Since when do people have to be great successes or politicians to have an opinion?Hunter/Jumper wrote:
acomplish 1/10 as much as her in your entire life - then get back to us k?Poseidon wrote:
Yeah, that's why McCain lost.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
No candidate wanted to taint himself with a loss so no viable candidate ran against him.
Or maybe because he chose a retard as a VP.
Well, mostly to restore people's faith in banks, which it did accomplish.JohnG@lt wrote:
When you get back, start by explaining why the FDIC exists
I was referring to Enemy Combatants posing as American Soldiers during the battle. They would ask suspected infiltrators simple questions about life in the U.S.A. Read much History ?Dilbert_X wrote:
Can't really picture Bush or Cheney there either, since they were draft-dodgers, or Palin, since she's a woman.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Can you imagine obama at Bastogne 1944 ?
Why was it just upped to $250,000 per account?Turquoise wrote:
Well, mostly to restore people's faith in banks, which it did accomplish.JohnG@lt wrote:
When you get back, start by explaining why the FDIC exists
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Inflation?...JohnG@lt wrote:
Why was it just upped to $250,000 per account?Turquoise wrote:
Well, mostly to restore people's faith in banks, which it did accomplish.JohnG@lt wrote:
When you get back, start by explaining why the FDIC exists
Look, if you're suggesting that the FDIC is a bad idea, I somewhat agree now, because the powers that be have literally bankrupted it recently.
It was a good policy back when we actually had more responsible leaders, but nowadays, I think "insurance plans" of this nature are unwieldy.
It shouldn't be a matter of securing people's funds -- it should be a matter of restricting certain behaviors. People should acknowledge the risks of banking, but certain manipulations of money should be outlawed.
It helps if you expect your Candidate to accomplish anthing for you, That they have A strong track record in accomplishment.jord wrote:
Since when do people have to be great successes or politicians to have an opinion?Hunter/Jumper wrote:
acomplish 1/10 as much as her in your entire life - then get back to us k?Poseidon wrote:
Yeah, that's why McCain lost.
Or maybe because he chose a retard as a VP.
You have a very deffenate opinion, my point was to put your opinions of Palin in direct proportions. Or inverse for that matter.
Pshaw.... We've got a shitload of tax paid propaganda road signs.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Oh, it's a terrible idea and terribly outdated. It was meant to insure money deposited in thrifts which were government sponsored banks designed to do simple home loans. Thrifts have been replaced by commercial banks, mortgage brokers and mortgage backed securities. They're now obsolete. Yet the government keeps passing laws and regulations like the increase to $250k because the people within it have no concept of how things actually work in the market. They're still stuck in the Jimmy Stewart "It's a Wonderful Life" era. The FDIC should've been abolished, not expanded. "Oh, but what about the little guy, he might lose his savings" What savings? Most people don't have more than a few thousand dollars sitting in the bank, and if they have more they're a moron. Even if there is a guy out there that has $250k sitting in a bank account, what right does he have to collect interest risk free while the taxpayers take on his risk for him?Turquoise wrote:
Inflation?...JohnG@lt wrote:
Why was it just upped to $250,000 per account?Turquoise wrote:
Well, mostly to restore people's faith in banks, which it did accomplish.
Look, if you're suggesting that the FDIC is a bad idea, I somewhat agree now, because the powers that be have literally bankrupted it recently.
It was a good policy back when we actually had more responsible leaders, but nowadays, I think "insurance plans" of this nature are unwieldy.
It shouldn't be a matter of securing people's funds -- it should be a matter of restricting certain behaviors. People should acknowledge the risks of banking, but certain manipulations of money should be outlawed.
This is my entire point. Regulation never keeps up with the market, is always shortsighted and misplaced, and never does anything more than placate people like you and give you a false sense of security about the justness of the world. You should read the book that I'm reading instead of Den of Thieves which I assume you have read.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Fair points. I would agree that I shouldn't have to subsidize someone else's risks.JohnG@lt wrote:
Oh, it's a terrible idea and terribly outdated. It was meant to insure money deposited in thrifts which were government sponsored banks designed to do simple home loans. Thrifts have been replaced by commercial banks, mortgage brokers and mortgage backed securities. They're now obsolete. Yet the government keeps passing laws and regulations like the increase to $250k because the people within it have no concept of how things actually work in the market. They're still stuck in the Jimmy Stewart "It's a Wonderful Life" era. The FDIC should've been abolished, not expanded. "Oh, but what about the little guy, he might lose his savings" What savings? Most people don't have more than a few thousand dollars sitting in the bank, and if they have more they're a moron. Even if there is a guy out there that has $250k sitting in a bank account, what right does he have to collect interest risk free while the taxpayers take on his risk for him?
