Can Someone Justify The Trickle Down Theory?

[actinanass]

And, I've been waiting for months for you to counter the examples I have already given.

Everytime I give you an example of a system that works in anarchy, you come up with some lame excuse for why it's not good enough for you.

For instance, the Ottoman Empire used a sound money. No massive government bureaucracy, no huge military, no intrusive welfare programs. No government dictating how to raise children, what to eat, what to believe, creating fictional enemies, subsidizing big business, with a myriad of taxes on income, home, and personal property.

And, it lasted 1000 years because government knew its place. Keep the peace. That is all.

The Greeks used a sound money for hundreds of years. In fact, it lasted so long, the Romans ended up using it. But, the Romans tried to debase the money which is one reason they collapsed. The Romans had the American model of government which is telling everyone how to live, a huge military, and massive bureaucracy. Look how that worked out for them.

The Chinese lasted for thousands of years with sound money. They realized bureaucracy, military, and bullying the people does not work.

So, explain to me again how the United States model is so superior and wonderful when it can't even go 10 years without yet another depression, recession, contraction, or collapse, starting another war, or adding a new law telling people how to live their lives.

You say it's the best because you don't want to see anything better.

This is simple to answer. Unlike the empires you describe, a private citizen can achieve great wealth in a short period of time. The ottoman, chinese, greek, and roman cultures all had some sort of king/ruler to run the government. Thus, they typically only had 2 classes *rich or poor*. Our system has ups, and downs due to the fact that so many people either win in the market, or loses money. If you want no movement in the market, then you are content on living the way you are living right now. Nothing is wrong with that, however, many want to achieve better things for generations to come.

I rather have a 2 year recession, than a lifetime depression any day...

 

[nittie]

China is seen variously as an ancient civilization extending over a large area in East Asia, a nation and/or a multinational entity.

China is one of the world's oldest civilizations and is regarded as the oldest continuous civilization. From 1000 to 1400, it possessed one of the the most advanced society and economy in the world through successive dynasties.

China isn't anarchial but until the mid 20th century they where about harmony instead of competition that philosophy allowed them to last while every other civilization rose and fell. America on the other hand is about competition and after 250 yrs it is in decline. Capitalism, free market, could work if it wasn't for the central govt, banking system and adversarial philosophy, anarchy is a alternative.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

And, I've been waiting for months for you to counter the examples I have already given.

Everytime I give you an example of a system that works in anarchy, you come up with some lame excuse for why it's not good enough for you.

For instance, the Ottoman Empire used a sound money. No massive government bureaucracy, no huge military, no intrusive welfare programs. No government dictating how to raise children, what to eat, what to believe, creating fictional enemies, subsidizing big business, with a myriad of taxes on income, home, and personal property.

And, it lasted 1000 years because government knew its place. Keep the peace. That is all.

The Greeks used a sound money for hundreds of years. In fact, it lasted so long, the Romans ended up using it. But, the Romans tried to debase the money which is one reason they collapsed. The Romans had the American model of government which is telling everyone how to live, a huge military, and massive bureaucracy. Look how that worked out for them.

The Chinese lasted for thousands of years with sound money. They realized bureaucracy, military, and bullying the people does not work.

So, explain to me again how the United States model is so superior and wonderful when it can't even go 10 years without yet another depression, recession, contraction, or collapse, starting another war, or adding a new law telling people how to live their lives.

You say it's the best because you don't want to see anything better.

Actually, this is the first time you really tried to give some examples other than the internet. Those examples aren't examples of anarchy and you were quickly and easily shot down.

This is simple to answer. Unlike the empires you describe, a private citizen can achieve great wealth in a short period of time. The ottoman, chinese, greek, and roman cultures all had some sort of king/ruler to run the government. Thus, they typically only had 2 classes *rich or poor*. Our system has ups, and downs due to the fact that so many people either win in the market, or loses money. If you want no movement in the market, then you are content on living the way you are living right now. Nothing is wrong with that, however, many want to achieve better things for generations to come.

I rather have a 2 year recession, than a lifetime depression any day...

And the recessions don't have to be so cyclical and they're easily averted but we've turned into a nation of instant gratification with no thoughts on what happens next.

 

[Cruise]

Actually, this is the first time you really tried to give some examples other than the internet. Those examples aren't examples of anarchy and you were quickly and easily shot down.

Typical. Your responses are always so predictable.

When you get exposed, you act like it didn't happen and hope no one else notices.

You have no facts, no history, no evidence to offer because your "America is best because I say so"-routine has no foundation in reality.

