If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   The IMF makes a suggestion that will cause US libertarians to crawl into a fetal position tightly clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged softy murmuring "Ron Paul will save us. Ron Paul will save us"   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 402
    More: Unlikely, Atlas Shrugged, Ron Paul, International Monetary Fund, fiat moneys, intrinsic value, types of business, fractional reserve, money creation  
•       •       •

25332 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Oct 2012 at 1:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



402 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-22 04:04:30 PM

DerAppie: You need venture capital? Do you know what rich people like? becoming even richer. Write a decent business plan and get your idea out there. If you can convince people that you can make a profit there will be someone willing to invest.


For a huge chunk of the business and a hefty margin over a guaranteed time. So, essentially, I can either shoestring it, work for a bank, or work for a VC collective. I think maybe I'll try and shoestring it or even try kickstarter.
 
2012-10-22 04:04:55 PM

TDBoedy: because a massive contraction in the money supply over night could in no way have adverse consequences.


What makes you think the US Congress would issue less currency? If anything they'll issue more as a sort of vote buying scheme.
 
2012-10-22 04:06:19 PM

Slaves2Darkness: We owe foreign firms, countries, and other entities about 4.5 trillion dollars and we owe US firms, people, and entities 9.8 trillion dollars.

Why the fark would we the American People cancel the debt or default? How does that make any sense at all?


Where do you think money that we pay on those debts comes from? (Hint: I'm looking for something deeper than 'taxes')
 
2012-10-22 04:06:32 PM

Kazan: most real-libertarians don't self-identify as "Libertarian" was part of my point


Let me ask you this. Do you agree with everything your party stands for? I don't, but the Libertarian party is the closest thing to small-l libertarianism around.

I took the party to task for nominating Bob Barr (I wrote in Gary Nolan in the General Election) who was a HORRIBLE candidate. Unlike Gary Johnson, he didn't have any legitimate history of leaning libertarian.
 
2012-10-22 04:07:00 PM

This text is now purple: skullkrusher: If I am a bank and you came to me with $500 and I promised to give you $550 a year from now, I can lend that $500 out without violating the 100% reserve requirement. However, if you came to me with $500 which you could demand at any time, I would be in violation if I were to lend out that money.

Banks already do this. It's called safe deposit boxes.

The catch is that they charge you interest, not the other way around.


no, it's called time deposits and in the absence of FRB, it would be the norm, not the exception.
 
2012-10-22 04:07:19 PM

jigger: TDBoedy: because a massive contraction in the money supply over night could in no way have adverse consequences.

What makes you think the US Congress would issue less currency? If anything they'll issue more as a sort of vote buying scheme.


fark it. Lets just use bitcoins
 
2012-10-22 04:10:51 PM

slayer199: 1. Ron Paul is not a libertarian, is not widely supported by libertarians.
2. Libertarianism is not the same as Randianism.


blog.americanfeast.com

"G'day, mate, it's a bonzer avo for a logical fallacy. 'Course I'm a True Scotsman, bloody oath! Got any tinnies in the Esky, y'drongo?"
 
2012-10-22 04:10:56 PM

RanDomino: Yeah it sucks how everyone always demands all their money back immediately after depositing it, thus preventing banks from just having enough cash on hand to cover day-to-day withdrawals and using the rest to make loans.


for an alleged anarchist, you sure do seem to love our private oligarch enriching federal reserve system. Might wanna re-read your talking points, chum
 
2012-10-22 04:13:12 PM

mizchief: jigger: TDBoedy: because a massive contraction in the money supply over night could in no way have adverse consequences.

What makes you think the US Congress would issue less currency? If anything they'll issue more as a sort of vote buying scheme.

fark it. Lets just use bitcoins


I totally missed the bus on those. When I first heard of them they were worth about 50 cents. I didn't see any use in buying any. A year and a half later they bubbled up to $30! Damn, if I had only taken advantage of that. If I had sunk $5000 into it, I could have turned it into $200-300k. Then they sunk back to about $2, but now they're up to $12 again. If I had perfect future vision, I could have turned $200k into $1.2M. Oh well, hindsight is 20/20.
 
