kim jong-il was known for his cult of personality. one american politician in this coming presidential election is known for a cult of personality as well. one politician makes impossible promises and claims impossible traits. others have been claimed to before to have cults of personality, but one has a cult of personality - and a traditional cult as well. that one candidate is ron paul.
If you don't see a problem with some individuals having huge amounts of power over other individuals, then you have no imagination.
in some point, in order to maintain some semblance of order in a society, you need to at the very least allow for law enforcement professionals. no sane person would consider the enforcement of fundamental laws as abuse of power.
however, there are limits to where this should go, and some of these initiatives are threatening those limits. regardless, what you are trying to declare is absurd.
more importantly, will this bring reforms needed to lead it towards something resembling prosperity? signs point to no, as one of his sons has already been named as successor.
for some people the netbook was an answer in search of a question. asus got it right (for the most part) and then everything after it was a copy. whether netbooks will be killed completely by tablets remains to be seen.
I think a more logical conclusion is that there are a lot of libertarians with mod points reading this thread. Look at who's getting modded "insightful" while others get modded "flamebait". Not that I'm keen on either of them.
and now i, after posting less than a dozen times, have "terrible" karma because i had three comments voted down. yet they bitch endlessly that they are somehow not heard on slashdot.
this really wasn't much different in terms of naming dishonesty in comparison to the "clear skies initiative". and neither of the two were good for our civilization.
you can set the goals of your stats ahead of time if you're clever. make it your goal to find many long-term problems, to ensure that your tiny department won't be axed too soon. otherwise if you show a great record of solving problems quickly, you will be rewarded by being downsized.
Do you realize you're the problem with the world, America in particular?
wow, are you the same AC who went bananas in my journal entry for no reason recently? do you not realize that my reply here was to someone who is so engrossed with his hero/savior/messiah that not only is every one of his posts is a tribute to him? you try to sound as if the post i replied to was somehow not political, let me give you a clue AC - just because a post was moderated "funny" does not mean the post itself was not intended as a political statement.
and on top of that, the very notion of telling someone they're "the problem with the world" shows that you are yourself an arrogant hack.
How many government forms does it take for a new star to be allowed to be born?
whereas if your lord and savior ron paul were president, then the births of stars would be determined by whatever the invisible (and benevolent!) hand of the free market allows.
this fits well with your desire to see everyone lose their jobs. now you are saying, they either lose their jobs through being laid off in your dream economy of your lord ron paul, or they are executed in the same.
not that it is actually sensible, but it certainly has precedent in your history.
But if we start paying them they'll just be wage slaves!
that isn't how that works. wage slaves are underpaid people trapped in jobs from which they cannot escape; they lack the time and resources to find better jobs because their wages and time demands are so awful as to prevent them from moving onwards. and if a certain presidential hopeful gets his way, we'll see a lot more of it in this country soon.
As opposed to having a minimum wage and 20% unemployment?
when people are trapped in jobs paying less than a livable wage, while demanding an increasing portion of their time such as to prevent them from seeking other jobs or skills for better jobs, they have become wage slaves. which is exactly what we would have under ron paul, once minimum wage is outlawed and employers no longer need to recognize the significance of full time work.
ron paul will bring back the old days of "i sold my soul to the company store". you can count on it.
wrong. that is not a good thing. it means people lose their jobs through no fault of their own
- wrong. This is a good thing
so in your particular branch of the cult of ron paul, high unemployment is a good thing. that is fucked up beyond anything I've ever seen before. you do realize that people who cannot afford boots cannot pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, right?
The people who are losing the money in case of a specific bank failure are people who lending to that bank.
except that a very real portion of the banking industry is based around guaranteed investments - savings accounts in particular. savings accounts are made available at incredibly low interest rates because they represent zero risk. it increases capital available to the bank and pays a very marginal dividend to the person who deposited the money. it is essentially a safety deposit box for someone who only has liquid assets, or has no valuable non-liquid assets that they are concerned about the security of.
however, if you revoke all banking regulations as you propose, then the savings become completely uninsured, which would immediately change the terms of millions of accounts in the US and who knows how many in the rest of the world. people who opened savings accounts opened them fully realizing that the accounts were fully insured, and that the price the paid for that full insurance was a far lower interest rate than an investment account.
generally, very few people anywhere in the world approve of changing contracts with customers before their existing contract is up and without their knowledge or consent. of course, I suppose your cult would probably be fine with crapping all over that standard as well?
