OMG, more revisionist history. USSR had every kind of socialism that is possible.
So called "right to work" (as in, you have a right to a job and socialist soviet union will provide you with it), "right to health care", "right to everything".
Of-course none of it meant anything. The jobs were nonsense, nobody got paid what market would bear, it was all prescribed by the government statisticians.
Most people also don't know anything economics, don't understand it, don't understand politics, don't understand money and think that employers owe them jobs. Most people are idiots, you are clearly not excluded from most people.
USA is everybody's business, because it makes itself everybody's business. How about USA stops trying to impose itself upon everybody and nobody will bother with it again.
Besides, I always liked the Southern states, waiting for Texas to secede to do business there again.
They only know your address, so when in Germany they'll know my address, but nothing else. Of-course this means you do your work somewhere else and you deal with taxes somewhere else, etc.
Charity is fine as long as nobody is forced into it. I like being charitable. I don't like when some criminal with a government ID and a gun comes and says: give us money, we are the charity.
There is no such thing as a 'right' to THINGS, including right to food, shelter, medication, nothing. Charity literally means somebody does something for somebody else without being forced, otherwise it's a totalitarian dictatorship and all must fight it until the end.
I am saying that Catholic church has been working to undermine the US society itself by attacking its economy and it did it by changing the principles of governance, turning USA into a 'democracy' from what it was originally - republic, and subverting the Constitution.
Yes, I am saying that the church attacked US economy and society in order to bring down the ideology based on secular governance and individual independence.
what does it mean: allow social injustice? I have no idea of what you mean by it ( what is the meaning you are putting into that concept? )
Are you going to force employers to hire people they don't want to and you believe that it is 'justice', when some people are forced to do something they don't want to do, because government tells them they must even though it clearly violates their right to association and private property?
If you pay any attention to this site, you'll notice some of the comments I post on politics and economics, I do not, however, normally post comments on what I am about to, it's a first. I think the Catholic church is the entity responsible for the destruction of US economy and society, I think that is the actual fundamental destroyer that has been after this target from the very moment the US Constitution was ratified. They could not leave it alone - a nation built that did not have the rule of church embedded into law itself, they could not allow it. The way it was done is a much more involved discussion than I am interested in right now, but let me just put down the comment here and if anybody thinks that it is a conspiracy theory - it is. It is a conspiracy theory of my own, though I am not sure whether it already has been proposed by anybody, but let me have my conspiracy theory, it's a first one for me and it took me a very long time to collect enough thought to formulate it.
Majority are forcing the minority to feed them, but the majority is not smart enough to start this process on their own, they are given the opportunity by some small group of people who are in minority, but they want to get control over the system. They use the desire of majority for bread and circuses as a mechanism that allows them to subvert the system, turning things upside down, doing what used to be illegal (so subverting the Constitution in order to gain control, but doing it by using majority's desire for free stuff basically).
Majority cannot start this process on their own, they are not in power.
Minority that is in power wants more power, they want to differentiate themselves from those below them.
So for example, if 0.001% of people who are in power use 51% of people who are below average income, average income and just a tad above it to give them bread and circuses, the people who will be paying for this bread and circuses will not be 0.001%, it will be most of those found in between 52% and up to 99.99%.
So this is just a way for the people in power to take much more power by stealing from those who are just below them, so they are taking away the power of the free market, because people between 52 and 99.99% ARE the major force that makes the free market and causes all of the competition to the people in top 0.001%
But to get this power, the 0.001% uses the raw power of cooperation with 51% of the bottom majority.
It's amazing to me that FDR's and Reagan's presidencies are called 'successful' by people.
One only continued with Hoover's path to turn the recession into the Great Depression and the other failed in every aspect to reduce government even as USSR was falling apart, the USA didn't get any peace benefit at all, and instead of decreasing government spending, the debt and deficits grew and so did taxes (to offset the incoming disaster of the SS/Medicare pyramids toppling over of-course).
Then we have a huge problem. Democracy is *wholly dependent* on having an informed voting base
- that is not the only problem, nor is it the worst one.
Democracy allows majority to rule, and that's the real problem, the majority will very simply choose to abuse the minority in every case. It's true today with employees/employers, lower income earners/higher income earners, etc., because it's very easy to vote for policies that totally do not apply to people who are, for example, earning below a number that is just a tad above average, and this means, that 51% of people can ALWAYS force 49% of people to FEED THEM in a democracy.
It's so simple and so terrible, that it is what eventually causes all of the economic destruction.
HOWEVER I do not mean to propose that the beginning of the switch from Republic to Democracy in USA was not initiated by people who are in fact not themselves in a minority.
