what exactly are your qualifications for designing a political/economic system?
- I am a homo sapiens who was born in a soviet state, lived in a number of other countries, speak a number of languages, created a number of businesses from scratch and I can think.
Obviously economy is evolving, society is evolving, etc., as my proposal is no more outrageous than any other Constitutional proposal such as "Congress shall make no law regarding establishing a religion.... etc.", mine is no more outrageous than that 'crazy idea'.
You are another misguided well intentioned person on the wrong track. Another victim of these think tanks from the 70s to sell any ideas that fuel corporate power which ultimately ends up undermining yours.
- you have already done the wrong thing and assumed you know me. In the 70s I was still living in the former USSR.
We have government involvement now but its as close to anarchy as we've had
- right, that's why you have gov't holding people in prisons indefinitely, torturing prisoners, forcing banks to take bailouts even those banks that didn't have any toxic mortgages on their books, buying out car companies, 'stimulating' economy by spending borrowed and printed money, telling you what you can and cannot buy as health insurance, having near 10% of your population work for the gov't through public and private organizations, starting wars all over the place to take your SS money, telling you what part of your income you can keep after you have to disclose all of your information to a gov't agency, they'll let you keep some, militarizing your police force, wiretapping citizens illegally without even a court order, creating secret treaties like ACTA, Fed setting artificial interest rates and printing bonds and cash to buy bonds and then bonds to buy cash back in a circle that creates an appearance of a GDP because it doesn't let the prices to fall where they should be because it would bankrupt the banks who are still holding toxic assets, having your Fed chairman come out 2 days ago and say: our mandate is to keep prices RISING, not even stable, but rising, etc.etc.etc.
Total anarchy, it's just, there hasn't been an anarchy bigger than that. ---
What the fuck do you know about anarchy, pussy boy? Ever heard of Mahno from Ukraine in the twenties? THAT was anarchy, this is fascism.
---
Your solution is too specific to address the real problems. Its all about POWER, not markets. Money is a part of it but it does not need to be the main tool. Violence also works, but here money is god so violence is an unnecessary (except for bit players) means to gain power.
- garble garble garble.
My solution is 'too specific' in the same way that the first amendment is 'too specific'.
The amassing of unsafe levels of power is the problem.
- by the government. You can't escape gov't unless you leave the country. Wait, they'll make that illegal too.
The powerful get addicted and never have enough
- yes. The powerful addicted politicians never have enough.
---
I'm probably wasting my time if you've bought into the anarchy advocated by the power elites to sucker you.
- no, I am wasting time on idiots here. First you said that you already have it as close to anarchy as it ever got (moron) then you are saying that my proposal to limit gov't power that allows it for the corporations to take over the gov't is anarchy as well.
And realize, when I say 'contract law', I do not mean a law set by legislation. Only judicial precedent is important there, so don't get me wrong, I don't want any legislature that creates any laws that deal with business at all.
The only thing that is needed from gov't is Justice system that allows people to dispute contracts, the only important idea in business is contract law.
Whatever gov't does for business reasons shouldn't exist. Copyrights, patents, gov't created entities of any sort, etc.
All roads and all infrastructure can and should be built privately. I definitely am not interested in a gov't doing any of this.
Space travel, highways, schools, fire and emergency response, utilities and financial, wilderness, it is all best suited for private hands to handle.
For example, if the ocean was owned by a number of private entities, BP wouldn't behave the way they did because:
1. Nobody would set any liability caps for them. 2. They would have to buy adequate insurance to cover any event. 3. They would follow all necessary procedures to prevent spills. 4. If a spill occurred they would have enough equipment somewhere on standby to deal with this. 5. Private owner would sue their ass off if there was a spill. 6. Private owners surrounding the areas where the spill occurred would sue their ass off. 7. It would be possible to file a class action lawsuit against them, and that's what Justice system should be doing.
Gov't causes a recession (plenty of which happened before gov't started messing with them) to turn into a depression.
Recession is a bust of a boom/bust cycle, it's a necessary part of the cycle, just like any engine there are a number of cycles, each must be followed to keep the economy going, because any inefficiency in allocation of resources must be addressed, and they are addressed with bust.
Keynesians decided to stop the bust from happening, and gov't loved it because it could then avoid shrinking of its size and spending.
