Somacandra: soy_bomb: /I would support the Clinton tax rates if we return to the same rate of Federal spending.

Sorry. Wars.

That's not true, we also have three other things going on.

Medicare, because boomers.

Unemployment, because the economy sucks.

Medicaid, because the economy sucks.

Of course these things are the result of shiatty Republican economic policies and insurance programs being stolen from, but that's another story.

WombatControl 2012-05-01 08:43:48 PM
Reading Milton Friedman and understanding how economic freedom could bring prosperity and a better life for millions.

ICELAND YOU DOLT

I know the likes of YOU won't deign to read this, since you prefer being trapped in your tiny realm of sneering pseudo-Burkean elitism.

I apologize to those who are willing to read it for my cite being a mere blog, but it should provide a few chewy morsels.

http://nabnyc.blogspot.com/2010/03/iceland-destroyed-by-financial.ht ml

Since we're assigning characters from Stephen King books, can I be Go-Go Ray Garrity?

bextraordinary: If a Farkette was looking for a new book to read and wanted to get into Stephen King's stuff, where would you Farkers recommend she begin? Any books to definitely avoid?

I really liked Bag of Bones, Pet Sematary and The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon(even though it's not a horror story). I also like most of his short story compilations. I think he does a short horror story like no one else. The Stand and It will probably piss you off.

czei: Stephen King sure knows how to bang out a novel to meet contractual obligations:

Heh. On another note anyone who is interested should check out Danse Macabre which is King's essay on horror-fiction. His mantra is that any author who isn't putting out a book a month is dicking around.

WhyteRaven74: So you just agree with Smith talking about free markets, but not morality and the possible abuses that can happen? Also, you can't very well agree with Smith and agree with how most corporations operate. Also, your view on taxes would make Smith facepalm, hard.

1.) There's a reason why I cited both On the Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments...

2.) If those arguments are true, then why don't you quote what parts of Adam Smith actually support that. You're the one who dragged him into this conversation, now you have the burden of persuasion in proving whose point he supports.

Also make all transactions by all financial institutions public. So no more having Goldman Sachs trading on their own accounts without anyone knowing what they're doing. And no more banks that also do brokerage stuff, and no more having banks that are commercial, investment and personal banks all rolled into one. That hasn't worked out well. Just like it didn't the first time around.

No, it actually saved us from a worse collapse. Name the banks that failed - very few of them had investment operations. The ones that Glass-Steagall would have banned were the ones that could use their diversified operations to stay afloat.

On transparency though, I tend to agree with you.

Sooo. . .it's been awhile since I've visited the politics tab and erm. . .I was just wondering - what's this f*ckery?

Who created this winterwhile alt? Surely to God there isn't actually a troll THIS stupid.

Which one a you is yankin' ma chain?

/Oh, and to return to the main topic, I enjoyed the Green Mile.

WombatControl: That attitude helped create the crash.

The crash was created by institutions buying up bad securities because they had no reason to give a damn if they were bad and then entangling themselves with each other by way of unregulated over the counter securities. Sure there were other things, like allowing hedge funds absolutely insane levels of leverage on their trade, but the bulk of it was you had financial institutions not giving a damn what happened because hell it's not like they're playing with their own money.

As for regulation of risk, if person A knows business B can't engage in certain practices, the risk of losing money due to those practices is zero. Whole thing with financial regulation is to keep the risk to only the risk of dealing in the financial markets. Without proper regulations, you add in the risk of the institutions acting in a manner not consistent with their stated goals or even contrary to them.

How do health insurers have the power of coercion. Explain that thought some more.

By telling people what doctors they can see, what procedures they'll pay for, basically taking health care to a great degree out of the hands of policy holders.

bextraordinary: If a Farkette was looking for a new book to read and wanted to get into Stephen King's stuff, where would you Farkers recommend she begin? Any books to definitely avoid?

For some reason I just love 'Salem's Lot. Even as I recognize objectively that it isn't a great book, I still enjoy the hell out of it. And there isn't a better antidote to wussy sparkly vampire stories.

\When you've gone through a few, I recommend checking out his nonfiction On Writing. It makes rereading some of his books an interesting exercise, knowing how farked up he was at the time.

WombatControl: 2.) If those arguments are true, then why don't you quote what parts of Adam Smith actually support that. You're the one who dragged him into this conversation, now you have the burden of persuasion in proving whose point he supports.

One of my favorite Smith quotes "This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and powerful, and to despise or, at least, neglect persons of poor and mean conditions, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments."

WombatControl: No, regulations do not "take risk of out markets." That attitude helped create the crash.

You can only regulate against known risks, not against risks that can't be predicted in advance. Thinking that regulations will protect you caused a lot of people to take risks they would not have taken had they known that there were no failsafes.

/facepalm

Easing regulations in the financial industry is what led to the crash. The dangers of removing the separation between securities and commercial banks was a known risk which is why Glass-Steagall was enacted in the first place.

Fart_Machine: WombatControl: No, regulations do not "take risk of out markets." That attitude helped create the crash.