2012-10-22 04:15:51 PM

SageC: Ricardo Klement: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!
*sploosh*

Now that my head exploded, fractional reserve banking is not some magical power to conjure forth money. It is a mathematical side-effect of lending out money and accepting deposits. If I lend Bob $20, and he buys a bottle of cheap whiskey from Jack, who then asks me to hang on to the cash for him because he doesn't have pockets, and then I lend that $20 to Bill, I just created money. And I am not a bank, and I am not regulated by the feds.

No you didn't! You just gave Bill the money Jack told you to hang on to even though it wasn't yours to give. You're not a money creator, you're a jerk who spends other people's money! Go get Jack's money back before he hears about what you did and deposits his fist into your face.


I may be a jerk, but I still created money.
 
2012-10-22 04:16:28 PM

mr lawson: Ricardo Klement: And I'm a supply-side classical economist.

There is no such thing as "supply-side" or "demand-side" economics. Only Capital-side economics.


Thanks, Karl.
 
2012-10-22 04:16:48 PM

slayer199: poot_rootbeer: And why hasn't it been tried anywhere? Nowhere in the real world real enough to be compatible with libertarianism?

Because the idea of individual liberty and smaller government scares people. One only needs to look at the reactions in this thread. People WANT to be taken care of. People are fearful of the personal responsibility aspect of individual liberty. So to many, ceding individual liberty for government power is an acceptable choice.

That isn't to say government is NOT necessary. It's just that there's few limitations on the power of the Federal government at this point. People want to wave a flag for their party and say, "My Guy is different, when he gets in things will change!" The truth is that neither party returns government powers taken by their predecessor. Look at Obama's promise not to use federal resources for going after states that have legalized medical marijuana. Gitmo is still open. He's increased drone strikes. Has he been more transparent? No. I'm not just pinning this only on Obama, it's just the way our two-party system is functioning. There's very little difference between the two parties. They both increase the size and power of the federal government at the expense of individual liberty. Will Romney remove the HCRA? No.


I will wave a flag for anyone who runs for president on a platform of making lobbies illegal, 2 years mandatory military service, capping military spending on anything other than the actual military to 10% of the spending budget, requiring any companies that build or maintain "security" forces and equipment to have a sole and single contract with our federal and state governments, dismantling health insurance models that function on healthcare as a profit industry and move it into an education and infrastructure model, provide reliable public transport, revoke any and all religious privilege from all state and federal government levels, redact Constitutional Amendment 17, ban any and all secondary income for elected officials for a period of 10 or more years leaving elected office and banning people who use cell phones to text and drive from ever using an electronic device, or driving, ever again. Just kidding, I couldn't figure out how to work in that Eddie Izzard flag skit.
 
2012-10-22 04:20:21 PM
Funny thing about commies. They print money, too.
 
2012-10-22 04:23:52 PM
The No True Scotsman fallacy is easily the most misused logical fallacy. If it's indisputable that a person was born in Scotland and is Scottish by nature, then saying he's not a "true" Scotsman because he doesn't believe or act a certain way is the NTS fallacy. But, if someone's classification that is based on certain characteristics, which may be questionable, is in dispute, then that's not the NTS fallacy per se.

For example, if a black person listens to Creed and Nickelback and someone says about them, "They are not truly black because they listen to Creed," that's the NTS fallacy.

If someone calls themselves a Catholic but does not take communion, go to mass, or go to confessional and someone says about them, "They don't take communion, etc. so they are not a true Catholic," that's not the NTS fallacy. You can dispute whether they are truly Catholic or not, but a person claiming they are not truly Catholic is not committing a logical fallacy.
 
2012-10-22 04:28:00 PM
I'm sure the Tea Party Libertarians love the big corporations and their personhood status. Just like the Founding Fathers they so love to portray
 
2012-10-22 04:28:14 PM
 
2012-10-22 04:32:15 PM

vartian: Slaxl: Or am I too cynical?