==
Space travel and all other endeavors are best handled by private interests and will be handled by private interests anyway. Gov't can only show us all how wasteful they are at doing this.
Show me a Scandinavian country that has the kind of spending US has on military, pork spending, education spending, medical spending. Whatever US gov't is doing, it always ends up spending more than anybody else.
US is not built as a monarchy, right? It was the first (the only) country to be built as an attempt to be different, democratic republic, not affected by monarchy and special interests, using free market, but it's failing.
It's failing because the Constitution is not strict enough to make the free market work, it allows the special interests to take over and to distort the market to give power to special interest.
Certainly it is possible to have an economy not based on Free Market, but that economy is NEVER going to produce the same advances and progress as an economy that has Free Market. The economy that has no Free Market may appear to be more stable for a longer period of time, eventually it will succumb to the global changes and shift of labor to the more competitive parts of the world, like US did. Scandinavian countries are over-borrowing and under-producing, all having trade deficits and will have the same sad outcomes, but theirs will come later as they do not do it on the same scale.
The rate of change is about the scale of things that are done.
There shouldn't be any bills that 'create or destroy jobs'.
Gov't that makes sense is this:
1. Justice system to take care of contract conflicts as well as anything that deals with harming individuals, running Class Action Lawsuits etc. 2. Minimum Military to protect against invasion. 3. Cops/Prisons.
The taxes must be only on things like sales and people who can't afford taxes should be able to file their income statement and get their taxes back.
It's not anarchy, it's minarchy - libertarian system with minimum gov't.
Yes, children and other types of education, etc., are all subject to market forces and should be left out of gov't and done privately.
No, in flight you CAN gain altitude. Or are you arguing that a parachute is a form of transportation that's useful for more than just falling down in a controlled manner?
Given the fact that US economy is being destroyed because of the huge monthly trade deficit, caused by the US labor force being uncompetitive, which all came around due to government regulations, taxation, wage laws, subsidies, monopoly creation, setting interest rates, printing of money, waging wars, destruction of competition etc., the US Constitution needs to be fixed. Without a basic fix to it, the economy will continue plummet, until the hyper-inflationary depression hits and then a long restructuring process will start probably following a period of very bad civil unrest possibly with lots of intermediary bloodshed.
Here is the fix (and I am not a lawyer, so this needs to be solidified to fit both the letter and the spirit)
Congress shall pass no law, that changes the status of any entity in a way that allows that entity to get any preferential treatment in economy.
What I am trying to say is that government must not be able to affect economy through any law, this way no matter how much money is spent bribing the government, it's of no use and cannot result in a favorable economic outcome for those, who are doing the bribing.
This concerns anything at all that deals with economy, be it minimum wage, social security, income taxes, corporate welfare, bailouts, stimulus packages, setting interest rates, printing money (all this should be privatized), creating federal institutions that insure any type of lending or borrowing or depositing or any other moral hazard.
Gov't shouldn't be able to change the economic outcome by providing any monopolistic powers, providing exclusive trading rights, creating any discrimination in the market place, setting any laws that fix prices or contracts or whatever.
I hope my point is clear and obviously again, I am not a lawyer.
This is the only way to keep economy Free and going and not having it broken by various violent intervention by a government, which clearly ends up badly.
Well, that's the values that Sesame Street is pushing onto the kids these days. Be happy you didn't walk onto him while he was having a joint with a couple of bitches.
I wonder how his 'holly shit' sounded before that time: hoooueee siiiid
How about also adding CSS cookies as part of this cool evercookie thing? I am interested at looking into it. CSS has to have something there, some values to be stored as part of style sheet and then upon loading of the page check for CSS settings to get the values back. hhmmmmmmm.
Yeah, it was real. I always get a blowjob from a hot blond chick while coding. Unfortunately the gun is also real, I managed to avoid the bullet for now, but tomorrow they want me to break into NSA in under 3 minutes. Of-course there will be 2 chicks this time, so I agreed. Wish me luck.
you know this entire article is ridiculous because it's full of stupid shit like this:
You don't even have to explain what you want or provide a document. They just complete the job."
.
The entire article is written as if by somebody who just watched 'Charlies Angels', 'Swordfish', 'True Lies' and 'The Core' and decided to write about this subject as if those movies actually represent reality.
