wow, hook, line and sinker. You actually believe that drivel, don't you? No, the reason why the car company was bailed out is that it didn't really matter, it took almost no money as compared to the banks and it was making the government look bad - we bailed out the fat cats on the Wall street but we won't bail out a 'hard working' company like GM?
You are pointing at Krugman for an economic insight? It's like pointing at Ben Bernanke as he was sitting there in 2007 saying that there is no housing bubble, while he was sitting in the middle of one while being one of the principal actors in setting it up.
INTERVIEWER: Ben, there's been a lot of talk about a housing bubble, particularly, you know [inaudible] from all sorts of places. Can you give us your view as to whether or not there is a housing bubble out there?
BERNANKE: Well, unquestionably, housing prices are up quite a bit; I think it's important to note that fundamentals are also very strong. We've got a growing economy, jobs, incomes. We've got very low mortgage rates. We've got demographics supporting housing growth. We've got restricted supply in some places. So it's certainly understandable that prices would go up some. I don't know whether prices are exactly where they should be, but I think it's fair to say that much of what's happened is supported by the strength of the economy.
Krugman should be stripped of his Nobel Prize by the way, for completely misunderstanding exactly this: what is inflation caused by.
Deflation? Deflation would actually be a solution to the problem at hand. Prices for everything, including houses and labor need to go down. DOWN. But they will not do so until there is a major disaster - hyperinflation, which is going to be coming soon, as government will start printing dollars to buy back their junk bonds, but probably even sooner as they can no longer find short term refinancing at very low interest rates as they are enjoying right now.
The word 'fascist' itself came out of the name "Fasci di Combattimento" (Combat Group), which was a name of a political movement in France.
I believe Mussolini is a historical figure, he tied the ideas of anti-socialism, anti-monarchism and corporatism to the idea of 'fascism', which really is just a name for his political group, nothing more.
So what do YOU think fascism means? It's a 'group' first of all, but it has enough connotations associated with it, and me taking a connotation derived from actions of a historical figure is absolutely NOT rewriting history as you claim.
--
Ah, the conspiracy angle. The answer is yes. But then again, Afghanistan would have been enough.
- really, you have a better reason as to why the Afghanistan war is what it is, the longest US war so far? And this reason has nothing to do with the trillions spent on the military industrial complex? Ha. I guess it must be U.B.Laden then. Or maybe it's the minerals, the gold, the iron, the lithium that the Soviets found there? Yeah, must be that.
--
You can call it a police action, the people who I know who were fleeing from the country because bombs were exploding around them call it war regardless of how your president's PR machine spins it.
--
Ah, and you got me with the bailout thing. When I think about it, it's functionally the same thing, but there's kind of an important difference. That whole "holding-off-Armageddon" thing.
- more Keynesian bullshit, but in reality it's worse than that. At least Keyne's ideas are actually based on believes, however misguided and wrong, they are believes about government's role in economy. What really was happening was a heist, with a few trillion dollars stolen right from under your noses. It's your money gone, I don't care.
I don't understand libertarians in anyway. I have never seen a market correct it's self.
- you just don't understand when you see it happening right in front of your eyes.
Do you remember the dot-com bubble? Do you remember the housing bubble?
The incoming t-bills/bonds/government short term refinancing bubble?
That's market trying to correct itself and people interfering with the correction.
Currently market is completely off balance by the actions of those, who do not want to accept the consequences of idiocy that has passed for economics since the Fed started printing cash and Keynes came to town.
I am not going to say anything about you being a troll, because I see you as somebody who is simply confused, and I don't mean it in any derogatory fashion, it's just that they don't want anybody to understand what economics is, even though it's really very simple.
You may want to find out, I suggest starting by observing people who understand it and reading something about it.
You are right, the salaries were lower, though notice that before Nixon's minimum wage laws and opening trade with China while removing the gold backing from the dollar, it was enough for one person to work outside of a family to provide for it.
Note how before Nixon's plan, it was said that about 25,000,000 people did not have health insurance. Note how before Obama's plan it was said that about 30,000,000 people did not have health insurance. Seems like about the same number of people have no health insurance whether there is CHIP or there is Obama reform or whatever, it's about 10% of population.
So guess what, 10% of population without health insurance looks like a norm. The rest have their health insurance in either situation. So whatever their goals were during Nixon, they definitely didn't reach any positive result, but there was plenty of negative result.
$110 dollars was about the maximum before Nixon's plan for a hospital to charge one person for a day of care. Maybe that was high in absolute numbers, but in terms of percentages it is much much worse now, after all of the government 'help'. It's not going to change, this problem.
Health insurance is not a 'right' of any human any more, than 'owing a BMW' is a right of any human. If you think you have a right to something that somebody else must give you for free for some reason, you are in the wrong when it concerns quite a number of people.
