Anyone Still thinking about privatizing social security?

[HaloGuardian]

First let me say this, the Federal Reserve is not elected, they're not partisan, not biased and in no way connected to the politicians who orchestrate wars. Generally, the fed work in the interest of the economy and the people who make it up. Politicians seek power and often work for their own interests. If you compare the Fed to foreign wars and masacres and dictators or tyrants, all I can do is simply stand back and laugh at your words, because they are put together with less care than a childs.

If it's all right and good with you lets start.

The Federal Reserve is a private bank who works in their best interest. They do almost everything behind closed doors, and only give you a tiny glimpse into their inner workings. They are closely connected to our government, but I know they aren't the same thing. In my opinion, the Federal Reserve has more power than our government because I think often times they are the ones pulling the strings...



Correct, but the Great Depression was not sole fault of governments although they contributed. There's a great book now called The World is Flat. It pretty much describes this process of globilization and the rise of the world economy that you have consistantly ignored. Government's are not nearly as powerful as they were, economies do not limit themselves to on country. Corporations have risen and grown powerful. The money passes through their hands and the policies they enact and the standards they are held to directly effect the economies of the world and the state of the consumer. During the Depression, huge agricultural farms run by big business would burn there produce, instead of giving it away, to raise prices. They would charge nothing for people to work. Companies today export jobs, and money, overseas and pay people next to nothing.

Can you give me a specific example (since I'm assuming you have the book) instead of generalities?


You think way too highly of corporations, ignoring their abuses.
There is a Gilded Age, and you long for it. But you see only the gold.
I prefer to hold corporations accountable for their abuses, fraud, and failures, instead of giving them a blank check and easy way out if (when) they choose to screw everything up.



Are mental illness not curable? or treatable? Or do you expect to remove more government responsibilty to allow Sally from down the street to take care of it. And it should be noted that homelessness is rising, mental illness isn't. People living on the streets these days who choose to by some crazy delusions they harbor are the exception, not the norm. Stop misrepresenting.

Why are these things increasing? Taxes get higher for the lower and middle class every year. The number of corporations that gets bailed out increases every year. The size and scope of our government increases by the second. What is your solution? Keep going down that path and expect a different outcome? That is the definition of insanity.



Governments generally do fuck up more than most, but corporations that are given free reign to export anyone they want, any where they want in and way they want are exactly the same.
What is the problem with that?


Before, regulation people worked in shitty conditions in factories and ran the risk of starving their family or losing an arm. Kid worked in coal mines. I go to school in a former shirt factory where women were locked in for 10 hours a day, and when that shirt factory caught fire they were burned or jumped to their death.
Those conditions you are describing were starting to phase out before the laws were put in place. As the standard of living increases factories must improve their safety to attract, and keep workers. When only the father (or mother) only has to work kids do not have to work to eat. In many countries today (specifically those whose governments rule with an Iron fist) kids work in bad conditions just so they can eat. Would you like to tell those kids that they shouldn't be able to eat, and they can just stay home and starve to death? What are we seeing now here in the USA, more families where both parents work just to keep their standard of living. As our government has grown, as well as regulation, and taxes in order to maintain your current well-being you have to do more work. We are going backward.

The government can't create wealth. Only people create goods and services. Would you support a law stating all individuals could only work 3 6-hour days a week, they would make $100/hour, they would get health care for their entire family, and they would get 12 weeks of vacation a year? Probably not, but why, It sounds great doesn't it? Because things need to be produced in order for society and an economy to function. The more things that are produced and the more efficiently it can be done the higher the standard of living will be. It has been like that throughout history.


I don't argue that government is bad, I do argue that larg companies have caused their fair share of death and extortion, albeit in a more clandestine manner.
The only way they do it is with a government. Without government corporations are nothing. They can't force you from doing anything. They can't kill you. They can't keep a monopoly and keep you out.


No George Bush is slaughtering thousands in Iraq.
Yes he is, and he can thank Barack Obama (among others) for the funding that has allowed this to continue.



We no longer live in a manufacture based economy,we are service based now. Just like globalization. The times have changed, learn about it.
Why has manufacturing left? Learn about it.



Republicans use war to win election, and boost the economy because they believe increased military raises the GDP, which it does, but the effect of that raise GDP means nothing.
Correct because GDP included government spending. Statistics like that are pretty much meaningless, even though it will tell you how much money our government is wasting.


Let me be more clear, because I do believe you are misconstrueing my words to fit an argument. So let me say is specific.

Republicans want to reduce government intervention when it comes to social programs. Such as SS, welfare, and everything I have talked about.
They say that, but have they?



I believe that if you die, and have 100 million dollars, that is not a "arbitrary number."
Says you, you aren't the government


I also, never mentioned any guns. Why is it again that you are taking the things I say and the topics we discuss and lowering them to the lowest common denominator.
I want to show you how extremist your views really are. In the scenario you describe what happens if those children of the rich decide they aren't going to give you the money you demand? Socialism is extremely violent and anti-social. In order to enforce the laws you create you will have to either point a gun in their face and take the money, or point a gun in their face, take them to court, and lock them up.