1807 duration: 3 years. 1812 duration: half a year. 1815 duration: 6 years. 1822 duration: 1 year. 1825 duration: 1 year. 1828 duration: 1 year. 1839 duration: 1 year. 1857 duration: 1.5 years. 1873 duration: 5.5 years. 1893 duration: 1.7 years
-----
That's right, those are busts, which are CURES for the booms that preceded them. Government WAS NOT INVOLVED AND THOSE RECESSIONS ENDED.
1929-42 - that's 'Great Depression' that happened with gov't involvement, which turned a recession into an asset bubble, but US economy still was strong because it still had its manufacturing/production intact and when the war ended a lot of cheap labor came back from war and was utilized to rebuild the economy.
The Keynesian ideas were used all throughout the 20th century to try and re-pump the bubble before it burst, and because of this the inflation, the money printing, getting off the gold standard, giving powers to monopolies, setting wage laws, fixing prices, bailing monopolies out, gov't spending and wars, all of that is now resulted in the biggest bubble that is being pumped right now, the treasury bill bubble, the bond bubble, when it bursts, the US will print enough money to buy back all those useless papers thus turning USD into a piece of garbage, which will result in a hyper-inflationary depression.
Right, so the true statement that 19th century, with almost no government control produced much better results than the 20th century in terms of improving relative quality of life of people in the beginning and end of the century, while the 19th didn't have anything that could even closely be described as a 'depression', while 20th had one 'great' one and now there is another huge super-great one, this gets moderated a Troll.
Is that because moderators believe this is a false statement, or because they believe people shouldn't be reading about this?
How can you make all of the airplane transparent? It's probably not possible with most of it at all, given how many wires, pipes, tubes, insulation, bolts and nuts there are there.
I would love to fly a fully transparent plane though, completely transparent, that would be super awesome!
Except that there would be other passengers there to spoil the view, and fuel. That would be weird.
You are completely off your wagon there, there was nothing that crippled USA in that time period, the proof is the dramatic rising of the standard of living in that century, and if you didn't notice, nothing that happened in any local community in US had any effect whatsoever on other parts of the country, much less the world.
And USA didn't wage wars upon other nations all over the globe by using income tax money, and US gov't was so small that it was able to do whatever it did on sales taxes and the taxes were actually very low - single digits, under 2% low.
I'll give you a good example of what I mean right now.
The 19th century in USA was a much more productive century than the twentieth, yet there was no gov't controlled money supply, interest rates were set by market forces rather than by mafia in power, sure, some banks failed, but there was nothing anybody called a 'great depression'. The standard of living went up from 18th century outhouses to an industrial century, with people building and using machines, people having indoor plumbing, people inventing sawing machines, people moving away from agrarian economy to industrial one.
The 20th century certainly gave the world a lot of other things, including the Internet, but nothing as drastic as a move from a horse to a steam engine gave people a century earlier. And also there was the 'great depression' and now another depression, which will be known in history as the 'greatest' depression so far.
What we know is that in between the gov't intervened into economy, created various taxes, subsidies, laws, regulations, rules, monopolies, bailouts and stimulus packages.
Yes, based on this we can see that people actively trying to manipulate forces of market by violence (which what gov't intervention is - violence) is working as much as trying to get rid of rats by bringing opossums (which BTW, should have been known to be a bad idea based on some previous experience).
Oh, and you may want to watch the video of a debate I linked to in the top comment.
My argument is simple: people can't predict a simple thing in a complex environment, like what would introduction of opossums do into an environment that didn't have them before.
It's as if people didn't have any prior experience in the matter. Oh, wait, yeah, they did.
your straw argument doesn't hold water either. I am not talking about trading horses, I am talking about the chances that gov't will do anything right when it concerns economy, as if it hasn't been tried before to control economy that way by a gov't. Yes, it has been tried. It was a failure. Watch the video debate I attached in the previous comment.
Slashdot Mirror
what exactly are your qualifications for designing a political/economic system?
- I am a homo sapiens who was born in a soviet state, lived in a number of other countries, speak a number of languages, created a number of businesses from scratch and I can think.