However my original point is simple: government intervention causes prices to go up, this is one constant true fact. If prices do not go up, then something else gives - quality or quantity, there is always a balance: money comes in - money goes out. The government breaks the balance and prices skyrocket or quality plummets.
Of-course there is a question: how much money is coming in and what is it spent on?
Some countries are doing better than the US in terms of providing health insurance, no question about it, however those countries do not spend half of their yearly federal budget on a military industrial complex. US at this point spends more money on that than all other countries combined. US has military presence in almost all of the world, almost in 200 countries, subsidizing their military spending, so those countries could spend a large percentage of their federal income on health insurance than US can. It's time for US to stop doing that.
--
On yet another note, the income taxes need to be abolished, the Fed needs to learn to live off of sales taxes and the poor, if willing, need to file their income tax returns so that they could claim their sales taxes back. That's progressive enough, while removing the money from the government that goes onto building empires and prevents the government from doing it's one job it must do: Justice system and punishment (and a very minimum of military to protect from invasions). That's all I have on this subject, this thread is long enough without me here.
And when someone t-bones you at an intersection and you require $200,000 in care to nurse you back to health, you won't be able to pay for it and the government will have to pick up the tab, because unlike you, society has made the decision that health care should be a right.
- for something to be a right, someone has to give up their right to do with themselves as they wish. You are wrong on a fact though, I have private insurance coverage for cases of such magnitude. My deductible is as high as I am willing to pay out of my own pocket, so it is a real insurance plan.
I don't understand how "the government" got into private health care
- you ask, and thus I explain.
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN (CHIP)
The plan is organized around seven principles:
First, it offers every American an opportunity to obtain a balanced, comprehensive range of health insurance benefits;
Second, it will cost no American more than he can afford to pay; Third, it builds on the strength and diversity of our existing public and private systems of health financing and harmonizes them into an overall system;
Fourth, it uses public funds only where needed and requires no new Federal taxes;
Fifth, it would maintain freedom of choice by patients and ensure that doctors work for their patient, not for the Federal Government.
Sixth, it encourages more effective use of our health care resources;
And finally, it is organized so that all parties would have a direct stake in making the system work--consumer, provider, insurer, State governments and the Federal Government.
You are the stupid one, where was anything said about economy being a closed system?
The thermodynamic laws work fine, the economy is not a closed system, new inventions for example, new discoveries or improvements create new economic niches. The system is closed by the boundaries of accessible world, and it is bigger than this planet.
The important law to understand is that if a system A is in balance with system C and system B is in balance with system C then system A and B are in balance with each other. That's the one we try to fight all the time with all our laws and paper printing and all artificial stimuli.
Why is that stupid? Any deviation from a self-balancing equation of economics will lead to an eventual collapse of some sort. Economies balance themselves out, our attempts at interfering by government or any other forces will always fail in the long term (a period of time comparable to a long life span).
As to 'official paper currency', look at Hong Kong. There is no such thing there as ONE official paper currency, there are separate HK dollars printed issued by separate banks, and there is also a dollar released by the state and these money are in competition. There is no need for any one 'official' currency, especially not for one that is issued by a non-producer, such as a government. Any money that is issued must be backed up by either some commodity or production capacity so that it's not just paper. Unfortunately the world currently is under impression that rules do not apply, that paper can be printed without any backing and economy can continue. That's just another force that removes the market balance from the equation.
The anti-trust laws were set up in the first place to fight certain companies, that were in competition to the government, by the time the laws were applied, those companies weren't even monopolies. However there is nothing wrong with a natural monopoly that the market can bear. Once the market cannot bear that monopoly, competition arises. Of-course this is not true when governments get involved and give free money to their preferred players and kill competition by regulation. The 'consumer protection agency' that was in the Obama's financial bill will do nothing to protect any consumers, just look who is on the board there. Either way, the consumers need to protect themselves and vote with their feet.
In the modern world, you mean in the past 90 years or so? Well, this will come to an abrupt conclusion by the market shifting the balance off the imbalanced center, which was set artificially. People cannot 'fix' any economy consciously, central planing does not work for complex economies, this will fail. My belief is not in ignoring problems but in not artificially interfering with the solutions.
An economic boom is a problem, which creates the imbalances, a bust is the solution, which balances out the equation. People interfering with it can only prolong the problem but it can't provide any solutions.
No, I am not confusing competence with ideology. Obama has plenty competence when he needs to stop something from happening he does not like because he already has a deal with somebody else. Look up how he dealt with a bill that was introduced by senator Dorgan and even was supported by some republicans that would allow cheap Canadian drugs to be imported. He killed that bill dead.
Instead, as part of the 'health care reform' the US got an extension on drug patents from 7 to 12 years. That does not scream 'incompetence' to me at all, it screams: backroom deals.