It is people who are much above average intellect and means that find ways to abuse the political system by using the desire of the mob for bread and circuses. AFAIC the millionaire POTUS Theodore Roosevelt is the reason for the destruction of USA, I see direct causation of the current economic and societal destruction of USA to his policies while in office.
People who get entitlements from government must excluded from voting regardless of how well they understand the political system and how willing they are to participate in it, otherwise it's pure thievery - these people can always vote to keep/increase the entitlement system, because it's their direct profit, but that means they are putting a direct tax upon others to provide for them.
This MUST be illegal, but the Constitution has been hijacked, but eventually the economy is collapsing from all of this anyway, and soon enough it won't matter what the people on entitlements will desire - they'll get only what the gov't can give them - fake dollars that will buy nothing.
The Founders of USA understood this only too well, that's why they didn't give you a democracy, but a republic ('if you can keep it'). A Republic, where not everybody is allowed to vote, but only those actually participating in the economy directly.
People who aren't paying income taxes must not be allowed to vote, because they don't have the same type of incentive to keep taxes low as those, who pay these taxes, and then it's turned into simple thievery by government force.
A bunch of people voting to steal a bunch of money from a smaller group of people and to use government to get a bunch of shit 'for free', destroying the freedoms and the economy in process - that's what you get with a 'democracy'.
Does that mean that they have no right to a decent life?
- there is no such right. Right is a concept that only makes sense between the individual and the government (collective), a right of an individual is something that government in principle is not allowed to violate. There is no such concept when we talk about 2 individuals or any other 2 entities, none of which is government.
There is no 'right to' something, there is only 'right not to be violated by government' in various senses.
You nicely summarized the root cause of the collapse of housing markets across the US
- that is NOT the root cause, that was an expected symptom based on the real root cause, which was government easy credit to the banks (they did push it down all the way to 1% for Clinton and 0% for Bush and it's there now too) and all of the mandates, that had government and quasi government agencies 'insuring' variable rate mortgages, liar loans, all of that stuff. At the time of Clinton and Bush it was mostly F&F, now it's mostly FHA, which 'insures' over 1Trillion with only 5Billion assets.
Of-course all of this 'insurance', just like all other 'insurance' that government provides is not insurance. It's all debt and counterfeiting (hail the Fed).
corporations and government being merged is not 'free' anything, definitely not a free market. It's just one form of socialism, more precisely it is fascism.
You checked with Italian Mafia, it looks like, and it's not representative of others, however even with them, it's different markets and you can start your own, just RTFM.
As to the Internet - that's just stupid. There were plenty of private networks already before TCP/IP, not as widespread, but then again, they didn't operate with gov't money and mandate, but it's not necessary at all.
It's not like telegraph and telephone and later radio, TV and mobile phones needed government to appear, it was all done by the market as it allowed people to make profit because the market saw a useful thing and recognise and was paying for it.
Man, I wish you "libertarians" could have a taste of life as laborer back before regulation: Twelve hours a day, six days a week would not leave much energy for your political grandstanding.
- I work all the time, no weekends, I sleep 5 hours, it's my own business. NOBODY can drive me like myself, I used to do plenty of contracts and even worked on a 'permanent' position, nobody can drive me like I drive myself when I do shit for myself.
Us, libertarians, including people like Ford, understand business, and Ford saw market pressure and reduced working week to 5 days and hours to 8 and doubled pay in order to decrease turnover and increase productivity and increase profits and he did all of it, and it was all done without unions too and people at his factories were getting much better pay than people get in factories today, considering all costs of living and taxes.
The people who invented fire were almost certainly familiar with this effect.
- no doubt! Inventing an entire oxidation process - that takes some real genius, forget the wheel, let's talk about the reasons fire wasn't invented until caveman got tired of the stake being raw all the time!
jobs could have pulled 150 million out of his ass.
- and then much later this gets retold as 'water to wine' episode, and it's a good thing that somebody is there to take the literal statement and 'smooth the edges' so to speak, because you wouldn't want your children to hear "and he pulleth some out of asseth and turneth it into 150millionth dollarth" in a Sunday school.
I really like dealing with Mafia much more than with any government, because with Mafia there is competition and with government it's the same Mafia but worse, it's a Mafia Monopoly.
Internet is not publicly funded, there is nothing public about all the private networks, and government shouldn't be in business of any kind anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
OMG, more revisionist history. USSR had every kind of socialism that is possible.
So called "right to work" (as in, you have a right to a job and socialist soviet union will provide you with it), "right to health care", "right to everything".
Of-course none of it meant anything. The jobs were nonsense, nobody got paid what market would bear, it was all prescribed by the government statisticians.
