Arguing that the question should not have been asked based on the personal qualifications of the questioner is petty and absurd - just like a certain poster I know on Slashdot, come to think of it...
Did I hit a nerve pointing out an obvious swiftboat?
No, it's not. The guy was claiming to be someone he was not, someone that requires a great deal of knowledge he does not have in the slightest, someone that requires licenses he does not have. Heck, he doesnt even have a license to be the rank-and-file plumber he claims to be, so he doesn't even have the most basic knowledge about the business he was claiming to be interested in purchasing.
He has no standing to talk about the 'issues' he raised.
You'd certainly dismiss ted stevens if he stood up in a debate concerning the internet and started blabbering on.
I, for example, do not own a firearm at this time. But I am still quite concerned about Obama's policies regarding firearms,
Talk about absurdity. Businesses have complicated financial dynamics which are arcane to anyone not running that business, even most of the employees. Let me know when running a business equates to pulling a trigger and putting a hole in something.
The complexity and arcane nature (to most of the public) of business administration within a given sector can best be compared to computer technology, and, once again, you would not consider ted stevens credible if he stood up and berated steve job's software design processes.
If you would like to see the U.S. become a socialist paradise, then this doesn't concern you.
Oh, so it's perfectly ok to you that the wealth of the poor and middle class gets redistributed to the rich, but trying to equalize that situation by introducing higher taxes so the wealthy actually have to pay their fair share equates to "socialism".
If you don't mind when government computers are used for unauthorized purposes to dig up dirt on a person who dares to affront The One by daring to question him on a plank of his campaign, then by all means, go for Obama!
Spurious argument. The information on joe's qualifications and history are a matter of public record.
People in Canada die waiting for their turn for surgeries. If you are diagnosed with appendicitis you are looking at a 3 month minimum wait for surgery.
bullshit.
I've seen homeless people in the U.S. receive better health treatment (in a few cases) than the typical Canadian gets.
this means you get regular access to many many doctors offices. Videos or it didn't happen.
(I know this because I know, and am friends with, several homeless folks in my Cincinnati neighborhood and am from Canada)
Let me guess, you're a harperite?, or maybe they booted you out because harper was too liberal for you?
I want to, but i've examined the CA immigration website.
The want: 1. independently wealthy people looking to move their businesses there 2. people with a CV full of skilled experience spanning multiple years. (i'm fresh out of school and the economy sucks, that means I may see a 'skilled' job in about 2 years when there is growth again, assuming they don't just hire all the new people offshore) 3. family sponsor (who reimburses canada for any public services used... i have crohns disease.. I'm sure my distant cousin will enjoy paying out of pocket for that).
If you know a good canadian sheister who can get me in with my current state, I'd be glad for a referral.
You live in a country that has a government that provides services. Roads, schools, hospitals etc. etc.
No, it runs far deeper than that. "Spread the wealth" would seem to point to taking the money that I earn, and 'spreading' it to others who haven't earned it. Rightly or wrongly, thats what it sounds like.
The socialized services you're quoting are taking your money and giving it to other people to use in the form of roads you pay for but never use all over the nation. Heck, you should be worried about McCain instituting socialism. He did, of course, vote to take money from my grandchildren and give it to washed up wall street fatcats.
Taking my money to provide necessary infrastructure is no problem. Taking it and giving that money to people who have not earned it is a problem.
I see, so electricity is more important than healthcare? I'd gladly give up my electricity for crohns treatment.
I earn money, it's mine, not yours. Beyond infrastructure and basic assistance, it is exactly that.
Define this, because that's what obama is trying to do. Do you see obama stumping for your "right" to a big screen tv or something?
Why can't I choose whom to spread it to? New employees, charities, whomever.
Because that is called discrimination.
Today, the line is $250k. Tomorrow, $200k. Next year, $150k. You know as well as I do...govt's always want more.
Doesn't the MAFIAA use this same BS scare tactic regarding their revenues? "today we only make x million, but thanks to filesharing, tomorrow it will be x-y million, next year (x-y)-y million, until there is no more music on the planet!
