Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by angelofdeath

  1. 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.'
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. i always like to say...'everything they know and love, they owe to capitalism'
  5. yet to hear a fact? that monetary policy is responsible for business cycles?
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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?
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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?
  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. that entire line of thought is faulty. would you rather be poor in a poor country or poor in a rich country? the poor in a poor country cant drink the water or have food to eat. the poor in america are throwing away more food than those other people consume. i find it hilarious that you keep saying i am not facing reality. i just laid out real world cases i was personally involved in. in all honesty, you are the one who needs to get out more. perhaps hop out of your urban bubble for a day. get out in the rest of the country and see how we live. companies making record profits are doing exactly what they should be doing. when bill gates made it so even the poor families in the US can afford a computer, he is helping them. when walmart makes it so the poor people can buy food, they are helping them. when walmart employs wheel chair bound greeters, they are helping the poor. your theories also neglect to realize that most people act in different ways when different institutions are in place. for instance.. if someone is having 40% of their income taken in taxes and the job of a 'responsible' government is do things like dole out other peoples money to people who drive escalades and millionaire lottery winners, they might not feel it is necessary to use the rest of their income to fund something they are already being taxed for. for instance, say you feel that social security taxes need to be raised. do you automatically stroke off a check for 50% of your income just to fund more social security revenues? or do you feel that the government already is taxing you for this purpose, so you just pay what they take? lets say you are taxed to fund a library. are you 'against' the library if you do not donate any extra funds over what you are being taxed, to fund this project? i would never think of using force against you for you exercising your rights to say that you think a large leviathan government with a monopoly on force can provide the best services to the destitute. (although, destitute is no longer destitute in todays america) i happen to disagree. all that i ask is that you leave me alone and agree to not use force against me if i choose to help those in need by other means
  18. i think you are trying to throw together a bunch of different things then say they all caused the housing collapse. your analysis fails to realize that customers are paying 'traders' to do what they want them to do. 'traders' are merely providing a service. the people who are making the bets are just as 'greedy' as any trader. just as the people who were buying homes with ninja loans were greedy because they wanted the biggest house and they thought they were going to get rich by just buying that house. the part you fail to realize is that under a free market monetary policy and market framework, the problems caused by corporatist government are eliminated. the money wouldnt of been to cheap, which spurned massive borrowing and entire industries built around this cheap money. people wouldnt of borrowed to the hilt to make a fortune if cheap money wasnt available from the FED. probably an easier example for you to understand is corn subsidies in the US. basically people sell corn at very cheap market prices and they lose money growing it every year. then the government sends the growers a check for more money and this is their profit. this would not happen in a free market because if you couldnt make a profit at it, you wouldnt grow it. so because the government subsidizes this industry, we have an abundance of cheap corn. which is why its stuffed in everything, fed to cows, etc which all have potentially damaging side effects. now, i can see that the people at fault in this equation is the government for steering the market and directing firms into misallocating resources. yet you would say that its not the governments fault, its the capitalists fault. not surprising because you also think that guns kill people, etc. totally ignoring the fact that there was a person with a motive pulling the trigger. if you say that people providing services that people want through a voluntary framework is wrong and they are responsible for the consumers bad choices... then you must also hate cigarette companies because they are giving people what they want. alcohol companies because they are giving people what they want. mcdonalds because they are giving people what they want. pot sellers because they are giving people what they want. casino owners because they are giving people what they want, etc. yet all these things are all life damaging.
  19. i do not absolve everyone but the government for the problems, i merely acknowledge that government policies steered the markets to do what they did. sure, it was world wide markets. did it ever occur to you that the dollar is the international reserve currency? everything the FED does, affects everyone. and aside from the FED, all governments have the same rules if not more. all governments print money and follow the lead of the FED. yes, everyone is greedy. you are greedy. when you go to work, you do not do so out of benevolence, you do so in order to increase your position in the world. in another words, out of greed. everyone acts in their own self interest. this does not explain the massive cluster of errors that happened in the financial crisis because people ALWAYS tend to act in their own self interest. when you go to work do you try to make as much money as possible or do you try to make the least? these issues you bring up do not explain the cluster of errors made by the market. monetary policy DOES.
  20. claiming my view point is 'ridiculous' is just another way of saying that i disagree with both hilary clinton and john mccain. i understand your plight. i was in the same situation. thankfully, since i am a firm believer in self reliance, i have saved every penny i could my entire life. and when the worst happened, i was prepared. i live so simply, if my income was cut in half, i probably wouldnt even notice, except my savings rate would drop like a rock. i have enough food to last 8 months or more and enough fuel to heat my house and cook for a couple years. i have enough savings to pay my bills for 2 years. and since i am a believer in capitalism, i have alternate income streams. the most important thing someone can do for survival in these situations is to have alternate income streams. i would argue for you to start your own business, but im sure this would be impossible in the UK due to the insane amount of regulations you favor which make it impossible for little companies to compete with the big boys.
  21. then why dont y'all put up or shut up? why arent you giving more? why dont you lead by example? why not just sign your entire paycheck over to the local welfare office? the main problem with the liberal rhetoric on this subject, is that they assume ALL the people on welfare, unemployed, etc are indeed truly incapable of providing for themselves. this is simply not the case. the actual number of truly destitute individuals is probably under 20% of those receiving state handouts. the liberal rhetoric also neglects to realize that this subsidization of poverty gives you more poverty. its basic economics. when you subsidize something/declare 'war' on it, you get more of it. there was a write up in the paper where i used to live not to long ago about urban hipsters/yuppies on food stamps. yes, yuppies on food stamps. and what were they buying with it all? they were going to farmers markets to buy expensive food. i know of to many people to count who draw unemployment so they can travel or hop trains. i know of plenty of 'anarchists' who eat out of dumpsters, yet sell their food stamps/exchange independence card funds for cash in order to buy alcohol, camera equipment, etc. until you can separate the truly needy with the people who are simply using the system to their advantage, you are simply operating on hysterics and emotions and not dealing with the actual issue at hand. it is clouded by phony numbers, arbitrary and changeable poverty lines and a firm reliance on anti capitalist rhetoric.
