He is right on Greece and he is right that USA is in the same (worse) position than Greece. After all, the debt that Greece owes is really tiny compared to what USA owes and 2 years ago nobody was speaking of Greece. They were just as bankrupt as they are today, but they could still get low rate loans but then they couldn't anymore and so the party stopped.
They lived beyond their means for a very long time, 'beyond their means' - meaning they didn't produce anywhere near enough compared to what they consumed with other people's money.
The problem with ALL the loans that are given out for consumption is that they are not used for anything to PRODUCE, anything to actually increase wealth, it's not used to create an income and so the debt must be then repaid from other savings, but what if there are no other savings? Then it's just living on a subsidy provided by others.
The reason that Greece was even able to be in EU was because its books were cooked from the start, that's where GS comes into the picture from. Well, in case of USA it's not just GS, it's the Fed.
A new study from researchers at Jay W. Forrester's institute at MIT says that the world could suffer from "global economic collapse" and "precipitous population decline" if people continue to consume the world's resources at the current pace.
and this:
Most of the computer scenarios found population and economic growth continuing at a steady rate until about 2030. But without "drastic measures for environmental protection," the scenarios predict the likelihood of a population and economic crash.
However, the study said "unlimited economic growth" is still possible if world governments enact policies and invest in green technologies that help limit the expansion of our ecological footprint.
AFAIC, this is another piece of propaganda, somehow aimed at either receiving more money from gov't or is paid by it.
The question, whatever it is, is always answered in the same exact manner by all these 'studies':
more government
this is the answer to all questions that are ever asked - more regulations, more taxes, more government.
Well, this is just more nonsense as usual, more propaganda, more people trying to control others. It's a prison like system, they want YOU to be the prisoner. THEY will 'provide' you with whatever meaning they want, in exchange, you will give up all your inspirations, all your liberties.
Of-course maybe you don't have any inspirations and desire to do anything useful with yourself, maybe you are just fine being controlled and fed by your prisoners. Maybe you want to be one of the guards or one of the managers in this prison.
--
AFAIC there is only one solution to our problems - more freedoms for people to do business as they want, not less. There is a huge reason why every single attempt at more government on this planet has always produced poverty and misery, while any reduction in government always produced more wealth, and this simple truth will remain, regardless of what they tell you and however they frame the question.
--
The question about finality of resources on this planet must never be answered with: 'more government', it must always be answered with: 'more freedom'.
Only people free from prison are able to create, able to find real solutions to these problems, able to create more supply, figure out how to create more supply. Supply is the driver of the economy, and even in this 'article' they admit it - they are worried about supply.
Well, supply is NEVER created by ANY government, supply is always created by the enterprising people, doing business, trying to make a buck, and there will be no exceptions, as governments are only able to consume whatever supply the market produces.
Tulips are perishable goods, with a very long growing period, and a low rate of reproduction. They were considered valuable precisely because not everybody could grow them at will. That's why your analogy with printing money breaks down.
- nothing breaks down, it's a supply demand question, and given more demand, more supply is created.
If the law considers a contract partially or fully unenforceable, then anyone entering into such a contract nevertheless is ignorant and a sucker. Why are we expected to believe that markets of such people are good at predicting things? Are they secret masochists?
- this 'law' came into effect when the market was already filled with contracts, so this is pure nonsense out of you.
Sales tax definitely does not discourage commerce, income, payroll, corporate tax discourages commerce, because they discourage production, they are part of the cause manufacturing moves some other place, and once manufacturing leaves from your location, your location can no longer really exchange for anything, which means that you can't produce anything that can be exchange for the products that you are consuming.
Sales taxes are the way to go, not income, payroll, corporate taxes also because they are so much easier for the end consumer.
Instead of having to file taxes with the IRS every year, you just pay the sales tax at the point of sale and you don't have to care about your receipt or anything.
Also with sales taxes you can minimise how much you want to pay in taxes by buying less of whatever is taxed.
With income type taxes, you are automatically forced to tell the government about your life, you have no privacy, it's a big brother behind your shoulder.
Not with sales taxes, especially not if you pay cash.
The amendment is vague in many respects, it talks about 'income' without defining what that is (and people don't have income, only corporations do). In this case SCOTUS declared that income tax was unconstitutional (and that's what prompted Congress to seek the amendment) what the amendment had to do was define excise tax as income or to change the rule on apportioning direct taxes.