Come here young one, I shall make you a tinfoil hat to save you from the evil people out to restore some semblance of equality to our nation. (corporate income relative to median is exponentially greater here in the US than in other industrialized nations)
The point wasn't the question - however dishonest the man who asked it.
It was the answer. And, by proxy, how those who dare to ask a question can expect to be treated by the press and, apparently, the government, under an Obama administration.
Hope and change indeed.
I'm sorry, but using good investigative reporting to expose an outright fraud and slander on the order of swiftboat perpetrated against the obama campaign and the general political discourse in america has nothing to do with oppression.
This is not the government trumping up charges to silence a critic (for that, please see bill clinton, sheehan, the dixie chicks, the countless people "disappeared" to gitmo). It's the press and the obama campaign calling a spade a spade, and competently defending themselves
everyone makes 250k+ a year? Maybe i've been reaching into the wrong envelope for my paychecks.
He admits as much. He wants to repeal all the tax cuts put in place over the last eight years.
All the tax cuts put in place over the last eight years were toward the highest 2% of the income spectrum, and to corporations.
When he says he won't be raising taxes on the 95% of the public, he's referring to any increases above and beyond that increase.
That's correct. And that increase will only apply to the upper 2%, because the tax cuts put into place under the push administration were all toward the rich.
That is why he says you "won't be paying any more than you were under Clinton." We are currently ALL paying less than we were under Clinton.
Where are all my lost paychecks! I'm making 250k a year and nobody told me!
I know I may be modded down for saying something negative about Obama, but it's true... go look it up.
The obama plan calls for tax breaks to be given to businesses/owners of businesses on a per-employee basis.
The intent is to stem offshoring by offering incentives to hire american citizens.
Essentially, it's supply side economics, but it removes the capacity of the wealthy to simply hoard the wealth as bonuses rather than create jobs. I can't help but admire the elegance of tying it to employee rosters, precluding the moral hazard which have and will invariably plague similar republican programs.
We supplied weapons to both sides in local conflicts, resulting in devastating losses to muslim populations.
We armed the taliban, allowing them to take over.
We armed the iraqis, who then used chemical weapons on iranians.
We armed isreal, who now uses our gunships to attack high density civillian areas (no i'm not anti-semitc, i'm a friggin jew myself)
Heck, we even armed and trained osama himself.
You reap what you sow when you engage in such irresponsible foreign policy, facilitating and encouraging the deaths of countless innocent people while attempting to manipulate geopolitics for access to oil.
I've seen how pissed americans can get when the government denies them justice or freedom by selling out to corporate interests. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that americans would start suicide bombing too if such corporate sellouts involved random, wholesale loss of innocent life.
In 1984 you will see: * Fox News, the media manipulation of news and history (ala the recent massive proliferation efforts of "obama the muslim") * NewSpeak, the changing of language to make certain thoughts impossible (ala the prolific use of the word "liberal" in place of "traitor" or "coward", the use of "terrorist" or "anarchist" in place of "protestor", "communism" in reference to any government based help to the poor, "capitalism" in reference to any government based help to the rich) * DoubleThink, the simultaneous holding of two or more mutually exclusive ideas (e.g. "we will cut taxes" and "we will dedicate massive military budgets to fight continuous war for years"; or "socialism is always wrong" and "bailing out companies run into the ground by corporate malfeasance is the right thing to do"; or "we stand for people like joe the plumber" and "we will subsidize and bail out the people responsible for their 401k's tanking, and discourage health benefits by taxing them") * ThoughtCrime, making the mere ability of thinking something a crime. You see this all the time in Hate Crime legislation (what murder wasn't already a crime... with a life penalty?) and University speech codes (University "Free Speech Zones" are a wonderful example of NewSpeak, DoubleThink, and ThoughtCrime wrapped into one) * also the breakdown of the family and sexual relationships (which has less obvious parallels but "PolPot & the child turns their parents in" (like Winston's neighbor) would be an example) * furthermore the mild anti-semitism, the hatred of Goldsteinism, today you see this all the time however this is mostly thinly veiled as an attack on "Zionism"
We really shouldn't be surprised by the EU and The Left's fascination with this kind of behaviour. Orwell saw and predicted it nearly 50 years ago.