Nazi is not an economic label, for example it does not mean a 'fascist' - which means ruling by corporations really.
Now to your core questions:
Are we pre-preemptively invading nations? - why, do you have to invade nations every year and a half, was that actually happening under any republican government, I mean aren't the current wars enough for now to satisfy the need for blood by the military industrial complex? Did you leave Iraq? How about Afghanistan? You think you are leaving any time soon? You think the Afghanistan mission has anything to do with actual terrorism? curious.
Are we declaring war without congress? - why, did any democrat declare a war with congress? Did Bill Clinton declare a war with congress before bombing former Yugoslavia?
I just copied this from a wiki page for you:
In a remarkable vote against the war in Yugoslavia, the House of Representatives, by a vote of 213 to 213, failed to give the President the constitutionally required authorization he needed to carry on the air war against Yugoslavia.
Are we giving tax breaks to the rich? -:) do you think that bailing out largest corporations is somehow dissimilar to giving them tax breaks? Is City or GS etc. suffering much in terms of bonus payouts for example? Just asking.
Are we legitimizing young earth creationists? - I really don't know.
Every single thing is a subject to the rules of the marketplace and when people interfere with this fundamental truth, some balance is lost and the incoming crash is going to be just that much more severe. Nothing at all exists in this world that is not subject to the simple rules of thermodynamics, and economics is fundamentally the same thing.
Ron Paul is compromising plenty - he works with Alan Grayson on a number of bills (like auditing the Fed) for example while nobody else from a Republican party does.
Schiff is absolutely correct on the hyper-inflation, the inflation is here, you don't see it because the maturity of short term borrowing keeps being very short. Just wait a very little more when the short term debt hits its next pay or renegotiate routine, it's going to be fun to watch.
Or are you taking the low interest set by the Fed as a sign of low inflation?:)))))))
Wait wait wait, Schiff is wrong to continue pushing his customers to buy gold for the past 10 years at least? I mean he is wrong to buy commodity that has gone up from about 300 dollars to about 1200 dollars per ounce?
Of-course, that must be because he does not understand the complexities of the modern economics, obviously, how darn stupid of him.
Also you are saying he is invested in US dollar failure - no, he is invested in success of other things that are obviously paying better dividends. He is perfectly following his own advice, eating his own dog food, what do you want him to do, preach one thing and do something totally opposite to it? Doesn't that mean you just like the modern politicians and the status quo of them lying left right and center?
You are saying Schiff is wrong on the dollar? He is very consistent - dollar is going down for reasons he explains very well - printing, borrowing, deficit spending, no production capacity.
He is absolutely correct on the dollar. You are saying he is wrong on Euro? Actually the only thing he's wrong on is that he believed Europe would follow a more sane path of not bailing shit out and they did bail out Greece. What do you know, he mistook some people for someone more honest.
What is it that he predicted incorrectly? The collapse of the dot-com bubble? The collapse of the housing bubble? The incoming collapse of the t-bills/bonds/debt bubble?
* Signed bill to give amnesty to undocumented immigrants. * Added entire cabinets to government * Tripled deficit * Bailed out and expanded social security with a tax increase * Raised corporate taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars * Raised taxes to the gas prices * Signed largest tax increase ever * Supported hand gun controls * Wanted to reduce nuclear weapons
Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.
So, yeah, Reagan was to the left of Obama. Obama is a right wing/opportunist/conservative/politician etc.
I don't really care, again, I am a libertarian, I am just pointing out the obvious here.
you are wrong on this just like most other people, but I have a good thing to point at: before Nixon got government involved in health insurance payments, it was possible for a family of 4 (that's four) people in US of A to buy health insurance from a private corporation for $25 (that's twenty five dollars) per yer (that's $25/year) with a $500 deductible (which means that you have to pay the first $500 yourself before insurance kicks in) and with a $50,000 maximum (which was enough to cover 2.5 times the worst and most expensive scenario at the time, the worst being paying about $20,000 while fighting cancer).
Yes, it was a private system and hospitals charged up to $110/day for hospital stay and the maximum bills didn't go above $20,000 but it was real insurance because of the $500 deductible, which really was covering most of any normal expenses anyway.
It was a working private insurance system and it was killed by the government intervention and money, once government got into paying for medical treatments it created a moral hazard and it created more demand than was there otherwise with the $500 deductible and it allowed the prices to skyrocket by intervening.
I am in Germany right now, the system is dual - there is public health insurance and there is private insurance. I am paying for my problems out of pocket and that's the way I prefer it.
No, taking over car companies in this sense was not dictated by ideology of a liberal government, it was a protectionist move, designed by the same people, who designed bank bail outs and those are also not liberal/socialist decisions, but corporate ones.