Obviously economy is evolving, society is evolving, etc., as my proposal is no more outrageous than any other Constitutional proposal such as "Congress shall make no law regarding establishing a religion.... etc.", mine is no more outrageous than that 'crazy idea'.
You are another misguided well intentioned person on the wrong track. Another victim of these think tanks from the 70s to sell any ideas that fuel corporate power which ultimately ends up undermining yours.
- you have already done the wrong thing and assumed you know me. In the 70s I was still living in the former USSR.
We have government involvement now but its as close to anarchy as we've had
- right, that's why you have gov't holding people in prisons indefinitely, torturing prisoners, forcing banks to take bailouts even those banks that didn't have any toxic mortgages on their books, buying out car companies, 'stimulating' economy by spending borrowed and printed money, telling you what you can and cannot buy as health insurance, having near 10% of your population work for the gov't through public and private organizations, starting wars all over the place to take your SS money, telling you what part of your income you can keep after you have to disclose all of your information to a gov't agency, they'll let you keep some, militarizing your police force, wiretapping citizens illegally without even a court order, creating secret treaties like ACTA, Fed setting artificial interest rates and printing bonds and cash to buy bonds and then bonds to buy cash back in a circle that creates an appearance of a GDP because it doesn't let the prices to fall where they should be because it would bankrupt the banks who are still holding toxic assets, having your Fed chairman come out 2 days ago and say: our mandate is to keep prices RISING, not even stable, but rising, etc.etc.etc.
Total anarchy, it's just, there hasn't been an anarchy bigger than that.
---
What the fuck do you know about anarchy, pussy boy? Ever heard of Mahno from Ukraine in the twenties? THAT was anarchy, this is fascism.
---
Your solution is too specific to address the real problems. Its all about POWER, not markets. Money is a part of it but it does not need to be the main tool. Violence also works, but here money is god so violence is an unnecessary (except for bit players) means to gain power.
- garble garble garble.
My solution is 'too specific' in the same way that the first amendment is 'too specific'.
The amassing of unsafe levels of power is the problem.
- by the government. You can't escape gov't unless you leave the country. Wait, they'll make that illegal too.
The powerful get addicted and never have enough
- yes. The powerful addicted politicians never have enough.
---
I'm probably wasting my time if you've bought into the anarchy advocated by the power elites to sucker you.
- no, I am wasting time on idiots here. First you said that you already have it as close to anarchy as it ever got (moron) then you are saying that my proposal to limit gov't power that allows it for the corporations to take over the gov't is anarchy as well.
Yes, I am wasting my time.
And realize, when I say 'contract law', I do not mean a law set by legislation. Only judicial precedent is important there, so don't get me wrong, I don't want any legislature that creates any laws that deal with business at all.
The only thing that is needed from gov't is Justice system that allows people to dispute contracts, the only important idea in business is contract law.
Whatever gov't does for business reasons shouldn't exist. Copyrights, patents, gov't created entities of any sort, etc.
I was thinking about you too, honey. You give blow jobs, you'll do.
All roads and all infrastructure can and should be built privately. I definitely am not interested in a gov't doing any of this.
Space travel, highways, schools, fire and emergency response, utilities and financial, wilderness, it is all best suited for private hands to handle.
For example, if the ocean was owned by a number of private entities, BP wouldn't behave the way they did because:
1. Nobody would set any liability caps for them.
2. They would have to buy adequate insurance to cover any event.
3. They would follow all necessary procedures to prevent spills.
4. If a spill occurred they would have enough equipment somewhere on standby to deal with this.
5. Private owner would sue their ass off if there was a spill.
6. Private owners surrounding the areas where the spill occurred would sue their ass off.
7. It would be possible to file a class action lawsuit against them, and that's what Justice system should be doing.
Gov't causes a recession (plenty of which happened before gov't started messing with them) to turn into a depression.
Recession is a bust of a boom/bust cycle, it's a necessary part of the cycle, just like any engine there are a number of cycles, each must be followed to keep the economy going, because any inefficiency in allocation of resources must be addressed, and they are addressed with bust.
Keynesians decided to stop the bust from happening, and gov't loved it because it could then avoid shrinking of its size and spending.
==
Space travel and all other endeavors are best handled by private interests and will be handled by private interests anyway. Gov't can only show us all how wasteful they are at doing this.