Everytime you get exposed, you do the equivalent of covering your eyes, mouth, and ears and say la-la-la as if that somehow changes anything.

America is the epitome of a failed experiment. It only got over because of stealing from every culture they met.

Now that there is little else to steal, and no new cultures to exploit, the American fraud is being exposed.

Anarchy is the natural state of things. The United States assaulted the natural state with its slavery, Jim Crow, separate-but-equal, credit, and corporations. Society cannot be stable if you go around screaming it's a "free" society every chance you get while denying freedom to a huge portion of its people. It undermines the authority of the state and destabilizes the society.

Nature abhors a hypocrite, which is what the United States is. That is why it is doomed along with those who try to fight the inevitable. It is why Rome was in a continual state of decay, yet the Chinese, Turks, even the Egyptians lasted for more than a 1000 years.

Facts. Evidence. History. You have heard of them, right?
Why not try and use them for once.

 

[thoughtone]

I don't know if anyone can justify any ideology. Maybe one can find examples to support a line of thought.

Let's say you own a cruise line. You employ about 350 people per cruise. The BGOL family are your customers. When we cruise with you your employees are paid a salary. Hence trickle-down economics. The market dictates their salary, tips.

When those who have the means to spend on such luxuries cruise they spend money. Which allows your employees to have a job.

You made an awful leap in your example. First off, the cruise line had to be created some how. Loans and capital had to be created from somewhere. If a billion dollar pharmaceutical company discovers a cure for cancer and no one buys it, then where is the trickle down? This describes the American health care system perfectly. Wealthy insurance and drug companies hold all of the resources and the public can't afford to use their services. They have to go through private health plans for medical services. The flaw in the trickle down premise.

Is it that you feel employees should be made middle class to upper middle class?
How can they be made millionaires under democratic policies? Who simply keep the masses on life support from year to year. C'mon thought, billions have been spent on the war on poverty. People are still poor!!!

Life support? The middle class has been shrinking since the mid 1980s. Who has been making economic policy since then?

 

[thoughtone]

http://www.newsmax.com/


for it… hopefully the Republicans won't go along."

© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Newsmax​

I'll just let the source stand on it's own!

 

[thoughtone]

Actually Thought, he *obama* is losing the independent vote. That's the part that's killing him. Liberals, like you, will be unhappy anyway.

<iframe src="http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/major-factor-in-obamas-wapo-poll-slide-drop-among-dems-liberals/" width=700 height=900></iframe>

 

[Lamarr]

For instance, the Ottoman Empire used a sound money. No massive government bureaucracy, no huge military, no intrusive welfare programs. No government dictating how to raise children, what to eat, what to believe, creating fictional enemies, subsidizing big business, with a myriad of taxes on income, home, and personal property.

And, it lasted 1000 years because government knew its place. Keep the peace. That is all.

The Greeks used a sound money for hundreds of years. In fact, it lasted so long, the Romans ended up using it. But, the Romans tried to debase the money which is one reason they collapsed. The Romans had the American model of government which is telling everyone how to live, a huge military, and massive bureaucracy. Look how that worked out for them.

The Chinese lasted for thousands of years with sound money. They realized bureaucracy, military, and bullying the people does not work.

when I look at your examples, one thing is consistent. The presence of "sound money"! Constructively, it might enlighten others if you explain the 'sound money' concept. Some may think Bernanke & crew are providing us with a stable currency.

 

[Lamarr]

Lamarr I have to give it to you. We may disagree on the war, but you hit it on the nail about the monetary policies.

thanks man..........you'll come around on our foreign policy

 

[Gunner]

Newsmax​

I'll just let the source stand on it's own!

Similar to the fraudulent data you cite from the Daily Ko's??

 

[thoughtone]

Mr. Dave, there is no perfect economic system.
But for some strange odd reason thousands of our latino brothers cross the desert on a daily basis to get to a free market system. Our cuban and hatian brothers climb onto rickety boats to get to our shores all in the name of freedom.
I don't remember Russia ever having a problem with illegals floating to their shores.

As I recall, most communist nations have more people whom are not free and have armed guards on the border to keep the people from leaving.

If our system is so bad can you please name one that is superior to ours?

I mean lets be frank here, if the right is for the rich only ( as most democrats assume) wouldn't they want to keep their base rich to retain their power in congress?

Then if the democratic base is for the downtrodden wouldn't they want to keep their base poor to retain power. Because if they equip them with the where with all to better their lot in life they would lose power.

Look at the poorest cities they are still poor, yet and still come election time the left blame the right even when they control the mayors seat, councilmen seat and the school boards.

I don't remember Russia ever having a problem with illegals floating to their shores.

