Indeed, I believe that modern banking is a fraud. I don't know how far back the current practice goes, but I don't think disallowing banks from lending money they don't have will necessarily outlaw banks altogether. There would still be a demand for their legitimate services.
I think growth would be much slower and more stable. I think it would eliminate the boom-and-bust business cycle, so it would be a good thing for the average person.
Oh btw, I do disagree that government is currently doing more bad than good. I think the greatest threat to our current economy is the unchecked cancerous growth of the financial sector. It is taking an ever increasing percentage of GDP and giving back nothing extra but instability.
I would argue that the unchecked cancerous growth of the financial sector that you speak of is *caused* by government regulation. They take things that should be illegal, and instead legalize and regulate them. One example is the legalized fraud of fractional reserve banking: allowing banks to lend out money that they don't have based on a signed promissory note and a small percentage of reserve in their vault.
We were talking about when life begins, not when "personhood" begins. What "makes a person a person" is also a philosophical subject.
And we still have not gotten away from philosophy. If it is your view that a baby is not worthy of protection before it develops a central nervous system and becomes a person, that is still your philosophy.
You are deciding that there is some scientific criteria that must be met before you consider something a human being - that is your philosophy. Whether or not it is based on science is irrelevant.
the fact that the question is far more philosophical than scientific means that you can't simply disregard this option
The fact that it is more philosophical than scientific is exactly why we can disregard this option. It's superstition, nothing more, and should be treated as such.
I think you missed the point.
Your belief that life does not start at the moment of conception is also a matter of philosophy. Why is your philosophy more valid than that of the pro-lifers? If you can say that their philosophy can be easily disregarded, then so can yours.
So, if I'm part of some anti-American group in some remote part of the world, and I want to totally disrupt American commerce and flow of information by taking down the Internet in the U.S., all I have to do is get enough people/large enough botnet to look like I'm really trying it and the American government will do the rest for me?
I think you think his power as "Commander in Chief" is greater than it actually is. He can order the military to do stuff, but it generally must be authorized by Congress first. Congress has the ability to set military law (the President could veto it, but could not override established law), and authorize funds for various military activities.
Closing Guantanamo and moving troops (even to the Mexico border) cost money that must first be appropriated for that purpose. Attacking Iran would require a declaration of war from Congress, though we don't seem to care about that too much these days.
So, no, he can't really do any of those things if Congress opposes it. If he does anyway, he would open himself up to possible impeachment, but I admit that would be very unlikely.
The Commander in Chief power is given to the President only because it would be a disaster if a deliberative body tried to do it. So, once Congress authorizes a set of actions (like war), the president gets to decide HOW to do it, but Congress decides why, when, where, etc.
A reading of the Constitution will show that many powers once claimed by executives (kings) were given to Congress, and even the lack of an executive under the article of Confederation shows that the founders had a distrust of placing too much power in the hands of an individual. The Constitution only gives the president the minimum necessary powers in order to "faithfully execute the laws of the United States," which is his main job.
Unfortunately, Congress has had no spine for the last hundred years and has allowed the President to claim way too much power.
A certain amount of matter is converted into energy in every nuclear blast. That is why the equation E=MC^2 comes into play. It allows you to calculate the amount of M that was converted into E if you measure the amount of energy released in the blast.
It is cold there all the time, but it is not equally cold all year. Notice that TFA said that
"The melt waters of these high altitude glaciers supply crucial seasonal flows to the Ganges, Brahmaputra, Salween, Irrawaddy, Mekong, Yangtze and Yellow rivers, which hundreds of millions of people downstream depend on for their livelihoods,"
That means the ice DOES naturally melt at certain times of the year, so the time of year that the new photo was taken IS relevant, and conspicuously absent from the article.
Starting in 1933, the U.S. economy grew at a faster pace than it has ever grown. The only break in growth from 1933 to the recession after WWII was in 1937, right after FDR instituted spending cuts (I'm sure that was just an anomaly, right?).
Grew in terms of what? The stock market didn't recover until the 1950s. If you're referring to GDP, do you think GDP growth backed by debt is just as good as GDP growth backed by capital (real wealth).
