Obama To Venture Into The Private Sector In Unprecedented Fashion

[LogicFlux]

Level playing fields are systems where your parents success has ZERO effect on you personal success, and where your previous success has ZERO effect on your continued success. Mainly the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. America may be the land of opportunity, but you are blind if you think the playing field is level.

A true level playing field would have to be socialistic wouldn't it? The upward mobility in this country is good(I think I read it's about the same as the UK, which is probably about the same as most of the western world(that includes Australia)) and I think could be a lot better except a lot of people are happy living in a trailer and eating bologna.
I don't think the metrics used to measure social mobility factor in how much a particular person can move up once they do move. I think it only measures the likelihood that someone will move up.
If you created a social mobility index that factored in the amount which one changes their socio/economic standing, I'm sure the US's would fair much better than most of Europe or Australia. I'd dare say it'd do better than all of them.

The rich get richer in this country because the producer's are allowed more reign than in some other countries. There's not an appointed few of rich people who get to stay in the "rich club" and enjoy more riches. There's a lot of turnover among the rich(or at least new members to the club). There are new rich people in America every day.
And the poor get poorer mostly on account of their own decisions. (I said mostly, I'm not unsympathetic to lower classes since that's where I come from)
People still come to the US from other countries and do well. Really well. The ones who come here and want to work hard and get rich have a really good chance compared to other countries they would go to. The ones who want to sit around and complain about others getting too rich will never get ahead. They will continue to get poorer.

No it's called cheap debt. Where customers spend beyond their ability to earn because debt is freely available. Mainly caused in America by a profligacy of cheap mortgage debt that bouy's consumer spending, which, as I discuss above, has ended in large government buyouts that further screw your poor, and inflate the wealth of your rich, skewing that "level playing field" even further.

People have had it pretty well in America for quite a long time, quite a while before we went completely apeshit with going into debt. The credit insanity of the American consumer seems to be pretty well correlated to the rise of China and their willingness to buy our debt. China needs a rich country to buy their cheap, crappy products and the US consumer is always happy to take on more crappy stuff that they don't need.

Chinese debt buying and export to US + cheap, easy money because of low interest rates(which 9/11 had a lot to do with) + lack of laws to prohibit all the crazy shit that went on in the financials = our current crisis

I agree with hellblazer mostly. I just think not intervening in the market at this point in time would have worse consequences. A depression caused by not intervening is more likely than hyper-inflation caused by intervening. I'm guided more by pragmatism than by principle.

 

[Metcalfe]

What about the people who die on waiting lists? What about the people who die because there is only one service level?

I agree, what about those people? We are discussing the effects of government intervention. I don't know the ins and outs of your healthcare system, are these things related?

What the government is doing, is taking from someone else by threat of force to save that persons life. Don't make ends justify the means arguments, and then try to claim the moral high ground. No one is buying it.

That is an interesting argument, one I haven't heard before. I assume you are equating taxes with the threat of force? And thus saying that the use of tax money to save someones life is tainted? I suppose that we differ in opinion here because I think tax money should be used as the democratic majority in a country sees fit, in the case of America through the elective representation system. I personally believe that along with necessary infrastructure such as roads and so forth, equal opportunity healthcare should be something that the citizens of a country agree they will provide for each other, and judging by the fact that Obama was voted in it seems that is the prevailing wind in your country too (I didn't pay super close attention to his campaign but I am pretty sure he mentioned "fixing healthcare" in there somewhere). I don't see it as my money being forcibly taken from me and given to someone else. So in your eyes it is a "ends justify the means" thing, but in mine it is not. And yes I suppose I am taking the moral high ground insofar as I believe that your unwillingness to support something like equal opportunity healthcare belies a level of personal greed and indifference to others suffering that I don't agree with.

Deregulation is not to blame. Madoff was best friends with everyone in the SEC as he ran the largest private ponzi scheme in the history of mankind.

Right, corruption vs. regulation are two seperate arguments. Let's stick to regulation. Unless you are implying all regulation is corrupt by using an individual example?

What is to blame, is a system where people know they can get away with things, because the only people watching are the regulators, not all of their customers. When people can see clearly what they are buying, instead of relying on regulators and ratings agencies that have been bought off, they will at least be going in to a transaction aware of the risks.