Once again you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. For once, think for yourself.

source: Wiki

Russia experiences a constant flow of immigration. On average, 200,000 legal immigrants enter the country every year; about half are ethnic Russians from other republics of the former Soviet Union. In addition, there are an estimated 10-12 million illegal immigrants in the country.<SUP id=cite_ref-83 class=reference>[84]</SUP> There has been a significant influx of ethnic Georgians, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Tajiks, and Uzbeks into big Russian cities in recent years, which has been viewed very unfavorably by many citizens, and has contributed to nationalist sentiments.<SUP id=cite_ref-84 class=reference>[85]</SUP><SUP id=cite_ref-85 class=reference>[86]</SUP><SUP id=cite_ref-86 class=reference>[87]</SUP> Many immigrant ethnic groups have much higher birth rates than native Russians, further shifting the balance. Some Chinese flee the overpopulation and birth control regulations of their home country and settle in the Far East and in southern Siberia. Russia's main Pacific port and naval base of Vladivostok, once closed to foreigners, today is bristling with Chinese markets, restaurants and trade houses.<SUP id=cite_ref-87 class=reference>[88]</SUP> This has been occurring a lot since the Soviet collapse.
Illegal border crossing is considered a crime, and on occasions captured illegal border crossers are sentenced to a prison term. For example, Rossiyskaya Gazeta reported in October 2008 the case of a North Korean who was detained after illegally crossing the Amur River from China. Considered by Russian authorities an "economic migrant", he was sentenced to 6 months in prison, and was to be deported to the country of his nationality after serving his sentence, even though he may now risk an even heavier penalty there. That was just one of the 26 cases year-to-date of illegal entrants, of various nationalities, receiving criminal punishment in Amur Oblast.<SUP id=cite_ref-88 class=reference>[89]</SUP>

Virtually all big cities are run by Democrats, rich or poor. That is just another wing nut talking point. However, the majority of the poorest states are run by republicans for sure!

In addition, most of the poorest are in the republican dominated south. Explain that.!

