AFAIC unions are not evil as an idea for people who participate, but they become evil when they start creating monopolies, locking out others, who do not wish to participate in them.
So I don't care about a union, if it does not mean the union locks me out of work that I am willing to do on my terms.
Also I just had participated in similar threads to this one, same idea, different discussion, my thoughts on very similar topics.
You know, in Toronto teachers strike quite often (almost as often as the rest of the woefully inadequate government workers), but the demands normally have nothing to do with improving education system for the students, it is always a power play between teachers' unions and the public school board officials. It is always about money and perks for the teachers but it is never about improving the system for the students. Teachers want more vacation and more pay, fewer working hours, they want to spend their summers working somewhere else and not improving their skills by attending more professional development classes, etc. It is very difficult to get rid of a useless teacher and many of them are useless, it is also difficult to get good teachers in the first place, I believe this is partially due to the existence of unions in the first place. Unions do not allow real competition, they are about equalizing the outcomes for the members, but not about improving the education for the students.
with the author of the story, of-course, first you have to be put on a moon though, then on a woman. She may or may not agree, but in those conditions you shouldn't have too much trouble.
You cannot deny that unions push the companies into places with cheaper labor force, consider that public wants items that cost as little as possible, one of the important factors of the cost is labor cost.
On the other hand I will not argue that this is the reason for economic decline, it is not the reason, it is a consequence.
The real reason why it is possible for large corporations to move their labor force somewhere and make cheaper stuff even taking in the cost of shipping and handling, is because these are huge corporations that benefit from large scale moves like that.
So huge corporations benefit from large scale moves, and so they move. But why are these corporations so large, now this is more interesting and more crucial to understanding the loss of manufacturing/production jobs in the developed world.
The reason why there are huge corporations is because they actively participate in the process of government and wealth redistribution. They make sure that they are the beneficiaries in this wealth movement. They do so by buying the politicians and pushing forward their corporate agenda.
Now, what is corporate agenda? It is this: getting cheap unending supply of money and creating regulations that limit competition. You achieve both of this by subverting the government. You make sure that the government, the non-producer of any goods in the economy has the monopoly on money supply (which is undoubtedly wrong, non-producers have nothing to back this cash with.) The government introduces federally controlled money suppliers - the federal reserve for example, which sets the interest rates much below market ones and opens the flood gates of cheap cash, which is given to preferred corporations and banks.
Now, preferred corporations, such as banks, insurance companies, certain manufacturers (like weapons manufacturers), food producers (farm subsidies), etc., they get this extremely cheap money and they are able to buy more power by creating powerful lobbies to push politicians in the direction of creating regulation, which stifles competition.
Once you are a powerful corporations with such connections, you will not allow any competition and you will grow in size, dominating the markets, buying into various other markets etc. You will actively participate and direct the government process and agenda, you will destroy what used to be democracy and you do not care for the well being of the actual population, you only care about one thing.
Obviously anything that is profitable goes in this case, and so when it becomes possible to have access to the cheapest labor force you move production there.
At this point the country that is left with no production capacity but full of various financial institutions, government agencies etc., is doomed, as its only point of control is the money supply, which becomes more and more irrelevant as the trading balance shifts.
Who needs money that is not backed up by production/manufacturing/ at least some resources?
Government together with corporations destroy the currency of the country by printing it and lending to each other at ever decreasing rates. The population gets screwed. Prepare for shortages, that's all I see in the future. Shortages, inflation, exchange controls, more regulation, at some point border controls to prevent any remaining capital from leaving, eventually removal of rights, such as property rights 'for the larger good' and probably some sort of war at the end of that to try and occupy large part of idle population and to create massive make shift job - war.
But it is a perfect plan. Does she decide to do so, he would have a range of options, from not giving her air at all, to providing her with an air mix with some 'kick' in it. Either way, she will end up in his hands, dead or alive and funky!
Do you really have to ask this question, isn't it obvious?
He answered already: they want to put a man on a moon and a woman.