Clarified how this applies to The right for you by altering a few sentences.
Lets go down the list of the biggest socialist regimes in history.
Britain, check. British people enjoy a standard of living above that of the US.
Canada, check. Does it care about its people? The canadian DMCA has been carefully timed to die with parliament both times. They obviously know the implications if they actually do pass it. Their standard of living? Equivalent to the US, except with better quality of life because of universal healthcare, which also makes their labor considerably cheaper. Canada is on the list of nations to which american firms "outsource" american jobs.
France, check, go back and read england/canada
Continue reading down the list of major core EU members and norse nations. Same thing.
Socialism does not = communism. Your absolutist point of view is intellectually dishonest.
Also, I'm sorry, but the US is not a capitalist nation, it's a mixed economy. It used to be a capitalist nation, and that ended when every industry consolidated into an abusive monopoly, then the banks and stock markets imploded when predatory loans resulted in massive defaults. Back then, everyone but the wealthy lived in tar-paper shacks and most people considered plumbing and electricity a distant dream.
Most european nations have a great deal of socialization, and they arguably have more freedom than americans because they are not tied to their job for healthcare and can be more confident in assuming the risks of Entrepreneurial pursuits knowing the government will catch them if they lose their shirts.
I don't see any english, french, or canadian people complaining about their right to property. They own their own possessions just fine. They are also responsible enough to accept a minor expense to insure everyone, including themselves, has a minimum standard of living.
If you don't want to be a hypocrite, you should also stop government funding of the interstate highways, research and development, fire departments, water infrastructure, etc because they are all socialist constructs. People concluded these sectors better served the market as government run institutions.
Of course, the intrenched corporate interests who stand to lose if the government stepped in to assure universal access to things considered essential to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness spread fud wrapped in empty righteous rhetoric , and people like you lap it up.
Thus, the US has slid below many "third world" nations in broadband deployment, and now has a healthcare system which ranks below those of barely developed nations unable to afford air forces.
The wealthy gain their cash by leveraging insider knowledge or market power against those less wealthy than they are.
The world is a place of scarce resources, so they benefit at the expense of others.
Some of those others are so disenfranchised they are unable to support themselves. This is why safety nets are needed.
"I'm so sorry you don't have a house, despite working two jobs 18 hours a day, but I want my fourth mercedes." My, how just and equal.
Exactly how does someone enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if their situation, which is often not be of their own making, requires they work 18 hours a day and sleep for the rest or results in homelessness?
"Money" is not listed in the bill of rights, but the rest of our liberties are, and you can't enjoy them if you skirt the edge of homelessness. And no, money is not a possession, it's a method of exchange.
It's true, the US is a "representative" republic, though the representation the people receive by the puppets in the legislature is laughable.
So far as laws which affirm the rights of the individual to run his own life with minimal interference, I point to the drug laws, copyright law, the DMCA section 1201, "free speech zones", the virtually unlimited power of law enforcement to harass you and seize property at will, and the list goes on and on.
I concede this is better than most nations on earth, but many western nations now have a better track record on this than we do, and we have a long way to go.
Thomas Jefferson also warned about the danger of consolidated corporate interests hijacking and warping our legislatures against the public will. He was right.
We are a Republic that embraces the ideal of individual liberty and sovereignty & use Law to protect them.
I do hope this actually comes to pass one day, but as of right now we are merely a republic.
Democracy, the god that failed advocates anarcho-capitalism, or a hyper-randian society. The middle ages were exactly this type of society, and they were a nightmare of tyranny.
I'm sorry, but libertarians love to ignore those considerably long and painful times when the market truly was free, and corporations wielded market power with an iron fist against individual liberty and well being, and even posed a threat to governments.
Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others.
I have some actual new ideas rather than swapping one old oppressive regime for another old oppressive regime. I'll try to expand upon them and publish a book.
All sarcasm aside, you have a really, really bleak view of politicians if you think they actually sit around all day basing their decisions on what will prevent revolution.
yeah, no need to doctor intelligence, invoke baseless jingoism, or set up propaganda outlets then. Clearly the iraq war, the destruction of our manufacturing capacity through FTA's and corporate welfare, the continued inaction on offshoring, the DMCA, telecom immunity, ad infinitum.. stemmed from the kind, gentle, idealistic hearts of our fine government officials.