A great book that addresses this topic is The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek. He is a classical liberal and he shows the fundamental problems with a centralized government controlled economy and it's implications.






That is correct, the alternative is people dying of illness on the street. Just the other day I literally saw a man walking around with a sign saying he was uninsured and growths hanging from his eyes. It's a trade-off I don't have a problem with anyone argueing otherwise, it is not a claim of my argument. I was talking about the rich in general, not those confined to the pharmacuetical field, (again a misrepresentation)
I'm giving you a specific example of who would benefit, if you would prefer I speak in generalities instead of specifics I can do that as well.


There are private militaries...black water comes to mind, yet if there was anything in this country that I would want our government to have complete control over is its military operations.

Blackwater has government connections and funding.


Roads are not built by the government, local roads at least are paved by contractors and often at the expense of busniess (gas company, water or WalMart) that have an interest in it. One example I know is that Wal-Mart wanted to open a store, so to pay copensate for traffic it they had to pay for a new addition to the highway next to it. Furthermore, governments give public project to contractors who bid on job...hence competition, the only difference is that they have to adhere to laws and regulations that keep the safety of themselves and citizens in mind.
They are funded and paid for by the public is what I mean.




Is free-trade opposed to regulation of financial banks?

and Overproduction destroyed farms, not tarriffs.
The tarriffs are why their was overproduction which is what destroyed farms. It really isn't that complicated.



Government, regulated farms to control production but agriculture never became socialism.

It is a welfare system now. Excluding the few small family farms that exist generally farming is entirely welfare based. It's not exactly socialism since it isn't completely centrally planned...



Then let's elect Robin Hood and take from the rich to give to the poor. Which is kind of what Obama wants.
I'm not for stealing. Sorry.



Please give me the ton of books and i will quote a ton more far more credible and widley accepted.
That is your problem, you are counting on corporate and government funded school types for you information. I couldn't care less if your information is deemed more credible or widely accepted, I'd prefer the truth.


The US. wasn't destroyed, just like in WWI the US emerged from the war as a world power, relatively unscathed. It is because of the massive redirection of materials toward war production. Increased production, increased wealth. The infastructure of the States was not even touched. After WWI America also became the foremost lender country. Everyone was borrowing from us, and we were collecting interest and boosting our economy.

Military-Industrial Complex, very important term in American history, really describe why the things you say are wrong.
So you really believe that the worlds standard of living increases when we destroy things? I know the government and corporations love their little charts showing us how much better off we and the rest of the world are when they destroy things but is it reality?



Monopolies come to be by government sitting on its hands.
I'm interested though, how did the gov't help microsoft?

Show me an example of a monopoly that wasn't government induced.

Microsoft isn't a monopoly, and it isn't because of laws that they aren't one. People (as long as there is some freedom) will always look for alternatives.


How so?
The Bush plan was not mandated for everyone, only those that chose it. It was a crappy plan because you couldn't just pocket the money if you desired, but it isn't what you describe it where all of a sudden all Social Security funds where based on Wall Street.


Thanks for ending your post on such a happy note.
The truth about our economy blows, sorry...

[FalseReality]

The Federal Reserve is a private bank who works in their best interest. They do almost everything behind closed doors, and only give you a tiny glimpse into their inner workings. They are closely connected to our government, but I know they aren't the same thing. In my opinion, the Federal Reserve has more power than our government because I think often times they are the ones pulling the strings...
But they are not the ones dropping the bombs, which is my point. yet you have found some way to demonize government and draw a connection between what governments do and what are Fed does. Your argument seems to be that we cannot give more power to the Fed to regulate business because Governments have created wars holocausts and such. The Fed has no control over the part of politics. They regulate business, not persecute people.



Can you give me a specific example (since I'm assuming you have the book) instead of generalities? examples of powerful companies or example showing that the world has become "flatter?"



I prefer to hold corporations accountable for their abuses, fraud, and failures, instead of giving them a blank check and easy way out if (when) they choose to screw everything up. Yet, you don't support even moderate regulation of businesses, which give free reign to abuses and manipulations of the economy.



Why are these things increasing? Taxes get higher for the lower and middle class every year. The number of corporations that gets bailed out increases every year. The size and scope of our government increases by the second. What is your solution? Keep going down that path and expect a different outcome? That is the definition of insanity. Bush tax cuts have reduced taxes for people, mostly rich, but also to a lesser extent the middle class. People are not being put out on the street becausxe they can't pay taxes, they are being put out on the street because they have lost thier job or defaulted on loans.



What is the problem with that? what's the problem with corpoations abusing consumers? is that you're question.


Those conditions you are describing were starting to phase out before the laws were put in place. As the standard of living increases factories must improve their safety to attract, and keep workers. When only the father (or mother) only has to work kids do not have to work to eat. In many countries today (specifically those whose governments rule with an Iron fist) kids work in bad conditions just so they can eat. Would you like to tell those kids that they shouldn't be able to eat, and they can just stay home and starve to death? What are we seeing now here in the USA, more families where both parents work just to keep their standard of living. As our government has grown, as well as regulation, and taxes in order to maintain your current well-being you have to do more work. We are going backward.