It's a ploy for the man to get the woman. Obviously he figured that the only way to do so is to get her to the moon and basically eliminate the entire world from competing.
Also, he probably will limit her life support supplies, such as air, and she will only find out about it there and will be forced to beg him for this stuff. You'd think under the circumstances he is bound to get her finally.
whatever, speed limits, seatbelts and all this other nonsense is just there so that cops can harass you and take your money. If they wanted to really stop someone from driving without a seatbelt, they would not punish with just a fine, they'd take the car and impound it for a year, while you spend a month in jail. That would probably have an effect.
Also stating, that I am against these artificial road/car rules. I like driving around Baden here, on autobahn, it's fast, people haul ass and don't worry about cops, so they don't do anything stupid, like break quickly in case they think they see a cop, like they do in Toronto for example. I am also the only one with Toronto license plate here and probably the only one with Acura MDX, that gets some looks:)
But if they attach wings to all those sharks, won't we have a problem even more severe than malaria spreading mosquitoes? Unless those are friendly sharks I fail to see the logic.
well, my my, is it the Apple thought police or some other reason why the parent comment is moderated the way it is moderated? Whatever that comment is, I really need to find out why it is moderated 'Flamebait'?
But an eBook reader really provides convenience of having so many books in one single package that you can take anywhere and read. This pad as a board game, well, wouldn't you still have to at least bring various other game pieces with you, unless of-course, they all can be digital?
Also, you know, you can gift board games to people, and it's not going to make you bankrupt.
isn't that solution in search of a problem? Isn't the 'perfect' board game platform based on an actual physical board with physical elements present: cards, dice, tokens, whatever?
I used to play a board game similar to Risk, that had tokens, little standing cards, the value of which were only visible to me. So you have an army and the opponent has an army, you see various soldiers, but you don't know what they are. Some tokens are soldiers, some are mines, there is one that is the flag. The idea is to capture the flag by 'attacking' it. When one player attacks the other, he challenges the opponent's token soldier with his own. Now the soldiers are compared, if one has a higher rank, he wins, the opponent's token is removed. If both are the same rank, both are removed.
How do you do something like that on a screen? Do you put the actual tokens on the screen? Why not just a piece of cheap ass cardboard with a picture on it?
This is amusing, maybe there are instances where this horizontal touch screen is better for some games, but really? How much does it cost compared with a few cardboard pieces?
You have already given the world all the proof of your idiocy it will ever need.
- where is your 'yhbt' attached to this sentence?... something about insulting me some more, whatever, glancing to the next...... nothing of consequence again, some more...
here we go:
That right there is the crux of this issue. You don't care about the facts.
- orly? I don't get bogged down by a technicality, but I see you prefer to go that route. I care about facts, ponzi schemes, pyramids, same thing. Some create an illusion about making money and sell the illusion. Some buy into the illusion and few have some gains, while the majority gets the bill. That's good enough for me.
Yes, imagine, some people know they are part of scheme, especially the schemers and in pyramids many know, they go alone with it because they hope to cash out before it's busted.
You "being for something" is an opinion, which I have no interest in.
- then why did you insist on asking about it earlier if you have no interest? Short on memory? Either it's that or again, you are trolling.
The argument which I am presenting becomes apparent when you view the discussion as a whole. In fact, you are actually working to prove my point for me, every time you pile more and more idiocy onto your posts. You see, sometimes all you really need to do is give people more rope with which to hang themselves.
- except you have no argument at all. There is no larger argument, it's all a scheme, unlike a pyramid, this one targets only one person, me? I hope you are gaining something from this, but I doubt it. I don't see you learning anything new, it's all old tricks.
ooooh, my what a large e-penis you have. Color me impressed.
- shit, you should be impressed. You can follow links, right, if you can, you'll find out. I don't see you being able to put 2 and 2 together though, we already see what kind of an economic genius you are.
--
The following few paragraphs are not for lewk there, he can't put 2 and 2 together, but just for the sake of restating the obvious.