That amendment needs to be repealed, and in any case, gov't never had to stand its grounds on defining what income means for an individual, not for a corporation.
Oh, yeah, right, I forgot, you are the moral authority on the kind of businesses that people can still run in USA, you are the 'decider', figuring out who has the right and who does not have the right to run a business.
Makes sense, with this type of government: hey, there is a business that's still running somehow after everything we've thrown at it, and the kitchen sink. It's not one of our preferred monopolies that we keep bailing out and 'stimulating' etc., so let's crash it, especially since modman0f2sdfhsflabl approves.
First: tulips were grown in increasing quantities.
Second: people were trading options (yes, derivatives, oh my) on the futures market, and then government came out with a law that allowed people to drop contracts and only be liable for 3.5% of the value. You don't see how that can create a problem that later can be blamed on 'free market', where in fact there was no such thing again?
By the way, 80 years of war, I always was wondering who in their right mind would fight wars for 80 years without government actively promoting them.
I said you don't have to have central monetary authority if everybody has their own printing press.
However the tulips were a futures market, people were trading options, you are right. What you don't know (it looks like by the comments) is that the government passed a law saying that ANY options contract can be declared void and only 3.5% of value has to be paid back based on that void contract.
So in fact even with the paper tulip standard (and god knows, government propagated 80 year war did NOT help the economies of the time) the government can come up with another asinine idea on how to create even more inflation under those conditions and how to screw up the market with insane regulations.
Yeah, great, except that the option contract was fucked by a GOVERNMENT DECREE that ALLOWED (by decree of the government) to get out of it with only a 3.5% loss.
That's right, a government decree that said that CONTRACTS DO NOT HAVE TO MEAN ANYTHING is somehow a 'free market failure'?
Well, if this posts (I am probably at limit of my 'karma'), don't take it personally if I don't reply under my name to any of your further ignorant statements.
No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that small/medium sized companies are on razor thin margins and the gov't doesn't give a shit, of-course the big companies will either get exemptions or will be bailed out, the small ones will have to lay people off.
That, by the way, is not inefficient, that is just very dangerous in terms of being able to absorb huge blows, and this is going to be another huge blow by the government, as if all the other stuff, including inflation and real taxes (spending and interest on that) wasn't enough.
There is no such thing as 'civil rights', there are only human rights, and what you, single celled amoeba call 'civil rights' is a mix of entitlements and obligations. Obligations are placed upon some by the threat of gov't violence so that the majority is given their bread and circuses at the expense of the real productive part of society.
As to 'killing self', well, that suggestion should only come from those, who are willing to set an example, so go ahead.
My lovely karma is not going to let me post much longer, but I'll take this opportunity to explain something about constitutionality of the taxes in this case.
You see, Obama promised NOT to raise taxes, so when he was arguing for this health insurance act he was very specifically saying that it is NOT a tax, but it most certainly is, and now the gov't is arguing in front of SCOTUS, saying that it is constitutional BECAUSE it is a tax.
But WHAT kind of tax is it?
There are 2 types of taxes that are Constitutional:
1. Excise tax. This must be uniform. 2. Direct tax. This must be apportioned.
Excise tax must be on sale of a product, but not on not buying a product.
Direct tax, like capitation tax must be apportioned, but they absolutely cannot apportion this among states so that states can pay their share based on their population.
So it's not being levied on anything, not excise. It's not a direct, it can't be apportioned.
It's not a legal tax.
My prediction is that EVENTUALLY they will declare this unconstitutional (and hopefully so), but my feeling is that they will not do this right now, right now they will delay their decision, I believe Obama has enough pressure points to ensure this during his re-election year.
You see, I will explain to you something that hopefully will put this to rest.
Tulips are grown at will, they are nothing more than Federal reserve notes without the Federal reserve. They ARE paper.
You don't need to have a central monetary authority to have a bubble based on creation of fake currency if fake currency can be created by anybody anyway. It's perfect, it's as if everybody had their own printing press.
Fed has a monopoly on that (well, that and fractional reserve, but mostly Fed, god knows how many tens of trillions they've been pumping into the world's economy if only in one year that was revealed showed 15 of them).
The recurrent crashes and bubbles on Wall street are unrelated to markets, they are related to the government's ability and willingness to attempt and control the economy and money supply (inflation). There wouldn't have bee a housing bubble and even Internet bubble before it without artificially low interest rates. There wouldn't be another major collapse in the future (bonds, dollars) without the Fed either. Does it have anything to do with the markets? Not much, not until the signals stop being mingled by the governments.