The government can't create wealth. Only people create goods and services. Would you support a law stating all individuals could only work 3 6-hour days a week, they would make $100/hour, they would get health care for their entire family, and they would get 12 weeks of vacation a year? Probably not, but why, It sounds great doesn't it? Because things need to be produced in order for society and an economy to function. The more things that are produced and the more efficiently it can be done the higher the standard of living will be. It has been like that throughout history.
Child labor laws are put into place for a reason. I would rather see a child given aid from the state than die of black lung at the age of 9.

If there is a high demand for a job, regardless of the standard of living, factories can pretty much do whatever they want. If givin the choice between shitty employment in a hazardous workplace and no food for the family, people will take the shitty employment.


The only way they do it is with a government. Without government corporations are nothing. They can't force you from doing anything. They can't kill you. They can't keep a monopoly and keep you out. A government that does not interfere with the abuses of a corporation empowers it to continue abusing. Simple logic.



Yes he is, and he can thank Barack Obama (among others) for the funding that has allowed this to continue. To be totally truthful, Obama voted against war funding.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/25/vote.effect/index.html

Simple facts.



Why has manufacturing left? Learn about it. Because it is cheaper to make goods in other countries and corporations are not held to such high a standard. Companies have been moving factories to China for the past decade because the enviromental regulations are non-existant and there is a large work-force to exploit cheaply. Chinese workers do no enjoy the benefit of 8 hour work days or safety from hazerdous material. Lead paint in children's toys, tainted milk killing babies, many product coming out of China today are health risks because their government does not set the standards of production nor does it protect the consumer from the product.

Think of it this way, if the FDA did not exist, pharmaceutical companies would be pushing much more toxic and addicting chemicals into the publics hands.



I want to show you how extremist your views really are. In the scenario you describe what happens if those children of the rich decide they aren't going to give you the money you demand? Socialism is extremely violent and anti-social. In order to enforce the laws you create you will have to either point a gun in their face and take the money, or point a gun in their face, take them to court, and lock them up. You showed the extreme, thus misrepresented the norm.
Socialism works for france, doesn't seem like too violent of a company to me.
Also, what I advocate is not socialism. I want a regulated market, not a government owned one. there's a difference and again you fail to accurately represent my point.



I'm giving you a specific example of who would benefit, if you would prefer I speak in generalities instead of specifics I can do that as well. You cited the one class of people that fit your argument.That was why you dealt in specifics.


Blackwater has government connections and funding.
They are funded and paid for by the public is what I mean. Not always. And a contract is set and contractors place bids. There is your competition.
Besides, nobody suggests making police private because a private policy for would not be held to standard that the IA and government holds them to. There are instances in this world where you have to give responsibility to government.



The tarriffs are why their was overproduction which is what destroyed farms. It really isn't that complicated. yes it contributed...you have any problem with addressing the first part of that quote?



It is a welfare system now. Excluding the few small family farms that exist generally farming is entirely welfare based. It's not exactly socialism since it isn't completely centrally planned... It's agri-business now. Controlled by large companies who push out small farmers.


That is your problem, you are counting on corporate and government funded school types for you information. I couldn't care less if your information is deemed more credible or widely accepted, I'd prefer the truth. Oh god that's funny. The reason why I prefer scholarly types is because generally they put in the effort, time and research to come to these conclusions. Also, all their research can be checked. Think of it like the systematic approach of the scientific method. It's not government or corporate funded, you're paranoid, it is scholarly. Truth here, can be checked, over and over again. It's not some jackshit with an internet connection looking to say something extreme and "theorizing" about the market economy.

I place my faith in a nobel prize winning economist and historian drawing on data and publishing papers that are then sent out to scholars and criticized before being published in any credible journal over some douche who dropped out of high school and is no commanding the grill over at Abry's in the time not spent theorizing about global economics.



So you really believe that the worlds standard of living increases when we destroy things? I know the government and corporations love their little charts showing us how much better off we and the rest of the world are when they destroy things but is it reality? I'm gonna make this real simple because I don't see how you are not getting this.

During WWII countries demanded more munitions and war goods, so they called upon America to provide them with it. America sends over it's materials (manufacturing as you said), Allies send over money to America. Since American cities were not bombed, then they had nothing to rebuild after the war. Furthermore, because of the increased production the amount of jobs in the market skyrocketed.


Show me an example of a monopoly that wasn't government induced. Did I not do this already?


Microsoft isn't a monopoly, and it isn't because of laws that they aren't one. People (as long as there is some freedom) will always look for alternatives. You are saying this despite all the court ruling and the order or Microsoft to partially break up? Wow that's a brave move. Some people would say that's stupid, hell most would, but I'm gonna call it brave.



The Bush plan was not mandated for everyone, only those that chose it. It was a crappy plan because you couldn't just pocket the money if you desired, but it isn't what you describe it where all of a sudden all Social Security funds where based on Wall Street. And what would have been the alternative? Was the government going to keep SS? And even giving people the option would have been criminal and fucked us up worse now.