You can only regulate against known risks, not against risks that can't be predicted in advance. Thinking that regulations will protect you caused a lot of people to take risks they would not have taken had they known that there were no failsafes.

/facepalm

Easing regulations in the financial industry is what led to the crash. The dangers of removing the separation between securities and commercial banks was a known risk which is why Glass-Steagall was enacted in the first place.

How could a NINJA loan be risky? It sounds so awesome!

bdub77: , I've studied it, and to bring jobs back you'd have to have the whole supply chain moved back to do it.

There are American companies that make everything you need for an iPhone. And Samsung makes the chips for iPhones in Austin Texas. And Gorilla Glass, the glass used for the screen is manufactured in Kentucky. It's also manufactured in Japan, which is where the stuff used in China comes from. Also the cost argument doesn't exactly hold water in light of the fact Samsung makes its phones in Korea and does plenty well doing so, even though what you pay a worker in Korea is a lot more than in China. Also there are savings from things like improved quality control, the fewer units you're rejecting due to manufacturing defects the less money you are quite literally throwing away.

hey can you guys stop clogging our Stephen King thread with your damn politics?

Read the new one, was a little meh because the structure is very similar to WiG and i was hoping for some cool developments for the main characters, if you get a chance check out the DT audiobooks, particularly 2-4 (the strongest stretch of the series), the guy who reads them is amazing, can't remember his name offhand, but he got in a motorcycle accident and couldn't do the last three.

In my opinion if you read the DT novels and all the tangential novels (Salems Lot, Regulators, The Stand and so on) you will have the best of his work, and it all fits together.

But I don't WANT Weav to get hit by winterwhile's car!

That's just morally wrong in all kinds of ways!!

*blink*

shamanwest: They're all excellent, except for Wizard and Glass.

I must have done something wrong when I read that one, I loved that damn book. Didn't think I would either once I realized it was going to be one of those flashbacky love stories...

shiat I liked the whole series now that I think about it. Even the end (the real end end).

Oh also the supply chain thing goes out the window in light of the fact Apple is depending on chips made in Austin for products assembled in China. One nice typhoon and there's a shipment of chips showing up a few days late.

WhyteRaven74: The crash was created by institutions buying up bad securities because they had no reason to give a damn if they were bad and then entangling themselves with each other by way of unregulated over the counter securities. Sure there were other things, like allowing hedge funds absolutely insane levels of leverage on their trade, but the bulk of it was you had financial institutions not giving a damn what happened because hell it's not like they're playing with their own money.

As for regulation of risk, if person A knows business B can't engage in certain practices, the risk of losing money due to those practices is zero. Whole thing with financial regulation is to keep the risk to only the risk of dealing in the financial markets. Without proper regulations, you add in the risk of the institutions acting in a manner not consistent with their stated goals or even contrary to them.

Except that's not how regulations function - the risk is decidedly not zero because no regulation can achieve zero risk in any transaction. For one, as I mentioned before, you can't regulate against risks that aren't know at the time, and even if you have a regulatory regime, there's no guarantee that the parties will actually follow those regulations.

Regulations are not magical fairy dust that can be spread about to remove risk.

By telling people what doctors they can see, what procedures they'll pay for, basically taking health care to a great degree out of the hands of policy holders.

But that's not coercion. The health insurers won't necessarily pay for everything you want, but they have absolutely no power to stop you from paying on your own dime.

Coercion != not paying for things for you.

bextraordinary: If a Farkette was looking for a new book to read and wanted to get into Stephen King's stuff, where would you Farkers recommend she begin? Any books to definitely avoid?

The Gunslinger series... at least the first three or four. Though those aren't really like anything else he does. 'Salem's Lot is more typical. The wife loves "The Eyes of the Dragon" though it isn't typical either. Personally I love the first Gunslinger book the best.
The Man in Black fled across the desert and The Gunslinger followed...


Also, can I be Flagg?

Oops, I was a bit off topic there.
Republicans are vile farks and I can't for the life of me understand why non billionaires defend and vote for them.

So ya, read the Dark Tower books.

Weaver95: Corporate Self: I doubt winterwhile is going to let a little things like facts stand in the way of his DERP.

but how can someone say Obama's at fault for starting the war in Afghanistan when that simply isn't true? Obama wasn't president in 2001, he didn't start that war.

I don't understand how someone can just ignore reality like that. I mean ok, maybe if they were legitimately mentally ill then I could see it but...c'mon.

I think you answered your own question.

Jormungandr: Also, can I be Flagg?

I hate how the character went from being the Herald of Chaos to some schmuck who gets killed by a giant telepathic spider.

WombatControl: be spread about to remove risk.

By telling people what doctors they can see, what procedures they'll pay for, basically taking health care to a great degree out of the hands of policy holders

Right. And if you need that heart transplant or insulin or an amputation, they have the perfect right to tell you to fark off because they have a responsibility to provide a return on investment.

WombatControl: The health insurers won't necessarily pay for everything you want, but they have absolutely no power to stop you from paying on your own dime.

