angelofdeath

true, which is why i said pay cash unless you need to do things like this. although, if you dont need to reserve a hotel room, you can easily pay cash in person. true dat. for conversation purposes, i consider 'paying cash' equivalent to paying off a credit card bill each month

while i dont think it should be 'illegal' i think the mere competition of real food with factory food would completely undermine the factory food and make it insignificant. if people then still wanted the bad stuff, they are free to buy it, and if they want real stuff, they are also free to buy it. however, sadly the biggest promoters of 'food freedom' are largely to blame for being the biggest supporters of the nanny state in general. the only way to get good food, cheap, is to deregulate and allow competitors to actually compete with cargill, tyson, etc. if we had a real market for food, stopped subsidizing it, pastured chicken wouldnt be THAT much more expensive factory chicken. if we repealed raw milk laws, i'd be able to buy raw milk for dirt cheap from my neighbor right across the road. USDA says you cant sell an egg that hasnt been chlorine washed, yet i eat fresh non washed eggs everyday. we must remember that it is because this good stuff is illegal is why we have the food situation in america today.

good answer, but you are not adding in a few things. namely, it didnt matter if anyone lost money, because the company would be bailed out at tax payer expense. this is called moral hazard. this is why the bail outs were bad. it creates the incentive to engage in otherwise risky behavior because you will be insulated from full liability. but you realize that they left because of your policy in the first place, no? but your policy sent them away in the first place? lets change the example around a tad. lets say you are buying shoes. you can buy them in your neighborhood for 100$. you can buy them in another neighborhood for 100$ but you have to pay a 100$ tax on every thing you buy. are you more likely to purchase goods in your neighborhood or in the neighborhood with the high taxes? its the same in the US. if people want gun freedom, they move to gun friendly states. if they want to be taxed less, they move to states with lower taxes. etc ad infinitum. it is the height of silliness to enact a policy that drives business away, and then tax it another round. that is all the more reason for business to stay permanently AWAY.

thankfully capitalism has been good enough to you so you can go enjoy leisure time and goof off. you should thank freedom of exchange for this.

i do not support government taking care of people. i support voluntary private institutions taking care of others ranging from person to person care taking to larger private institutions such as churches, private charities, etc. this sentence is incoherent. what would you think if someone in full combat load out came to your door, put an AR15 to your nose, and demanded 50% of your income in order for you to not be 'selfish' what would you think?

hahaha. so let me get this right, you think im some college student or something?

i guess, i'd be some sort of radical extremist to point out that the US regulatory agencies are largely responsible for urging farmers to use said products in order to keep food 'safe.' it has been the USDA who has been courting cattle farmers for years on the new 'scientific' methods of feeding cows....... dun dun dun... dead cows. and then you'll blame mad cow on 'capitalism.' government policy has incentivized and collectivized farms into creating monocultures. monocultures do not occur in nature, yet because of these policies, we have this situation which causes adverse side effects for all involved. the only way to address these problems and solve them is NOT from the top down, it is from the bottom up. just like people like salatin are doing. what needs to be done is we need to free entrepreneurs up to solve these issues and undermine govt connected companies who are causing these problems. yet, sadly, your ideology forbids them from doing so. agribusiness is nothing but an arm of the state. monsanto's power is derived from government and its enforcement of 'patents' that are not legitimate property, its nothing but a monopoly privilege granted by government. various companies who pollute or act 'irresponsibly' are acting that way because their liability is either limited by the government, with things such as the price anderson act, or the court system has made it largely impossible to sue polluters for damages. if you consider the US as having 'minimal' regulation, tell me what the proper level of regulation is. your type NEVER answers this question, so for the sake of conversation, i must assume you want total government control. that is the only logical conclusion, because no matter what regulations are passed, you will always need more. so your response is the same ol same ol. problems created by government, and you blame it on capitalism. thankfully, i believe in freedom enough to help my own neighbors, prepare myself for any emergencies and to rely on myself, and yeah, even consume unregulated illegal raw milk and meat from grass finished cows. unlike your self and your nanny state supporting, leaching off of others and using force to impose your will on others, beliefs. whatever. it matters not. you come to the same conclusions.

i'd urge you to read all of the page before you make some silly idiotic conclusion from what the guy is saying here. need i remind you, mises was jewish and fled the nazi's after they ransacked his belongings for being a dissident. so, yeah. definitely the biggest clown i have encountered in recent memory

the only reason derivatives existed was because of governments moral hazard. ie. the promise of a bail out if they lost money. how would you act if you had the opportunity to make a tremendous amount of money, at virtually no risk? would you take it? outsourcing of jobs can be placed at the foot of the US government and their state government subsidiaries. when you enact excessive taxation and regulation, you get flight. when governments over tax, money leaves the country. imagine if you were given the choice between paying 100$ for a pair of shoes at one store, yet in another town, you could get the same pair of shoes for 25$. which would you choose? this is another example of blaming something brought about by government on laissez faire. the unintended consequence of excessive taxation and regulation is flight. now you need to pass 5 more laws to deal with this situation, which is why a regulated economy always seeks total totalitarian control.

regulations preclude market entry. which is why its illegal to buy a pound of cheese from your neighbor, because whether your neighbor wants to make one pound of cheese or 500,000 lbs it needs to be made a 100K dollar USDA approved facility. now, who benefits more from this situation? kraft or your neighbor? you should probably lay off the michael moore and read this guy... in fact, i wouldnt doubt if you havent already seen this american radical in 'food inc.'

paging orwell. you support 'independence cards' and now are calling arguably one of the most free market liberty oriented persons in history a 'fascist' you are more of a clown than i previously thought

one of the glaringly obvious problems with this mindset is that the 'regulations' you advocate, make it impossible for people to be entrepreneurs. regulation costs dont affect walmart the way they affect a small competitor. they dont affect monsanto the way they affect joel salatin, etc.