Show me a Scandinavian country that has the kind of spending US has on military, pork spending, education spending, medical spending. Whatever US gov't is doing, it always ends up spending more than anybody else.
US is not built as a monarchy, right? It was the first (the only) country to be built as an attempt to be different, democratic republic, not affected by monarchy and special interests, using free market, but it's failing.
It's failing because the Constitution is not strict enough to make the free market work, it allows the special interests to take over and to distort the market to give power to special interest.
Certainly it is possible to have an economy not based on Free Market, but that economy is NEVER going to produce the same advances and progress as an economy that has Free Market. The economy that has no Free Market may appear to be more stable for a longer period of time, eventually it will succumb to the global changes and shift of labor to the more competitive parts of the world, like US did. Scandinavian countries are over-borrowing and under-producing, all having trade deficits and will have the same sad outcomes, but theirs will come later as they do not do it on the same scale.
The rate of change is about the scale of things that are done.
There shouldn't be any bills that 'create or destroy jobs'.
Gov't that makes sense is this:
1. Justice system to take care of contract conflicts as well as anything that deals with harming individuals, running Class Action Lawsuits etc.
2. Minimum Military to protect against invasion.
3. Cops/Prisons.
The taxes must be only on things like sales and people who can't afford taxes should be able to file their income statement and get their taxes back.
It's not anarchy, it's minarchy - libertarian system with minimum gov't.
Yes, children and other types of education, etc., are all subject to market forces and should be left out of gov't and done privately.
No, in flight you CAN gain altitude. Or are you arguing that a parachute is a form of transportation that's useful for more than just falling down in a controlled manner?
Given the fact that US economy is being destroyed because of the huge monthly trade deficit, caused by the US labor force being uncompetitive, which all came around due to government regulations, taxation, wage laws, subsidies, monopoly creation, setting interest rates, printing of money, waging wars, destruction of competition etc., the US Constitution needs to be fixed. Without a basic fix to it, the economy will continue plummet, until the hyper-inflationary depression hits and then a long restructuring process will start probably following a period of very bad civil unrest possibly with lots of intermediary bloodshed.
Here is the fix (and I am not a lawyer, so this needs to be solidified to fit both the letter and the spirit)
Congress shall pass no law, that changes the status of any entity in a way that allows that entity to get any preferential treatment in economy.
What I am trying to say is that government must not be able to affect economy through any law, this way no matter how much money is spent bribing the government, it's of no use and cannot result in a favorable economic outcome for those, who are doing the bribing.
This concerns anything at all that deals with economy, be it minimum wage, social security, income taxes, corporate welfare, bailouts, stimulus packages, setting interest rates, printing money (all this should be privatized), creating federal institutions that insure any type of lending or borrowing or depositing or any other moral hazard.
Gov't shouldn't be able to change the economic outcome by providing any monopolistic powers, providing exclusive trading rights, creating any discrimination in the market place, setting any laws that fix prices or contracts or whatever.
I hope my point is clear and obviously again, I am not a lawyer.
This is the only way to keep economy Free and going and not having it broken by various violent intervention by a government, which clearly ends up badly.
This looked like the wings were flapping but the machine was slowly going down, not a single flap pushed it up.
This did not look like a flight, it looked like a delayed fall.
No, Mr. Bond; I expect you to yell like a little girl while I am freezing your balls!
Well, that's the values that Sesame Street is pushing onto the kids these days. Be happy you didn't walk onto him while he was having a joint with a couple of bitches.
I wonder how his 'holly shit' sounded before that time: hoooueee siiiid
How about also adding CSS cookies as part of this cool evercookie thing? I am interested at looking into it. CSS has to have something there, some values to be stored as part of style sheet and then upon loading of the page check for CSS settings to get the values back. hhmmmmmmm.
Yeah, it was real. I always get a blowjob from a hot blond chick while coding. Unfortunately the gun is also real, I managed to avoid the bullet for now, but tomorrow they want me to break into NSA in under 3 minutes. Of-course there will be 2 chicks this time, so I agreed. Wish me luck.
you know this entire article is ridiculous because it's full of stupid shit like this:
You don't even have to explain what you want or provide a document. They just complete the job."
.