You can regulate until you are blue in the face. You can't control crooks. All you can do is make it harder for private citizens to make informed, intelligent and rational decisions in the marketplace. As it is, banks already write the legislation and then Chris Dodd puts his name on it. Then later tells the media he didn't read the bill, so he doesn't know what he put his name on, meanwhile Countrywide bank is giving him sweetheart mortgage deals.

Regulation is a con game, always has been, always will be.

Investing is an information game, the more complete your information, the better chance you have of coming out ahead.
I am an advocate of regulation that enforces disclosure of the details of financial instruments, and perhaps something that makes people liable if they give investment advice they know to be incorrect. Neither of those pieces of regulation would "make it harder for private citizens to make informed, intelligent and rational decisions in the marketplace".

More laws have never made a people better. Being educated and informed has always raised the moral standard in a society. If rules and control were the key, the Soviets would still be kicking ass. The authoritarian Chinese governments would have perfect societies.

Think about that.

The answer isn't in more rules, the answer is in smarter rules, but you are right. Being educated and informed is the key to raising the moral standard, as well as the standard of living.

The government aids the public in raising the standard of education, and thus the standard of living, through the judicious use of tax money for public schooling.

 

[guerilla]

Intervention caused the Depression. The Depression of 1921 was a lot deeper than the Great Depression at the start, but laissez-faire government policies had the economy turned around in 18 months and headed into the Roaring 20s with a full head of steam.

Hoover and FDR elected to price fix and impose tariffs (Buy American type policies) which ground a weak economy to a halt. When you are a net exporter it's a bad idea to tell your foreign customers, you won't be buying any of their goods. That started the Smoot-Hawley trade war with Europe, right at the tip of the Depression. Epic fail.

At one point, to keep food prices high, they actually ordered farmers to slaughter livestock and plow under fields when people in the cities had to line up at soup kitchens just to eat. In retrospect, the policies where completely nuts.

The economy is trying to find the floor, to find a new level for prices that accurately reflect the distribution and availability of capital, labor, productivity and debt. Until it finds the floor, economic stagnation will continue, because no one wants to invest (foreign or domestic) until they know the worst is over. Price fixing (intervention) will attempt to prevent this.

No one wants to see falling prices. Except buyers.

And it's buyers who will restart the economy by investing and consuming. That is why they made up this "credit crunch" nonsense. They are trying to explain why people are not consuming (it's the fucked up policies, stupid!). They are not consuming, because no one wants to buy houses or cars right now, they might be cheaper in 6 months. When they say consumer confidence is low, in a way they are right. It is low confidence that things won't be cheaper tomorrow, so people are sitting on their money, saving up for even lower prices and deferring their consumption now so they can profit later.

 

[Metcalfe]

There are people who are dying because they can't afford healthcare, and that's sad. Some people have genetic diseases, or other health problems that they can't help but having.

Then there are people who have medical problems because of lifestyle choices that they made. There are people who are unable to pay their medical bills because of choices that they made and an overall lack of planning. There are very few people dying because they can't afford healthcare. Charity and pro-bono work go very far in the United States. People step up and help other people out quite a bit here. We just like to know where our money is going, and a lot of us are very tired of paying for someone's baby's momma to pop out another paycheck, or paying for their diabetes medication because their entire diet for the last 20 years has consisted of McDonald's apple pies.

See now that's a solid irrefutable personal choice argument, free of knee-jerk cries of "socialism". But I still prefer to live in a country where on the off chance you don't have health insurance and get fucked somehow, legislation backs up your right to health care.

And many of the problems ARE the fault of the jobless. There are easy, free ways to improve your skills enough that you can get a job in America. Job training is easily available - and if you don't like that route, there's always ditches to be dug. There is work, if you want it, and if you want to eat.

Collapses of large companies are rarely if ever the fault of 99% of the employees. I am saying the problems aren't the fault of those who LOSE their jobs in a crisis. You might be right in placing some of the blame at the feet of the perennial jobless.

FUCK level playing fields. The only level playing field is on a foosball table without any humans controlling the little kicky guys. And what fun is that? The only people whining about level playing fields are pussies and losers. Rich get richer because they've found their niche and are able to exploit it. The poor get poorer because they're whining about level playing fields and are waiting for a messiah to come save them from their own laziness and stupidity.