This all depends on the situation. In some cases, regulation is ahead of the market.JohnG@lt wrote:
This is my entire point. Regulation never keeps up with the market, is always shortsighted and misplaced, and never does anything more than placate people like you and give you a false sense of security about the justness of the world. You should read the book that I'm reading instead of Den of Thieves which I assume you have read.
For example, Europe has much stricter fuel standards for cars than we have. Because of this, they were able to push forward more efficiency for their consumers before the market's price point on fuel would have naturally encouraged more efficiency. This works out quite well for them, since they haven't really experienced the same shocks to their system when oil dramatically rises in price periodically.
By contrast, America's much more market-driven approach leaves us vulnerable to market fluctuations in price (which are generally provoked by OPEC). When gas prices are up, hybrids sell better. When gas prices are down, SUVs sell better, but those SUVs start cramping the lifestyles of many Americans when prices go up again.
The problem is that consumers have little foresight. A certain amount of consumer guidance has to come from regulation.
I disagree. I realize this is the fundamental difference in our viewpoints. You prefer as much freedom as possible, and I prefer a mixture of freedom and stability.JohnG@lt wrote:
Coercion is irreconcilable with freedom. So I take it you approve of things like the fat tax too? Or excise taxes on cigarettes? People that know better need to give a push to the ignorant masses and steer them along?
And yes, I do support taxes on unhealthy habits -- not specifically a fat tax, but a tax on things like junk food and tobacco (and alcohol).
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-08-30 07:31:04)
It is precisely the fundamental difference between us. People should be left to make their own decisions based on whatever information is available to them rather than have some meddler try to make their decision for them. There isn't some all seeing eye that has the ability to come down off the mount and make peoples decisions for them. Well, it can, but it will be a one size fits all approach that doesn't work or apply for the vast majority of people effected.
You seem to have replaced your belief in god with belief in government. I replaced my belief in god with belief in myself.
So... when should I expect to have my living room fitted for a Telescreen?
You seem to have replaced your belief in god with belief in government. I replaced my belief in god with belief in myself.
So... when should I expect to have my living room fitted for a Telescreen?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Should the government step in and tell people when they're buying a home they can't afford? Should the government step in and tell people not to purchase that jet ski with a credit card? Should the government step in and tell me when it is statistically safest to drive and forbid me to drive during times it deems dangerous? Should the government tell me what foods I should eat, when I should bathe, how often I should shave, *ahem* where to shave, what kind of light bulbs to use, when I should run the lights in my home, when I should run the air conditioner in my home, when I should turn on the heat and to what temperature setting, how often I should watch television and what channels I should tune to, force me to purchase a hard plastic bottle for my water plus Brita filter instead of disposable plastic bottles?
If you want to live in a world where your every decision is made for you and your ass is wiped for you as well, join the military. It's the autocratic socialist utopia you've always desired. It's even a meritocracy too!
If you want to live in a world where your every decision is made for you and your ass is wiped for you as well, join the military. It's the autocratic socialist utopia you've always desired. It's even a meritocracy too!
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-08-30 07:44:07)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Call it whatever you like. I just lean more Canadian/European than a lot of Americans. Most other highly developed countries put less of an emphasis on the individual and more on the collective.JohnG@lt wrote:
It is precisely the fundamental difference between us. People should be left to make their own decisions based on whatever information is available to them rather than have some meddler try to make their decision for them. There isn't some all seeing eye that has the ability to come down off the mount and make peoples decisions for them. Well, it can, but it will be a one size fits all approach that doesn't work or apply for the vast majority of people effected.
You seem to have replaced your belief in god with belief in government. I replaced my belief in god with belief in myself.
So... when should I expect to have my living room fitted for a Telescreen?
The extreme on the collective side is a lot of Far Eastern culture along with much of the Islamic World. The extreme on the individualist side is America. I prefer what I consider the happy medium -- Western Europe and Canada. Among that group, Canada leans more towards us and Europe leans more towards the East, so that's part of why I like Canada a lot. They basically remind me of a less extreme America in terms of individualism.
Unfortunately, any talk of collectivism seems to invoke conspiracy theories and images of 1984 in a lot of Americans.
Nice hyperbole.JohnG@lt wrote:
Should the government step in and tell people when they're buying a home they can't afford? Should the government step in and tell people not to purchase that jet ski with a credit card? Should the government step in and tell me when it is statistically safest to drive and forbid me to drive during times it deems dangerous? Should the government tell me what foods I should eat, when I should bathe, how often I should shave, *ahem* where to shave, what kind of light bulbs to use, when I should run the lights in my home, when I should run the air conditioner in my home, when I should turn on the heat and to what temperature setting, how often I should watch television and what channels I should tune to, force me to purchase a hard plastic bottle for my water plus Brita filter instead of disposable plastic bottles?