The entire article is written as if by somebody who just watched 'Charlies Angels', 'Swordfish', 'True Lies' and 'The Core' and decided to write about this subject as if those movies actually represent reality.
1807 duration: 3 years.
1812 duration: half a year.
1815 duration: 6 years.
1822 duration: 1 year.
1825 duration: 1 year.
1828 duration: 1 year.
1839 duration: 1 year.
1857 duration: 1.5 years.
1873 duration: 5.5 years.
1893 duration: 1.7 years
-----
That's right, those are busts, which are CURES for the booms that preceded them. Government WAS NOT INVOLVED AND THOSE RECESSIONS ENDED.
1929-42 - that's 'Great Depression' that happened with gov't involvement, which turned a recession into an asset bubble, but US economy still was strong because it still had its manufacturing/production intact and when the war ended a lot of cheap labor came back from war and was utilized to rebuild the economy.
The Keynesian ideas were used all throughout the 20th century to try and re-pump the bubble before it burst, and because of this the inflation, the money printing, getting off the gold standard, giving powers to monopolies, setting wage laws, fixing prices, bailing monopolies out, gov't spending and wars, all of that is now resulted in the biggest bubble that is being pumped right now, the treasury bill bubble, the bond bubble, when it bursts, the US will print enough money to buy back all those useless papers thus turning USD into a piece of garbage, which will result in a hyper-inflationary depression.
Rather than that, the gov't is doing swimmingly.
computer.
hello, computer.
that's just best left to imagination, you really don't want to know, you may think you do, but really you do not.
Right, so the true statement that 19th century, with almost no government control produced much better results than the 20th century in terms of improving relative quality of life of people in the beginning and end of the century, while the 19th didn't have anything that could even closely be described as a 'depression', while 20th had one 'great' one and now there is another huge super-great one, this gets moderated a Troll.
Is that because moderators believe this is a false statement, or because they believe people shouldn't be reading about this?
Given the size of an average American, do you really want to see any of that?
How can you make all of the airplane transparent? It's probably not possible with most of it at all, given how many wires, pipes, tubes, insulation, bolts and nuts there are there.
I would love to fly a fully transparent plane though, completely transparent, that would be super awesome!
Except that there would be other passengers there to spoil the view, and fuel. That would be weird.
You are completely off your wagon there, there was nothing that crippled USA in that time period, the proof is the dramatic rising of the standard of living in that century, and if you didn't notice, nothing that happened in any local community in US had any effect whatsoever on other parts of the country, much less the world.
And USA didn't wage wars upon other nations all over the globe by using income tax money, and US gov't was so small that it was able to do whatever it did on sales taxes and the taxes were actually very low - single digits, under 2% low.
Go read a book.
I'll give you a good example of what I mean right now.
The 19th century in USA was a much more productive century than the twentieth, yet there was no gov't controlled money supply, interest rates were set by market forces rather than by mafia in power, sure, some banks failed, but there was nothing anybody called a 'great depression'. The standard of living went up from 18th century outhouses to an industrial century, with people building and using machines, people having indoor plumbing, people inventing sawing machines, people moving away from agrarian economy to industrial one.
The 20th century certainly gave the world a lot of other things, including the Internet, but nothing as drastic as a move from a horse to a steam engine gave people a century earlier. And also there was the 'great depression' and now another depression, which will be known in history as the 'greatest' depression so far.
What we know is that in between the gov't intervened into economy, created various taxes, subsidies, laws, regulations, rules, monopolies, bailouts and stimulus packages.
Yes, based on this we can see that people actively trying to manipulate forces of market by violence (which what gov't intervention is - violence) is working as much as trying to get rid of rats by bringing opossums (which BTW, should have been known to be a bad idea based on some previous experience).
Oh, and you may want to watch the video of a debate I linked to in the top comment.
My argument is simple: people can't predict a simple thing in a complex environment, like what would introduction of opossums do into an environment that didn't have them before.
It's as if people didn't have any prior experience in the matter. Oh, wait, yeah, they did.
your straw argument doesn't hold water either. I am not talking about trading horses, I am talking about the chances that gov't will do anything right when it concerns economy, as if it hasn't been tried before to control economy that way by a gov't. Yes, it has been tried. It was a failure. Watch the video debate I attached in the previous comment.