Government scheme people by forcing them into an abnormal monopolistic government currency that is backed by nothing. Those close to the government get that money upfront, before it's devalued and they benefit from it. It's free money, that allows some corporations to also become unnaturally huge and monopolistic. Eventually this leads to increased regulation by government to ensure monopoly for the corporation by creating barriers of entry. The large corporations destroy competition and at some point they find that another way to make more money is to move production to the cheapest locations. This leads to unemployment, since large corporations are the largest employers. Government's only way to 'get' more money is to print it, either cash or long term cash (bonds). Governments then devalue the currency further, borrow from producers, create more regulation in a vicious cycle. People get the left-overs. The extremely cheap money is provided to financial institutions, who gamble with it, the moral hazard is proven by bailouts. Unemployment rises and so does inflation, prices go up and people are dissatisfied. Governments introduce more government spending to 'create jobs', which fails, governments cannot create jobs, they are not producers. Money is devalued further.
Question is, does this end in a system, where the means of basic commodity (food/energy) production are nationalized for the 'good of the people' and then the rations are distributed, because the inflation produces huge price spikes, which government tries to control, thus creating shortages? Does this lead to further government taking freedoms away from people, introducing exchange controls, border controls, not letting the population to leave? Does this lead to a h
Old stems those cells, ha? Is that what they call it now? Since I have gone this way already let's continue with that. He, Old, stems them wicked, stems them good!
Your ignorance of the Federal Reserve System is astounding.
- same problem with you, you make these wild eye passes, it's all nonsense of-course, what is your proof? Nothing, you just say it as if saying it makes it so.
Holy titty-fucking christ, you are stupid.
- excellent, you now have proven every point. Wonderful logic.
I make the assertion "You do not know what a ponzi scheme is.". Any semi-intelligent person at this point would go look it up, coming back with a proper definition, and act like they knew it all along.
- ponzi scheme is similar to pyramid, I don't care about the definition of very minor differences between them. They both work by taking money away from a large population and channeling it to a small number of schemers. Whether these schemers are in the know or not is not relevant.
You, like a fucking idiot
- why do you bother answering, you have proven already your point by such masterful use of language? So if I am an idiot, are you an idiot for arguing?
I have actual arguments, you have only useless ad hominem attacks, that's not a constructive discussion.
No. A system entirely dependent on currencies created by private citizens and companies what we did before we had a national currency and it was a godawful system that crippled the economy by restricting effective trade. Do some fucking research.
- that's a lot of mix right there. You are implying many things, isn't burden of proof somewhere on you for making outrageous claims. Something was a 'godawful' system and obviously it was replaced by a better one. Really? Better things get replaced by garbage all the time. All it takes is people who profit from change like that and who are willing to use power to achieve their goals.
I did not ask you about your political beliefs, nor do I give a shit.
- you can't even differentiate between political believe and economic self-evident truths. Currencies that are not backed up by production or any tangible goods are worthless. Maybe it takes a while for the world to see it, but it will happen.
Go spend a few hours on wikipedia (you may find the "Simple English" wikipedia better suited for you, since you obviously have the reading comprehension of a blind crackbaby) and come back when you are ready to actually put forth a coherent argument with actual facts and logic.
- nice troll by the way. Ad hominem, varios appeals, switching blame around, telling me I have no arguments while it is you have not presented a single one.
I suppose you could just end with 'yhbt' but would you? 'Simple English' you say? I'll switch to that when you show at least some mastery of the rest of the languages I speak.
FTFA: The current calculations show that about 1.2 megajoules of energy will be enough for ignition, and currently Nif can run as high as 1.8 megajoules. - also see, they only need to scale this thing 10^3 times to get to the needed energy output. Let's just hope there is at least one DeLorean left by the time they can get this sucker going (and obviously they need to sustain that output at least for a second I guess).
How about increasing survival chances by working in a group? The working country should provide for this fundamental human and animal behavior pattern.