I'm very glad I retain my faith that most politicians have at least a modicum of desire to merely better society.
maybe for themselves and their friends, who are wealthy to the point they don't understand or care about the affairs, rights, or opinions of the great unwashed.
Or do you actually think the "government" is a single, self-interested entity that is not made up of individual actors?
I prefer to describe it as exactly what it is, a corrupt, self-interested corporate rectal implant composed of individuals reaching consensus on how to best fleece or oppress the public.
It's like when people talk about how Big Pharma has a cure for HIV and cancer but is sitting on it to make more money from treatment rather than cures.
That is a stretch, but their continued success at gouging people for 400+ dollars per bottle of pills, and the continued sabotage of universal healthcare initiatives despite polls showing nearly 70% of the population thinks it needs to happen, clearly communicate their amoral ambitions at the expense of "we the people".
You know, completely ignoring the fact that Big Pharma is made up of, among other things, a ton of people who actually know people in real life dying of AIDS and cancer.
Because I know I'd go work for big pharma if I had a conscience. That's the first thing the screen for. Anyone who has a conscience does not make the second round.
"Debt as money" has been around for quite some time.
It's not going away, and it wont all come "crashing down" unless the majority of the 6 billion people on the planet suddenly stop working to support themselves.
It's not "debt as money", it's "work as money".
You get a loan, which is essentially a promissory note for the product of your labor.
Imagine how backwards our world would be if you were to outlaw fractional reserve banking.. Back in the late cretaceous christian zealots called it "usury" and it was a sin, so jews did it.
that is how old fractional reserve banking, or "debt as money", is
You know, buildings are made up of temporary structural elements piled one atop the other too.. Wood and steel rot and burn. It must be a conspiracy to defraud us with "fake" houses and skyscrapers.
Much of chinese manufacturing is joined at the hip with US import and consumer outlets.
If we go down, they go down.
This whole "woogey-boogey" thing politicians and news orgs are doing with big bad china is a farcical smoke screen, just like the hostilities between china and taiwan have become (same kind of economic interdependence built up there too)
This isn't the world of hitler and D Day anymore. Very few nations are isolationist enough to attack a major economic market without severe backlash against their own capacity, and in the case of food importers the risk is widespread civil unrest.
No, They loan out a multiple of the deposits, this is the (alleged) problem with fractional reserve banking. If a bank has deposits of $10,000 they are allowed to loan out $100,000 if there is a 10% reserve requirement. They loan out money that they don't have.
I think you're conflating fractional reserve lending with the money multiplier effect. They can't lend capital they don't have. If the minimum reserve requirement is 10%, that means the other 90% of the deposit goes out. In your example that would mean a deposit of $10,000 would result in $1,000 on hand and $9,000 in loans.
The money multiplier effect comes into play when this deposit->loan cycle happens many times. That 9k loaned is deposited in the borrower's account, and 900 stays with that bank, while another 8100 is lent.. and so on and so forth along a log-linear curve until the sum becomes indivisible (1 penny)
Nobody lent more than they had, nobody committed fraud. Most of the assets in this chain are borrowed though. This is not unusual at all however. People take loans to buy cars, that's not fraud against the dealership (LOOK! I SNUCK IN A CAR ANALOGY )
Fractional-reserve banking is the banking practice in which banks are required to keep only a fraction of their deposits in reserve (as cash and other highly liquid assets) with the choice of lending out the remainder, while maintaining the simultaneous obligation to redeem all deposits immediately upon demand. This practice is universal in modern banking
Slashdot Mirror
I see. Therefore, we should disqualify Obama as Commander in Chief as well because he never served in the military.
I suppose you could call failing your mission and spending the whole war as a POW "service". I would call it disgrace.
I have a good degree in two majors, but no serious work experience.
Any suggestions on areas hurting for labor?
Arguing that the question should not have been asked based on the personal qualifications of the questioner is petty and absurd - just like a certain poster I know on Slashdot, come to think of it...