States ranked by median household income

<TABLE id=sortable_table_id_0 class="wikitable sortable"><TBODY><TR><TH>Rank </TH><TH>State </TH><TH>2008 </TH><TH>2007 </TH><TH>2004-2006 </TH></TR><TR><TD>1</TD><TD>Maryland</TD><TD>$70,545</TD><TD>$68,080</TD><TD>$62,372</TD></TR><TR><TD>2</TD><TD>New Jersey</TD><TD>$70,378</TD><TD>$67,035</TD><TD>$64,169</TD></TR><TR><TD>3</TD><TD>Connecticut</TD><TD>$68,595</TD><TD>$65,967</TD><TD>$59,972</TD></TR><TR><TD>4</TD><TD>Alaska</TD><TD>$68,460</TD><TD>$64,333</TD><TD>$57,639</TD></TR><TR><TD>5</TD><TD>Hawaii</TD><TD>$67,214</TD><TD>$63,746</TD><TD>$60,681</TD></TR><TR><TD>6</TD><TD>Massachusetts</TD><TD>$65,401</TD><TD>$62,365</TD><TD>$56,236</TD></TR><TR><TD>7</TD><TD>New Hampshire</TD><TD>$63,731</TD><TD>$62,369</TD><TD>$60,489</TD></TR><TR><TD>8</TD><TD>Virginia</TD><TD>$61,233</TD><TD>$59,562</TD><TD>$55,108</TD></TR><TR><TD>9</TD><TD>California</TD><TD>$61,021</TD><TD>$59,948</TD><TD>$53,770</TD></TR><TR><TD>10</TD><TD>Washington</TD><TD>$58,078</TD><TD>$55,591</TD><TD>$53,439</TD></TR><TR><TD>11</TD><TD>Delaware</TD><TD>$57,989</TD><TD>$54,610</TD><TD>$52,214</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD>District of Columbia</TD><TD>$57,936</TD><TD>$54,317</TD><TD>$47,221 (2005)[3]PDF</TD></TR><TR><TD>12</TD><TD>Minnesota</TD><TD>$57,288</TD><TD>$55,082</TD><TD>$57,363</TD></TR><TR><TD>13</TD><TD>Colorado</TD><TD>$56,993</TD><TD>$55,212</TD><TD>$54,039</TD></TR><TR><TD>14</TD><TD>Utah</TD><TD>$56,633</TD><TD>$55,109</TD><TD>$55,179</TD></TR><TR><TD>15</TD><TD>Nevada</TD><TD>$56,361</TD><TD>$55,062</TD><TD>$50,819</TD></TR><TR><TD>16</TD><TD>Illinois</TD><TD>$56,235</TD><TD>$54,124</TD><TD>$49,280</TD></TR><TR><TD>17</TD><TD>New York</TD><TD>$56,033</TD><TD>$53,514</TD><TD>$48,201</TD></TR><TR><TD>18</TD><TD>Rhode Island</TD><TD>$55,701</TD><TD>$53,568</TD><TD>$52,003</TD></TR><TR><TD>19</TD><TD>Wyoming</TD><TD>$53,207</TD><TD>$51,731</TD><TD>$47,227</TD></TR><TR><TD>20</TD><TD>Vermont</TD><TD>$52,104</TD><TD>$49,907</TD><TD>$51,622</TD></TR><TR><TD>21</TD><TD>Wisconsin</TD><TD>$52,094</TD><TD>$50,578</TD><TD>$48,874</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD>United States</TD><TD>$52,029</TD><TD>$50,740</TD><TD>$46,242 (2005) [4]PDF</TD></TR><TR><TD>22</TD><TD>Arizona</TD><TD>$50,958</TD><TD>$49,889</TD><TD>$46,729</TD></TR><TR><TD>23</TD><TD>Georgia</TD><TD>$50,861</TD><TD>$49,136</TD><TD>$46,841</TD></TR><TR><TD>24</TD><TD>Pennsylvania</TD><TD>$50,713</TD><TD>$48,576</TD><TD>$47,791</TD></TR><TR><TD>25</TD><TD>Kansas</TD><TD>$50,177</TD><TD>$47,451</TD><TD>$44,264</TD></TR><TR><TD>26</TD><TD>Oregon</TD><TD>$50,169</TD><TD>$48,730</TD><TD>$45,485</TD></TR><TR><TD>27</TD><TD>Texas</TD><TD>$50,043</TD><TD>$47,548</TD><TD>$43,425</TD></TR><TR><TD>28</TD><TD>Nebraska</TD><TD>$49,693</TD><TD>$47,085</TD><TD>$48,126</TD></TR><TR><TD>29</TD><TD>Iowa</TD><TD>$48,980</TD><TD>$47,292</TD><TD>$47,489</TD></TR><TR><TD>30</TD><TD>Michigan</TD><TD>$48,591</TD><TD>$47,950</TD><TD>$47,064</TD></TR><TR><TD>31</TD><TD>Ohio</TD><TD>$47,988</TD><TD>$46,597</TD><TD>$45,837</TD></TR><TR><TD>32</TD><TD>Indiana</TD><TD>$47,966</TD><TD>$47,448</TD><TD>$44,806</TD></TR><TR><TD>33</TD><TD>Florida</TD><TD>$47,778</TD><TD>$47,804</TD><TD>$44,448</TD></TR><TR><TD>34</TD><TD>Idaho</TD><TD>$47,576</TD><TD>$46,253</TD><TD>$46,395</TD></TR><TR><TD>35</TD><TD>Missouri</TD><TD>$46,867</TD><TD>$45,114</TD><TD>$44,651</TD></TR><TR><TD>36</TD><TD>Maine</TD><TD>$46,581</TD><TD>$45,888</TD><TD>$45,040</TD></TR><TR><TD>37</TD><TD>North Carolina</TD><TD>$46,549</TD><TD>$44,670</TD><TD>$42,061</TD></TR><TR><TD>38</TD><TD>South Dakota</TD><TD>$46,032</TD><TD>$43,424</TD><TD>$44,624</TD></TR><TR><TD>39</TD><TD>North Dakota</TD><TD>$45,685</TD><TD>$43,753</TD><TD>$43,753</TD></TR><TR><TD>40</TD><TD>South Carolina</TD><TD>$44,625</TD><TD>$43,329</TD><TD>$40,822</TD></TR><TR><TD>41</TD><TD>Louisiana</TD><TD>$43,733</TD><TD>$40,926</TD><TD>$37,943</TD></TR><TR><TD>42</TD><TD>Montana</TD><TD>$43,654</TD><TD>$43,531</TD><TD>$38,629</TD></TR><TR><TD>43</TD><TD>Tennessee</TD><TD>$43,614</TD><TD>$42,367</TD><TD>$40,676</TD></TR><TR><TD>44</TD><TD>New Mexico</TD><TD>$43,508</TD><TD>$41,452</TD><TD>$40,827</TD></TR><TR><TD>45</TD><TD>Oklahoma</TD><TD>$42,822</TD><TD>$41,567</TD><TD>$40,001</TD></TR><TR><TD>46</TD><TD>Alabama</TD><TD>$42,666</TD><TD>$40,554</TD><TD>$38,473</TD></TR><TR><TD>47</TD><TD>Kentucky</TD><TD>$41,538</TD><TD>$40,267</TD><TD>$38,466</TD></TR><TR><TD>48</TD><TD>Arkansas</TD><TD>$38,815</TD><TD>$38,134</TD><TD>$37,420</TD></TR><TR><TD>49</TD><TD>West Virginia</TD><TD>$37,989</TD><TD>$37,060</TD><TD>$37,227</TD></TR><TR><TD>50</TD><TD>Mississippi</TD><TD>$37,790</TD><TD>$36,338</TD><TD>$35,261</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[Gunner]