- I agree with you on a part of this, I don't mind working with a group that I selected. So if I like a particular group and the way they work, I want to participate, but this is not what is happening. By taxation we are forced into one exact group and no choices are left. Certainly I want to work with a group, I would contribute to it, that's the group of my choice. (referring to the next paragraph in your reply: Do you see some other animal going against its instincts and joining a group it would not be comfortable in?)
I don't get it - we have labeled basic aspects of the complicated collective behavior of an ordinary biological species (with all that implies) as "socialist" and we should avoid them at the cost of decreased chances for survival? I should hope not!
- it's hard to get, I am not sure you disagree with me if we go past the semantics. Socialist, in this context, is what is forced upon someone. If something is done by a group without coercion by free will, that's really cooperative.
I hope we have moved somewhat past just simple 'collective behavior of an ordinary biological species', otherwise it would make sense to use an ant colony as a model, we do recognize the differences between individuals, that's quite unlike ants.
BTW, I also lived exactly 16 years of my life in a communist totalitarian state, but I do not wish "to throw in the garbage the baby with the waters", as the old ladies in my country say.....
- again, I believe we are talking about difference in semantics here.
It is perfectly legal for you to go buy a printing press, make up your own money, print off as much as you want, then try to convince people to use it. Hell, you can even skip the printing press step. What is illegal is duplicating somebody else's currency.
- right, so the words 'legal tender' have no special meaning then in your understanding. Government is not in business of production, it does not produce anything except social experimentation by taxation and loopholes to avoid taxation. It also produces state level debt by borrowing from other countries and printing bonds.
Why do people use government issued money and not something else? Because government is competing illegally, it does not produce anything, so it can print any amount of cash it desires and it does not back it up by anything. Gold used to be the backing, it has not been for quite a while now. A private entity has to produce something in order to have backing for their currency.
Excuse me, I mistyped. Ponzi scheme, is that the correct spelling? Ok then. So lets see. A pyramid is when the people close to the top get all the profit, while people on the bottom, who have entered late are getting the bill and no profit at all.
Those who are close to the government feeder, they get the first take at the money, at that point money has greater value, because it is not yet spread out across the rest of us. Once the new money is spread around, it devalues the rest of the cash for everybody else. What is happening now, is that the free money that preferred corporations were always getting, allowed these corporations to outcompete those, who did not have the influence in the government, and they made sure that they have no competition by creating various regulations through government agencies to create huge barriers of entry for late arrivals. The original money benefited these original players so much, they have destroyed the competition and became ridiculously huge on all this government printed cash.
They killed the competition and made sure that eventually they would have access to the cheapest labor force on the planet - Asian workers. Since they are huge, the scale allowed them to move manufacturing to the cheapest locations, leaving behind no production capacity and no jobs. You now have your 'service' economy, which only survived so far because USD was and still is the 'reserve' currency and you can survive for a long time being just in the business of printing it. Production of money and nothing else, that's what remains, that's what government is doing. Talking about trying to compete with it legally and morally is disingenuous at the least.
So it is a ponzi scheme, some became huge, rich and powerful, and now the game is coming to an end, the late entries will end up holding the bill and no benefit in the devalued dollar.
This has been done numerous times in history, and every time it is a clusterfuck
- what, Hong Kong is not a good enough example of this working well? They are producers, the western civilization at this point are living on Asian credit.
Am I for the gold standard? Certainly, that would mean something more than the printed cash means now. But I am not just for 'gold standard'. Before US government got off that standard they also stole every person's gold in the states, there was the time, it will probably come again, it was not too long ago.
I am against government that produces nothing being allowed by the citizens to steal money by releasing this fiat currency in the first place. Government has no place in economy except from point of view of regulations, and these regulations are subverted by large corporations to deny entry to the late comers into the game.
Slashdot Mirror
AFAIC unions are not evil as an idea for people who participate, but they become evil when they start creating monopolies, locking out others, who do not wish to participate in them.
So I don't care about a union, if it does not mean the union locks me out of work that I am willing to do on my terms.
Also I just had participated in similar threads to this one, same idea, different discussion, my thoughts on very similar topics.