Did I hit a nerve pointing out an obvious swiftboat?
No, it's not. The guy was claiming to be someone he was not, someone that requires a great deal of knowledge he does not have in the slightest, someone that requires licenses he does not have. Heck, he doesnt even have a license to be the rank-and-file plumber he claims to be, so he doesn't even have the most basic knowledge about the business he was claiming to be interested in purchasing.
He has no standing to talk about the 'issues' he raised.
You'd certainly dismiss ted stevens if he stood up in a debate concerning the internet and started blabbering on.
I, for example, do not own a firearm at this time. But I am still quite concerned about Obama's policies regarding firearms,
Talk about absurdity. Businesses have complicated financial dynamics which are arcane to anyone not running that business, even most of the employees. Let me know when running a business equates to pulling a trigger and putting a hole in something.
The complexity and arcane nature (to most of the public) of business administration within a given sector can best be compared to computer technology, and, once again, you would not consider ted stevens credible if he stood up and berated steve job's software design processes.
If you would like to see the U.S. become a socialist paradise, then this doesn't concern you.
Oh, so it's perfectly ok to you that the wealth of the poor and middle class gets redistributed to the rich, but trying to equalize that situation by introducing higher taxes so the wealthy actually have to pay their fair share equates to "socialism".
If you don't mind when government computers are used for unauthorized purposes to dig up dirt on a person who dares to affront The One by daring to question him on a plank of his campaign, then by all means, go for Obama!
Spurious argument. The information on joe's qualifications and history are a matter of public record.
People in Canada die waiting for their turn for surgeries. If you are diagnosed with appendicitis you are looking at a 3 month minimum wait for surgery.
bullshit.
I've seen homeless people in the U.S. receive better health treatment (in a few cases) than the typical Canadian gets.
this means you get regular access to many many doctors offices. Videos or it didn't happen.
(I know this because I know, and am friends with, several homeless folks in my Cincinnati neighborhood and am from Canada)
Let me guess, you're a harperite?, or maybe they booted you out because harper was too liberal for you?
They run it and prosper by supplying the public with whatever substance/product the current administration likes to bash.
liquor and mod chips come to mind, among other things.
I want to, but i've examined the CA immigration website.
The want:
1. independently wealthy people looking to move their businesses there
2. people with a CV full of skilled experience spanning multiple years. (i'm fresh out of school and the economy sucks, that means I may see a 'skilled' job in about 2 years when there is growth again, assuming they don't just hire all the new people offshore)
3. family sponsor (who reimburses canada for any public services used... i have crohns disease.. I'm sure my distant cousin will enjoy paying out of pocket for that).
If you know a good canadian sheister who can get me in with my current state, I'd be glad for a referral.
It's only at the proposal stage right now, it's not a bill waiting on a desk in the oval office.
Do you write detailed error handlers in a project's initial pseudocode?
He wouldn't hire americans, he'd hire indian contractors if at all possible to increase his own wealth.
You live in a country that has a government that provides services. Roads, schools, hospitals etc. etc.
No, it runs far deeper than that. "Spread the wealth" would seem to point to taking the money that I earn, and 'spreading' it to others who haven't earned it. Rightly or wrongly, thats what it sounds like.
The socialized services you're quoting are taking your money and giving it to other people to use in the form of roads you pay for but never use all over the nation. Heck, you should be worried about McCain instituting socialism. He did, of course, vote to take money from my grandchildren and give it to washed up wall street fatcats.
Taking my money to provide necessary infrastructure is no problem. Taking it and giving that money to people who have not earned it is a problem.
I see, so electricity is more important than healthcare? I'd gladly give up my electricity for crohns treatment.
I earn money, it's mine, not yours.
Beyond infrastructure and basic assistance, it is exactly that.
Define this, because that's what obama is trying to do. Do you see obama stumping for your "right" to a big screen tv or something?
Why can't I choose whom to spread it to? New employees, charities, whomever.
Because that is called discrimination.
Today, the line is $250k. Tomorrow, $200k. Next year, $150k. You know as well as I do...govt's always want more.
Doesn't the MAFIAA use this same BS scare tactic regarding their revenues?