Once again you use fraudulent stats and data to prove a point. You do know any idiot can post on wiki? You couldn't match wits with me even if I was in a coma.

 

[Cruise]

when I look at your examples, one thing is consistent. The presence of "sound money"! Constructively, it might enlighten others if you explain the 'sound money' concept. Some may think Bernanke & crew are providing us with a stable currency.

Trying to explain the difference between money and credit has shown to me that it is near impossible for people to understand in just one post.

I will say that money is a natural consequence of human behavior. When people come together in voluntary, mutually beneficial trade, money will appear. Thus, it is a great example of anarchy in action. Whoever has the money has the authority and that can be anyone.

However, with the United States' version of a credit system, all the money has been removed. This allows for the un-natural system that is in place today, where the Federal government has a monopoly on all credit in just about the entire world.

These theories of trickle-down, Keynesianism, supply-side economics are consequences of an artificial credit system, not a MONEY system.

There is nothing wrong with credit because it pre-dates money.

The problem is the United States uses a model of monopoly credit and no money. That is the only way banks and corporations survive. By monopolizing credit, government can grow out of control, militaries become massive, welfare payments run amok, and private property becomes an illusion.

Any stable society needs both money AND credit. When the government interferes with that, it makes society unstable.

It is why I find trickle-down such a ridiculous concept along with the rest. They are built on the faulty premise that government can AND should monopolize credit.

DUMB!

 

[thoughtone]

Once again you use fraudulent stats and data to prove a point. You do know any idiot can post on wiki? You couldn't match wits with me even if I was in a coma.

US Census

NEW York Times: Russia cracking down on illegal migrants - Europe - International Herald Tribune

Sorry I can't use the Heritage Foundation.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Typical. Your responses are always so predictable.

When you get exposed, you act like it didn't happen and hope no one else notices.

You have no facts, no history, no evidence to offer because your "America is best because I say so"-routine has no foundation in reality.

Everytime you get exposed, you do the equivalent of covering your eyes, mouth, and ears and say la-la-la as if that somehow changes anything.

America is the epitome of a failed experiment. It only got over because of stealing from every culture they met.

Now that there is little else to steal, and no new cultures to exploit, the American fraud is being exposed.

Anarchy is the natural state of things. The United States assaulted the natural state with its slavery, Jim Crow, separate-but-equal, credit, and corporations. Society cannot be stable if you go around screaming it's a "free" society every chance you get while denying freedom to a huge portion of its people. It undermines the authority of the state and destabilizes the society.

Nature abhors a hypocrite, which is what the United States is. That is why it is doomed along with those who try to fight the inevitable. It is why Rome was in a continual state of decay, yet the Chinese, Turks, even the Egyptians lasted for more than a 1000 years.

Facts. Evidence. History. You have heard of them, right?
Why not try and use them for once.

I'm still waiting for this exposure. I'm sure you know how to use the Quotations right? Show your work, young man.
You have to be one of the worst people I have ever debated any topic with. Not because we don't agree, I enjoy that. Debating smart people (which I would consider Lamarr) forces me to evaluate and reevaluate my own positions. But people like you, who Glen Beck me to death, make nonsensical, unrelated, almost tangential points and act like you said some deep %$@^.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

when I look at your examples, one thing is consistent. The presence of "sound money"! Constructively, it might enlighten others if you explain the 'sound money' concept. Some may think Bernanke & crew are providing us with a stable currency.

One other thing is consistent, they completely disproved the original point he was trying to make and has been trying to make for months.
As far as explaining the concept of "sound money", he can't. If you want to give it a crack, feel free. I was going to copy and paste a very interesting column on the subject by Thorsten Polliet but that would be me doing Cruise's work for him.

 

[Cruise]

I'm still waiting for this exposure. I'm sure you know how to use the Quotations right? Show your work, young man.
You have to be one of the worst people I have ever debated any topic with. Not because we don't agree, I enjoy that. Debating smart people (which I would consider Lamarr) forces me to evaluate and reevaluate my own positions. But people like you, who Glen Beck me to death, make nonsensical, unrelated, almost tangential points and act like you said some deep %$@^.