However if I can't afford it on my own dime, I'm stuck with what the insurer decides to cover. The insurer gets to in effect practice medicine by proxy. Which it should never ever be allowed to do. Also, when I mentioned companies that are very inefficient? Health insurers are among them. They blow who knows how much on stuff that utterly defies explanation. Money that could be used to cover actual care for policy holders is basically thrown to the wind in the name of paperwork.

Fart_Machine: Jormungandr: Also, can I be Flagg?

I hate how the character went from being the Herald of Chaos to some schmuck who gets killed by a giant telepathic spider.

yeah that was lame, no showdown? but i get why he did it, the character had been built up to this mythic status, but was really just another wanderer, banality of evil and all that...

would love King to write a spin off Walter O'Dim book...ah, dreams.

/there are some who call me jimmy, and some who call me timmy, you can call me loser and you can call me winner, just so long as you don't call me too late for dinner.

WhyteRaven74: WombatControl: The health insurers won't necessarily pay for everything you want, but they have absolutely no power to stop you from paying on your own dime.

However if I can't afford it on my own dime, I'm stuck with what the insurer decides to cover. The insurer gets to in effect practice medicine by proxy. Which it should never ever be allowed to do. Also, when I mentioned companies that are very inefficient? Health insurers are among them. They blow who knows how much on stuff that utterly defies explanation. Money that could be used to cover actual care for policy holders is basically thrown to the wind in the name of paperwork.

And advertising.



And lobbyists dedicated to making sure Republicans continue to let people die at the hands of death panels.

Satanic_Hamster: Buuutttt....

Notice how it's always the people who became millionaires from humble backgrounds and through the fruit of their own labor who have no problem paying more taxes. It's the trust fund babies and the leaches who were always rich who are screaming bloody murder.

Ever notice how poor people walk like THIS, but rich people get eased into their helicopters like THIS?

Plenty of people you would call rich pay more taxes than you might think.

Not all income is made within the united states.

gimmegimme: And advertising.

And that.

Stephen King has always looked like someone who got raped at an interstate rest area, Just one real goofy ass dude

This somewhat Rich guy on Stephen King:

"Go fark yourself, asshole. Nobody cares what you think, Why do all of your lame stories originate in Maine of all places, and who do I see about getting my money back for my admission to Dreamcatcher?"

bextraordinary: If a Farkette was looking for a new book to read and wanted to get into Stephen King's stuff, where would you Farkers recommend she begin? Any books to definitely avoid?

My favorite King book was Rose Madder but I think I'm the only person in the world who thinks so. If you want to read a "Stephen King book" I would start with The Shining; it has most of his common themes--the Bad Place, the extremely extensive backstory that seems pointless but actually makes you really care about the characters once shiat hits the fan, the Magic Negro, the threatened child, and Bad Things Happening To Good People Just Because They Can.

On the other hand, if you don't mind getting dark, Richard Bachman was a better writer than Stephen King ever was.

/except his last book, which was obviously ghostwritten by King...

WombatControl: WhyteRaven74: They also didn't particularly trust commercial interests. While one might expect that of those from rural backgrounds like Jefferson, that ones from urban areas, Adams, Franklin et al also felt that way says something. Also you can avoid a lot of trouble with just a few lines of regulation.

We don't have "just a few lines of regulation" - we have pages upon pages upon volumes of regulations, most of which is written by lobbyists.

I'm all for reducing regulations to just a few lines.

And yes, the Founders were somewhat suspicious of "factions" - read The Federalist No. 10. But again, their solution to limited faction was to limit the power of government, not try to make the State powerful enough to favor one faction over another.

Cubansaltyballs: So the banks acted recklessly and with fewer regulations they will act more prudent?

If there was no "too big to fail" and the banks were personally on the line, then yes, there would have been a lot less recklessness.

Don't get me wrong I am not for total deregulation or getting rid of all government or any other dumb little straw man argument that inevitably crops up.

The government has a role in the market - punishing fraud and allowing for market transparency, as well as the fundamental purpose of preserving property rights - but that role must be limited.

Again, the more power you give the government, the more corrupt the government will be.

KiplingKat872: Too bad some willfully blind refuse to see the point that private corporations are even more corrupt, selfish, and stupid than the government is. That much of government corruption we deal with today is because of corporate interests/lobbyiests.

And again:

1.) There is no such thing as "private corporations" as a singular entity. There are thousands of corporations, from big to small. They do not share the same agenda and their power is distributed. Corporations have only the power of persuasion, not the power of coercion.

Apple can't force you to buy an iPod. McDonalds cannot force you to eat a Big Mac. Government can force you to do whatever they want.

2.) The solution, once again, is not to give government more power. It's to limit government power. More power creates more corruption. Less power to the government limits corruption. That's the whole point of having limited government.

Nice of you to ignore my second point, which is history has already proven you wrong.

thalidomide new and improved: Why do all of your lame stories originate in Maine of all places,

Hmm, yes. Why would a writer who lived nearly his whole life in Maine with a brief stint in Colorado set all his books in Maine, except for a few set in Colorado? A mystery for the ages, my friend.

I have to say that 11/22/63, King's latest novel, is probably the best he's ever written. On level with The Stand and IT.

And for you "IT" lovers, there's a very nice surprise in 11/22/63.