Taking over business badly - is that really a liberal slogan? It's not even a rational slogan, because a better one would be: letting bad businesses fail and if desired, buying them for scrap off of the bankruptcy auctions.
Well, no, it's sad. Ron Paul has been trying to pass a law to audit the Fed for a quarter of a century to the detriment of his own capital interest (for example for the gold prices). What is Obama doing that is good for the country even though it could be to his own detriment.
Just like Ron Paul works in the government to his own financial detriment - he wants to audit the Fed, he wants to stop bleeding of money in wars, he is personally invested in gold up to 50%. Anything he succeeds at actually would cause the gold prices to come down. Like raising the interest rates, getting back to production and sound economy.
Schiff is exactly the same - he is against any spending, he is against printing of money to STOP the hemorrhage of the dollar, which he is invested against. He is invested into foreign currencies/markets/gold, but anything he'd succeed in doing would hurt him financially.
No, Obama is not a liberal at all. Even before election it was clear to me that no liberal can become a president of US so he could not have been one and it was a correct assessment.
Obama has no liberal principles, and I do not mean libertarian principles, I mean liberal.
Were Obama a liberal he would not have tried so hard to make all of the republican/conservative moves. You would have to search hard to find something, where Obama is showing any liberal/progressive leanings, specifically where it concerns the important stuff: economy/military/constitution.
Things like gay rights are important of-course, but they are of no consequence, they are always just a distraction, a useful construct, like 'child porn'. Something to make a clear distinction of 'us versus them'.
Obama is not a progressive or a liberal or a commie or a Marxist. He is definitely a statist/corporatist/opportunist.
This can be seen in every policy, in every so-called 'reform', non of which is a real reform based on any ideology. Instead all of his 'reforms' are checkmarks he can put on his resume, so that later he can point and say - see, I did pass a Bill! Rejoice!
Too bad none of what's passed matters at all, instead those Bills make things worse. For a second imagine that the so called financial reform was in place before the year 1980 and was in place for all of that time, do you believe that US wouldn't have the credit crisis that hit during the dot/com and then during the house bubble and soon enough during a yet-to-come t-bills/bonds/debt-refinancing bubble? Of-course not.
Do you think that the 'health care reform' is actually a reform? It certainly made things worse - like increased the patenting time for drugs from 7 to 12 years, it will cause higher premiums for everybody obviously and many people still will not be covered.
No no, a real commie/liberal bastard would have come there and stuffed a single-payer system down everybody's throat, the kind that I hated in Canada (remember, I am not a liberal, my leanings are all practical, I despise governments for distorting the market.)
Bush was good at stuffing shit he wanted down people's throats, no matter how much they didn't like it, he did it anyway. Obama also is good at it, but he is no liberal, thus when he stuffs shit down people's throats, it's shit similar to W's shit, like making sure that no law passes that allows actual competition in the drug market with companies importing cheaper drugs from other countries, like from Canada.
For Obama to try something like 'commie healthcare', he has to be a liberal first, and he is not, he is a politician of the kind, who do not care about ideology.
I am a libertarian, I care about ideology and thus I will never be in government. Ron Paul or Peter Schiff (who is trying to become a Senator right now) are very exceptional people, in that they care enough to try and fix the system based on their ideology and not so that they can personally make money or get more power.
No, Prince (known as some sort of an artist) said it best:
The internet's completely over. I don't see why I should give my new music to iTunes or anyone else. They won't pay me an advance for it and then they get angry when they can't get it. The internet's like MTV. At one time MTV was hip and suddenly it became outdated. Anyway, all these computers and digital gadgets are no good. They just fill your head with numbers and that can't be good for you.
they could just claim to be catering to their stated directive about "reaching out to Muslims"
- well, if the requirement is 75Kg and they are reaching out to Muslims, then I am assuming they are going to rich out to Muslims with a 75Kg warhead of some sort.
Slashdot Mirror
Because asking for equivalence of some artificial units is in the same ballpark as government being able to print the dollars?
That's a fail in the 'thinking' department.
wow, hook, line and sinker. You actually believe that drivel, don't you? No, the reason why the car company was bailed out is that it didn't really matter, it took almost no money as compared to the banks and it was making the government look bad - we bailed out the fat cats on the Wall street but we won't bail out a 'hard working' company like GM?
You are pointing at Krugman for an economic insight? It's like pointing at Ben Bernanke as he was sitting there in 2007 saying that there is no housing bubble, while he was sitting in the middle of one while being one of the principal actors in setting it up.
INTERVIEWER: Ben, there's been a lot of talk about a housing bubble, particularly, you know [inaudible] from all sorts of places. Can you give us your view as to whether or not there is a housing bubble out there?