I agree, fuck em. So long as you realise the U.S isn't a level playing field

SUV's rock when you have 7 people in a family that all need to go somewhere.

SUV's rock when you need to go pick something up, or when you're doing your grocery shopping.

Why am I justifying SUV's to you? Either you like them or you don't. It's nice to have the freedom to choose, however.

Fuck I don't care. But that other guy claims they are proof of America's awesomeness... somehow.

Spending too much leads to bankruptcy. Our government isn't letting business fail and that's going to bite us in the ass. But we get the government we deserve.

Exactly. Bailing out only saves the big dogs.

Everyone wasn't screwed until we started bailing people out. Now everyone's screwed. Everyone was stupid, and we should have allowed them to FAIL: The people buying houses they can't afford, people getting them approved without verification, people buying the mortgages and so on. Let it FAIL.

Right.

Good. For now, anyways. I'm sure freedom of speech will be on it's way out when it's determined we can't afford it anymore here.

Yay Australia. Also it seems we are agreed:

Bailouts = bad

However, I still maintain that just because the bailout is bad, doesn't mean all government influence is bad.

 

[Metcalfe]

...Epic fail...

Agreed, that policy was epic fail. Many policies are epic fail. But the current crisis could have been averted with certain types of regulation.

I think that people brush with such broad strokes, they cover up the individual issues. I don't like the idea of a socialist state any more than you do, but you are suffering from the result of too little regulation (again, thats my opinion). If your economy wasn't so fucked from all the mortgage shit, combined with the dumb bailouts stopping the companies from failing, the economy would be awesome.

So bailout = bad.

Lack of regulation leading to subprime crisis = bad...


Oh and re net exporters: http://relistr.com/real-estate/squanderville-versus-thriftville-by-warren-buffet.html
Interesting read.

 

[guerilla]

That is an interesting argument, one I haven't heard before. I assume you are equating taxes with the threat of force?

Taxes are by definition theft. They are involuntary contributions. If they were voluntary, they would be called charity.

And thus saying that the use of tax money to save someones life is tainted?

What I am saying is, you are making ends justify the means arguments. To save a life, it is ok to take property from someone else by force. To educate someone, it is ok to take property from someone else by force. To feed someone, it is ok to take property from someone else by force.

The two most important laws for a civil society, are thou shalt not kill, and thou shalt not steal. That's the bedrock of modern civilization. Respect life, and respect property.

Now the only way you can claim I have an OBLIGATION to save someone else's life, would be to claim they have a positive right. Meaning if I am responsible for their life, then I must also be responsible for their general health. I must be responsible for making sure they don't get injured, they get enough sleep, they take their vitamins, and so on and so forth. And the insane principle, that I am the keeper of all of my human brothers, means I have the same obligation to all of them, all of the time.

It's illogical, and it is irrational.

I suppose that we differ in opinion here because I think tax money should be used as the democratic majority in a country sees fit, in the case of America through the elective representation system.

So it is ok to steal if the group approves. When Blacks were kept as slaves, was that also ok because it was a democratic decision?

When Hitler sent the Jews to Auschwitz, was that valid because he was democratically empowered?

Of course not.

Democracy is only mob rule. If the mob makes a bad decision, if it makes an immoral decision, it doesn't become righteous because people "voted on it".

And yes I suppose I am taking the moral high ground insofar as I believe that your unwillingness to support something like equal opportunity healthcare belies a level of personal greed and indifference to others suffering that I don't agree with.

But why stop at equal opportunity health care? Why not equal opportunity jobs? Education? Houses? Cars?

Why not equal opportunity marriages? Equal opportunity sex lives?

As far as personal greed, that would imply I don't believe or participate in charity. And that would be wrong. On the contrary, you are confusing your voting to validate taking from someone else, and giving it to someone in need as YOUR OWN CHARITY.

Big difference. I don't agree with you using the power of the state to perform your moral duty to your fellow man by coercing others.

Right, corruption vs. regulation are two seperate arguments. Let's stick to regulation. Unless you are implying all regulation is corrupt by using an individual example?

Regulation is anti-freedom.

Regulation by definition makes business more expensive to start and operate. So what purpose does lots of regulation serve then?

It keeps the poorest people who start out with little or no capital from being able to compete. As you say, the rich get richer, because regulation ensures that only the rich have the capacity to play the game.