If you want to live in a world where your every decision is made for you and your ass is wiped for you as well, join the military. It's the autocratic socialist utopia you've always desired. It's even a meritocracy too!
Umm, there's a very good reason for that. It is the ultimate conclusion on a long enough timeline.Turquoise wrote:
Call it whatever you like. I just lean more Canadian/European than a lot of Americans. Most other highly developed countries put less of an emphasis on the individual and more on the collective.JohnG@lt wrote:
It is precisely the fundamental difference between us. People should be left to make their own decisions based on whatever information is available to them rather than have some meddler try to make their decision for them. There isn't some all seeing eye that has the ability to come down off the mount and make peoples decisions for them. Well, it can, but it will be a one size fits all approach that doesn't work or apply for the vast majority of people effected.
You seem to have replaced your belief in god with belief in government. I replaced my belief in god with belief in myself.
So... when should I expect to have my living room fitted for a Telescreen?
The extreme on the collective side is a lot of Far Eastern culture along with much of the Islamic World. The extreme on the individualist side is America. I prefer what I consider the happy medium -- Western Europe and Canada. Among that group, Canada leans more towards us and Europe leans more towards the East, so that's part of why I like Canada a lot. They basically remind me of a less extreme America in terms of individualism.
Unfortunately, any talk of collectivism seems to invoke conspiracy theories and images of 1984 in a lot of Americans.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I actually find this fascinating. You seem to be avoiding that grey area in the middle. When does a government policy stop being just a policy trying to get good outcomes and start being, in your words, coercion?JohnG@lt wrote:
Should the government step in and tell people when they're buying a home they can't afford? Should the government step in and tell people not to purchase that jet ski with a credit card? Should the government step in and tell me when it is statistically safest to drive and forbid me to drive during times it deems dangerous? Should the government tell me what foods I should eat, when I should bathe, how often I should shave, *ahem* where to shave, what kind of light bulbs to use, when I should run the lights in my home, when I should run the air conditioner in my home, when I should turn on the heat and to what temperature setting, how often I should watch television and what channels I should tune to, force me to purchase a hard plastic bottle for my water plus Brita filter instead of disposable plastic bottles?
If you want to live in a world where your every decision is made for you and your ass is wiped for you as well, join the military. It's the autocratic socialist utopia you've always desired. It's even a meritocracy too!
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
The governments only jobs are providing defense and applying justice. The moment it steps outside of punishing actions that create a victim i.e. theft, fraud, rape, murder, assault etc. A real crime, where someone has been willfully injured either financially or physically, it steps into the world of moralizing and coercion.Spark wrote:
I actually find this fascinating. You seem to be avoiding that grey area in the middle. When does a government policy stop being just a policy trying to get good outcomes and start being, in your words, coercion?JohnG@lt wrote:
Should the government step in and tell people when they're buying a home they can't afford? Should the government step in and tell people not to purchase that jet ski with a credit card? Should the government step in and tell me when it is statistically safest to drive and forbid me to drive during times it deems dangerous? Should the government tell me what foods I should eat, when I should bathe, how often I should shave, *ahem* where to shave, what kind of light bulbs to use, when I should run the lights in my home, when I should run the air conditioner in my home, when I should turn on the heat and to what temperature setting, how often I should watch television and what channels I should tune to, force me to purchase a hard plastic bottle for my water plus Brita filter instead of disposable plastic bottles?
If you want to live in a world where your every decision is made for you and your ass is wiped for you as well, join the military. It's the autocratic socialist utopia you've always desired. It's even a meritocracy too!
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It's the conclusion if people lean too far in collectivism. It's not the conclusion if people have a decent appreciation of both individualism and collectivism.JohnG@lt wrote:
Umm, there's a very good reason for that. It is the ultimate conclusion on a long enough timeline.
This isn't an all or nothing game.
Oh, so some control is good and necessary. Please obiwan, explain to me how any of the controls that you like aren't entirely arbitrary?Turquoise wrote:
It's the conclusion if people lean too far in collectivism. It's not the conclusion if people have a decent appreciation of both individualism and collectivism.JohnG@lt wrote:
Umm, there's a very good reason for that. It is the ultimate conclusion on a long enough timeline.