BERNANKE: Well, unquestionably, housing prices are up quite a bit; I think it's important to note that fundamentals are also very strong. We've got a growing economy, jobs, incomes. We've got very low mortgage rates. We've got demographics supporting housing growth. We've got restricted supply in some places. So it's certainly understandable that prices would go up some. I don't know whether prices are exactly where they should be, but I think it's fair to say that much of what's happened is supported by the strength of the economy.
Krugman should be stripped of his Nobel Prize by the way, for completely misunderstanding exactly this: what is inflation caused by.
Deflation? Deflation would actually be a solution to the problem at hand. Prices for everything, including houses and labor need to go down. DOWN. But they will not do so until there is a major disaster - hyperinflation, which is going to be coming soon, as government will start printing dollars to buy back their junk bonds, but probably even sooner as they can no longer find short term refinancing at very low interest rates as they are enjoying right now.
Bill Clinton bombed former Yugoslavia without approval from Congress. Just saying.
--
Not really. Don't butcher the history books and dictionaries because it's convenient to your political views.
- if you are going to 'cite' some history books or dictionaries, then let me do a better job at that than you did.
I am sure wikipedia had plenty of time to flush out this important definition /fæzm/, is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.[5][6]
Fascism, pronounced
But in case you don't like wikipedia, let's actually go to a real source and an authority on this concept, Mussolini.
Mussolini's Italy was described as a corporate state, and the declared objective of the corporate state was both social revolution and national cohesion -- as opposed to the class warfare of Marxism and the Bolshevik Revolution. The notion of "permanent revolution" or a "second wave" with a more socialist bent was suppressed within the Fascist movement. In the new corporate state, employers, managers and workers were supposed to be united within the same legal framework. The monarchy, the army, government bureaucracy, the Church and the middle class were supposed to play a role in strengthening state power, each group with a prescribed role, with the state as the ultimate arbiter of the national interest. And it was everyone's duty to contribute to the strength and glorification of the state.
The word 'fascist' itself came out of the name "Fasci di Combattimento" (Combat Group), which was a name of a political movement in France.
I believe Mussolini is a historical figure, he tied the ideas of anti-socialism, anti-monarchism and corporatism to the idea of 'fascism', which really is just a name for his political group, nothing more.
So what do YOU think fascism means? It's a 'group' first of all, but it has enough connotations associated with it, and me taking a connotation derived from actions of a historical figure is absolutely NOT rewriting history as you claim.
--
Ah, the conspiracy angle. The answer is yes. But then again, Afghanistan would have been enough.
- really, you have a better reason as to why the Afghanistan war is what it is, the longest US war so far? And this reason has nothing to do with the trillions spent on the military industrial complex? Ha. I guess it must be U.B.Laden then. Or maybe it's the minerals, the gold, the iron, the lithium that the Soviets found there? Yeah, must be that.
--
You can call it a police action, the people who I know who were fleeing from the country because bombs were exploding around them call it war regardless of how your president's PR machine spins it.
--
Ah, and you got me with the bailout thing. When I think about it, it's functionally the same thing, but there's kind of an important difference. That whole "holding-off-Armageddon" thing.
- more Keynesian bullshit, but in reality it's worse than that. At least Keyne's ideas are actually based on believes, however misguided and wrong, they are believes about government's role in economy. What really was happening was a heist, with a few trillion dollars stolen right from under your noses. It's your money gone, I don't care.
I don't understand libertarians in anyway. I have never seen a market correct it's self.
- you just don't understand when you see it happening right in front of your eyes.
Do you remember the dot-com bubble? Do you remember the housing bubble?
The incoming t-bills/bonds/government short term refinancing bubble?
That's market trying to correct itself and people interfering with the correction.
Currently market is completely off balance by the actions of those, who do not want to accept the consequences of idiocy that has passed for economics since the Fed started printing cash and Keynes came to town.
I am not going to say anything about you being a troll, because I see you as somebody who is simply confused, and I don't mean it in any derogatory fashion, it's just that they don't want anybody to understand what economics is, even though it's really very simple.
You may want to find out, I suggest starting by observing people who understand it and reading something about it.
You are right, the salaries were lower, though notice that before Nixon's minimum wage laws and opening trade with China while removing the gold backing from the dollar, it was enough for one person to work outside of a family to provide for it.
Note how before Nixon's plan, it was said that about 25,000,000 people did not have health insurance. Note how before Obama's plan it was said that about 30,000,000 people did not have health insurance. Seems like about the same number of people have no health insurance whether there is CHIP or there is Obama reform or whatever, it's about 10% of population.
So guess what, 10% of population without health insurance looks like a norm. The rest have their health insurance in either situation. So whatever their goals were during Nixon, they definitely didn't reach any positive result, but there was plenty of negative result.
$110 dollars was about the maximum before Nixon's plan for a hospital to charge one person for a day of care. Maybe that was high in absolute numbers, but in terms of percentages it is much much worse now, after all of the government 'help'. It's not going to change, this problem.