  22. "They only want to do it through charity, what happens when there is not enough charity to take care of societies down and trodden?" voluntary means. i routinely donate massive amounts of food and clothing every year to private charities, institutions and churches. my neighbors house burned down about a year and a half ago. i gave them a months worth of food and extra clothes. another neighbors' father was in a motorcycle accident, leaving a his mother at home with alzheimers with no one to watch her. he hired a care taker and this care taker was paid for almost solely by people from his church. i fixed the guy's truck for free when it broke down. believe it or not, voluntary cooperation works. in none of these situations did they need any big grants, big inefficient programs funded by theft or a bunch of big government. voluntary organizations to deal with these problems tend to fix the problem with the key element, independence, being pushed. government programs are based on dependency and create more poverty. simple facts. when a private soup kitchen hands out food, they might have some strings attached. for example, they might not hand it out if the person is on drugs or drunk. it matters not for the government "Libertarian Rhetoric. Show me someplace that shows poverty means not having a flat screen TV. Government welfare state, give me a break with that bullshit. People like you act like motherfuckers purposely work to stay poor. " no need to get angry. they continually change the poverty standards. i'd assume they do this in order to show that there are more poor people in order to keep this system in tact. there is much at stake for everyone involved. look at all the industry/workers in the welfare system. not to mention the people who are DEPENDENT on it. why should they be rugged individualistic americans when it much easier to live off their fellow man? do you realize that there are actually people who attempt to SELL government welfare to people? they need to have as many people on it as possible because there is a vested interest in keeping people 'poor.' just like the military industrial complex and the politicians that support them have to continually have 'threats' in order to keep the arms money flowing. the poor vote in politicians who provide the most 'services' at taxpayer expense. the workers who provide these services want to keep their jobs. politicians want to stay in office. this is why poverty is not reduced. whenever the government declares war on something, you get more of it. when it declared war on drugs, terror, illiteracy, sickness, unemployment, etc they get more of it. being broke is a state of finances, being poor is a state of mind. hetty green considered herself 'poor' even though she had 200 million or so in her estate. many americans today, in effect consider themselves poor and take welfare hand outs. which is why you have the lottery winner in michigan on food stamps. people may not 'work' to stay poor, but the welfare state is DESIGNED to keep people dependent. for instance, why would they work for minimum wage when they could possibly figure out the welfare system in order to stay home and make more? another gleaming example is someone in my extended family. she has 2 kids, and her and her boyfriend purposefully will not get married in order for her to keep wic, food stamps, and state medical insurance. perhaps if she had to pay totally out of pocket, she would not of had 2 kids on the states dime. just this past weekend i heard her say they couldnt get married because she wants to go back to school and if she doesnt get married she'll get state money for tuition. need i mention that the guy makes around 100K a year, she drives an escalade, they have a couple ipads, iphones, and spend money like its going out of style? she buys 3 gallons of milk a week in order to keep the WIC flowing, and dumps out 2 down the drain. when the unemployed are on unemployment insurance for 2 years, the incentive is to not look for work for 2 years, screw around until right before the money ends and then they get a job. the stats on this are pretty much perfectly clear. it is my understanding 75% of the people drawing this money find work within the last month or few weeks of their payments ending, NO MATTER HOW LONG THEY RECEIVE PAYMENTS UP TILL THEN. why do you feel the need to forcefully rob other people in order to fund your utopian goals? are you scared that if we didnt have a government using violence that YOU would not take care of 'societies lowest members?' you cannot eliminate the welfare state over night, nor will it probably ever be dramatically scaled back or abolished because of people like you and because of the system its self. various people throughout history have said that when the public treasury becomes a public trough and when people, corporations, etc figure out they can vote themselves this money, the republic is done. but lets say, just for shits and giggles that the welfare state was some how miraculously reduced to just caring for the wheel chair bound mentally handicapped person who no family. (a very small part of welfare recipients.) this would mean all the able bodied men/women would have to provide for themselves or starve. i'd imagine the welfare dependents would have a different outlook on life. the un married mother of 5 on welfare might all of a sudden kick the drug dealing 'father' out of the equation and get married to a person who has a life. while your goal of helping the down trodden is noble, it has to be done on a voluntary basis and it has to be done in a manner that does not keep the person dependent. apply the old adage of 'give a man a fish, feed him for a day. teach him to fish, feed him for the rest of his life.'
  23. federal reserve and US govt's regulatory apparatus... unless they are removed from the equation, the collapse of the dollar is inevitable. the business cycle aka 'cyclical nature of market failures' is due to central banks and not markets. market failures are essentially the biggest myth promoted by keynesian college professors and economists. they come up with a new one every couple months.
  24. this is GREAT advice. you should try to follow it occasionally. <3
  25. best thing to do is not use credit cards period. the only reason to do so is if you need to buy something on line or need buyer protection. pay the bill off every month and the interest rate matters not. buy the best, pay cash and take delivery. if you cant afford to pay cash, you probably dont need it (with only a few exceptions.)
  • Create New...