Scotus will most likely delay the decision, it's election year, and Obama has ways to pressure them, but Republicans will have to show their base they are not signing under the mandate being constitutional (and it's not), so it's most likely to be delayed.
But a more important prediction: if/when this act goes into effect expect many of the companies that have maybe up to 100 people all of a sudden lose half of their employees so not to go over 50 employee maximum after which they have to comply with various provisions.
Tell me something, go look in the Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of USA, where the fuck does it say that the gov't can dictate to the companies HOW TO RUN BUSINESS?
That's the freedom - freedom to do business without being interfered by the government, freedom to you own property, freedom for people to not be forced by government to do business in a way that government dictates, and instead do business as it is supposed to be done - by market choosing voluntarily to buy or not to buy products.
The most important part is not even this specific case, it's the entire principle, and it's absolutely true, and it's been shown for hundreds of years now - the moment you close your eyes (or even wildly cheer) about government doing something that it is UNAUTHORISED BY CONTRACT to do, by the law that is above the government, you are done.
You are done. There will be nothing that they will not do and you will have nothing to say about it. Obama came out with this nonsense on: 'activist judges', when he heard they may overturn his treasonous idea of this insurance mandate, well it's the same thing, but it doesn't really matter anymore, does it? Because before you even get any of this forced insurance you already have all the benefits of extrajudicial killing and imprisonment by the POTUS, no judge, no jury, he is everything, including being an executioner.
What difference does it make, I guess, if he also forces some businesses to put whatever labels on their products. Obviously that's the carrot he is buying you with, while he is beating you into a pulp with his stick.
No, wait a second, you are right. I only have 2 teeth left and my pants are constantly full of it, I have only one eye and no nose, and my face is mostly burnt off. People squeal around me like pigs, you are right, that's it, that's the argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Consumers benefit the most if all of a sudden there are many competitors in this market even if the original development is stolen.
'sociopath' by your definition is anybody who can make profit by building a business.
He is right on Greece and he is right that USA is in the same (worse) position than Greece. After all, the debt that Greece owes is really tiny compared to what USA owes and 2 years ago nobody was speaking of Greece. They were just as bankrupt as they are today, but they could still get low rate loans but then they couldn't anymore and so the party stopped.
They lived beyond their means for a very long time, 'beyond their means' - meaning they didn't produce anywhere near enough compared to what they consumed with other people's money.
The problem with ALL the loans that are given out for consumption is that they are not used for anything to PRODUCE, anything to actually increase wealth, it's not used to create an income and so the debt must be then repaid from other savings, but what if there are no other savings? Then it's just living on a subsidy provided by others.
The reason that Greece was even able to be in EU was because its books were cooked from the start, that's where GS comes into the picture from. Well, in case of USA it's not just GS, it's the Fed.
I think I read /. back in 1998, but got the ID later than that.
Something appropriate here.
From TFA:
A new study from researchers at Jay W. Forrester's institute at MIT says that the world could suffer from "global economic collapse" and "precipitous population decline" if people continue to consume the world's resources at the current pace.
and this:
Most of the computer scenarios found population and economic growth continuing at a steady rate until about 2030. But without "drastic measures for environmental protection," the scenarios predict the likelihood of a population and economic crash.
However, the study said "unlimited economic growth" is still possible if world governments enact policies and invest in green technologies that help limit the expansion of our ecological footprint.
AFAIC, this is another piece of propaganda, somehow aimed at either receiving more money from gov't or is paid by it.
The question, whatever it is, is always answered in the same exact manner by all these 'studies':
more government
this is the answer to all questions that are ever asked - more regulations, more taxes, more government.
Well, this is just more nonsense as usual, more propaganda, more people trying to control others. It's a prison like system, they want YOU to be the prisoner. THEY will 'provide' you with whatever meaning they want, in exchange, you will give up all your inspirations, all your liberties.
Of-course maybe you don't have any inspirations and desire to do anything useful with yourself, maybe you are just fine being controlled and fed by your prisoners. Maybe you want to be one of the guards or one of the managers in this prison.
--
AFAIC there is only one solution to our problems - more freedoms for people to do business as they want, not less. There is a huge reason why every single attempt at more government on this planet has always produced poverty and misery, while any reduction in government always produced more wealth, and this simple truth will remain, regardless of what they tell you and however they frame the question.
--
The question about finality of resources on this planet must never be answered with: 'more government', it must always be answered with: 'more freedom'.
Only people free from prison are able to create, able to find real solutions to these problems, able to create more supply, figure out how to create more supply. Supply is the driver of the economy, and even in this 'article' they admit it - they are worried about supply.
Well, supply is NEVER created by ANY government, supply is always created by the enterprising people, doing business, trying to make a buck, and there will be no exceptions, as governments are only able to consume whatever supply the market produces.
Tulips are perishable goods, with a very long growing period, and a low rate of reproduction. They were considered valuable precisely because not everybody could grow them at will. That's why your analogy with printing money breaks down.
- nothing breaks down, it's a supply demand question, and given more demand, more supply is created.
If the law considers a contract partially or fully unenforceable, then anyone entering into such a contract nevertheless is ignorant and a sucker. Why are we expected to believe that markets of such people are good at predicting things? Are they secret masochists?
- this 'law' came into effect when the market was already filled with contracts, so this is pure nonsense out of you.
Sales tax definitely does not discourage commerce, income, payroll, corporate tax discourages commerce, because they discourage production, they are part of the cause manufacturing moves some other place, and once manufacturing leaves from your location, your location can no longer really exchange for anything, which means that you can't produce anything that can be exchange for the products that you are consuming.
Sales taxes are the way to go, not income, payroll, corporate taxes also because they are so much easier for the end consumer.
Instead of having to file taxes with the IRS every year, you just pay the sales tax at the point of sale and you don't have to care about your receipt or anything.
Also with sales taxes you can minimise how much you want to pay in taxes by buying less of whatever is taxed.
With income type taxes, you are automatically forced to tell the government about your life, you have no privacy, it's a big brother behind your shoulder.
Not with sales taxes, especially not if you pay cash.
I don't waste insults on things that don't bother me, and you bother me no more than a tick on a pigs ass, and it's not my pig, so carry on.
Can't reply as myself anymore, but income taxes are illegal and are collected illegally.
The amendment is vague in many respects, it talks about 'income' without defining what that is (and people don't have income, only corporations do). In this case SCOTUS declared that income tax was unconstitutional (and that's what prompted Congress to seek the amendment) what the amendment had to do was define excise tax as income or to change the rule on apportioning direct taxes.
That amendment needs to be repealed, and in any case, gov't never had to stand its grounds on defining what income means for an individual, not for a corporation.
Oh, yeah, right, I forgot, you are the moral authority on the kind of businesses that people can still run in USA, you are the 'decider', figuring out who has the right and who does not have the right to run a business.
Makes sense, with this type of government: hey, there is a business that's still running somehow after everything we've thrown at it, and the kitchen sink. It's not one of our preferred monopolies that we keep bailing out and 'stimulating' etc., so let's crash it, especially since modman0f2sdfhsflabl approves.
First: tulips were grown in increasing quantities.
Second: people were trading options (yes, derivatives, oh my) on the futures market, and then government came out with a law that allowed people to drop contracts and only be liable for 3.5% of the value. You don't see how that can create a problem that later can be blamed on 'free market', where in fact there was no such thing again?
By the way, 80 years of war, I always was wondering who in their right mind would fight wars for 80 years without government actively promoting them.
I said you don't have to have central monetary authority if everybody has their own printing press.
However the tulips were a futures market, people were trading options, you are right. What you don't know (it looks like by the comments) is that the government passed a law saying that ANY options contract can be declared void and only 3.5% of value has to be paid back based on that void contract.
So in fact even with the paper tulip standard (and god knows, government propagated 80 year war did NOT help the economies of the time) the government can come up with another asinine idea on how to create even more inflation under those conditions and how to screw up the market with insane regulations.
Yeah, great, except that the option contract was fucked by a GOVERNMENT DECREE that ALLOWED (by decree of the government) to get out of it with only a 3.5% loss.
That's right, a government decree that said that CONTRACTS DO NOT HAVE TO MEAN ANYTHING is somehow a 'free market failure'?
Well, if this posts (I am probably at limit of my 'karma'), don't take it personally if I don't reply under my name to any of your further ignorant statements.
No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that small/medium sized companies are on razor thin margins and the gov't doesn't give a shit, of-course the big companies will either get exemptions or will be bailed out, the small ones will have to lay people off.
That, by the way, is not inefficient, that is just very dangerous in terms of being able to absorb huge blows, and this is going to be another huge blow by the government, as if all the other stuff, including inflation and real taxes (spending and interest on that) wasn't enough.