Health insurance is not a 'right' of any human any more, than 'owing a BMW' is a right of any human. If you think you have a right to something that somebody else must give you for free for some reason, you are in the wrong when it concerns quite a number of people.
However my original point is simple: government intervention causes prices to go up, this is one constant true fact. If prices do not go up, then something else gives - quality or quantity, there is always a balance: money comes in - money goes out. The government breaks the balance and prices skyrocket or quality plummets.
Of-course there is a question: how much money is coming in and what is it spent on?
Some countries are doing better than the US in terms of providing health insurance, no question about it, however those countries do not spend half of their yearly federal budget on a military industrial complex. US at this point spends more money on that than all other countries combined. US has military presence in almost all of the world, almost in 200 countries, subsidizing their military spending, so those countries could spend a large percentage of their federal income on health insurance than US can. It's time for US to stop doing that.
--
On yet another note, the income taxes need to be abolished, the Fed needs to learn to live off of sales taxes and the poor, if willing, need to file their income tax returns so that they could claim their sales taxes back. That's progressive enough, while removing the money from the government that goes onto building empires and prevents the government from doing it's one job it must do: Justice system and punishment (and a very minimum of military to protect from invasions). That's all I have on this subject, this thread is long enough without me here.
Which is *EXTREMELY* regulated.
- I didn't say it was perfect.
And when someone t-bones you at an intersection and you require $200,000 in care to nurse you back to health, you won't be able to pay for it and the government will have to pick up the tab, because unlike you, society has made the decision that health care should be a right.
- for something to be a right, someone has to give up their right to do with themselves as they wish. You are wrong on a fact though, I have private insurance coverage for cases of such magnitude. My deductible is as high as I am willing to pay out of my own pocket, so it is a real insurance plan.
I don't understand how "the government" got into private health care
- you ask, and thus I explain.
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN (CHIP)
The plan is organized around seven principles:
First, it offers every American an opportunity to obtain a balanced, comprehensive range of health insurance benefits;
Second, it will cost no American more than he can afford to pay;
Third, it builds on the strength and diversity of our existing public and private systems of health financing and harmonizes them into an overall system;
Fourth, it uses public funds only where needed and requires no new Federal taxes;
Fifth, it would maintain freedom of choice by patients and ensure that doctors work for their patient, not for the Federal Government.
Sixth, it encourages more effective use of our health care resources;
And finally, it is organized so that all parties would have a direct stake in making the system work--consumer, provider, insurer, State governments and the Federal Government.
That is what I am talking about.
You are the stupid one, where was anything said about economy being a closed system?
The thermodynamic laws work fine, the economy is not a closed system, new inventions for example, new discoveries or improvements create new economic niches. The system is closed by the boundaries of accessible world, and it is bigger than this planet.
The important law to understand is that if a system A is in balance with system C and system B is in balance with system C then system A and B are in balance with each other. That's the one we try to fight all the time with all our laws and paper printing and all artificial stimuli.
Think before you type.
Why is that stupid? Any deviation from a self-balancing equation of economics will lead to an eventual collapse of some sort. Economies balance themselves out, our attempts at interfering by government or any other forces will always fail in the long term (a period of time comparable to a long life span).
As to 'official paper currency', look at Hong Kong. There is no such thing there as ONE official paper currency, there are separate HK dollars printed issued by separate banks, and there is also a dollar released by the state and these money are in competition. There is no need for any one 'official' currency, especially not for one that is issued by a non-producer, such as a government. Any money that is issued must be backed up by either some commodity or production capacity so that it's not just paper. Unfortunately the world currently is under impression that rules do not apply, that paper can be printed without any backing and economy can continue. That's just another force that removes the market balance from the equation.
The anti-trust laws were set up in the first place to fight certain companies, that were in competition to the government, by the time the laws were applied, those companies weren't even monopolies. However there is nothing wrong with a natural monopoly that the market can bear. Once the market cannot bear that monopoly, competition arises. Of-course this is not true when governments get involved and give free money to their preferred players and kill competition by regulation. The 'consumer protection agency' that was in the Obama's financial bill will do nothing to protect any consumers, just look who is on the board there. Either way, the consumers need to protect themselves and vote with their feet.
In the modern world, you mean in the past 90 years or so? Well, this will come to an abrupt conclusion by the market shifting the balance off the imbalanced center, which was set artificially. People cannot 'fix' any economy consciously, central planing does not work for complex economies, this will fail. My belief is not in ignoring problems but in not artificially interfering with the solutions.
An economic boom is a problem, which creates the imbalances, a bust is the solution, which balances out the equation. People interfering with it can only prolong the problem but it can't provide any solutions.