[HaloGuardian]

But they are not the ones dropping the bombs, which is my point. yet you have found some way to demonize government and draw a connection between what governments do and what are Fed does. Your argument seems to be that we cannot give more power to the Fed to regulate business because Governments have created wars holocausts and such. The Fed has no control over the part of politics. They regulate business, not persecute people.


They are intertwined. Like Boeing and the Military. MIT and the Department of Defense. AT&T and Google and government spying. etc. etc.


examples of powerful companies or example showing that the world has become "flatter?"

Run through a specific scenario that meets the criteria you created.


Yet, you don't support even moderate regulation of businesses, which give free reign to abuses and manipulations of the economy.

As soon as a government starts to regulate an economy, then certain big players as well as politicians start to get their slimey hands involved. It's why tarriffs were authorized in the US Constitution, many of the Founders wanted the benefits. When certain companies set laws they couldn't care less about the consumer, and they want to destroy the competitors. I have no problem with companies wanting to destroy the competition but they shouldn't be able to use force and make laws to do so. That is exactly what regulation/intervention is. It is abusing and manipulating the economy.



Bush tax cuts have reduced taxes for people, mostly rich, but also to a lesser extent the middle class. People are not being put out on the street becausxe they can't pay taxes, they are being put out on the street because they have lost thier job or defaulted on loans.

Meh, I'll never defend Bush. The inflation and war under his belt is what is at the core of the destruction of our economy and nation...


what's the problem with corpoations abusing consumers? is that you're question.

What is the problem with corporations leaving the country is what my question is. Why can't a company leave if they want to? Or do you prefer the alternative of forcing them to stay and produce here?

Child labor laws are put into place for a reason. I would rather see a child given aid from the state than die of black lung at the age of 9.

Who wouldn't? But in some places that isn't an option.


If there is a high demand for a job, regardless of the standard of living, factories can pretty much do whatever they want. If givin the choice between shitty employment in a hazardous workplace and no food for the family, people will take the shitty employment.

And why shouldn't it be that way? If the only way a company can produce something and survive would you rather they close up to meet whatever standard you set? The choice often times isn't "Stay open and meet regulations, or stay open and violate regulations" it's "close up shop and put workers in streets, or stay open and violate regulations".

Of course as people's standards increase then certain jobs that were once deemed safe are now unsafe. Certain things that were determined not to be hazardous are deemed hazardous, and in a real free market, those businesses who offer better pay and a safer working environment will attract the best workers, and that is how business and people improve themselves.


A government that does not interfere with the abuses of a corporation empowers it to continue abusing. Simple logic.

What powers do a corporation have? Only the ones government grants them.



To be totally truthful, Obama voted against war funding.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/25/vote.effect/index.html

Simple facts.

Once, woopty-do. We can ignore all the other times: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/


Because it is cheaper to make goods in other countries and corporations are not held to such high a standard. Companies have been moving factories to China for the past decade because the enviromental regulations are non-existant and there is a large work-force to exploit cheaply. Chinese workers do no enjoy the benefit of 8 hour work days or safety from hazerdous material. Lead paint in children's toys, tainted milk killing babies, many product coming out of China today are health risks because their government does not set the standards of production nor does it protect the consumer from the product.

And look how much better China's economy has been since they have loosened their restrictions? I know they are far from perfect and still less free in general than the US but their middle class there is booming.

The Chinese government, in cooperation with the corporations allows companies to sell things as safe that clearly aren't. That is fraudulent. Just like a restaurant shouldn't be able to sell you poisoned food. It doesn't take regulations to stop that, it takes enforcing contracts. When someone sells you something as safe, like food, when it isn't the victim should be compensated.

Also you can't exploit a working class unless you are forcing them to work for you. You can take a job or leave it. If someone can do the job for cheaper it helps everyone including that person doing the job for less. Simple economics.


Think of it this way, if the FDA did not exist, pharmaceutical companies would be pushing much more toxic and addicting chemicals into the publics hands.

Hilarious. Right now the FDA allows pharmaceutical companies to poison people but you can't sue them. The FDA also blocks any type of alternative medicine, and the FDA is very much in cahoots with the pharmaceutical companies.

When the government regulates you can't hold them accountable. Imagine a scenario without an FDA, what would happen? Would companies randomly doll out poisonous crap and try to kill people? Hell no. The legit companies would join together, create their own agency and make sure things were safe, and would create a private safety organization that would operate much more efficiently. They wouldn't be free from lawsuits like the government, and they wouldn't be able to block the competition, like the government.



You showed the extreme, thus misrepresented the norm.
Socialism works for france, doesn't seem like too violent of a company to me.
Also, what I advocate is not socialism. I want a regulated market, not a government owned one. there's a difference and again you fail to accurately represent my point.

I'm not so sure that France is socialist, if their economy is not centralized by the main government it isn't socialism, it's a welfare state, like here. Ask them what happens if they refuse to pay a tax or meet a regulation there.

