I think we have some common ground on some things.
However, don't blame us pro-free market people for your "B": the bailout. No one forced the government to do it -- certainly no pro-free market person. You (the government) should have just said no.
Your view is the classic view held by Karl Marx -- no insult intended. You advocate the dictatorship of the proletariat. Again -- no insult intended -- I realize that these terms are thrown around by the right today as hot button buzz words (I voted for Obama). But it is descriptive of your viewpoint -- which I believe is fundamentally wrong. Capital doesn't just concentrate in 20 people on the planet in a truly free market.
Marie Antoinette aside, some people should not be as wealthy as others. Your world view leads to the least common denominator -- which is pretty brutal.
Health care isn't a right anymore than cable TV is a right. If cable TV was a right, we'd all be indentured servants because we'd have to pay for everyone's cable TV!
I don't believe that the UK has a higher standard of living than the US -- but even if it does, you are talking about averages. It is easier to have a higher standard of living in the US than in the UK -- you just have to work for it. Not everyone does.
You can call me delusional all day, but this country (the US) faces a global market. If you regulate our economy as you suggest (and who decides how much regulation is enough?), you will simply make our entire country non-competitive. We will all be equal -- equally poor.
You are the idealist -- some people (often the smart ones you deride) deserve to be rich. Others deserve to be poor.
While I intend to vote, not voting is a perfectly reasonable response. In fact, given how little the candidates actually differ, it might even be a more rationale response.
If you vote for one of them, you:
- give them a mandate, - imply that there are real differences between the candidates, and - are accountable for your choice.
For example, both candidates believe in a big bearded guy in the sky and look to him for guidance in difficult times. This alone might lead some to not vote for either one based on insanity...
I have traveled extensively -- although I have never been to Australia and only briefly to Africa. I have never "lived" abroad more than a month at a time.
Don't get me wrong, there are lots of nice places in the world. I especially like Scandinavia and Canada. But places like Norway are great only because of their small size and unique natural resources. Their models are not scalable and they give up what I would consider key liberties.
More importantly, the constitution only allows the federal government to tax the states (not individuals). Originally, that tax had to be proportional to the population, but by Constitutional Amendment, it no longer has to be.
It is still unconstitutional for the federal government to tax individuals.
Stop paying taxes if you live in one of these countries -- that's when the horrible things really start. In the meantime, it simply saps innovation and growth.
Why go to the moon? And please skip the "because it is hard" part. We've got lots of real, hard problems to solve around here that will deliver real, sustainable value is solved.
Going to the moon is nothing more than welfare for engineers.
It is a common misconception that Ares is made up of components reused from previous programs. It's not. That's how it was sold, but then engineering began and now very little is being reused.
You are right and you are wrong. There was no _explicit_ guarantee, but everyone assumed an _implicit_ guarantee. This created a huge moral hazard -- Fannie and Freddie allowed riskier and riskier mortgages. And, in the end, the implicit guarantee became explicit -- just like everyone knew it would.
There was never any chance that the government would let Fannie or Freddie fail -- thus, they have always been 100% government backed.
I agree with you that that sort of micro control is BS, but you are the ass clown if you are condemning a Nobel Prize winner based only on the fact that he read a book once. He never said he put any stock in "Psychohistory."
It is unconstitutional for the federal government to tax individuals. The fed can only tax the states. So you basically do not support the Constitution.
Additionally, your socialist system of resource allocation is woefully inefficient and has no chance of generating the kind of discretionary investment that would be required to colonize space. Like it or not, the only economic systemt that will ultimately explore the cosmos is Capitalism -- the only system that is compatible with liberty.
Wake up, some people _should_ earn more than others.
Take your holier than thou attitude and Iraq war posturing elsewhere -- I didn't say a word about Iraq much less killing anyone. Clearly, providing for the common defense assumes that we don't have a drunk at the wheel.
But even your 4th grade analysis shows that the preamble only has one item listed as something the government "provides." Everything else is just income redistribution dressed up in fancy clothes.
All of which have to be paid for by someone, so why not a giant collection of taxes. Compliance is far easier that way, and you can tax each according to his means.
Why should _my_ means determine how much of _your_ sewage I am responsible to clean up?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because you pro-regulators only want to do small stuff like:
- make short selling illegal -- destroying a key method of price determination and arbitrage.
- limit executive compensation -- limiting a key growth motivator (as if any government had the right).
- pick winners and losers in mortgage foreclosures -- creating a huge fking moral hazard.
Face it -- you are simply a mob.
I think we have some common ground on some things.
However, don't blame us pro-free market people for your "B": the bailout. No one forced the government to do it -- certainly no pro-free market person. You (the government) should have just said no.
Your view is the classic view held by Karl Marx -- no insult intended. You advocate the dictatorship of the proletariat. Again -- no insult intended -- I realize that these terms are thrown around by the right today as hot button buzz words (I voted for Obama). But it is descriptive of your viewpoint -- which I believe is fundamentally wrong. Capital doesn't just concentrate in 20 people on the planet in a truly free market.
Marie Antoinette aside, some people should not be as wealthy as others. Your world view leads to the least common denominator -- which is pretty brutal.
Health care isn't a right anymore than cable TV is a right. If cable TV was a right, we'd all be indentured servants because we'd have to pay for everyone's cable TV!
I don't believe that the UK has a higher standard of living than the US -- but even if it does, you are talking about averages. It is easier to have a higher standard of living in the US than in the UK -- you just have to work for it. Not everyone does.
You can call me delusional all day, but this country (the US) faces a global market. If you regulate our economy as you suggest (and who decides how much regulation is enough?), you will simply make our entire country non-competitive. We will all be equal -- equally poor.
You are the idealist -- some people (often the smart ones you deride) deserve to be rich. Others deserve to be poor.
The preceding post is what happens when amateurs talk about economics. They say things like "regulated free markets." That's like "fun cancer."
Fannie and Freddie should never have existed. We should never have left the gold standard. AIG should have been allowed to fail.
There. Gaping hole filled.
"For some reason the U.S. has the most expensive and the least efficient health care system of all developed nations.
Simply not true. Health care is not a right. If it was, we'd all be indentured servants to pay for it.
While I intend to vote, not voting is a perfectly reasonable response. In fact, given how little the candidates actually differ, it might even be a more rationale response.
If you vote for one of them, you:
- give them a mandate,
- imply that there are real differences between the candidates, and
- are accountable for your choice.
For example, both candidates believe in a big bearded guy in the sky and look to him for guidance in difficult times. This alone might lead some to not vote for either one based on insanity...
Choose wisely.
I approve this message.
Mexico is great if it wasn't for the Mexicans.
BC is wonderful. Gotta love that sea to ski highway -- and the rest of the place too.
I have traveled extensively -- although I have never been to Australia and only briefly to Africa. I have never "lived" abroad more than a month at a time.
Don't get me wrong, there are lots of nice places in the world. I especially like Scandinavia and Canada. But places like Norway are great only because of their small size and unique natural resources. Their models are not scalable and they give up what I would consider key liberties.
As long as the UN is mostly composed of representatives of dictators, theocrats, and kings, I will happily stick with our "abject stupidity."
The US may be flawed, but it's still the best place on the planet.
Eastasia has no chance. See you at hate week.
Wrong.
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/04/16/greenslade.htm
More importantly, the constitution only allows the federal government to tax the states (not individuals). Originally, that tax had to be proportional to the population, but by Constitutional Amendment, it no longer has to be.
It is still unconstitutional for the federal government to tax individuals.
Stop paying taxes if you live in one of these countries -- that's when the horrible things really start. In the meantime, it simply saps innovation and growth.
Why go to the moon? And please skip the "because it is hard" part. We've got lots of real, hard problems to solve around here that will deliver real, sustainable value is solved.
Going to the moon is nothing more than welfare for engineers.
It is a common misconception that Ares is made up of components reused from previous programs. It's not. That's how it was sold, but then engineering began and now very little is being reused.
You are right and you are wrong. There was no _explicit_ guarantee, but everyone assumed an _implicit_ guarantee. This created a huge moral hazard -- Fannie and Freddie allowed riskier and riskier mortgages. And, in the end, the implicit guarantee became explicit -- just like everyone knew it would.
There was never any chance that the government would let Fannie or Freddie fail -- thus, they have always been 100% government backed.
I agree with you that that sort of micro control is BS, but you are the ass clown if you are condemning a Nobel Prize winner based only on the fact that he read a book once. He never said he put any stock in "Psychohistory."
What have the Romans ever done for us, right?
I for one am very happy that you won't be joining us in game.
The 16th amendment makes no changes regarding the taxing of states vs. individuals.
Perhaps you should read a bit: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
It is unconstitutional for the federal government to tax individuals. The fed can only tax the states. So you basically do not support the Constitution.
Additionally, your socialist system of resource allocation is woefully inefficient and has no chance of generating the kind of discretionary investment that would be required to colonize space. Like it or not, the only economic systemt that will ultimately explore the cosmos is Capitalism -- the only system that is compatible with liberty.
Wake up, some people _should_ earn more than others.
Take your holier than thou attitude and Iraq war posturing elsewhere -- I didn't say a word about Iraq much less killing anyone. Clearly, providing for the common defense assumes that we don't have a drunk at the wheel.
But even your 4th grade analysis shows that the preamble only has one item listed as something the government "provides." Everything else is just income redistribution dressed up in fancy clothes.
All of which have to be paid for by someone, so why not a giant collection of taxes. Compliance is far easier that way, and you can tax each according to his means.
Why should _my_ means determine how much of _your_ sewage I am responsible to clean up?