Take the money out of the hands of people that care only about money. That's progress; the rest we can figure out.


you actually think congress doesn't only care about money??? seriously? Congress? Our congress? Not care about money?

words fail me
 
2012-10-22 04:35:25 PM

Aeon Rising: vartian: Slaxl: Or am I too cynical?

Take the money out of the hands of people that care only about money. That's progress; the rest we can figure out.

you actually think congress doesn't only care about money??? seriously? Congress? Our congress? Not care about money?

words fail me


They shouldn't. That's what the children have been indoctrinated to believe.
 
2012-10-22 04:35:53 PM

jigger: Elegy: You paid cash up front for ... your last car that you bought?

Yes. Is it so hard to save money?


Yes. Let's assume you're an everyday guy doing an everyday job for which you are paid a bit above minimum wage. You take home $10 an hour after taxes, work a 40-hour full time week, and thus you're bringing home $400/week, for $20,800/year.

Let's remove the thought of family, here; just a bachelor. Let's assume he's living frugally but lives alone.

There's no way he can afford a decent place on that income, so assume he's sharing a place and this is his part of the rent. Chances are he needs a car, but for the sake of argument, let's say it's paid for.

$800 - rent
$ 100 - utillities (heat, electricity, water)
$ 50 - cheap prepaid phone
$ 400 - food
$ 100 - car insurance
$ 100 - gas (one tank per week)
$ 100 - misc expenses (average)
-------
$1650

If he's extraordinarily careful, never has car trouble, never has unexpected medical expenses, doesn't take any routine medication, and has no pets or family connections -- well, he's pocketing a sweet $83 per month. That's not quite $1k/ year.

In 20 years, he MIGHT have enough for a down payment on a house.
 
2012-10-22 04:38:04 PM

Jackpot777: slayer199: 1. Ron Paul is not a libertarian, is not widely supported by libertarians.
2. Libertarianism is not the same as Randianism.

[blog.americanfeast.com image 403x335]

"G'day, mate, it's a bonzer avo for a logical fallacy. 'Course I'm a True Scotsman, bloody oath! Got any tinnies in the Esky, y'drongo?"


Yeah, about that.....


Mozart Was a Red
A Morality Play In One Act

by Murray N. Rothbard
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html
 
2012-10-22 04:55:16 PM

Ricardo Klement: I may be a jerk, but I still created money.


No, you stole money from Peter and lent it to Paul, on the hope that Paul would repay you before Peter noticed his money was missing.
 
2012-10-22 05:01:14 PM

Slaves2Darkness: This is a really stupid idea because we would be bankrupting ourselves.


Here's a quick and fascinating breakdown by total amount held and percentage of total U.S. debt, according to Business Insider:

The U.S. Treasury: $1.63 trillion (11.3 percent)
Social Security trust fund: $2.67 trillion (19 percent)
U.S. households: $959.4 billion (6.6 percent)
Private pension funds: $504.7 billion (3.5 percent)
State and local governments: $506.1 billion (3.5 percent)
Mutual funds: $300.5 billion (2 percent)
Commercial banks: $301.8 billion (2.1 percent)
State, local and federal retirement funds: $320.9 billion (2.2 percent)
Money market mutual funds: $337.7 billion (2.4 percent)


Hong Kong: $121.9 billion (0.9 percent)
Caribbean banking centers: $148.3 (1 percent)
Taiwan: $153.4 billion (1.1 percent)
Brazil: $211.4 billion (1.5 percent)
Oil exporting countries: $229.8 billion (1.6 percent)
United Kingdom: $346.5 billion (2.4 percent)
Japan: $912.4 billion (6.4 percent)
China: $1.16 trillion (8 percent)

We owe foreign firms, countries, and other entities about 4.5 trillion dollars and we owe US firms, people, and entities 9.8 trillion dollars.

Why the fark would we the American People cancel the debt or default? How does that make any sense at all?


Credit Default Swaps = ~$1.5 Quadrillion
 
2012-10-22 05:04:00 PM

david_gaithersburg: Mentalpatient87: david_gaithersburg: But you, the retarded left, just said that deficit spending is a good thing. Make up your mind child.