Your point I understand completely. If you take the government, who have guns and badges, and force companies to comply with your regulations things would be much better. If they don't they get shut down. If they fail, you pay their CEO's and take over their company.



You cited the one class of people that fit your argument.That was why you dealt in specifics.

Why wouldn't I use a specific group of people to fit my argument? I'm trying to prove a point not speak in generalities which you prefer. Would you rather me say "There are these one people and it would be better if they you know that one thing duh"?



Not always. And a contract is set and contractors place bids. There is your competition.
Besides, nobody suggests making police private because a private policy for would not be held to standard that the IA and government holds them to. There are instances in this world where you have to give responsibility to government.

People do suggest making police private, but that is irrelevent. Private enterprises are held to much higher standards than government because their customer is what is important, not keeping their job and leeching off the taxpayer.



yes it contributed...you have any problem with addressing the first part of that quote?

To the first part: No. Free trade isn't a specific policy. It means getting out of the way and letting individuals do business voluntarily with each other.

Now would you mind answering any of my many questions you choose to ignore? (this question won't be quoted I have a feeling?)



It's agri-business now. Controlled by large companies who push out small farmers.

What mechanism do they use to "push out" small farmers?


Oh god that's funny. The reason why I prefer scholarly types is because generally they put in the effort, time and research to come to these conclusions. Also, all their research can be checked. Think of it like the systematic approach of the scientific method. It's not government or corporate funded, you're paranoid, it is scholarly. Truth here, can be checked, over and over again. It's not some jackshit with an internet connection looking to say something extreme and "theorizing" about the market economy.


Clearly you are believing their, and your own hype. All Public Universities have to meet government standards, and oftentimes they get funding for certain research. If you don't get it I'm sorry.



I place my faith in a nobel prize winning economist and historian drawing on data and publishing papers that are then sent out to scholars and criticized before being published in any credible journal over some douche who dropped out of high school and is no commanding the grill over at Abry's in the time not spent theorizing about global economics.

Who are you refferring to? I get a lot of my information from professors at NYU, GMU, and other universities. They write scholarly books (see Human Action or Man, Economy, and State which I have yet to read) but they are ignored by the elitist types. Ludwig von Mises won a Nobel Prize if I'm not mistaken but I prefer not to focus on qualifications, and saying "Oh wow I use better sources because the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg say I do so I win".


I'm gonna make this real simple because I don't see how you are not getting this.

During WWII countries demanded more munitions and war goods, so they called upon America to provide them with it. America sends over it's materials (manufacturing as you said), Allies send over money to America. Since American cities were not bombed, then they had nothing to rebuild after the war. Furthermore, because of the increased production the amount of jobs in the market skyrocketed.

Yes, American jobs, I understand that. But the global economy took a step backwards, if it didn't you are arguing that destruction creates wealth in totality. I recognize for certain people it does.


Did I not do this already?

No.


You are saying this despite all the court ruling and the order or Microsoft to partially break up? Wow that's a brave move. Some people would say that's stupid, hell most would, but I'm gonna call it brave.

And they would have had a monopoly without a court order? Get real.


And what would have been the alternative? Was the government going to keep SS? And even giving people the option would have been criminal and fucked us up worse now.

Yes they were going to keep Social Security. Look it up. They would let people option out if they chose to do so. It wouldn't have eliminated the current recipients or those who did nothing.

[FalseReality]

I've come to see your views of this world as being extremely radical, to a point of almost absolute parnoia. I wonder if there is a program of government or a politican or even any non-profit organization that you do not believe is wronging you in some way. Ted Kazynski probably lived a calmer life, at least all that dude was aganst was technology. I have also grown tired of refuting the same arguments and I assume you do too. So I will make once last post in summation, I don't expect you to accept any of it, because up until now even the most sensible regulations and facts and arguments you have ignored or thrown out wholly But perhaps in a strange way this will make you think.

First, and I start with this because I find it funny.


I get a lot of my information from professors at NYU, GMU, and other universities. They write scholarly books (see Human Action or Man, Economy, and State which I have yet to read) but they are ignored by the elitist types. Ludwig von Mises won a Nobel Prize if I'm not mistaken but I prefer not to focus on qualifications, and saying "Oh wow I use better sources because the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg say I do so I win".

I go to the NYU, those professor that write books about politics and the economy are my professors. And I can tell you complete certainty that nobody here thinks of the Wall Street Journal or NYT as bad sources. The fact is, and I'm sure you will tell yourself different, is that those news publications and the journalists that write for them are know, there qualifications are easy accesible to the public, and by being a media source in highly read, they are highly viewed and critiqued. Some of the best writers, and the people who know the most about this crisis are journalists for those newspapers. But if you have an question that you want me to relay to the economics dept I'll be glad to do it. I even have a professor who has denounced everything you pretty much believe, do you want his e-mail?

Now

Before the depression we lived in what can be called a free-market economy (maybe not totally but it was close). This of course did not work. Recessions were common, workers were unemployed, huge conglomerate companies rose and stifled competition, of course this all lead into the Great Depression. Now, it seems to be your contention that if we go back to that financial system thing would be different. I believe you said it best when you envoked the quote, doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

Out of the depression came the New Deal and programs such as SS, Medicare, Medicade, Wic and unemployment insurance. Thus, turning us into a welfare-capitalism state. This programs, which weren't succesful during the depression but became hugely benefiical afterwards, were meant as a social safety net. The belief being that society fails to function when too many people fall too low. We entered into a social contract, paid taxes, and we believed some day those taxes will come back to us. The Bush Administration, through private or personal ownership eroded that safety net. What follows is that if I'm a factory worker for Nike, and Nike moves the factory to India for smaller costs but higher profits, what can I do? move to India.

As for regulations it appears to me that you are not just against deregulating the financial sector, but also of all things in general. This is frightening, and quite frankly I am happy to know that you are in the minority.

Regulation of the economy controls extreme dives and dips.
Child labor laws protect children.
Worker labor laws protect the worker
(Watch any documentary about migrant workers in the 50's and 60's and tell me that laws passed did not help them. In the CBS report Harvest of Shame families of 14 are struggling to get by while working 10 hours picking beans for 1 hour a day. A farmer said "it used to be that they were our slaves, now we just rent them.")

I have read the Jungle and How the Other Half Lives. I know how people where treated when the government did not regulate the standards in the workplace. Just from looking at China I can see that some 58,000 babies are sick because of milk and the standards over there. I recognize the importance of the FDA because before that time shit was much worse, and by that I mean that cocaine heroin and morphine were prescribed to everyone for pain. But maybe I'm just too empathetic. Maybe I care to much for the people in this society who repeatidly get the fucking boot to the face. That's prolly it.

I'm tired, say what you want, but I'm done.

[GoodCitizenDan]

I've come to see your views of this world as being extremely radical, to a point of almost absolute parnoia. I wonder if there is a program of government or a politican or even any non-profit organization that you do not believe is wronging you in some way.
You've pretty much figured it out. I think some government official raped HG's dog or something. He doesn't view them as simply incompetant. He views them as just plain evil.

I'm not a big fan of the government, either, but HG is uncompromising in his anti-government stance.

[FalseReality]

You've pretty much figured it out. I think some government official raped HG's dog or something. He doesn't view them as simply incompetant. He views them as just plain evil.

I'm not a big fan of the government, either, but HG is uncompromising in his anti-government stance.

God knows I bitch about the government, but when it comes down to it, I'm gonna trust my retirement in the people that "i've" elected. Maybe they don't always act justly, or intelligently, or in anyway that I want them to, but the very fact that after Bush there still remains a little iota of accountability to the people still make me trust them over a global super company whos only concern is bottom lines and exploiting the market in every legal way to turn a profit. I wish it was different.

[MsThang]

but when it comes down to it, I'm gonna trust my retirement in the people that "i've" elected.


Wow. You'd rather let someone else manage your money than you? I sure as hell wouldn't.

[iaacp]

No thanks, I can look after my own money just fine.

[HaloGuardian]

FalseReality, do you know who Israel Kirzner is and what he believes?

[HaloGuardian]

I've come to see your views of this world as being extremely radical, to a point of almost absolute parnoia.

Radical yes, paranoia no.


I wonder if there is a program of government or a politican or even any non-profit organization that you do not believe is wronging you in some way.
Government has a monopoly of force. As soon as they are allowed to steal, murder, and destroy lives they are no different then individuals who steal murder and destroy lives. Government is made up of individuals, and it's usually those who don't want to work hard, they want benefits without effort, and they want to be looked up to as some sort of god, which is how many people treat politicians. They are human though oftentimes they are inhumane.


Ted Kazynski probably lived a calmer life, at least all that dude was aganst was technology.
I'm actually an extremely calm person, I am just very passionate about what I believe.


I have also grown tired of refuting the same arguments and I assume you do too. So I will make once last post in summation, I don't expect you to accept any of it, because up until now even the most sensible regulations and facts and arguments you have ignored or thrown out wholly But perhaps in a strange way this will make you think.
You didn't refute my arguments against them.


First, and I start with this because I find it funny.


I go to the NYU, those professor that write books about politics and the economy are my professors. And I can tell you complete certainty that nobody here thinks of the Wall Street Journal or NYT as bad sources. The fact is, and I'm sure you will tell yourself different, is that those news publications and the journalists that write for them are know, there qualifications are easy accesible to the public, and by being a media source in highly read, they are highly viewed and critiqued. Some of the best writers, and the people who know the most about this crisis are journalists for those newspapers. But if you have an question that you want me to relay to the economics dept I'll be glad to do it. I even have a professor who has denounced everything you pretty much believe, do you want his e-mail?
What courses do you take at NYU? Are you majoring in economics?

I wish he still taught there but he retired: http://www.econ.nyu.edu/user/kirzner/ Israel Kirzner was an economics professor at NYU and his beliefs were based on those of the Austrian School, which is what I believe.

If you would like to learn where I get a lot of my information on economics you may read (a ton of very good information, articles, PDFs of old and newbooks, etc.): http://mises.org/


Now

Before the depression we lived in what can be called a free-market economy (maybe not totally but it was close).
We did not.


This of course did not work. Recessions were common, workers were unemployed, huge conglomerate companies rose and stifled competition, of course this all lead into the Great Depression. Now, it seems to be your contention that if we go back to that financial system thing would be different. I believe you said it best when you envoked the quote, doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.
Of course it didn't work because it wasn't free market. Who was the king of welfare? Not only FDR but Herbert F'ing Hoover. The Great Depression shows us what happens with government interference and that is why we will be in the midst of another one within a few years.


Out of the depression came the New Deal and programs such as SS, Medicare, Medicade, Wic and unemployment insurance. Thus, turning us into a welfare-capitalism state. This programs, which weren't succesful during the depression but became hugely benefiical afterwards, were meant as a social safety net. The belief being that society fails to function when too many people fall too low. We entered into a social contract, paid taxes, and we believed some day those taxes will come back to us. The Bush Administration, through private or personal ownership eroded that safety net. What follows is that if I'm a factory worker for Nike, and Nike moves the factory to India for smaller costs but higher profits, what can I do? move to India.
They eroded it, as well as previous administrations, the weakening of the dollar through inflation. To pay for all these obscene social and corporate welfare programs you have to print more money.


As for regulations it appears to me that you are not just against deregulating the financial sector, but also of all things in general. This is frightening, and quite frankly I am happy to know that you are in the minority.

Why? I'm for holding fraudulant people and businesses accountable, not giving them a pat on the back for failing. Your support of interference in the economy destroys it. Like I stated before, the market just doesn't decide to drop prices of a farmers goods making farmers better off by burning goods, it was an act of a government.


Regulation of the economy controls extreme dives and dips.
Right now we are on a humungous dive (created by a government that taxes over half of your income), and no amount of regulation will stop it. Mark my words.


Child labor laws protect children.
Only for those who choose to obey the law. If children can't choose to work, then it is slavery obviously, but in other nations (like I stated before) children have to work to eat because the government destroys their economies. Some parents force their children to do chores, help in the garden, etc. if they want to eat. Should that be illegal?


Worker labor laws protect the worker
Wealth improved, as well as the standard of living and safety in the workplace before there were laws. Of course common sense tells us that if a workplace is putting someone in harms way on their property (like if I invite you over for dinner, and I have a trap door under your seat and drop you to your death) they should be charged. Creating arbitrary lines in the sand does not need to exist for people to be safe, but if coal miners know the problems of black lung and other future health issues who the hell am I to tell them they can't choose to accept the consequences?


(Watch any documentary about migrant workers in the 50's and 60's and tell me that laws passed did not help them. In the CBS report Harvest of Shame families of 14 are struggling to get by while working 10 hours picking beans for 1 hour a day. A farmer said "it used to be that they were our slaves, now we just rent them.")
Don't know enough about what you are specifically talking about.



I have read the Jungle and How the Other Half Lives.
The Jungle is fiction and I've never read the other book.


I know how people where treated when the government did not regulate the standards in the workplace.
Do you? Or do you know how the government tells you how people were treated when the government did not regulate the standards in the workplace? I know I got that same bullshit in high school.


Just from looking at China I can see that some 58,000 babies are sick because of milk and the standards over there.
And regulations just give you a slap on the wrist, hooray poison babies and pay a few thousand bucks. I prefer real accountability. If your food or product poisons people, you sure as hell better be compensating the victims (and families) by paying for their health care, loss of wages of missed work, etc. The problem now is that you can't hold the corporate-government entity in check and the more intertwined they become the less acountable they become.

Years ago when we supposedly had a free market, that was also an issue as well.


I recognize the importance of the FDA because before that time shit was much worse, and by that I mean that cocaine heroin and morphine were prescribed to everyone for pain.
Everyone? Sounds like a bit of a stretch.

And now kids commit suicide because of FDA approved drugs, can't hold them accountable, good luck proving it, they got "science" on their side. Many non-government studies have shown the side effects to many different medications (since you prefer I speak in generalities) and you can't do a damn thing about it if it hurts you. If the government says it's ok, just suck it up and deal with it. We say it's safe therefore it is.


But maybe I'm just too empathetic. Maybe I care to much for the people in this society who repeatidly get the fucking boot to the face. That's prolly it.
No it sounds to me like you'd rather lick the boots to those that enslave you. You want to give them more power. You want them to take and take and take some more. You want the absolute phony, lazy, and fraudulant individuals to solve the problems of this world. I'm sorry but that isn't going to happen.

I'd prefer the most anti-social organization ever created (the government) to stay the hell out of the way. They are the boot that is fucking society.


I'm tired, say what you want, but I'm done.
:rrod:

FYI, a known truly free market has never existed, therefore your arguments against many things is irrelevent as an argument against free markets...

[HaloGuardian]

You've pretty much figured it out. I think some government official raped HG's dog or something. He doesn't view them as simply incompetant. He views them as just plain evil.