What happens when you stop creating more debt? GDP goes down, right? Is that good? Is that sustainable? Do we want an economic system where we must perpetually increase the debt until the interest overtakes our ability to produce and we are all suddenly penniless?
If we use debt to prop up the economy, it is not a real recovery. When you take the debt away, the gains are also erased. All you have done is prolonged how long it takes for markets to truly recover. Real wealth comes from capital.
... We know that we must run deficits, large ones, in order to create a demand stimulus large enough to moderate this trough of the economic cycle. Nonetheless, we have politicians trying to score political points by railing against deficit spending -- which didn't bother them for the past 8 years when they were in charge....
While I won't argue with the fact that establishment Republicans are hypocrites, I believe your economic assertions are in error. Keynesian economics have been fully discredited, in my view. I subscribe to the Austrian School of economics, which states that reducing government spending and allowing bad debt to be liquidated is the only way to ensure the long-term stability of the economy.
What you essentially said is that my view is ignorant, but perhaps you should investigate your own claims, and explain why Keynesian economic policies of running large deficits allowed the Great Depression to persist for 15 years, if it is so obviously the solution to a troubled economy.
But my point is that there are ideas out there other than the one you believe to be true; it does not mean that people that disagree with you are ignorant.
If a majority of the people want to go around murdering each other, then the society is lost anyway. No amount of governing will fix that. Just let them.
I haven't heard about that clause, but a letter from the administration to BP asking for clarification of their intentions would seem to suggest that the administration thinks the cap still applies.
Anyway, the administration has granted them numerous waivers for various aspects of the drilling, so I'm not sure how it could be ruled as negligence without also implicating the Obama administration.
Lobbyists would have no sway if the government simply stuck to its Constitutionally delegated powers. The only reason they lobby to keep the limit low, is because Congress purports to have the legal ability to limit it in the first place!
The Constitution does not authorize it, however. I think a careful reading of the Constitution will show that the founders respected contracts and property rights, and did not intend for Congress to wield this particular power.
I never said that the free market is perfect. There is no perfect solution; we are human beings, after all.
I just think that government regulations, as well-intentioned as they may be, too often have unintended consequences. I think the market can do a better job, not a perfect one.
In this case, the regulation that should have been removed was the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which limits oil companies' total liability in case of an oil spill to $75 million.
Without that juicy legislation by Congress, they would have been damn sure their stuff was safe, because they would be on the hook for the entire damages otherwise. Now, they are basically going to decide for themselves which "legitimate" damages they feel like paying.
Ok, once again, I never said "Everything should be privatized."
But there are some examples out there where privatizing some roads has been beneficial. I don't know if it would work for highways.
However, I do object to the federal government taking our money, and then bribing our state governments with the same money in order to pay for the highways. I would rather pay less money to the feds, and just give it directly to my state/local governments to provide those same services with fewer strings attached.
So, to answer your question: I don't like the political costs of having federally funded highways. My state already does all the work, I'd rather pay them directly; cut out the middle-man. The quality would be the same.
I don't have one, by choice, and I rate it Good! It would be excellent if it were easier for me to get major medical insurance with a health savings account.
The government wants to force me to get more than I need, and that saves money how?
Near where I live, there is a town that does not provide a fire department. It is run by volunteers.
I don't think anyone said "Everything should be privatized," so your entire argument doesn't make sense to me. If not just for that reason, then also for the reason that if it really turned out to be the way you describe, the People, themselves, would organize a way to make it work so they receive the services they need (contract to a different company, set up volunteer agencies, etc).
What you get with Federal control is whatever they want to give you. It's their way or the highway.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, I believe that modern banking is a fraud. I don't know how far back the current practice goes, but I don't think disallowing banks from lending money they don't have will necessarily outlaw banks altogether. There would still be a demand for their legitimate services.
I think growth would be much slower and more stable. I think it would eliminate the boom-and-bust business cycle, so it would be a good thing for the average person.
Not that I think this would ever happen...