Investing is an information game, the more complete your information, the better chance you have of coming out ahead.

Well then why would you insist upon a monopoly of regulators? Wouldn't you rather have 20 different regulators than one? That way you could get different opinions, and benefit from different perspectives.

I am an advocate of regulation that enforces disclosure of the details of financial instruments, and perhaps something that makes people liable if they give investment advice they know to be incorrect. Neither of those pieces of regulation would "make it harder for private citizens to make informed, intelligent and rational decisions in the marketplace".

To the former, people will not invest in opaque firms if there are transparent firms to invest in. It would be unprofitable to attract capital by being secretive. The market can regulate transparency.

To the latter, if people commit fraud that is a crime. That's not regulation. That is basic enforcement of contract.

The answer isn't in more rules, the answer is in smarter rules, but you are right.

The government rarely if ever does anything very smart. As entropy is increasing at a break neck speed, government can't make laws fast enough to keep up. The only check that works, is the market. A man, on the spot can decide whether or not he wants to buy something based on his assessment of a business or product. If he has to wait for government to pass a law, setup an agency, then send out regulators, then conduct an investigation...

And people wonder why the economy grinds to a halt under excessive government intervention...

Look at the commies, they regulated so much, no one did anything, and they all collapsed not militarily, or even ideologically. They went FLAT BROKE.

The government aids the public in raising the standard of education, and thus the standard of living, through the judicious use of tax money for public schooling.

This is an ends justifies the means argument. It's still stealing.

I gotta go make some skrilla. Thanks for chattin.

 

[jdomaha]

See now that's a solid irrefutable personal choice argument, free of knee-jerk cries of "socialism". But I still prefer to live in a country where on the off chance you don't have health insurance and get fucked somehow, legislation backs up your right to health care.

You don't have a right to health care. You have the right to buy it if you can afford it, and to hold the people who sell it responsible for the contract that you both sign.

Collapses of large companies are rarely if ever the fault of 99% of the employees. I am saying the problems aren't the fault of those who LOSE their jobs in a crisis. You might be right in placing some of the blame at the feet of the perennial jobless.

Sometimes there are so many factors involved in the failure of a company that nobody can keep track of them. Sometimes there's one. Too many variables.

I agree, fuck em. So long as you realise the U.S isn't a level playing field

As long as you realize government shouldn't concern itself with making things a level playing field beyond a certain point.

Fuck I don't care. But that other guy claims they are proof of America's awesomeness... somehow.

America, when it's letting business do what business does best, is awesome.

However, I still maintain that just because the bailout is bad, doesn't mean all government influence is bad.

Not all. Just most.

 

[Metcalfe]

...

Taxes = theft is bullshit:
Taxes are part of an agreement that voters make with government, a contract in which citizens agree to exchange their money for the government's goods and services. To consume these goods and services without paying for them is itself theft, and is rightly punished as breach of contract. Some may object that they have not agreed to the contract, but if so, then they must not consume the government's goods and services. Furthermore, contract by majority rule is better than by minority rule, one-person rule or anarchy (which results in kill-or-be-killed). Opponents of taxation under democracy are therefore challenged to find an improvement on democracy.

Taxes are theft

"ends justify the means" becomes irrelevant when you take taxes as no longer being theft.

I am saying that health care should be part of the minimum duty of care agreed upon in the social contract.

As for your insane calls on slavery and hitler. Again: Taxes != theft.
(Also Godwins Law. You lose: Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Why stop before "Equal opportunity sex lives"? Because human existence is a compromise between compassion, a level playing field and competition. My morals say that are allowing everyone a certain minimum standard in certain areas and the opportunity, but not the guarantee, to have more is what is right and what will further my own society and humanity as a whole, it means there is a purpose to striving for more, to achieving, but still allows for a minimum standard of living. We all win in that case.

I think the rest of your post becomes increasingly illogical. The marketplace consistently fails to select (in the darwinian sense) for transparency. A fool and his money are soon separated to be sure. But a system which ensures that all the players are fools is not a good system.

---

jdomaha:

Every right that you uphold, by definition, restricts someone else's right. My right to not get killed by you thwarts your right to kill me.
The right to kill someone may seem like an illogical right to you, but that doesn't stop it being a right.

This list seems like it strikes a good balance: Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And does happen to include healthcare.

 

[jdomaha]

jdomaha:

Every right that you uphold, by definition, restricts someone else's right. My right to not get killed by you thwarts your right to kill me.
The right to kill someone may seem like an illogical right to you, but that doesn't stop it being a right.

This list seems like it strikes a good balance: Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And does happen to include healthcare.

Uh, what?

Dude you have different levels of rights. Absolute and relative, public and private.

I think you've been drinking.

 

[jdomaha]

Equal opportunity sex lives?

This is all I got from this post.

If Obama had promised this, maybe I would have voted for him.

 

[LogicFlux]

Anybody who doesn't think we should have bailed out AIG, read this.
Particularly page two.

AIG might be in trouble. But what do I care? Because the global economy could, possibly, come to a halt.
Banks all over the world bought CDS protection from AIG. If AIG is not able to make good on that promise of payment, then every one of those banks has lost that protection. Overnight, the banks have to buy replacement coverage at much higher rates, because the risks now are much worse than they were when AIG sold most of these CDS contracts.
In short, banks all over the world are instantly worth less money. The numbers seem to be quite huge-possibly in the hundreds of billions. To cover that instantaneous loss, banks will lend out less money. That means other banks can't borrow to pay this new cost, and weaker banks might not have enough; they'll collapse. That will further shrink the global pool of money.
This will likely spur a whole new round of CDS payouts-all those collapsed banks issue bonds that someone, somewhere sold CDS protection for. That new round of CDS payouts could cause another round of bank failures.

The bailouts aren't about helping the rich and screwing the poor. They're about keeping worldwide financial institutions, which are more interconnected than anytime in history, from falling like dominoes.

And yes, many securities and derivatives, and the practices in general in the financial markets should have been more tightly regulated. In the case of CDSs they weren't really regulated at all.

Bailing out AIG isn't about bailing out a US financial instution. It's about keep institutions from all over the world from failing like the ones in Europe who bought CDSs from AIG so they could leverage their capital more.

I'd really like to have someone(who isn't a conspiracy nut) explain to me why sitting back and letting these failures happen(which is a potentially huge number) is a good thing.

 

[LotsOfZeros]

I personally believe that along with necessary infrastructure such as roads and so forth, equal opportunity healthcare should be something that the citizens of a country agree they will provide for each other

I always LOL when I hear socialism in healthcare being sugar-coated under the name "equal opportunity healthcare" when in reality, those who have terminal diseases are determined to be no longer worth saving and as a result, are denied care by bureaucrats in the interests of reducing costs of a failing system (see the UK). If a health insurance executive pulled the same trick in a private system, he'd be in some major legal hot water for sure.

 

[guerilla]

Taxes are part of an agreement that voters make with government, a contract in which citizens agree to exchange their money for the government's goods and services.

That's called a social contract. Lysander Spooner debunked it in No Treason and Constitution of No Authority. The gist of which, is that you cannot be born into a social contract because that would validate slavery.

To consume these goods and services without paying for them is itself theft, and is rightly punished as breach of contract.

So if I cut your lawn and wash your car without your permission, and you don't pay me, that's theft?

Of course not. Contracts have to be explicit, not implicit. A monopoly social contract you cannot get out of is not a valid contract.

Furthermore, contract by majority rule is better than by minority rule, one-person rule or anarchy (which results in kill-or-be-killed).

That's an assertion. It says that individuals cannot make individual choices as well as groups can. Also, kill or be killed is not a consequence of anarchy. Anarchy is based on the non-aggression principle, which says that any aggression is wrong.

In the 20th century, various majorities killed 175 million of their own citizens through war and genocide. The majority wanted Jews killed, empowered your notion of a valid social contract.

Avoid utilitarian arguments, they are usually incompatible with moral positions or emotive pleas for compassion. Slavery and repression of women is probably justified on utilitarian grounds, but certainly not on moral ones.

Opponents of taxation under democracy are therefore challenged to find an improvement on democracy.

That's called shifting the burden of proof. No one is obligated to prove a negative. You are making positive assertions about democracy, you have to be able to back them up to have a valid argument, otherwise we fall into the trap theists use. God exists unless you can disprove him, when clearly the burden of proof is to make the existence of God indisputable.

Taxes are theft

http://www.nothirdsolution.com/non-libertarian-faq/#5

That Huppi guy has been refuted numerous times. He complete neglects to understand that a valid contract requires both parties to enter into it, without coercion. A social contract is not a valid contract.

"ends justify the means" becomes irrelevant when you take taxes as no longer being theft.

You can't declare a QED without actually proving anything.

I am saying that health care should be part of the minimum duty of care agreed upon in the social contract.

Again, no one agrees to the contract. The contract is enforced upon birth by one party, regardless of consent. Did anyone ask you if you want to pay taxes? Did you have the option to decline?

As for your insane calls on slavery and hitler. Again: Taxes != theft.
(Also Godwins Law. You lose: Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

This is a childish copout on a serious discussion.

You assert all sorts of claims but won't back them up. You claim that majority rule is best, and that the social contract can be altered by majority. You hold democracy as an ideal, it's opponents must disprove.

But when I point out that Hitler gained democratic power legally to commit genocide on Jews, you duck the issue. When I point out that democracy made blacks slaves, you duck again. Democracy is only as good as the people voting, and only as valid as the limitations on it's power.

Why stop before "Equal opportunity sex lives"? Because human existence is a compromise between compassion, a level playing field and competition.

In other words, you change the rules when it suits you. There are no objective truths, no absolute unalienable human rights.

My morals say that are allowing everyone a certain minimum standard in certain areas and the opportunity, but not the guarantee, to have more is what is right and what will further my own society and humanity as a whole, it means there is a purpose to striving for more, to achieving, but still allows for a minimum standard of living. We all win in that case.

Right, so as long as you vote for government agents to confiscate someone else's wealth to feed the poor, that makes you a compassionate human being. :costumed-smiley-015

The problem with bleeding heart liberals is that their hearts bleed with someone else's blood. It's easy to vote for taxes on someone else, no one who can't afford it votes for more taxes on himself. And everyone determines their materially needs individually, because we're not communal socialist beings.

I think the rest of your post becomes increasingly illogical.

That's funny because you have posted a whole bunch of logical fallacies.

You shift the burden of proof, you post strawman arguments. You make arguments to popularity, false dilemmas etc.

You have yet to make any rational cogent points.

The marketplace consistently fails to select (in the darwinian sense) for transparency.

The free market? Where does that exist? Do you mean the market under the state doesn't select for transparency? YES, I AGREE! That is why there are bailouts for fraudulent market operators by fraudulent politicians.

The internet is the closest thing to a free market. The cost of entry is almost nil, Nickycakes said he started aff marketing with $25 a day. The freedom and opportunity of an open market gives lots of chances to people to get ahead. Sure people get scammed online. It is impossible to allow people free will, and then save them from making bad decisions. Socialists seems to think you can have both. Free will, just not free enough to do anything bad, whatever the majority decides that is, whether it is women voting, blacks owning property or gays living in couples.

Your opening line was,

Taxes = theft is bullshit:

I have refuted all of your points. Do you have anything else to offer, or a counter argument?

If you reply back, avoid the logical fallacies. You can google for lists and descriptions of them online to check your own work. I would like to have discussion with rational individuals, I don't have a lot of time for people who post illogical positions and stamp their foot with indignation crying " I FEEL THIS, I KNOW THIS, I THINK THIS" when they can't prove any of it.

 

[Metcalfe]

Mmm, I see I am not going to convince any of you to change your mind, nor do I expect to. It is always interesting to see the reasoning behind the opinions of another culture.

(started writing this before your post)

 

[guerilla]

I'd really like to have someone(who isn't a conspiracy nut) explain to me why sitting back and letting these failures happen(which is a potentially huge number) is a good thing.

Trust Matt Taibbi. He's as anti-conspiracy theory as it gets in the independent press. He wrote "The Great Derangement" which is an anti-conspiracy theory book.

The Big Takeover : Rolling Stone

But really, trust Jim Rogers.

Channel 4 - News - Interview: Jim Rogers

 

[aim]

It's ingrained in our DNA help ourselves and our family first, and society as a whole if the resources still exist to do so.

It is also ingrained in what us human to advance and grow in size, scope, influence and power whatever group or organization that you're a part of.

Just as you want to mate and reproduce and grow your family, and
just as the Red Cross wants to grow their organization and help more families in need, and
just as the CEO of any private company wants to grow and expand their business, and
just as, with few exceptions, politicians want to grow the size of Government, which is dangerous because of how in the red we already are as a country.

I often have these philosophical discussions with friends at the bars and nightclubs (cool, I know), and what it all boils down to is this:

Free Markets - Truly Free Market [Austrian Economics Free Market] - Allows innovative and productive people to reach unimaginable potential, potentials which society as a whole benefits from.

The Downside is that the lazy and unmotivated people get left in the dust and die out. Survival of the fittest, if you will.

The problem is that, at this point in our evolution as a society, we've reach a level of enlightenment and moral obligation to pick up those individuals that have contributed no NET gain to our advancement as a people, which has created this entitlement society welfare state that we're dealing with today.

Perhaps the believers in free market put too much trust and confidence into society.

Perhaps the folks on the far left have realized that people in general are just fucking stupid, ignorant and incapable, so they need a government to manage their growth, wages and in effect make them slaves, because, on their own, they would perish.

Fuck now I'm just rambling but excellent points as always Guerilla, love your counter arguments.

 

[hellblazer]

Guerilla, I remember beefing with you on some other thread, but you are killin it on this topic. Good shit. +rep

 

[Metcalfe]

Your points are interesting and your criticism of my own points equally valid.

I find this to be an engaging discussion. But I may have to return after I have gotten some sleep.

But answer me this:

If we agree that logically there can be no social contract without consent from both sides and thus no social contract from birth then how can any contract exist?

If contracts can exist then:
At some point in the childs life the ability to form a contract with someone else occurs. The only options are that:

The ability to form a contract is innate, that is to say the child is born with the ability to form contracts, though not born into a contract.

The ability to form a contract is developed at some arbitrary point, for example the age of 18.

The ability to form a contract is never developed.


If the ability to form a contract is innate we run into the same problem as when a child is born into a contract. They can be born and then, since consent can be given immediately, they can be entered into a contract of slavery.

If the ability to form a contract is not innate, and contracts can be formed at all, then the point at which a child can begin to form contracts is some arbitrary point after birth and before "never". There is no purely logical point at which a person can begin to enter into contracts.
If there is no logical point at which a person can begin to enter contracts and
If contracts cannot exist before birth.

We can say that the point at which a person can begin to enter in to contracts is in fact governed by a contract that they have not consented to.

Maybe I am making an error somewhere, but does this parse?

 

[guerilla]

Your points are interesting and your criticism of my own points equally valid.

Thank you and I appreciate the sincere response. I'll go through your post and reply back later.

 

[LogicFlux]

Trust Matt Taibbi. He's as anti-conspiracy theory as it gets in the independent press. He wrote "The Great Derangement" which is an anti-conspiracy theory book.

The Big Takeover : Rolling Stone

The Big Takeover : Rolling Stone

The crisis was the coup de grâce: Given virtually free rein over the economy, these same insiders first wrecked the financial world, then cunningly granted themselves nearly unlimited emergency powers to clean up their own mess. And so the gambling-addict leaders of companies like AIG end up not penniless and in jail, but with an Alien-style death grip on the Treasury and the Federal Reserve — "our partners in the government," as Liddy put it with a shockingly casual matter-of-factness after the most recent bailout.

It sounds like conspiracy theory to me. If it's the global banking elite plotting a takeover then why have the elite of the elite gone in the shitter? Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns; they're all gone. They're all either bankrupt, acquired in firesales, or turned into holding companies.

The only way it makes sense is if you buy the Alex Jones style explanation that it is consolidation by design. And that's grade-a, wacko, they've implanted a chip in my brain type of stuff.

There was no design. Wall Streeters did what they always do, they try to make as much money, usually by any legal means possible. The problem is that they got much better(like by hiring physicists to come up with derivative models) and at the same time the regulators or those that would create regulations weren't keeping up. It's like making a ferrari enzo and not giving it brakes.


Jim Rogers was comparing Japan's problem of the 90s to this but this is a global problem. I don't see how the world's banking system being saturated with toxic assets and the threat of global depression is analogous to the Japanese problem?

Question: Do you think letting all the institutions fail will cause a global depression?

Question2: If not, how exactly would it be averted?

Question3: If yes to question1, is it worth it?