It's funny you say that because it is a good description of your own positions.

You don't produce anything but always whine about "show you." Why don't you take your own advice and show me? But, you can't because there is nothing for you to show.

All you do is attack and with weak, already disproved and discredited counter-arguments. Why? You don't know how things work and therefore have nothing to offer other than just attitude.

I've tried explaining how money works, credit works, how a stable society works, how a fraudulent society works, how anarchy works, how government finance works, the frauds and the scams...

yet it seems beyond your comprehension.

Instead of admitting you just don't have the tools to understand the argument, in every post you just whine about how it doesn't make sense to you therefore it must not make sense to anyone. Because, as we all know, if you don't get it, then no one else in the world could possibly understand it.

Your understanding of economics, finance, government, trade, banking, and currency are just too primitive.

Take some courses in economics, business finance, or monetary history if you want to at least have a pretense of an informed opinion. Or, why not read a few books on the subject.

If you need help, I can get you started on some basic reading material (Economics 101, What is Credit?, What is Banking?, The History of Money, etc.)

In fact, I have "FREE" articles, books, and comics from the Federal Reserve for anyone interested (and posted it in this forum).

That's what it would take for you to put together some sensible arguments and actually contribute something useful to the discussion, rather than your typical simple-minded explanations.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

It's funny you say that because it is a good description of your own positions.

You don't produce anything but always whine about "show you." Why don't you take your own advice and show me? But, you can't because there is nothing for you to show.

All you do is attack and with weak, already disproved and discredited counter-arguments. Why? You don't know how things work and therefore have nothing to offer other than just attitude.

I've tried explaining how money works, credit works, how a stable society works, how a fraudulent society works, how anarchy works, how government finance works, the frauds and the scams...

yet it seems beyond your comprehension.

Instead of admitting you just don't have the tools to understand the argument, in every post you just whine about how it doesn't make sense to you therefore it must not make sense to anyone. Because, as we all know, if you don't get it, then no one else in the world could possibly understand it.

Your understanding of economics, finance, government, trade, banking, and currency are just too primitive.

Take some courses in economics, business finance, or monetary history if you want to at least have a pretense of an informed opinion. Or, why not read a few books on the subject.

If you need help, I can get you started on some basic reading material (Economics 101, What is Credit?, What is Banking?, The History of Money, etc.)

In fact, I have "FREE" articles, books, and comics from the Federal Reserve for anyone interested (and posted it in this forum).

That's what it would take for you to put together some sensible arguments and actually contribute something useful to the discussion, rather than your typical simple-minded explanations.

Okay, I'm becoming bored with you again.

What do I have to prove. You state that anarchy is a workable alternative to a national economy policy of any kind(if I misstate your position at any time, correct me and accept my sincere apology). I ask for an example of that ever happening and you don't and never have. You keep saying you do and did but there's no evidence of it. When you attempt, after many months and threads, to come up with some, they aren't even close to being correct examples and AAA dismantles them before I could get back.
Your way of explaining anything is less explanation, more incoherent rambling. When I ask direct questions to try to understand you better to either agree or disagree from a better position, I get more rambling.
I don't have anything to show because I'm not taking ludicrous ideas and positions and then shown to be unable to defend them. And whatever positions I take, I can and do ably defend them in every single thread.

 

[Cruise]

Okay, I'm becoming bored with you again.

What do I have to prove. You state that anarchy is a workable alternative to a national economy policy of any kind(if I misstate your position at any time, correct me and accept my sincere apology). I ask for an example of that ever happening and you don't and never have. You keep saying you do and did but there's no evidence of it. When you attempt, after many months and threads, to come up with some, they aren't even close to being correct examples and AAA dismantles them before I could get back.
Your way of explaining anything is less explanation, more incoherent rambling. When I ask direct questions to try to understand you better to either agree or disagree from a better position, I get more rambling.
I don't have anything to show because I'm not taking ludicrous ideas and positions and then shown to be unable to defend them. And whatever positions I take, I can and do ably defend them in every single thread.

You don't want answers because it shows your positions to be ridiculous.

I'll make it easier for you.

Why don't YOU define the terms?

What is anarchy?
What is money?
What is credit?
What are the 3 types of banking?
What is fiat?
How does the Federal government finance itself?

Okay, defend yourself. Answer some simple questions.

I can answer all these and have done so many times in many different threads.