In fact without FDIC the banks compete with each other for their customers
with the fdic banks still compete for customers. they can still set their own rates. they are not required to offer insured accounts if they don't want to, it is just stupid not to. but the fdic didn't do shit to hinder competition between banks.
is clearly false
the only thing false is the notion that you are adequately literate to have any idea what the hell you are talking about.
but of course, you previously said you support high unemployment, so this fits just fine with that goal. it doesn't fit any thinking man's ideals, but it fits yours just fine.
- I support what the market decides and I oppose what the government wants.
we understand fully well that you support high unemployment. you have no good reason to support it, but you are free to support whatever you want.
Clearly the current situation with the unemployment is caused by the government destroying the market, pushing labor prices too high and pushing investment capital offshore.
this might be counter to what you have been chanting at your cult meetings, but things do not become true just because you keep repeating them. the unemployment rate is not the fault of the government.
although being as you have repeatedly stated you favor high unemployment, you really should be telling us that you think unemployment is too low. you are contradicting yourself any time you show concern for high unemployment.
if we can put everybody out of work doing what they are doing with maximum amount of automation - that's a good thing
so you would have no problem with 100% unemployment then?
what, then, is the actual goal of your economic dream? you're not trying to put people to work, you're not trying to provide any kind of infrastructure for anything, you aren't trying to provide for education, or health care, and you certainly aren't trying to help anyone get ahead economically.
Banks competed and some went bust. That's a good thing
wrong. that is not a good thing. it means people lose their jobs through no fault of their own. it also means that John Q Public no longer has faith in his bank to hold on to his money in what should be a stable savings account. if nothing is secured at all, as you propose, then the very basis of savings and loan as we know it loses its strength because banks won't have money available to loan out. what money they do have, they will have to loan out at prohibitively expensive rates which will prevent people from wanting to take any risk with money at all.
but of course, you previously said you support high unemployment, so this fits just fine with that goal. it doesn't fit any thinking man's ideals, but it fits yours just fine.
banks are failing institutionally and globally because of all of the governments
bullshit. the banks that were the most stable after the subprime crisis rolled all over the world were where? you won't know this, so I'll give you the answer.
canada
and they have significantly tighter regulations on banking in canada than they ever had in the us - and of course american banks have seen ever fewer regulations as time has moved forward over the past few decades.
Slashdot Mirror
kim jong-il was known for his cult of personality. one american politician in this coming presidential election is known for a cult of personality as well. one politician makes impossible promises and claims impossible traits. others have been claimed to before to have cults of personality, but one has a cult of personality - and a traditional cult as well. that one candidate is ron paul.
If you don't see a problem with some individuals having huge amounts of power over other individuals, then you have no imagination.
in some point, in order to maintain some semblance of order in a society, you need to at the very least allow for law enforcement professionals. no sane person would consider the enforcement of fundamental laws as abuse of power.
however, there are limits to where this should go, and some of these initiatives are threatening those limits. regardless, what you are trying to declare is absurd.
i don't see this as being the solution the market sought for the problem.
more importantly, will this bring reforms needed to lead it towards something resembling prosperity? signs point to no, as one of his sons has already been named as successor.
for some people the netbook was an answer in search of a question. asus got it right (for the most part) and then everything after it was a copy. whether netbooks will be killed completely by tablets remains to be seen.
I think a more logical conclusion is that there are a lot of libertarians with mod points reading this thread. Look at who's getting modded "insightful" while others get modded "flamebait". Not that I'm keen on either of them.
and now i, after posting less than a dozen times, have "terrible" karma because i had three comments voted down. yet they bitch endlessly that they are somehow not heard on slashdot.
this really wasn't much different in terms of naming dishonesty in comparison to the "clear skies initiative". and neither of the two were good for our civilization.
you can set the goals of your stats ahead of time if you're clever. make it your goal to find many long-term problems, to ensure that your tiny department won't be axed too soon. otherwise if you show a great record of solving problems quickly, you will be rewarded by being downsized.
Do you realize you're the problem with the world, America in particular?
wow, are you the same AC who went bananas in my journal entry for no reason recently? do you not realize that my reply here was to someone who is so engrossed with his hero/savior/messiah that not only is every one of his posts is a tribute to him? you try to sound as if the post i replied to was somehow not political, let me give you a clue AC - just because a post was moderated "funny" does not mean the post itself was not intended as a political statement.
and on top of that, the very notion of telling someone they're "the problem with the world" shows that you are yourself an arrogant hack.
How many government forms does it take for a new star to be allowed to be born?
whereas if your lord and savior ron paul were president, then the births of stars would be determined by whatever the invisible (and benevolent!) hand of the free market allows.
this fits well with your desire to see everyone lose their jobs. now you are saying, they either lose their jobs through being laid off in your dream economy of your lord ron paul, or they are executed in the same.
not that it is actually sensible, but it certainly has precedent in your history.