He obviously reeds, as well. - vibrates as to produce a sound that can be interpreted as a music tone?
You know, in Toronto teachers strike quite often (almost as often as the rest of the woefully inadequate government workers), but the demands normally have nothing to do with improving education system for the students, it is always a power play between teachers' unions and the public school board officials. It is always about money and perks for the teachers but it is never about improving the system for the students. Teachers want more vacation and more pay, fewer working hours, they want to spend their summers working somewhere else and not improving their skills by attending more professional development classes, etc. It is very difficult to get rid of a useless teacher and many of them are useless, it is also difficult to get good teachers in the first place, I believe this is partially due to the existence of unions in the first place. Unions do not allow real competition, they are about equalizing the outcomes for the members, but not about improving the education for the students.
with the author of the story, of-course, first you have to be put on a moon though, then on a woman. She may or may not agree, but in those conditions you shouldn't have too much trouble.
You cannot deny that unions push the companies into places with cheaper labor force, consider that public wants items that cost as little as possible, one of the important factors of the cost is labor cost.
On the other hand I will not argue that this is the reason for economic decline, it is not the reason, it is a consequence.
The real reason why it is possible for large corporations to move their labor force somewhere and make cheaper stuff even taking in the cost of shipping and handling, is because these are huge corporations that benefit from large scale moves like that.
So huge corporations benefit from large scale moves, and so they move. But why are these corporations so large, now this is more interesting and more crucial to understanding the loss of manufacturing/production jobs in the developed world.
The reason why there are huge corporations is because they actively participate in the process of government and wealth redistribution. They make sure that they are the beneficiaries in this wealth movement. They do so by buying the politicians and pushing forward their corporate agenda.
Now, what is corporate agenda? It is this: getting cheap unending supply of money and creating regulations that limit competition. You achieve both of this by subverting the government. You make sure that the government, the non-producer of any goods in the economy has the monopoly on money supply (which is undoubtedly wrong, non-producers have nothing to back this cash with.) The government introduces federally controlled money suppliers - the federal reserve for example, which sets the interest rates much below market ones and opens the flood gates of cheap cash, which is given to preferred corporations and banks.
Now, preferred corporations, such as banks, insurance companies, certain manufacturers (like weapons manufacturers), food producers (farm subsidies), etc., they get this extremely cheap money and they are able to buy more power by creating powerful lobbies to push politicians in the direction of creating regulation, which stifles competition.
Once you are a powerful corporations with such connections, you will not allow any competition and you will grow in size, dominating the markets, buying into various other markets etc. You will actively participate and direct the government process and agenda, you will destroy what used to be democracy and you do not care for the well being of the actual population, you only care about one thing.
Obviously anything that is profitable goes in this case, and so when it becomes possible to have access to the cheapest labor force you move production there.
At this point the country that is left with no production capacity but full of various financial institutions, government agencies etc., is doomed, as its only point of control is the money supply, which becomes more and more irrelevant as the trading balance shifts.
Who needs money that is not backed up by production/manufacturing/ at least some resources?
Government together with corporations destroy the currency of the country by printing it and lending to each other at ever decreasing rates. The population gets screwed. Prepare for shortages, that's all I see in the future. Shortages, inflation, exchange controls, more regulation, at some point border controls to prevent any remaining capital from leaving, eventually removal of rights, such as property rights 'for the larger good' and probably some sort of war at the end of that to try and occupy large part of idle population and to create massive make shift job - war.
But it is a perfect plan. Does she decide to do so, he would have a range of options, from not giving her air at all, to providing her with an air mix with some 'kick' in it. Either way, she will end up in his hands, dead or alive and funky!
Why is the parent moded funny? It's a very very reasonable approach. It really is informative well, and maybe insightful.
Do you really have to ask this question, isn't it obvious?
He answered already: they want to put a man on a moon and a woman.
It's a ploy for the man to get the woman. Obviously he figured that the only way to do so is to get her to the moon and basically eliminate the entire world from competing.