Let's see who the real fraud is. Put up or shut up.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

You don't want answers because it shows your positions to be ridiculous.

I'll make it easier for you.

Why don't YOU define the terms?

What is anarchy?
What is money?
What is credit?
What are the 3 types of banking?
What is fiat?
How does the Federal government finance itself?

Okay, defend yourself. Answer some simple questions.

I can answer all these and have done so many times in many different threads.

Let's see who the real fraud is. Put up or shut up.

This is why I've grown bored with you. I eagerly seek and accept answers. I may challenge the answers, as any adult should but I'll accept them as long as they're backed by some real knowledge on the subject, a thing you've yet to demonstrate. Instead of exhibiting that trait you use straw man arguments that benefit no one and delve off into tangents that barely have anything to do with what we may be talking about at the time. You can't even directly argue anything I say when I use the simplest terms.
Now the great challenge is for me to give you some Webster's Dictionary answers to various words and terms? What then? How does that move along the discussion? Knowing definitions and being able to apply or show how they apply in real world conditions are two entirely different things. Apparently your wisdom and life experience hasn't caught up to your book knowledge and burgeoning intellect. Not necessarily a bad thing (unless you're 40) because we've all been there.
I have no idea where the idea of anyone being a fraud comes in but the words are on the screen and speak for themselves.

 

[Lamarr]

One other thing is consistent, they completely disproved the original point he was trying to make and has been trying to make for months.

n/c

As far as explaining the concept of "sound money", he can't. If you want to give it a crack, feel free. I was going to copy and paste a very interesting column on the subject by Thorsten Polliet but that would be me doing Cruise's work for him.

If you've read anything by Polliet, I'm sure you know where I'm comin from in regards to 'sound money'.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

n/c

None necessary. I don't want other people joining in and misdirecting this thread further.

If you've read anything by Polliet, I'm sure you know where I'm comin from in regards to 'sound money'.

I do and I enjoyed the fresh perspective. I think it's something we should discuss in greater depth at another time in another thread.

 

[nittie]

Whether intentionally or not you're both making a great case for anarchy. With anarchy there wouldn't be any need for 'sound money' central banks or Thorsten Polliet.

 

[Lamarr]

Whether intentionally or not you're both making a great case for anarchy. With anarchy there wouldn't be any need for 'sound money' central banks or Thorsten Polliet.

idk, I've never been a proponent of anarchy because I, admittedly, don't fully understand it.

what is so appealing about 'sound money' is that the value is stable and accepted mostly everywhere as a medium of exchange. There must be a medium of exchange in any society.

The noble thing about "private" capitalism is that it forces those who may only motivated by personal gain to raise the standard of living for others. Why? Because the only way one's wealth can increase is to make it available to others.

 

[thoughtone]

Whether or not the federal government is a hindrance to trickle down economics (positive externalities) by taxing the productive rich and subsidizing the mooching lobbying rich has nothing to do with the validity of the concept of trickle down economics.

The socialist stated at the beginning that it was an absurd premise and you agreed.

I know all too well that the united states of America is not free economically or politically, but that's because the thoughtones rule the world and you agreed with one of their fundamental premises.

The socialist stated at the beginning that it was an absurd premise and you agreed.

I guess that is meant as a slight.
I would contend that the corporatists, supply siders and multi-national capitalists are driving the world's economy in to the ground lately.

The United States is the most economically free country, for the top 5% of wealth holders. The top 5% are sitting on mountains of cash right now and are not trickling it down. Wealth has not been so concentrated since the days of the Robber Barons.Countries that are far more left than us are having better economic success. Canada, China, Brazil, to name the most prominent. Clinging to the far right economic ideology has made the wealthy wealthier, the middle class smaller and the poor even poorer. The "party of no" will scarfice this country just to prove a politcal point.

 

[nittie]

idk, I've never been a proponent of anarchy because I, admittedly, don't fully understand it.

what is so appealing about 'sound money' is that the value is stable and accepted mostly everywhere as a medium of exchange. There must be a medium of exchange in any society.

The noble thing about "private" capitalism is that it forces those who may only motivated by personal gain to raise the standard of living for others. Why? Because the only way one's wealth can increase is to make it available to others.

The above statement justifies "Trickle-Down" but with the absence of 'sound money' the modern application is somewhat flawed

Anarchy basically means 'no authority or no central power' there's no one telling everyone what they can or cannot do. Instead people are governed by a code, morals or maybe religion. But there is no family entitled to the presidency or people don't get power because the attended a Ivy League school. There is no upper class. Capitalism could still work, so could democracy, but every time the institutions got too powerful they would automatically be checked and balanced. When you think about it this is the kind of society the founding fathers had in mind.