"today we only make x million, but thanks to filesharing, tomorrow it will be x-y million, next year (x-y)-y million, until there is no more music on the planet!
Come here young one, I shall make you a tinfoil hat to save you from the evil people out to restore some semblance of equality to our nation. (corporate income relative to median is exponentially greater here in the US than in other industrialized nations)
The point wasn't the question - however dishonest the man who asked it.
It was the answer. And, by proxy, how those who dare to ask a question can expect to be treated by the press and, apparently, the government, under an Obama administration.
Hope and change indeed.
I'm sorry, but using good investigative reporting to expose an outright fraud and slander on the order of swiftboat perpetrated against the obama campaign and the general political discourse in america has nothing to do with oppression.
This is not the government trumping up charges to silence a critic (for that, please see bill clinton, sheehan, the dixie chicks, the countless people "disappeared" to gitmo). It's the press and the obama campaign calling a spade a spade, and competently defending themselves
Besides, Obama will be raising everyone's taxes.
everyone makes 250k+ a year? Maybe i've been reaching into the wrong envelope for my paychecks.
He admits as much. He wants to repeal all the tax cuts put in place over the last eight years.
All the tax cuts put in place over the last eight years were toward the highest 2% of the income spectrum, and to corporations.
When he says he won't be raising taxes on the 95% of the public, he's referring to any increases above and beyond that increase.
That's correct. And that increase will only apply to the upper 2%, because the tax cuts put into place under the push administration were all toward the rich.
That is why he says you "won't be paying any more than you were under Clinton." We are currently ALL paying less than we were under Clinton.
Where are all my lost paychecks! I'm making 250k a year and nobody told me!
I know I may be modded down for saying something negative about Obama, but it's true... go look it up.
Where, hannity's website? or mccain's?
The obama plan calls for tax breaks to be given to businesses/owners of businesses on a per-employee basis.
The intent is to stem offshoring by offering incentives to hire american citizens.
Essentially, it's supply side economics, but it removes the capacity of the wealthy to simply hoard the wealth as bonuses rather than create jobs. I can't help but admire the elegance of tying it to employee rosters, precluding the moral hazard which have and will invariably plague similar republican programs.
We were already evil.
We supplied weapons to both sides in local conflicts, resulting in devastating losses to muslim populations.
We armed the taliban, allowing them to take over.
We armed the iraqis, who then used chemical weapons on iranians.
We armed isreal, who now uses our gunships to attack high density civillian areas (no i'm not anti-semitc, i'm a friggin jew myself)
Heck, we even armed and trained osama himself.
You reap what you sow when you engage in such irresponsible foreign policy, facilitating and encouraging the deaths of countless innocent people while attempting to manipulate geopolitics for access to oil.
I've seen how pissed americans can get when the government denies them justice or freedom by selling out to corporate interests. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that americans would start suicide bombing too if such corporate sellouts involved random, wholesale loss of innocent life.
In 1984 you will see: ... with a life penalty?) and University speech codes (University "Free Speech Zones" are a wonderful example of NewSpeak, DoubleThink, and ThoughtCrime wrapped into one)
* Fox News, the media manipulation of news and history (ala the recent massive proliferation efforts of "obama the muslim")
* NewSpeak, the changing of language to make certain thoughts impossible (ala the prolific use of the word "liberal" in place of "traitor" or "coward", the use of "terrorist" or "anarchist" in place of "protestor", "communism" in reference to any government based help to the poor, "capitalism" in reference to any government based help to the rich)
* DoubleThink, the simultaneous holding of two or more mutually exclusive ideas (e.g. "we will cut taxes" and "we will dedicate massive military budgets to fight continuous war for years"; or "socialism is always wrong" and "bailing out companies run into the ground by corporate malfeasance is the right thing to do"; or "we stand for people like joe the plumber" and "we will subsidize and bail out the people responsible for their 401k's tanking, and discourage health benefits by taxing them")
* ThoughtCrime, making the mere ability of thinking something a crime. You see this all the time in Hate Crime legislation (what murder wasn't already a crime
* also the breakdown of the family and sexual relationships (which has less obvious parallels but "PolPot & the child turns their parents in" (like Winston's neighbor) would be an example)
* furthermore the mild anti-semitism, the hatred of Goldsteinism, today you see this all the time however this is mostly thinly veiled as an attack on "Zionism"
We really shouldn't be surprised by the EU and The Left's fascination with this kind of behaviour. Orwell saw and predicted it nearly 50 years ago.