This isn't an all or nothing game.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
...and education?JohnG@lt wrote:
The governments only jobs are providing defense and applying justice. The moment it steps outside of punishing actions that create a victim i.e. theft, fraud, rape, murder, assault etc. A real crime, where someone has been willfully injured either financially or physically, it steps into the world of moralizing and coercion.Spark wrote:
I actually find this fascinating. You seem to be avoiding that grey area in the middle. When does a government policy stop being just a policy trying to get good outcomes and start being, in your words, coercion?JohnG@lt wrote:
Should the government step in and tell people when they're buying a home they can't afford? Should the government step in and tell people not to purchase that jet ski with a credit card? Should the government step in and tell me when it is statistically safest to drive and forbid me to drive during times it deems dangerous? Should the government tell me what foods I should eat, when I should bathe, how often I should shave, *ahem* where to shave, what kind of light bulbs to use, when I should run the lights in my home, when I should run the air conditioner in my home, when I should turn on the heat and to what temperature setting, how often I should watch television and what channels I should tune to, force me to purchase a hard plastic bottle for my water plus Brita filter instead of disposable plastic bottles?
If you want to live in a world where your every decision is made for you and your ass is wiped for you as well, join the military. It's the autocratic socialist utopia you've always desired. It's even a meritocracy too!
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Well, most of the controls implemented in countries with socialized healthcare serve the purpose of limiting unhealthy behaviors. This saves costs for everyone. I wouldn't call that arbitrary.JohnG@lt wrote:
Oh, so some control is good and necessary. Please obiwan, explain to me how any of the controls that you like aren't entirely arbitrary?Turquoise wrote:
It's the conclusion if people lean too far in collectivism. It's not the conclusion if people have a decent appreciation of both individualism and collectivism.JohnG@lt wrote:
Umm, there's a very good reason for that. It is the ultimate conclusion on a long enough timeline.
This isn't an all or nothing game.
What about it? Why did sending children to public schools become the be all/end all of educating children? Hell, kids probably come out of public schools dumber than they would if they just sat at home in front of the tv all day. We aren't doing them any favors shunting them off to these factories of mediocrity while mommy and daddy go off to work all day. There's a stunning correlation between the rise of public schools and the death of original thought.Spark wrote:
...and education?JohnG@lt wrote:
The governments only jobs are providing defense and applying justice. The moment it steps outside of punishing actions that create a victim i.e. theft, fraud, rape, murder, assault etc. A real crime, where someone has been willfully injured either financially or physically, it steps into the world of moralizing and coercion.Spark wrote:
I actually find this fascinating. You seem to be avoiding that grey area in the middle. When does a government policy stop being just a policy trying to get good outcomes and start being, in your words, coercion?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Why is socialized health care better than an insurance based pay as you go system?Turquoise wrote:
Well, most of the controls implemented in countries with socialized healthcare serve the purpose of limiting unhealthy behaviors. This saves costs for everyone. I wouldn't call that arbitrary.JohnG@lt wrote:
Oh, so some control is good and necessary. Please obiwan, explain to me how any of the controls that you like aren't entirely arbitrary?Turquoise wrote:
It's the conclusion if people lean too far in collectivism. It's not the conclusion if people have a decent appreciation of both individualism and collectivism.
This isn't an all or nothing game.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
come on galt, i'm trying to get a slightly more in-depth response than that.JohnG@lt wrote:
What about it? Why did sending children to public schools become the be all/end all of educating children? Hell, kids probably come out of public schools dumber than they would if they just sat at home in front of the tv all day. We aren't doing them any favors shunting them off to these factories of mediocrity while mommy and daddy go off to work all day. There's a stunning correlation between the rise of public schools and the death of original thought.Spark wrote:
...and education?JohnG@lt wrote:
The governments only jobs are providing defense and applying justice. The moment it steps outside of punishing actions that create a victim i.e. theft, fraud, rape, murder, assault etc. A real crime, where someone has been willfully injured either financially or physically, it steps into the world of moralizing and coercion.
eh. i won't derail this thread, pm's inbound.
Last edited by Spark (2010-08-30 07:56:45)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
No, it's fine. It should be voluntary. I shouldn't have property taxes extorted out of me to pay for education. If people want to have kids, they should pay out of their own pocket to educate them. If the kids parents fail at life and refuse to pay up, it's no skin off my back, we always need cashiers at McDonalds.Spark wrote:
come on galt, i'm trying to get a slightly more in-depth response than that.JohnG@lt wrote:
What about it? Why did sending children to public schools become the be all/end all of educating children? Hell, kids probably come out of public schools dumber than they would if they just sat at home in front of the tv all day. We aren't doing them any favors shunting them off to these factories of mediocrity while mommy and daddy go off to work all day. There's a stunning correlation between the rise of public schools and the death of original thought.Spark wrote:
...and education?
eh. i won't derail this threads, pm's inbound.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat