ownership of the taxed under the barrel of a gun. It is slavery and the 'solution' that you call for requires more of that. Well, that is the wrong approach. The correct question must not be: how much slavery is just right? The correct question is: what is virtue? And the answer is: non initiation of violence. But that means that the State power cannot exist because it is predicated on a minority of political power holders using violence to ensure 'equal outcome'. Equal outcome can only be enforced upon a society through means of a political monopoly on violence. Some time in the future people will look back at us and view us in the same way we view the mideval times: barbarism. Barbarism and very little intelligent thought. Use of slavery and violence supposedly to resolve conflicts but in reality propagating conflicts and holding progress down by preventing individual freedom, the prerequisite to excellence.
There shouldn't be such a thing as a State, there shouldn't be a monopoly on violence handed over to a minority of real life psychopath, happy to sling their guns around to steal productivity (read LIFE) from people in order to provide government welfare recipients (you included - you are not earning, you are living on government welfare, money stolen under the barrel of a gun from people working in the real economy to subsidise your position, that wouldn't exist in a free market in the same form) with their cut of the loot.
Government is the monopoly on initiation of violence and just like the Internet based activities and businesses thrived before government involvement, the human culture will thrive once all State based monopolies on violence are eliminated. Oh, incidentally, you would then become a productive member of society, doing something useful for the first time.
The forest for the trees.... lies, lies and gov't statistics. If inflation rate was measured the same way it was when Nixon (wrongheadedly) implemented price controls due to inflation hitting 4%, today's rate would have been counted at higher than 5 times what the represent it to you.
this should be obvious, but as always, the obvious things are somehow not obvious to the majority.
You are wasting your time in college. If you want actually to learn something you need to find a job, an internship, become a volunteer, doesn't matter, as long as you actually start doing something hands on you won't really know it (well, I am talking about most people, who learn by doing, not a minority of those who can really learn by listening).
I hired quite a few people like you, after 1 year of school, they learn more in two weeks of instructions here than in 1 year of college, I do not pay them until they are ready to work on a project. I would say that you would be better served working for free somewhere for a few months until you become productive enough to do some real work. Beats paying some university for years of almost fully useless shit while accumulating tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt and then coming out into the real world to compete in an ever more business hostile environment.
Government setting economic and monetary policies is the problem. Insane amount of inflatio that the Japanese central banks producex to prevent the healing effect of much needed deflation and restructuring has sickened that economy.
I do not mingle with "fortune 500", however every business owner I deal with is the key to their company's success, my clients run retail chains with 250 employees, customs brokers with over 200 employees, a bank and an investment company with over 300 people and a number of smaller firms with 15-80 people working there. All of those companies exist because their owners are extreme workaholics, never slowing down. You do not know what you are talking about. Larger firms require a ceo to set direction, without direction companies wither and die. With direction companies can grow from nothing to most valuable businesses in a couple of decades or less.
I am a CEO / chief architect. I built my own software, found my clients, eventually hired employees, trained them, managing them to do useful stuff my clients need and pay for. According to you none of what I am doing is work. Funny, none of my employees know what to do or where money comes from that ends up being payed to them. Lets eliminate my useless job and see what happens to the company in a week.
Sugar, the Bitter Truth.
You are correct of-course, it is sugar. Of-course the reason why there is so much sugar in modern food and why nutritional foods are consumed much less is government impeding the normal free market from working (that is even part of what professor Lustig discusses in that video: Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. Series: UCSF Mini Medical School for the Public [7/2009] [Health and Medicine] [Show ID: 16717])
The main reasons for people eating too much fructose and not enough good food is government regulations, taxes and subsidies and inflation.
Regulations interfere with the normal market based food prices.
Taxes reduce people's pay and ability to shop for healthy foods.
Subsidies take those very taxes and use it to subsidise farmers, while promoting horrific food policies, such as subsidising sugar and starch. Subsidies are also used to feed the poor population processed foods.
Inflation is destroying people's overall purchasing power, the prices are going up by tens of percent per year in various food categories and nonsense is blamed for it (disease, weather even 'bandits', something that the world had to deal with forever, but all of a sudden in the last few decades these became prevalent but nobody pays attention to the inflation - money printing that the entire world is engaged in in an unprecedented manner).
The Europeans are going to pay for their larger and larger government (and what EU if not a larger and larger government), inflation, taxation, regulations, welfare state system with their standard of living, and this includes their health.
entire program will be dead by years end.
- and so will many businesses and so will many lower prices.
USA needs the H-1B entries to lower prices, USA needs to start competing on lower labour prices, because it clearly can't compete on business climate, the business taxes are highest in the world, the business regulations are most expensive in the world (and /. geniuses want more and then get upset when it is pointed out to them), the inflation is highest in the world, the trade deficit is highest in the world, the labour participation rate is lowest since 1978, the business creation rate is lower than business destruction.
USA inflation is insane, the Fed's chairwoman is as ignorant and pretty much as dumb as a doorknob or at least she is pretending to be and the crowd cheers as the Fed is actually driving economic policy via the monetary policy of self destruction.
More government regulations? Sure, a little salt on that gangrene invested wound wouldn't hurt much more at this point.
Right, because the government did such a fantastic job setting up AT&T that way (PDF, pp 56-58), except it destroyed all competition in that sector for almost hundred years, preventing prices from falling and choices from being created, technology from moving forward, people from having freedoms as well, by the way, not that somebody like you would care.