There is no such thing as 'civil rights', there are only human rights, and what you, single celled amoeba call 'civil rights' is a mix of entitlements and obligations. Obligations are placed upon some by the threat of gov't violence so that the majority is given their bread and circuses at the expense of the real productive part of society.
As to 'killing self', well, that suggestion should only come from those, who are willing to set an example, so go ahead.
Single celled organisms cannot abuse me, you are gravely mistaken.
My lovely karma is not going to let me post much longer, but I'll take this opportunity to explain something about constitutionality of the taxes in this case.
You see, Obama promised NOT to raise taxes, so when he was arguing for this health insurance act he was very specifically saying that it is NOT a tax, but it most certainly is, and now the gov't is arguing in front of SCOTUS, saying that it is constitutional BECAUSE it is a tax.
But WHAT kind of tax is it?
There are 2 types of taxes that are Constitutional:
1. Excise tax. This must be uniform.
2. Direct tax. This must be apportioned.
Excise tax must be on sale of a product, but not on not buying a product.
Direct tax, like capitation tax must be apportioned, but they absolutely cannot apportion this among states so that states can pay their share based on their population.
So it's not being levied on anything, not excise.
It's not a direct, it can't be apportioned.
It's not a legal tax.
My prediction is that EVENTUALLY they will declare this unconstitutional (and hopefully so), but my feeling is that they will not do this right now, right now they will delay their decision, I believe Obama has enough pressure points to ensure this during his re-election year.
You shouldn't have.
You see, I will explain to you something that hopefully will put this to rest.
Tulips are grown at will, they are nothing more than Federal reserve notes without the Federal reserve. They ARE paper.
You don't need to have a central monetary authority to have a bubble based on creation of fake currency if fake currency can be created by anybody anyway. It's perfect, it's as if everybody had their own printing press.
Fed has a monopoly on that (well, that and fractional reserve, but mostly Fed, god knows how many tens of trillions they've been pumping into the world's economy if only in one year that was revealed showed 15 of them).
Without a doubt.
My prediction is that companies up to 100 people (and some even bigger) will absolutely lose people until they are under 50 limit.
The recurrent crashes and bubbles on Wall street are unrelated to markets, they are related to the government's ability and willingness to attempt and control the economy and money supply (inflation). There wouldn't have bee a housing bubble and even Internet bubble before it without artificially low interest rates. There wouldn't be another major collapse in the future (bonds, dollars) without the Fed either. Does it have anything to do with the markets? Not much, not until the signals stop being mingled by the governments.
Scotus will most likely delay the decision, it's election year, and Obama has ways to pressure them, but Republicans will have to show their base they are not signing under the mandate being constitutional (and it's not), so it's most likely to be delayed.
But a more important prediction: if/when this act goes into effect expect many of the companies that have maybe up to 100 people all of a sudden lose half of their employees so not to go over 50 employee maximum after which they have to comply with various provisions.
WHAT FREEDOM?
Tell me something, go look in the Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of USA, where the fuck does it say that the gov't can dictate to the companies HOW TO RUN BUSINESS?
That's the freedom - freedom to do business without being interfered by the government, freedom to you own property, freedom for people to not be forced by government to do business in a way that government dictates, and instead do business as it is supposed to be done - by market choosing voluntarily to buy or not to buy products.
The most important part is not even this specific case, it's the entire principle, and it's absolutely true, and it's been shown for hundreds of years now - the moment you close your eyes (or even wildly cheer) about government doing something that it is UNAUTHORISED BY CONTRACT to do, by the law that is above the government, you are done.
You are done. There will be nothing that they will not do and you will have nothing to say about it. Obama came out with this nonsense on: 'activist judges', when he heard they may overturn his treasonous idea of this insurance mandate, well it's the same thing, but it doesn't really matter anymore, does it? Because before you even get any of this forced insurance you already have all the benefits of extrajudicial killing and imprisonment by the POTUS, no judge, no jury, he is everything, including being an executioner.
What difference does it make, I guess, if he also forces some businesses to put whatever labels on their products. Obviously that's the carrot he is buying you with, while he is beating you into a pulp with his stick.
No, wait a second, you are right. I only have 2 teeth left and my pants are constantly full of it, I have only one eye and no nose, and my face is mostly burnt off. People squeal around me like pigs, you are right, that's it, that's the argument.