i always like to say...'everything they know and love, they owe to capitalism'

yet to hear a fact? that monetary policy is responsible for business cycles?

http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/national/michigan-lottery-winner-still-on-welfare-20110518 http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx?id=619315 you must of mis typed because you said you paid taxes and that when you paid taxes to supposedly help your neighbor (how do you know he actually benefitted from it at all? if someone pays taxes it doesnt benefit me as i dont collect govt cheese) you said that if left to your own devices you wouldnt of paid as much. so it seems very hypocritical to say its fine to tax others to pay for others way in life, but that you wont voluntarily cough up as much of your income as possible.

hahaha. damn, you are a box of rocks. you chastised my world view as being to simple because i routinely donate to private charities, give food to shelters, food banks, and directly handed out aid to the victim of a house fire. i also routinely fix neighbors cars for free. and im 'selfish and not willing to take care of my fellow person?' private charities abound and do a great job. they actually deliver services to those that NEED it and not those that abuse the government welfare system. for instance i think showing up at the local private homeless shelter in an escalade talking on your iphone might disqualify you from assistance. not so with the government. its nice to know you are fine with billions wasted in order to feed a handful of hungry people. congrats. and you are then basing your entire theory that there is so much poverty and we need so much money from everyone to address this. a simple economics education can do wonders.

if you understood this, then you would not be posting your silly nonsense. every single aspect of the US economy is micromanaged. every single aspect. down to how hot your hot water heater is or how much water comes out of your shower head. a corporation cannot rule, unless it is given a monopoly on force, ie from the government. you can voluntarily consent to transact with a corporation, but you cannot do this with a government. 'corporations' exist to give consumers what they want. if various science magazines can dream about zapping away all humans on the earth to save the planet, then i can talk about the much more realistic notion that all markets are based on voluntarism and consent. if consumers do not want to patronize companies, churches or private schools, they go belly up. if you do not want to patronize a government, you get shot. see a difference?

thank you for proving my point. even the loudest proponents of 'helping the poor' though a coercive welfare state, admit they are just as a greedy bastard as the evil capitalist. its always the 'do unto thee, not to me' mindset. *sigh but the main thing you guys just cant wrap your head around is the policies create dependence and more people, not independence and less poverty. the incentives in the system literally create the environment to breed never ending policy. such as the marriage requirements, etc. until you can eliminate all the waste and literally provide welfare for only the people who NEED it and who are truly destitute, you will have this philosophical divide. namely, yall think ANYONE on welfare is destitute, whether they are yuppie hipsters, lottery winners or the standard system abusers and i think less than 20% on the dole are actually in need of it. you must also realize that when it is figured out who is actually in need and who is not, the actual number of poor drop to a super small percentage of what it is now. and the issue is largely moot or atleast dramatically reduced in significance.

ok, im glad you said this because you need to understand something. the US is not a free market, if it ever was. it is a highly regulated corporatist/socialist market place. lets just get that straight first and foremost. until you understand this, further discussion is useless. even michael moore admitted when he released his latest screed, that the US is indeed corporatist and not an actual free economy.

thats odd, because your rhetoric is indistinguishable from the typical maddow/olbermann/matthews tirades. i've yet to hear a 'fact' come from your mouth, (only hysterics) but whatever floats your boat.

what exactly are you trying to ask here? what exactly do you mean by 'markets correcting themselves for anyone except for their own profits?' it doesnt even make any sense.

why do you refuse to answer my question and just spout talking points you heard on chris matthews? what regulation could you pass, that would fix the problems caused by all the other regulations, that would create utopia?

who exactly benefits MORE from cheap prices at walmart? 100K 'poor' people in an area who can now buy food or the couple hundred workers who willingly line up to work at these places? i'd say both benefit, but the consumer benefits much more. by selling products for less money, it means more people can afford them. therefore they benefit. if they didnt benefit, they wouldnt engage in said transaction. if the poor are able to cut their grocery bill in half by capitalist market innovation in super markets, they can use this money to pay the rent. capitalism has raised the living standard of the poor. it is the reason why the poor have cell phones, 2 cars, air conditioning, etc. 100 years ago, the richest person in the world didnt have these. the poor live better today than any king of the past. all thanks to the market place. "They are only helping themselves." that is exactly what were doing when you went to work every day. you didnt go to work out of benevolence, or to give money to your neighbor, you did so to put food on your table. “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” Adam Smith

i'd suggest you look up some of these things. i doubt we could even count the number of agencies that regulate markets in the US form the FED, DEPT of treasury, SEC, FTC, FDIC, comptroller of currency, numerous 'protection bureau's, CFTC, FINRA... the list is endless. there is PLENTY of regulation. the real problem is that for each regulation, there are atleast 5 unintended consquences which in turn you need 5 more laws to deal with those issues, which in turn multiply the problems out exponentially. every aspect of the economy is regulated down to the size of toilet tanks and the power wattage bulbs that you can use. its a nice mantra though..'more regulation!' 'more taxation!' as always... its the 'do it to them, not to me!' mind set. its the same with gun control, financial control, etc.... we constantly hear that we need just one or two more sensible regulations and we'll create utopia on earth. yet, they have been saying this for well over 100 years and they have perfectly engineered the corporatist US economy and they get to laughingly blame the problems caused by government on laissez faire.

the US government has approximately 150 different regulatory agencies, how exactly is this not enough regulators and what exact magic bullet of a regulation would solve everything? banks are not loaning money right now because they can park it at the fed and earn a better rate of return then lending it to risky borrowers who wont pay it back. a market cannot clear when the same policies, institutions and problems are still plaguing it.