Also, he probably will limit her life support supplies, such as air, and she will only find out about it there and will be forced to beg him for this stuff. You'd think under the circumstances he is bound to get her finally.
Oh, and it wouldn't help 'my dealer' a bit, Acura has no presence in Germany, I was surprised to see no Acuras on the streets at all.
:) What, are you serious? I don't care to take the plastic covers off, doesn't bother me, keeps the plates cleaner.
Yes, and it says Acura on it so?
Gyp? It says Ontario, it also says North Toronto on mine, so you know, bugger off.
whatever, speed limits, seatbelts and all this other nonsense is just there so that cops can harass you and take your money. If they wanted to really stop someone from driving without a seatbelt, they would not punish with just a fine, they'd take the car and impound it for a year, while you spend a month in jail. That would probably have an effect.
Also stating, that I am against these artificial road/car rules. I like driving around Baden here, on autobahn, it's fast, people haul ass and don't worry about cops, so they don't do anything stupid, like break quickly in case they think they see a cop, like they do in Toronto for example. I am also the only one with Toronto license plate here and probably the only one with Acura MDX, that gets some looks :)
But if they attach wings to all those sharks, won't we have a problem even more severe than malaria spreading mosquitoes? Unless those are friendly sharks I fail to see the logic.
well, my my, is it the Apple thought police or some other reason why the parent comment is moderated the way it is moderated? Whatever that comment is, I really need to find out why it is moderated 'Flamebait'?
But an eBook reader really provides convenience of having so many books in one single package that you can take anywhere and read. This pad as a board game, well, wouldn't you still have to at least bring various other game pieces with you, unless of-course, they all can be digital?
Also, you know, you can gift board games to people, and it's not going to make you bankrupt.
Ha, now I remember, it's called Stratego.
isn't that solution in search of a problem? Isn't the 'perfect' board game platform based on an actual physical board with physical elements present: cards, dice, tokens, whatever?
I used to play a board game similar to Risk, that had tokens, little standing cards, the value of which were only visible to me. So you have an army and the opponent has an army, you see various soldiers, but you don't know what they are. Some tokens are soldiers, some are mines, there is one that is the flag. The idea is to capture the flag by 'attacking' it. When one player attacks the other, he challenges the opponent's token soldier with his own. Now the soldiers are compared, if one has a higher rank, he wins, the opponent's token is removed. If both are the same rank, both are removed.
How do you do something like that on a screen? Do you put the actual tokens on the screen? Why not just a piece of cheap ass cardboard with a picture on it?
This is amusing, maybe there are instances where this horizontal touch screen is better for some games, but really? How much does it cost compared with a few cardboard pieces?
You have already given the world all the proof of your idiocy it will ever need.
- where is your 'yhbt' attached to this sentence? ... something about insulting me some more, whatever, glancing to the next... ... nothing of consequence again, some more...
here we go:
That right there is the crux of this issue. You don't care about the facts.
- orly? I don't get bogged down by a technicality, but I see you prefer to go that route. I care about facts, ponzi schemes, pyramids, same thing. Some create an illusion about making money and sell the illusion. Some buy into the illusion and few have some gains, while the majority gets the bill. That's good enough for me.
Yes, imagine, some people know they are part of scheme, especially the schemers and in pyramids many know, they go alone with it because they hope to cash out before it's busted.
You "being for something" is an opinion, which I have no interest in.
- then why did you insist on asking about it earlier if you have no interest? Short on memory? Either it's that or again, you are trolling.
The argument which I am presenting becomes apparent when you view the discussion as a whole. In fact, you are actually working to prove my point for me, every time you pile more and more idiocy onto your posts. You see, sometimes all you really need to do is give people more rope with which to hang themselves.
- except you have no argument at all. There is no larger argument, it's all a scheme, unlike a pyramid, this one targets only one person, me? I hope you are gaining something from this, but I doubt it. I don't see you learning anything new, it's all old tricks.
ooooh, my what a large e-penis you have. Color me impressed.
- shit, you should be impressed. You can follow links, right, if you can, you'll find out. I don't see you being able to put 2 and 2 together though, we already see what kind of an economic genius you are.