Oh btw, I do disagree that government is currently doing more bad than good. I think the greatest threat to our current economy is the unchecked cancerous growth of the financial sector. It is taking an ever increasing percentage of GDP and giving back nothing extra but instability.
I would argue that the unchecked cancerous growth of the financial sector that you speak of is *caused* by government regulation. They take things that should be illegal, and instead legalize and regulate them. One example is the legalized fraud of fractional reserve banking: allowing banks to lend out money that they don't have based on a signed promissory note and a small percentage of reserve in their vault.
We were talking about when life begins, not when "personhood" begins. What "makes a person a person" is also a philosophical subject.
And we still have not gotten away from philosophy. If it is your view that a baby is not worthy of protection before it develops a central nervous system and becomes a person, that is still your philosophy.
You are deciding that there is some scientific criteria that must be met before you consider something a human being - that is your philosophy. Whether or not it is based on science is irrelevant.
the fact that the question is far more philosophical than scientific means that you can't simply disregard this option
The fact that it is more philosophical than scientific is exactly why we can disregard this option. It's superstition, nothing more, and should be treated as such.
I think you missed the point.
Your belief that life does not start at the moment of conception is also a matter of philosophy. Why is your philosophy more valid than that of the pro-lifers? If you can say that their philosophy can be easily disregarded, then so can yours.
If it's a Microsoft shop, you set up a Certificate Authority (free) and distribute it to clients via Group Policy. Done. No manual distribution.
So, if I'm part of some anti-American group in some remote part of the world, and I want to totally disrupt American commerce and flow of information by taking down the Internet in the U.S., all I have to do is get enough people/large enough botnet to look like I'm really trying it and the American government will do the rest for me?
Sounds like a winning strategy to me!
Sooo.... We want to stop a malicious DOS attack on the Internet by... DOSing the Internet?
Brilliant!
I think you think his power as "Commander in Chief" is greater than it actually is. He can order the military to do stuff, but it generally must be authorized by Congress first. Congress has the ability to set military law (the President could veto it, but could not override established law), and authorize funds for various military activities.
Closing Guantanamo and moving troops (even to the Mexico border) cost money that must first be appropriated for that purpose. Attacking Iran would require a declaration of war from Congress, though we don't seem to care about that too much these days.
So, no, he can't really do any of those things if Congress opposes it. If he does anyway, he would open himself up to possible impeachment, but I admit that would be very unlikely.
The Commander in Chief power is given to the President only because it would be a disaster if a deliberative body tried to do it. So, once Congress authorizes a set of actions (like war), the president gets to decide HOW to do it, but Congress decides why, when, where, etc.
A reading of the Constitution will show that many powers once claimed by executives (kings) were given to Congress, and even the lack of an executive under the article of Confederation shows that the founders had a distrust of placing too much power in the hands of an individual. The Constitution only gives the president the minimum necessary powers in order to "faithfully execute the laws of the United States," which is his main job.
Unfortunately, Congress has had no spine for the last hundred years and has allowed the President to claim way too much power.
I guess that makes sense.
Thanks.
A certain amount of matter is converted into energy in every nuclear blast. That is why the equation E=MC^2 comes into play. It allows you to calculate the amount of M that was converted into E if you measure the amount of energy released in the blast.
It is cold there all the time, but it is not equally cold all year. Notice that TFA said that
"The melt waters of these high altitude glaciers supply crucial seasonal flows to the Ganges, Brahmaputra, Salween, Irrawaddy, Mekong, Yangtze and Yellow rivers, which hundreds of millions of people downstream depend on for their livelihoods,"
That means the ice DOES naturally melt at certain times of the year, so the time of year that the new photo was taken IS relevant, and conspicuously absent from the article.
Starting in 1933, the U.S. economy grew at a faster pace than it has ever grown. The only break in growth from 1933 to the recession after WWII was in 1937, right after FDR instituted spending cuts (I'm sure that was just an anomaly, right?).
Grew in terms of what? The stock market didn't recover until the 1950s. If you're referring to GDP, do you think GDP growth backed by debt is just as good as GDP growth backed by capital (real wealth).