 

[thoughtone]

Anarchy basically means 'no authority or no central power' there's no one telling everyone what they can or cannot do. Instead people are governed by a code, morals or maybe religion. But there is no family entitled to the presidency or people don't get power because the attended a Ivy League school. There is no upper class. Capitalism could still work, so could democracy, but every time the institutions got too powerful they would automatically be checked and balanced. When you think about it this is the kind of society the founding fathers had in mind.

Instead people are governed by a code, morals or maybe religion

I guess we will have "code" police, otherwise known as the Taliban, Jerry Falwell, the right nuts and Faux Snooze!

 

[ashimac]

Capitalism could still work, so could democracy,

Please give examples how they could work because a common man like me with common sense would never agree with Capitalism, Democracy read about them n they all fail
But then again who i'm to stop a group of men for believing on something that time n time again that the volcano of Capitalism and Democracy would erupt again
So best thing to do is head for the hills

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KFXuGIpsdE0&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KFXuGIpsdE0&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[thoughtone]

Please give examples how they could work because a common man like me with common sense would never agree with Capitalism, Democracy read about them n they all fail
But then again who i'm to stop a group of men for believing on something that time n time again that the volcano of Capitalism and Democracy would erupt again
So best thing to do is head for the hills

<EMBED height=385 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=480 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/KFXuGIpsdE0&hl=en_US&fs=1 allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>

China has proven that you don't need so called democracy for capitalism to work.

 

[thoughtone]

I have never denied that human freedom has never existed in this world. Maybe when there was only one human, but once there was two it was over. That first human found himself something to eat, then the second just bashed the first one over the head.

The concept or the articulation of the concept of human freedom is only a few hundred years old. Barely a blip in the timeline of all of human history, but it has an undeniable positive correlation to human success. So in the end you will lose.

The only obstacle I see is people don't think they deserve freedom. People like the so called free market defenders in this thread are still ashamed of the progress. That's why they agreed with your premise, and they didn't realize that by doing so they lost every subsequent argument for capitalism before they even began.

But you knew it didn't you.

I have never denied that human freedom has never existed in this world. Maybe when there was only one human, but once there was two it was over. That first human found himself something to eat, then the second just bashed the first one over the head.

This statement boils down to the essence of the right wing mind: arrested development! Their entire nexus of the right wing ideal of freedom is that the individual exist for the individual only. That is not only absurd, but totally absent in nature. They look at societies and people as something to exploit and use and use up. I guess when a billionaire builds their paradise on the moon, 250,000 miles from the nearest human, they will have achieved their theoretical "freedom."

 

[nittie]

I guess we will have "code" police, otherwise known as the Taliban, Jerry Falwell, the right nuts and Faux Snooze!

We would have principles :

Main Entry: prin·ci·ple
Pronunciation: \ˈprin(t)-s(ə-)pəl, -sə-bəl\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French principe, principle, from Old French, from Latin principium beginning, from princip-, princeps initiator — more at prince
Date: 14th century

1 a : a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption b (1) : a rule or code of conduct (2) : habitual devotion to right principles <a man of principle> c : the laws or facts of nature underlying the working of an artificial device
2 : a primary source : origin
3 a : an underlying faculty or endowment <such principles of human nature as greed and curiosity> b : an ingredient (as a chemical) that exhibits or imparts a characteristic quality

The principle doesn't have to be enforced by police or military it can be done voluntarily for instance we don't use the 'N word" here. Why, because once the principle and the ramifications for using the word were explained we don't use it. We govern ourselves.

 

[thoughtone]

We would have principles :



The principle doesn't have to be enforced by police or military it can be done voluntarily for instance we don't use the 'N word" here. Why, because once the principle and the ramifications for using the word were explained we don't use it. We govern ourselves.

What would happen if the moderator continually used the 'N' word, but didn't allow anyone else to use it?

 

[Upgrade Dave]

We would have principles :



The principle doesn't have to be enforced by police or military it can be done voluntarily for instance we don't use the 'N word" here. Why, because once the principle and the ramifications for using the word were explained we don't use it. We govern ourselves.

A principle enforced by one central authority or have you not met Que?

 

[nittie]

What would happen if the moderator continually used the 'N' word, but didn't allow anyone else to use it?

If that happened the moderator would become a pariah and automatically excluded from the group. He would be a violation of the law.

 

[nittie]

A principle enforced by one central authority or have you not met Que?

Que can enforce the law because the majority agrees with the rule. I won't go into detail because I don't want to give Que's adversaries ammunition to use against him but he cannot make bgol by himself.