--
The following few paragraphs are not for lewk there, he can't put 2 and 2 together, but just for the sake of restating the obvious.
Government scheme people by forcing them into an abnormal monopolistic government currency that is backed by nothing. Those close to the government get that money upfront, before it's devalued and they benefit from it. It's free money, that allows some corporations to also become unnaturally huge and monopolistic. Eventually this leads to increased regulation by government to ensure monopoly for the corporation by creating barriers of entry. The large corporations destroy competition and at some point they find that another way to make more money is to move production to the cheapest locations. This leads to unemployment, since large corporations are the largest employers. Government's only way to 'get' more money is to print it, either cash or long term cash (bonds). Governments then devalue the currency further, borrow from producers, create more regulation in a vicious cycle. People get the left-overs. The extremely cheap money is provided to financial institutions, who gamble with it, the moral hazard is proven by bailouts. Unemployment rises and so does inflation, prices go up and people are dissatisfied. Governments introduce more government spending to 'create jobs', which fails, governments cannot create jobs, they are not producers. Money is devalued further.
Question is, does this end in a system, where the means of basic commodity (food/energy) production are nationalized for the 'good of the people' and then the rations are distributed, because the inflation produces huge price spikes, which government tries to control, thus creating shortages? Does this lead to further government taking freedoms away from people, introducing exchange controls, border controls, not letting the population to leave? Does this lead to a h
Old stems those cells, ha? Is that what they call it now? Since I have gone this way already let's continue with that. He, Old, stems them wicked, stems them good!
Your ignorance of the Federal Reserve System is astounding.
- same problem with you, you make these wild eye passes, it's all nonsense of-course, what is your proof? Nothing, you just say it as if saying it makes it so.
Holy titty-fucking christ, you are stupid.
- excellent, you now have proven every point. Wonderful logic.
I make the assertion "You do not know what a ponzi scheme is.". Any semi-intelligent person at this point would go look it up, coming back with a proper definition, and act like they knew it all along.
- ponzi scheme is similar to pyramid, I don't care about the definition of very minor differences between them. They both work by taking money away from a large population and channeling it to a small number of schemers. Whether these schemers are in the know or not is not relevant.
You, like a fucking idiot
- why do you bother answering, you have proven already your point by such masterful use of language? So if I am an idiot, are you an idiot for arguing?
I have actual arguments, you have only useless ad hominem attacks, that's not a constructive discussion.
No. A system entirely dependent on currencies created by private citizens and companies what we did before we had a national currency and it was a godawful system that crippled the economy by restricting effective trade. Do some fucking research.
- that's a lot of mix right there. You are implying many things, isn't burden of proof somewhere on you for making outrageous claims. Something was a 'godawful' system and obviously it was replaced by a better one. Really? Better things get replaced by garbage all the time. All it takes is people who profit from change like that and who are willing to use power to achieve their goals.
I did not ask you about your political beliefs, nor do I give a shit.
- you can't even differentiate between political believe and economic self-evident truths. Currencies that are not backed up by production or any tangible goods are worthless. Maybe it takes a while for the world to see it, but it will happen.
Go spend a few hours on wikipedia (you may find the "Simple English" wikipedia better suited for you, since you obviously have the reading comprehension of a blind crackbaby) and come back when you are ready to actually put forth a coherent argument with actual facts and logic.
- nice troll by the way. Ad hominem, varios appeals, switching blame around, telling me I have no arguments while it is you have not presented a single one.
I suppose you could just end with 'yhbt' but would you? 'Simple English' you say? I'll switch to that when you show at least some mastery of the rest of the languages I speak.
FTFA: The current calculations show that about 1.2 megajoules of energy will be enough for ignition, and currently Nif can run as high as 1.8 megajoules. - also see, they only need to scale this thing 10^3 times to get to the needed energy output. Let's just hope there is at least one DeLorean left by the time they can get this sucker going (and obviously they need to sustain that output at least for a second I guess).