What happens when you stop creating more debt? GDP goes down, right? Is that good? Is that sustainable? Do we want an economic system where we must perpetually increase the debt until the interest overtakes our ability to produce and we are all suddenly penniless?
If we use debt to prop up the economy, it is not a real recovery. When you take the debt away, the gains are also erased. All you have done is prolonged how long it takes for markets to truly recover. Real wealth comes from capital.
I guess if I wanted a good moderation, I should have prefaced all that with "This will probably get me modded down, but..."
Really though, I don't think my comment deserved a Troll moderation.
... We know that we must run deficits, large ones, in order to create a demand stimulus large enough to moderate this trough of the economic cycle. Nonetheless, we have politicians trying to score political points by railing against deficit spending -- which didn't bother them for the past 8 years when they were in charge. ...
While I won't argue with the fact that establishment Republicans are hypocrites, I believe your economic assertions are in error. Keynesian economics have been fully discredited, in my view. I subscribe to the Austrian School of economics, which states that reducing government spending and allowing bad debt to be liquidated is the only way to ensure the long-term stability of the economy.
What you essentially said is that my view is ignorant, but perhaps you should investigate your own claims, and explain why Keynesian economic policies of running large deficits allowed the Great Depression to persist for 15 years, if it is so obviously the solution to a troubled economy.
But my point is that there are ideas out there other than the one you believe to be true; it does not mean that people that disagree with you are ignorant.
If a majority of the people want to go around murdering each other, then the society is lost anyway. No amount of governing will fix that. Just let them.
I haven't heard about that clause, but a letter from the administration to BP asking for clarification of their intentions would seem to suggest that the administration thinks the cap still applies.
Anyway, the administration has granted them numerous waivers for various aspects of the drilling, so I'm not sure how it could be ruled as negligence without also implicating the Obama administration.
Lobbyists would have no sway if the government simply stuck to its Constitutionally delegated powers. The only reason they lobby to keep the limit low, is because Congress purports to have the legal ability to limit it in the first place!
The Constitution does not authorize it, however. I think a careful reading of the Constitution will show that the founders respected contracts and property rights, and did not intend for Congress to wield this particular power.
I never said that the free market is perfect. There is no perfect solution; we are human beings, after all.
I just think that government regulations, as well-intentioned as they may be, too often have unintended consequences. I think the market can do a better job, not a perfect one.
In this case, the regulation that should have been removed was the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which limits oil companies' total liability in case of an oil spill to $75 million.
Without that juicy legislation by Congress, they would have been damn sure their stuff was safe, because they would be on the hook for the entire damages otherwise. Now, they are basically going to decide for themselves which "legitimate" damages they feel like paying.
Good job Congress!
Ok, once again, I never said "Everything should be privatized."
But there are some examples out there where privatizing some roads has been beneficial. I don't know if it would work for highways.
However, I do object to the federal government taking our money, and then bribing our state governments with the same money in order to pay for the highways. I would rather pay less money to the feds, and just give it directly to my state/local governments to provide those same services with fewer strings attached.
So, to answer your question: I don't like the political costs of having federally funded highways. My state already does all the work, I'd rather pay them directly; cut out the middle-man. The quality would be the same.
I don't have one, by choice, and I rate it Good! It would be excellent if it were easier for me to get major medical insurance with a health savings account.
The government wants to force me to get more than I need, and that saves money how?
Near where I live, there is a town that does not provide a fire department. It is run by volunteers.
I don't think anyone said "Everything should be privatized," so your entire argument doesn't make sense to me. If not just for that reason, then also for the reason that if it really turned out to be the way you describe, the People, themselves, would organize a way to make it work so they receive the services they need (contract to a different company, set up volunteer agencies, etc).
What you get with Federal control is whatever they want to give you. It's their way or the highway.
Though on other side, the question all Americans should be asking themselves is: do private insurers have better resume???
Considering 83% of people rate the current quality of their health care as either good or excellent, I'd say yes.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102934/majority-americans-satisfied-their-own-healthcare.aspx
How did you come to that conclusion?
No, he really did mean thermate.
It burns hotter than thermite.