According to this data from the Brookings institute, more businesses are shutting down than are being created and this is interesting, given the latest fake employment numbers by the government, which boasted that 288,000 jobs were created completely failing to mention that 234,000 of them were not actually created but assumed, because government assumed that new businesses started hiring last month, that's the so called 'birth-death' model. ASSUMED that 81% of the jobs were created, not counted them. That's in the month that saw near 1,000,000 people leaving the labour force, so now the labour participation rate in USA is lowest since 1978. This is on top of the 44+ BILLION USD / month trade deficit.
So now tell me, do you think that new businesses will be created in the USA with more regulations or will there be fewer businesses created (if any)? Do you think that more regulations will cause lower prices given what we know about government created monopolies, such as AT&T, which did by the way have the common carrier title? That was the POINT of creating that gigantic barrier to entry into the telecommunications business, creating that title to prevent competition from entering the field and from lowering prices.
Given what is going on with the USA economy, trade deficits, labour participation rates, basic inflation (money printing), I am wondering how can you not see that anything that you can come up with that government could do in order, supposedly to reduce your costs will only take the costs higher?
It's an interesting dichotomy, you are not looking beyond your nose and you are clearly oblivious to everything, history, economics, politics.
Actually in USA at least if you ARE 'thinking' about the impact of crypto-currency you are usurping unconstitutional powers.
I on the other hand do not see what is 'astonishing' to 'rise above tribalism. Having one central government is astonishingly stupid, immoral (everybody is forced into the same set of rules, that many people will not accept on their own and will be punished for breaking) and bad for the economy (all eggs in one basket and one set of corrupt politicians).
No, there is nothing astonishing about 'rising above tribalism', I do not want to join with you in any universal harmony of whatever ideology you prefer, I defy and deny all of your ideas and ideology out of hand, don't care about your ideas, don't want them. I don't work with collectives. I don't consult. I don't co-operate. I don't collaborate.
Wrong, people that use government to steal are thieves. The government is the thief, income taxes are theft, payroll taxes are theft, property taxes are theft, money printing (inflation) by the central banks is theft. Business regulations that end up in higher cost of doing business is theft.
What Steve Jobs was doing was wonderfully refreshing for once, I wish everybody was doing exactly the same thing: constantly breaking the eillegal unauthorised laws created by those, who stole our freedoms as individuals to be free people.
I don't like most Apple's products, I do like the iPad but that's irrelevant what I like and I do not like. I am completely on the side of Steve Jobs breaking all of these illegal rules that are established to destroy our personal freedoms.
Somebody here said that Jobs was a 'sociopath', well how wonderfully refreshing it was, to see a person who did not give a shit about the illegal freedom destroying rules that the rest of the thieving collective set up to steal from those who could and to redistribute to those who coveted the stolen goods.
If you are an American, you will find it exceedingly difficult to open a foreign bank account because USA government forces insane reporting requirements upon foreign banks to give up customer info so that most foreign banks simply refuse to deal with you if you have American citizenship. USA used to be a free country one could be proud of 100 years back, today its passport is a liability not an asset thanks to the massive collectivist take over.
Well, if we are going to talk about what the "guy wants", at least lets quote his actual words and not put any into his mouth here, what do you say?
Quote:
I was looking more at it until that recent thing [sic]. And actually my theory, if I were setting it up, I'd make it exchangeable for stock. And then it'd have real value. And I'd have it pegged, and I'd have a basket of 10 big retailers⦠I think it would work, but I think, because I'm sort of a believer in currency having value, if you're going to create a currency, have it backed up by -- you know, Hayek used to talk about a basket of commodities? You could have a basket of stocks, and have some exchangeability, because it's hard for people like me who are a bit tangible. But you could have an average of stocks, I'm wondering if that's the next permutation."
Now, is your position that Rand Paul shouldn't be able to design and release his own attempt at a Bitcoin like currency, that he then would promise to exchange to a fixed value of stocks or other goods? Why would you not let him? Or are you saying that he is stupid for suggesting this and that nobody should ever try that?
Or what exactly is your problem with a guy saying something anyway?
Individual liberty is more important than all things, not just 'most things'. As an anarcho-capitalist, libertarian objectivist, my position of-course is that there should be no central government at all and that there must be no market regulations by any central government authority. In any given locality, if a group of people want to choose to have government, it is their voluntary decision to do so, but nobody should be forced to abide by their ideals.
From my POV the only purpose for any form of government is to occupy space to protect individual freedoms from another government arising that would coerce people into involuntary compliance to any ideology that the new government would be based upon. The only purpose for government is to protect individual freedoms, not to regulate business or money.
People in this story misunderstand Rand Paul of-course, who is not proposing that any government ties value of stocks to bitcoins, he is proposing that people should try experimenting with a version of bitcoin that they themselves would back with something else, for example with stocks.
So just hoh daft are you, not seeing clearly that it is Keynesian socialist crap that destroyed the economy? That is the mainstream cralp, government approved and shrink wrapped by these humanity profs for your consumption. Last time USA had real economics was before Sherman act was used for the first time and private property rights were destroyed.
It's all fine and dandy except for one tiny problem: "humanities" that are described there are all nonsense government propaganda aimed at creating a herd of collectivist borg. Who is teaching real economics and not Keynesian crap? Who of them is teaching people to understand what freedoms are? (ability to be free from government intrusion rather than some ideology based around everybody getting equal shitty outcome based on immoral ideology of redistribution of people's lives to others?)
Humanities COULD play a crucial role in creating an actual individual, instead they are today nothing but propaganda in the hands of the ruling elite, whose only purpose is to ensure that people are poor, violent, uneducated slaves.