Clarified how this applies to The right for you by altering a few sentences.
Lets go down the list of the biggest socialist regimes in history.
Britain, check. British people enjoy a standard of living above that of the US.
Canada, check. Does it care about its people? The canadian DMCA has been carefully timed to die with parliament both times. They obviously know the implications if they actually do pass it.
Their standard of living? Equivalent to the US, except with better quality of life because of universal healthcare, which also makes their labor considerably cheaper. Canada is on the list of nations to which american firms "outsource" american jobs.
France, check, go back and read england/canada
Continue reading down the list of major core EU members and norse nations. Same thing.
Socialism does not = communism. Your absolutist point of view is intellectually dishonest.
Also, I'm sorry, but the US is not a capitalist nation, it's a mixed economy. It used to be a capitalist nation, and that ended when every industry consolidated into an abusive monopoly, then the banks and stock markets imploded when predatory loans resulted in massive defaults. Back then, everyone but the wealthy lived in tar-paper shacks and most people considered plumbing and electricity a distant dream.
Most european nations have a great deal of socialization, and they arguably have more freedom than americans because they are not tied to their job for healthcare and can be more confident in assuming the risks of Entrepreneurial pursuits knowing the government will catch them if they lose their shirts.
I don't see any english, french, or canadian people complaining about their right to property. They own their own possessions just fine. They are also responsible enough to accept a minor expense to insure everyone, including themselves, has a minimum standard of living.
If you don't want to be a hypocrite, you should also stop government funding of the interstate highways, research and development, fire departments, water infrastructure, etc because they are all socialist constructs. People concluded these sectors better served the market as government run institutions.
Of course, the intrenched corporate interests who stand to lose if the government stepped in to assure universal access to things considered essential to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness spread fud wrapped in empty righteous rhetoric , and people like you lap it up.
Thus, the US has slid below many "third world" nations in broadband deployment, and now has a healthcare system which ranks below those of barely developed nations unable to afford air forces.
The wealthy gain their cash by leveraging insider knowledge or market power against those less wealthy than they are.
The world is a place of scarce resources, so they benefit at the expense of others.
Some of those others are so disenfranchised they are unable to support themselves. This is why safety nets are needed.
"I'm so sorry you don't have a house, despite working two jobs 18 hours a day, but I want my fourth mercedes."
My, how just and equal.
Exactly how does someone enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if their situation, which is often not be of their own making, requires they work 18 hours a day and sleep for the rest or results in homelessness?
"Money" is not listed in the bill of rights, but the rest of our liberties are, and you can't enjoy them if you skirt the edge of homelessness. And no, money is not a possession, it's a method of exchange.
It's true, the US is a "representative" republic, though the representation the people receive by the puppets in the legislature is laughable.
So far as laws which affirm the rights of the individual to run his own life with minimal interference, I point to the drug laws, copyright law, the DMCA section 1201, "free speech zones", the virtually unlimited power of law enforcement to harass you and seize property at will, and the list goes on and on.
I concede this is better than most nations on earth, but many western nations now have a better track record on this than we do, and we have a long way to go.
Thomas Jefferson also warned about the danger of consolidated corporate interests hijacking and warping our legislatures against the public will. He was right.
We are a Republic that embraces the ideal of individual liberty and sovereignty & use Law to protect them.
I do hope this actually comes to pass one day, but as of right now we are merely a republic.
Heh.. at least UK agencies will actually GET you responses from employers.
Every agency i've called in the US requires more qualifications for temp than direct application on corporate sites do for perm.
At work, one of our filters even blocked microsoft for a day or so.
WOW! It actually worked at filtering out harmful material!
Send a letter to the oz government recommending their solution.
Democracy, the god that failed advocates anarcho-capitalism, or a hyper-randian society. The middle ages were exactly this type of society, and they were a nightmare of tyranny.