Finally, in your face, everyone who is not using binary to encode your messages and sticks to silly data-structures like XML with ASCII in it.
How about increasing survival chances by working in a group? The working country should provide for this fundamental human and animal behavior pattern.
- I agree with you on a part of this, I don't mind working with a group that I selected. So if I like a particular group and the way they work, I want to participate, but this is not what is happening. By taxation we are forced into one exact group and no choices are left. Certainly I want to work with a group, I would contribute to it, that's the group of my choice.
(referring to the next paragraph in your reply: Do you see some other animal going against its instincts and joining a group it would not be comfortable in?)
I don't get it - we have labeled basic aspects of the complicated collective behavior of an ordinary biological species (with all that implies) as "socialist" and we should avoid them at the cost of decreased chances for survival? I should hope not!
- it's hard to get, I am not sure you disagree with me if we go past the semantics. Socialist, in this context, is what is forced upon someone. If something is done by a group without coercion by free will, that's really cooperative.
I hope we have moved somewhat past just simple 'collective behavior of an ordinary biological species', otherwise it would make sense to use an ant colony as a model, we do recognize the differences between individuals, that's quite unlike ants.
BTW, I also lived exactly 16 years of my life in a communist totalitarian state, but I do not wish "to throw in the garbage the baby with the waters", as the old ladies in my country say.....
- again, I believe we are talking about difference in semantics here.
It is perfectly legal for you to go buy a printing press, make up your own money, print off as much as you want, then try to convince people to use it. Hell, you can even skip the printing press step. What is illegal is duplicating somebody else's currency.
- right, so the words 'legal tender' have no special meaning then in your understanding. Government is not in business of production, it does not produce anything except social experimentation by taxation and loopholes to avoid taxation. It also produces state level debt by borrowing from other countries and printing bonds.
Why do people use government issued money and not something else? Because government is competing illegally, it does not produce anything, so it can print any amount of cash it desires and it does not back it up by anything. Gold used to be the backing, it has not been for quite a while now. A private entity has to produce something in order to have backing for their currency.
Excuse me, I mistyped. Ponzi scheme, is that the correct spelling? Ok then. So lets see. A pyramid is when the people close to the top get all the profit, while people on the bottom, who have entered late are getting the bill and no profit at all.
Those who are close to the government feeder, they get the first take at the money, at that point money has greater value, because it is not yet spread out across the rest of us. Once the new money is spread around, it devalues the rest of the cash for everybody else. What is happening now, is that the free money that preferred corporations were always getting, allowed these corporations to outcompete those, who did not have the influence in the government, and they made sure that they have no competition by creating various regulations through government agencies to create huge barriers of entry for late arrivals. The original money benefited these original players so much, they have destroyed the competition and became ridiculously huge on all this government printed cash.
They killed the competition and made sure that eventually they would have access to the cheapest labor force on the planet - Asian workers. Since they are huge, the scale allowed them to move manufacturing to the cheapest locations, leaving behind no production capacity and no jobs. You now have your 'service' economy, which only survived so far because USD was and still is the 'reserve' currency and you can survive for a long time being just in the business of printing it. Production of money and nothing else, that's what remains, that's what government is doing. Talking about trying to compete with it legally and morally is disingenuous at the least.
So it is a ponzi scheme, some became huge, rich and powerful, and now the game is coming to an end, the late entries will end up holding the bill and no benefit in the devalued dollar.
This has been done numerous times in history, and every time it is a clusterfuck
- what, Hong Kong is not a good enough example of this working well? They are producers, the western civilization at this point are living on Asian credit.
Am I for the gold standard? Certainly, that would mean something more than the printed cash means now. But I am not just for 'gold standard'. Before US government got off that standard they also stole every person's gold in the states, there was the time, it will probably come again, it was not too long ago.
I am against government that produces nothing being allowed by the citizens to steal money by releasing this fiat currency in the first place. Government has no place in economy except from point of view of regulations, and these regulations are subverted by large corporations to deny entry to the late comers into the game.
Go find yourself some sense.