I'm not a big fan of the government, either, but HG is uncompromising in his anti-government stance.

Government at it's core is evil, and until more people recognize it things won't change.

[FalseReality]

Wow. You'd rather let someone else manage your money than you? I sure as hell wouldn't.

you're misrepresenting my words. I'd rather have a lock box for SS than having it privatized. I'm not giving my money away to someone so they can do what they want with it and hope it comes back in better shape than before.

[FalseReality]

Government at it's core is evil, and until more people recognize it things won't change.

With that mentality, there can be no discussion, no civil discourse. It's useless trying to convince anyone of anything but you're not even open to the prospect of improving the government, rather the dismantling of it. So what's the point of even talking if at the end of everything you're going to say that the government is evil.

Do you advocate anarchy?

[HaloGuardian]

With that mentality, there can be no discussion, no civil discourse. It's useless trying to convince anyone of anything but you're not even open to the prospect of improving the government, rather the dismantling of it. So what's the point of even talking if at the end of everything you're going to say that the government is evil.

Do you advocate anarchy?

No. Minarchy.

[FalseReality]

No. Minarchy.

I believe I approached the topic in the wrong way. Instead of finding which gov't programs/responsibilites you didn't like it seems it would have been far quicker, and healthier for my mind, if I asked you which one(s) you do?

[HaloGuardian]

Simply put the only role of government should be to protect the rights of the individual. To protect and seek justice for the individual from others, fraud, murder, property destruction, and enforce contracts. There are problems inherent in this (I don't believe in a utopia like scenario, man is fallen) but I believe it to be the most free, safe, individualistic, and prosperous.

[MsThang]

I'm not intentionally misrepresenting your words FR. If you mean something, you should say it or clarify.

From what I have read of your posts, it seems to me that you are a hard core Democrat who thinks it's the government's job to take care of its citizens.

If I'm wrong, let me know. But from the way you talk on here, that's the image I get. Whether intentional or unintentional.

[BillyBobRedneck]

I think I'm much more likely than HG to say fuck it and go all Unabomber on society

[FalseReality]

I'm not intentionally misrepresenting your words FR. If you mean something, you should say it or clarify.

From what I have read of your posts, it seems to me that you are a hard core Democrat who thinks it's the government's job to take care of its citizens.

If I'm wrong, let me know. But from the way you talk on here, that's the image I get. Whether intentional or unintentional.

I only think you are misrepresenting my words by simplifying what I say. Maybe I am leaving things out, maybe I am not being clear.

I believe in a limited social contract between Gov't and citizen. Gov't should not hold the hand of people but it also should not stand idle as its citizens are being abused, mistreated or have lost their ability to survive through no fault of their own. I really don't consider myself a democrat, nor republican. I accept the argument that shitty school in shitty neighborhoods give children little chance to suceed. I do not accept the argument that every American can pull himself up by his bootstraps. Perhaps, the sight of poor and homeless in this country, and acknowledging their existance make me a hard core democrat. If so, I'll take that title. It's far better than the alternative.

Four years ago, when I was last on this board I believe I was pushing hard for the conservative agenda. Of course that is something I don't readily admit and am quite embarrassed for because it all seems to have blown up in my face. So now I see the world differently and perhaps I am better for it.

I'm quite neutral in politics, or so I say; disliking each side pretty equally. But looking across the country there are far too many abuses of power, lies and attempts to disenfranchise by the republican ticket that I simply cannot support McCain anymore. Obama is not clean by any definition but compared to the ads McCain has run, the scare tactics employed, the questions of patriotism and the increasing appearances of McCain's senility, Obama appears to be the better choice. This is not to say that the Dems will change anything or rise above the corrupting influences of office, or even refuse to accept the same money from the same people, but right now, the republicans seem far worse. Perhaps, it is the guilt I feel from supporting Bush back during the first election that I simply cannot vote a man into office who agrees with the policies of a president who has seen two buildings explode , millions of lives and trillions of dollars pissed away in the persian gulf, a city drown and the economy being fucked over so bad that it now calls for a radical overhaul of the whole economic system.

Though I am no socialist. I just see a bad situation in the current financial crisis. I believe Bush's bailout gives too much power, with too few oversight, and does the utmost to screw over the taxpayer...big surprise right.

I also, though you may upon hearing this call me liberal, maybe you'd be right, think that reganomics is bullshit. I Money doesn't trickle down. Money has gravity, more money makes more money. If you need proof of that fact look at how the lower classes did during his administration, look at the upward movement of wealth during the past 50 years. Perhaps, you believe that higher echelon deserves what they earned, and it is hard for me to come to terms to taking money from a person who went to school, worked hard and succeded but if it requires rich men to live simplier for poor men to simply live, then what can I say to that. I've said it before, maybe it is my empathy for the rest of the human race that spurs people to criticize me and assigns me these labels.

I also, wonder why people idolize a man who sold weapons to terrorists and appointed criminals. But this is a curiosity that transcends politics.

Now excuse me while I go listen to the internationale