No, I am not confusing competence with ideology. Obama has plenty competence when he needs to stop something from happening he does not like because he already has a deal with somebody else. Look up how he dealt with a bill that was introduced by senator Dorgan and even was supported by some republicans that would allow cheap Canadian drugs to be imported. He killed that bill dead.
Instead, as part of the 'health care reform' the US got an extension on drug patents from 7 to 12 years. That does not scream 'incompetence' to me at all, it screams: backroom deals.
Nazi is not an economic label, for example it does not mean a 'fascist' - which means ruling by corporations really.
Now to your core questions:
Are we pre-preemptively invading nations? - why, do you have to invade nations every year and a half, was that actually happening under any republican government, I mean aren't the current wars enough for now to satisfy the need for blood by the military industrial complex? Did you leave Iraq? How about Afghanistan? You think you are leaving any time soon? You think the Afghanistan mission has anything to do with actual terrorism? curious.
Are we declaring war without congress? - why, did any democrat declare a war with congress? Did Bill Clinton declare a war with congress before bombing former Yugoslavia?
I just copied this from a wiki page for you:
In a remarkable vote against the war in Yugoslavia, the House of Representatives, by a vote of 213 to 213, failed to give the President the constitutionally required authorization he needed to carry on the air war against Yugoslavia.
Are we giving tax breaks to the rich? - :) do you think that bailing out largest corporations is somehow dissimilar to giving them tax breaks? Is City or GS etc. suffering much in terms of bonus payouts for example? Just asking.
Are we legitimizing young earth creationists? - I really don't know.
Oh, I am sorry about your door being too tight.
Every single thing is a subject to the rules of the marketplace and when people interfere with this fundamental truth, some balance is lost and the incoming crash is going to be just that much more severe. Nothing at all exists in this world that is not subject to the simple rules of thermodynamics, and economics is fundamentally the same thing.
Ron Paul is compromising plenty - he works with Alan Grayson on a number of bills (like auditing the Fed) for example while nobody else from a Republican party does.
Schiff is absolutely correct on the hyper-inflation, the inflation is here, you don't see it because the maturity of short term borrowing keeps being very short. Just wait a very little more when the short term debt hits its next pay or renegotiate routine, it's going to be fun to watch.
Or are you taking the low interest set by the Fed as a sign of low inflation? :)))))))
Wait wait wait, Schiff is wrong to continue pushing his customers to buy gold for the past 10 years at least? I mean he is wrong to buy commodity that has gone up from about 300 dollars to about 1200 dollars per ounce?
Of-course, that must be because he does not understand the complexities of the modern economics, obviously, how darn stupid of him.
Also you are saying he is invested in US dollar failure - no, he is invested in success of other things that are obviously paying better dividends. He is perfectly following his own advice, eating his own dog food, what do you want him to do, preach one thing and do something totally opposite to it? Doesn't that mean you just like the modern politicians and the status quo of them lying left right and center?
You are saying Schiff is wrong on the dollar? He is very consistent - dollar is going down for reasons he explains very well - printing, borrowing, deficit spending, no production capacity.
He is absolutely correct on the dollar. You are saying he is wrong on Euro? Actually the only thing he's wrong on is that he believed Europe would follow a more sane path of not bailing shit out and they did bail out Greece. What do you know, he mistook some people for someone more honest.
What is it that he predicted incorrectly? The collapse of the dot-com bubble? The collapse of the housing bubble? The incoming collapse of the t-bills/bonds/debt bubble?
Whatever, you are still trolling.
Obama is much more right wing than Reagan.
Reagan:
* Signed bill to give amnesty to undocumented immigrants.
* Added entire cabinets to government
* Tripled deficit
* Bailed out and expanded social security with a tax increase
* Raised corporate taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars
* Raised taxes to the gas prices
* Signed largest tax increase ever
* Supported hand gun controls
* Wanted to reduce nuclear weapons
Obama
Here is a speech he just gave on immigration:
Here is a transcript, pay attention here:
I recognize the sense of compassion that drives this argument, but I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally.
Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.
So, yeah, Reagan was to the left of Obama. Obama is a right wing/opportunist/conservative/politician etc.
I don't really care, again, I am a libertarian, I am just pointing out the obvious here.
you are wrong on this just like most other people, but I have a good thing to point at: before Nixon got government involved in health insurance payments, it was possible for a family of 4 (that's four) people in US of A to buy health insurance from a private corporation for $25 (that's twenty five dollars) per yer (that's $25/year) with a $500 deductible (which means that you have to pay the first $500 yourself before insurance kicks in) and with a $50,000 maximum (which was enough to cover 2.5 times the worst and most expensive scenario at the time, the worst being paying about $20,000 while fighting cancer).
Yes, it was a private system and hospitals charged up to $110/day for hospital stay and the maximum bills didn't go above $20,000 but it was real insurance because of the $500 deductible, which really was covering most of any normal expenses anyway.