But if we start paying them they'll just be wage slaves!
that isn't how that works. wage slaves are underpaid people trapped in jobs from which they cannot escape; they lack the time and resources to find better jobs because their wages and time demands are so awful as to prevent them from moving onwards. and if a certain presidential hopeful gets his way, we'll see a lot more of it in this country soon.
As opposed to having a minimum wage and 20% unemployment?
when people are trapped in jobs paying less than a livable wage, while demanding an increasing portion of their time such as to prevent them from seeking other jobs or skills for better jobs, they have become wage slaves. which is exactly what we would have under ron paul, once minimum wage is outlawed and employers no longer need to recognize the significance of full time work.
ron paul will bring back the old days of "i sold my soul to the company store". you can count on it.
if ron paul becomes president and eliminates minimum wage, slavery will run rampant in the us. thankfully, that isn't very likely.
wrong. that is not a good thing. it means people lose their jobs through no fault of their own
- wrong. This is a good thing
so in your particular branch of the cult of ron paul, high unemployment is a good thing. that is fucked up beyond anything I've ever seen before. you do realize that people who cannot afford boots cannot pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, right?
The people who are losing the money in case of a specific bank failure are people who lending to that bank.
except that a very real portion of the banking industry is based around guaranteed investments - savings accounts in particular. savings accounts are made available at incredibly low interest rates because they represent zero risk. it increases capital available to the bank and pays a very marginal dividend to the person who deposited the money. it is essentially a safety deposit box for someone who only has liquid assets, or has no valuable non-liquid assets that they are concerned about the security of.
however, if you revoke all banking regulations as you propose, then the savings become completely uninsured, which would immediately change the terms of millions of accounts in the US and who knows how many in the rest of the world. people who opened savings accounts opened them fully realizing that the accounts were fully insured, and that the price the paid for that full insurance was a far lower interest rate than an investment account.
generally, very few people anywhere in the world approve of changing contracts with customers before their existing contract is up and without their knowledge or consent. of course, I suppose your cult would probably be fine with crapping all over that standard as well?
In fact without FDIC the banks compete with each other for their customers
with the fdic banks still compete for customers. they can still set their own rates. they are not required to offer insured accounts if they don't want to, it is just stupid not to. but the fdic didn't do shit to hinder competition between banks.
is clearly false
the only thing false is the notion that you are adequately literate to have any idea what the hell you are talking about.
but of course, you previously said you support high unemployment, so this fits just fine with that goal. it doesn't fit any thinking man's ideals, but it fits yours just fine.
- I support what the market decides and I oppose what the government wants.
we understand fully well that you support high unemployment. you have no good reason to support it, but you are free to support whatever you want.
Clearly the current situation with the unemployment is caused by the government destroying the market, pushing labor prices too high and pushing investment capital offshore.
this might be counter to what you have been chanting at your cult meetings, but things do not become true just because you keep repeating them. the unemployment rate is not the fault of the government.
although being as you have repeatedly stated you favor high unemployment, you really should be telling us that you think unemployment is too low. you are contradicting yourself any time you show concern for high unemployment.
if we can put everybody out of work doing what they are doing with maximum amount of automation - that's a good thing
so you would have no problem with 100% unemployment then?
what, then, is the actual goal of your economic dream? you're not trying to put people to work, you're not trying to provide any kind of infrastructure for anything, you aren't trying to provide for education, or health care, and you certainly aren't trying to help anyone get ahead economically.
so other than driv
Banks competed and some went bust. That's a good thing
wrong. that is not a good thing. it means people lose their jobs through no fault of their own. it also means that John Q Public no longer has faith in his bank to hold on to his money in what should be a stable savings account. if nothing is secured at all, as you propose, then the very basis of savings and loan as we know it loses its strength because banks won't have money available to loan out. what money they do have, they will have to loan out at prohibitively expensive rates which will prevent people from wanting to take any risk with money at all.
but of course, you previously said you support high unemployment, so this fits just fine with that goal. it doesn't fit any thinking man's ideals, but it fits yours just fine.
banks are failing institutionally and globally because of all of the governments
bullshit. the banks that were the most stable after the subprime crisis rolled all over the world were where? you won't know this, so I'll give you the answer.
canada
and they have significantly tighter regulations on banking in canada than they ever had in the us - and of course american banks have seen ever fewer regulations as time has moved forward over the past few decades.
so in other words, your dead wrong.
and I even made an account like you asked. happy?