Most people also don't know anything economics, don't understand it, don't understand politics, don't understand money and think that employers owe them jobs. Most people are idiots, you are clearly not excluded from most people.
USA is everybody's business, because it makes itself everybody's business. How about USA stops trying to impose itself upon everybody and nobody will bother with it again.
Besides, I always liked the Southern states, waiting for Texas to secede to do business there again.
I was born in the USSR, I went to a sociopath school in a socialist country.
Also when in jury duty on cases involving an individual vs government, always nullify the law.
How about they had executives who didn't bother paying them 0.35 but instead paid them 0.25.
Who the hell are you to second guess business decisions that you have nothing to do with?
Open your own company and start your own manufacturing and pay what you want.
Every single time the government collects taxes. You have something smarter to say at all? Thought so.
They only know your address, so when in Germany they'll know my address, but nothing else. Of-course this means you do your work somewhere else and you deal with taxes somewhere else, etc.
Charity is fine as long as nobody is forced into it. I like being charitable. I don't like when some criminal with a government ID and a gun comes and says: give us money, we are the charity.
There is no such thing as a 'right' to THINGS, including right to food, shelter, medication, nothing. Charity literally means somebody does something for somebody else without being forced, otherwise it's a totalitarian dictatorship and all must fight it until the end.
I am saying that Catholic church has been working to undermine the US society itself by attacking its economy and it did it by changing the principles of governance, turning USA into a 'democracy' from what it was originally - republic, and subverting the Constitution.
Yes, I am saying that the church attacked US economy and society in order to bring down the ideology based on secular governance and individual independence.
what does it mean: allow social injustice? I have no idea of what you mean by it ( what is the meaning you are putting into that concept? )
Are you going to force employers to hire people they don't want to and you believe that it is 'justice', when some people are forced to do something they don't want to do, because government tells them they must even though it clearly violates their right to association and private property?
If you pay any attention to this site, you'll notice some of the comments I post on politics and economics, I do not, however, normally post comments on what I am about to, it's a first. I think the Catholic church is the entity responsible for the destruction of US economy and society, I think that is the actual fundamental destroyer that has been after this target from the very moment the US Constitution was ratified. They could not leave it alone - a nation built that did not have the rule of church embedded into law itself, they could not allow it. The way it was done is a much more involved discussion than I am interested in right now, but let me just put down the comment here and if anybody thinks that it is a conspiracy theory - it is. It is a conspiracy theory of my own, though I am not sure whether it already has been proposed by anybody, but let me have my conspiracy theory, it's a first one for me and it took me a very long time to collect enough thought to formulate it.
Majority are forcing the minority to feed them, but the majority is not smart enough to start this process on their own, they are given the opportunity by some small group of people who are in minority, but they want to get control over the system. They use the desire of majority for bread and circuses as a mechanism that allows them to subvert the system, turning things upside down, doing what used to be illegal (so subverting the Constitution in order to gain control, but doing it by using majority's desire for free stuff basically).
Majority cannot start this process on their own, they are not in power.
Minority that is in power wants more power, they want to differentiate themselves from those below them.
So for example, if 0.001% of people who are in power use 51% of people who are below average income, average income and just a tad above it to give them bread and circuses, the people who will be paying for this bread and circuses will not be 0.001%, it will be most of those found in between 52% and up to 99.99%.
So this is just a way for the people in power to take much more power by stealing from those who are just below them, so they are taking away the power of the free market, because people between 52 and 99.99% ARE the major force that makes the free market and causes all of the competition to the people in top 0.001%
But to get this power, the 0.001% uses the raw power of cooperation with 51% of the bottom majority.
It's amazing to me that FDR's and Reagan's presidencies are called 'successful' by people.
One only continued with Hoover's path to turn the recession into the Great Depression and the other failed in every aspect to reduce government even as USSR was falling apart, the USA didn't get any peace benefit at all, and instead of decreasing government spending, the debt and deficits grew and so did taxes (to offset the incoming disaster of the SS /Medicare pyramids toppling over of-course).
Then we have a huge problem. Democracy is *wholly dependent* on having an informed voting base
- that is not the only problem, nor is it the worst one.
Democracy allows majority to rule, and that's the real problem, the majority will very simply choose to abuse the minority in every case. It's true today with employees/employers, lower income earners/higher income earners, etc., because it's very easy to vote for policies that totally do not apply to people who are, for example, earning below a number that is just a tad above average, and this means, that 51% of people can ALWAYS force 49% of people to FEED THEM in a democracy.
It's so simple and so terrible, that it is what eventually causes all of the economic destruction.