It was a working private insurance system and it was killed by the government intervention and money, once government got into paying for medical treatments it created a moral hazard and it created more demand than was there otherwise with the $500 deductible and it allowed the prices to skyrocket by intervening.
I am in Germany right now, the system is dual - there is public health insurance and there is private insurance. I am paying for my problems out of pocket and that's the way I prefer it.
You asked me, so I'll answer.
No, taking over car companies in this sense was not dictated by ideology of a liberal government, it was a protectionist move, designed by the same people, who designed bank bail outs and those are also not liberal/socialist decisions, but corporate ones.
Taking over business badly - is that really a liberal slogan? It's not even a rational slogan, because a better one would be: letting bad businesses fail and if desired, buying them for scrap off of the bankruptcy auctions.
Well, no, it's sad. Ron Paul has been trying to pass a law to audit the Fed for a quarter of a century to the detriment of his own capital interest (for example for the gold prices). What is Obama doing that is good for the country even though it could be to his own detriment.
You are a liar, it's that simple.
Just like Ron Paul works in the government to his own financial detriment - he wants to audit the Fed, he wants to stop bleeding of money in wars, he is personally invested in gold up to 50%. Anything he succeeds at actually would cause the gold prices to come down. Like raising the interest rates, getting back to production and sound economy.
Schiff is exactly the same - he is against any spending, he is against printing of money to STOP the hemorrhage of the dollar, which he is invested against. He is invested into foreign currencies/markets/gold, but anything he'd succeed in doing would hurt him financially.
You are trolling.
No, Obama is not a liberal at all. Even before election it was clear to me that no liberal can become a president of US so he could not have been one and it was a correct assessment.
Obama has no liberal principles, and I do not mean libertarian principles, I mean liberal.
Were Obama a liberal he would not have tried so hard to make all of the republican/conservative moves. You would have to search hard to find something, where Obama is showing any liberal/progressive leanings, specifically where it concerns the important stuff: economy/military/constitution.
Things like gay rights are important of-course, but they are of no consequence, they are always just a distraction, a useful construct, like 'child porn'. Something to make a clear distinction of 'us versus them'.
Obama is not a progressive or a liberal or a commie or a Marxist. He is definitely a statist/corporatist/opportunist.
This can be seen in every policy, in every so-called 'reform', non of which is a real reform based on any ideology. Instead all of his 'reforms' are checkmarks he can put on his resume, so that later he can point and say - see, I did pass a Bill! Rejoice!
Too bad none of what's passed matters at all, instead those Bills make things worse. For a second imagine that the so called financial reform was in place before the year 1980 and was in place for all of that time, do you believe that US wouldn't have the credit crisis that hit during the dot/com and then during the house bubble and soon enough during a yet-to-come t-bills/bonds/debt-refinancing bubble? Of-course not.
Do you think that the 'health care reform' is actually a reform? It certainly made things worse - like increased the patenting time for drugs from 7 to 12 years, it will cause higher premiums for everybody obviously and many people still will not be covered.
No no, a real commie/liberal bastard would have come there and stuffed a single-payer system down everybody's throat, the kind that I hated in Canada (remember, I am not a liberal, my leanings are all practical, I despise governments for distorting the market.)
Bush was good at stuffing shit he wanted down people's throats, no matter how much they didn't like it, he did it anyway. Obama also is good at it, but he is no liberal, thus when he stuffs shit down people's throats, it's shit similar to W's shit, like making sure that no law passes that allows actual competition in the drug market with companies importing cheaper drugs from other countries, like from Canada.
No no, I meant what I said.
Funny stuff.
--
For Obama to try something like 'commie healthcare', he has to be a liberal first, and he is not, he is a politician of the kind, who do not care about ideology.
I am a libertarian, I care about ideology and thus I will never be in government. Ron Paul or Peter Schiff (who is trying to become a Senator right now) are very exceptional people, in that they care enough to try and fix the system based on their ideology and not so that they can personally make money or get more power.
Yo dawg, I see that you like 25% training how to learn things with your 50% of importance allocated on teaching people how to learn.
We're gonna put 50% into your 50% and then add 25% to your 25% so that we can teach people to teach people how to learn to learn.
No, Prince (known as some sort of an artist) said it best:
The internet's completely over. I don't see why I should give my new music to iTunes or anyone else. They won't pay me an advance for it and then they get angry when they can't get it. The internet's like MTV. At one time MTV was hip and suddenly it became outdated. Anyway, all these computers and digital gadgets are no good. They just fill your head with numbers and that can't be good for you.
- numbers are bad for you, got it?
they could just claim to be catering to their stated directive about "reaching out to Muslims"
- well, if the requirement is 75Kg and they are reaching out to Muslims, then I am assuming they are going to rich out to Muslims with a 75Kg warhead of some sort.