I'm sorry, but libertarians love to ignore those considerably long and painful times when the market truly was free, and corporations wielded market power with an iron fist against individual liberty and well being, and even posed a threat to governments.
Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others.
I have some actual new ideas rather than swapping one old oppressive regime for another old oppressive regime. I'll try to expand upon them and publish a book.
All sarcasm aside, you have a really, really bleak view of politicians if you think they actually sit around all day basing their decisions on what will prevent revolution.
yeah, no need to doctor intelligence, invoke baseless jingoism, or set up propaganda outlets then. Clearly the iraq war, the destruction of our manufacturing capacity through FTA's and corporate welfare, the continued inaction on offshoring, the DMCA, telecom immunity, ad infinitum.. stemmed from the kind, gentle, idealistic hearts of our fine government officials.
I'm very glad I retain my faith that most politicians have at least a modicum of desire to merely better society.
maybe for themselves and their friends, who are wealthy to the point they don't understand or care about the affairs, rights, or opinions of the great unwashed.
Or do you actually think the "government" is a single, self-interested entity that is not made up of individual actors?
I prefer to describe it as exactly what it is, a corrupt, self-interested corporate rectal implant composed of individuals reaching consensus on how to best fleece or oppress the public.
It's like when people talk about how Big Pharma has a cure for HIV and cancer but is sitting on it to make more money from treatment rather than cures.
That is a stretch, but their continued success at gouging people for 400+ dollars per bottle of pills, and the continued sabotage of universal healthcare initiatives despite polls showing nearly 70% of the population thinks it needs to happen, clearly communicate their amoral ambitions at the expense of "we the people".
You know, completely ignoring the fact that Big Pharma is made up of, among other things, a ton of people who actually know people in real life dying of AIDS and cancer.
Because I know I'd go work for big pharma if I had a conscience. That's the first thing the screen for. Anyone who has a conscience does not make the second round.
This is called "scaremongering".
"Debt as money" has been around for quite some time.
It's not going away, and it wont all come "crashing down" unless the majority of the 6 billion people on the planet suddenly stop working to support themselves.
It's not "debt as money", it's "work as money".
You get a loan, which is essentially a promissory note for the product of your labor.
Imagine how backwards our world would be if you were to outlaw fractional reserve banking..
Back in the late cretaceous christian zealots called it "usury" and it was a sin, so jews did it.
that is how old fractional reserve banking, or "debt as money", is
You know, buildings are made up of temporary structural elements piled one atop the other too..
Wood and steel rot and burn. It must be a conspiracy to defraud us with "fake" houses and skyscrapers.
a little gloom and doom are we?
Much of chinese manufacturing is joined at the hip with US import and consumer outlets.
If we go down, they go down.
This whole "woogey-boogey" thing politicians and news orgs are doing with big bad china is a farcical smoke screen, just like the hostilities between china and taiwan have become (same kind of economic interdependence built up there too)
This isn't the world of hitler and D Day anymore. Very few nations are isolationist enough to attack a major economic market without severe backlash against their own capacity, and in the case of food importers the risk is widespread civil unrest.
No, They loan out a multiple of the deposits, this is the (alleged) problem with fractional reserve banking. If a bank has deposits of $10,000 they are allowed to loan out $100,000 if there is a 10% reserve requirement. They loan out money that they don't have.
I think you're conflating fractional reserve lending with the money multiplier effect. They can't lend capital they don't have. If the minimum reserve requirement is 10%, that means the other 90% of the deposit goes out.
In your example that would mean a deposit of $10,000 would result in $1,000 on hand and $9,000 in loans.
The money multiplier effect comes into play when this deposit->loan cycle happens many times.
That 9k loaned is deposited in the borrower's account, and 900 stays with that bank, while another 8100 is lent..
and so on and so forth along a log-linear curve until the sum becomes indivisible (1 penny)
Nobody lent more than they had, nobody committed fraud. Most of the assets in this chain are borrowed though. This is not unusual at all however. People take loans to buy cars, that's not fraud against the dealership (LOOK! I SNUCK IN A CAR ANALOGY )
From wikipedia