HOWEVER I do not mean to propose that the beginning of the switch from Republic to Democracy in USA was not initiated by people who are in fact not themselves in a minority.
It is people who are much above average intellect and means that find ways to abuse the political system by using the desire of the mob for bread and circuses. AFAIC the millionaire POTUS Theodore Roosevelt is the reason for the destruction of USA, I see direct causation of the current economic and societal destruction of USA to his policies while in office.
People who get entitlements from government must excluded from voting regardless of how well they understand the political system and how willing they are to participate in it, otherwise it's pure thievery - these people can always vote to keep/increase the entitlement system, because it's their direct profit, but that means they are putting a direct tax upon others to provide for them.
This MUST be illegal, but the Constitution has been hijacked, but eventually the economy is collapsing from all of this anyway, and soon enough it won't matter what the people on entitlements will desire - they'll get only what the gov't can give them - fake dollars that will buy nothing.
The Founders of USA understood this only too well, that's why they didn't give you a democracy, but a republic ('if you can keep it'). A Republic, where not everybody is allowed to vote, but only those actually participating in the economy directly.
People who aren't paying income taxes must not be allowed to vote, because they don't have the same type of incentive to keep taxes low as those, who pay these taxes, and then it's turned into simple thievery by government force.
A bunch of people voting to steal a bunch of money from a smaller group of people and to use government to get a bunch of shit 'for free', destroying the freedoms and the economy in process - that's what you get with a 'democracy'.
Does that mean that they have no right to a decent life?
- there is no such right. Right is a concept that only makes sense between the individual and the government (collective), a right of an individual is something that government in principle is not allowed to violate. There is no such concept when we talk about 2 individuals or any other 2 entities, none of which is government.
There is no 'right to' something, there is only 'right not to be violated by government' in various senses.
You nicely summarized the root cause of the collapse of housing markets across the US
- that is NOT the root cause, that was an expected symptom based on the real root cause, which was government easy credit to the banks (they did push it down all the way to 1% for Clinton and 0% for Bush and it's there now too) and all of the mandates, that had government and quasi government agencies 'insuring' variable rate mortgages, liar loans, all of that stuff. At the time of Clinton and Bush it was mostly F&F, now it's mostly FHA, which 'insures' over 1Trillion with only 5Billion assets.
Of-course all of this 'insurance', just like all other 'insurance' that government provides is not insurance. It's all debt and counterfeiting (hail the Fed).
People saw this coming miles away.
corporations and government being merged is not 'free' anything, definitely not a free market. It's just one form of socialism, more precisely it is fascism.
You checked with Italian Mafia, it looks like, and it's not representative of others, however even with them, it's different markets and you can start your own, just RTFM.
As to the Internet - that's just stupid. There were plenty of private networks already before TCP/IP, not as widespread, but then again, they didn't operate with gov't money and mandate, but it's not necessary at all.
It's not like telegraph and telephone and later radio, TV and mobile phones needed government to appear, it was all done by the market as it allowed people to make profit because the market saw a useful thing and recognise and was paying for it.
Man, I wish you "libertarians" could have a taste of life as laborer back before regulation: Twelve hours a day, six days a week would not leave much energy for your political grandstanding.
- I work all the time, no weekends, I sleep 5 hours, it's my own business. NOBODY can drive me like myself, I used to do plenty of contracts and even worked on a 'permanent' position, nobody can drive me like I drive myself when I do shit for myself.
Us, libertarians, including people like Ford, understand business, and Ford saw market pressure and reduced working week to 5 days and hours to 8 and doubled pay in order to decrease turnover and increase productivity and increase profits and he did all of it, and it was all done without unions too and people at his factories were getting much better pay than people get in factories today, considering all costs of living and taxes.
Joan of Arc preferred hers that way.
- which is why she did not invent fire.
The people who invented fire were almost certainly familiar with this effect.
- no doubt! Inventing an entire oxidation process - that takes some real genius, forget the wheel, let's talk about the reasons fire wasn't invented until caveman got tired of the stake being raw all the time!
jobs could have pulled 150 million out of his ass.
- and then much later this gets retold as 'water to wine' episode, and it's a good thing that somebody is there to take the literal statement and 'smooth the edges' so to speak, because you wouldn't want your children to hear "and he pulleth some out of asseth and turneth it into 150millionth dollarth" in a Sunday school.
Awoken the Grue has been.
I really like dealing with Mafia much more than with any government, because with Mafia there is competition and with government it's the same Mafia but worse, it's a Mafia Monopoly.
Internet is not publicly funded, there is nothing public about all the private networks, and government shouldn't be in business of any kind anyway.