Civil discourse? Nahhh, just call someone a retarded child because OMG DA LEFTEEZ! Farking dickhole.

Hey dickhole, try reading what I was responding too.

Reading, wtf is it?


Magnets, obviously.
 
2012-10-22 05:05:00 PM
[...] dates deep into history and lies at the root of debt jubilees in the ancient religions of Mesopotian [sic] and the Middle East.

Debt jubilees and ancient religions are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.

/Yes, I know, I stretched it, but it was hard to pass up.
 
2012-10-22 05:13:30 PM

clyph: Ricardo Klement: I may be a jerk, but I still created money.

No, you stole money from Peter and lent it to Paul, on the hope that Paul would repay you before Peter noticed his money was missing.


I still created money. If I offered Peter a free checking account, and charged interest to Paul, I'm distinguishable from a bank only in name.
 
2012-10-22 05:14:20 PM

clyph: Ricardo Klement: I may be a jerk, but I still created money.

No, you stole money from Peter and lent it to Paul, on the hope that Paul would repay you before Peter noticed his money was missing.


Plus, you forget I have assets. I have Bob's IOU for the $20 I lent him to begin with.
 
2012-10-22 05:17:04 PM

jvowles: Yes. Let's assume you're an everyday guy doing an everyday job for which you are paid a bit above minimum wage. You take home $10 an hour after taxes, work a 40-hour full time week, and thus you're bringing home $400/week, for $20,800/year.

Let's remove the thought of family, here; just a bachelor. Let's assume he's living frugally but lives alone.

There's no way he can afford a decent place on that income, so assume he's sharing a place and this is his part of the rent. Chances are he needs a car, but for the sake of argument, let's say it's paid for.

$800 - rent
$ 100 - utillities (heat, electricity, water)
$ 50 - cheap prepaid phone
$ 400 - food
$ 100 - car insurance
$ 100 - gas (one tank per week)
$ 100 - misc expenses (average)
-------
$1650

If he's extraordinarily careful, never has car trouble, never has unexpected medical expenses, doesn't take any routine medication, and has no pets or family connections -- well, he's pocketing a sweet $83 per month. That's not quite $1k/ year.

In 20 years, he MIGHT have enough for a down payment on a house.


Uh, when I wasn't making any money (in the range of which you speak) I had roommates and we rented a house or I lived with a buddy that owned a house but wanted help with his mortage. I was able to afford a new car (granted, it was an economy car...but still a new car). I still had a roommate which is how I was able to save for my condo and afford a condo in a nice area when I was making half of what I make 10 year later. Could I have upgraded to a larger home/condo? Sure. Why would I?

Hell, I still drive an economy car (though I will be upgrading to a new car next year). Point is that it can be done and if someone is making $25k and still making $25k 20 years later, that's on them.
 
2012-10-22 05:17:49 PM

jvowles: jigger: Elegy: You paid cash up front for ... your last car that you bought?

Yes. Is it so hard to save money?

Yes. Let's assume you're an everyday guy doing an everyday job for which you are paid a bit above minimum wage. You take home $10 an hour after taxes, work a 40-hour full time week, and thus you're bringing home $400/week, for $20,800/year.

Let's remove the thought of family, here; just a bachelor. Let's assume he's living frugally but lives alone.

There's no way he can afford a decent place on that income, so assume he's sharing a place and this is his part of the rent. Chances are he needs a car, but for the sake of argument, let's say it's paid for.

$800 - rent
$ 100 - utillities (heat, electricity, water)
$ 50 - cheap prepaid phone
$ 400 - food
$ 100 - car insurance
$ 100 - gas (one tank per week)
$ 100 - misc expenses (average)
-------
$1650

If he's extraordinarily careful, never has car trouble, never has unexpected medical expenses, doesn't take any routine medication, and has no pets or family connections -- well, he's pocketing a sweet $83 per month. That's not quite $1k/ year.

In 20 years, he MIGHT have enough for a down payment on a house.


What kind of house are we talking about here? And some people should not have a mortgage. Isn't that one of the things that started the whole mess recently?
 
2012-10-22 05:21:50 PM
The amount of debt derivatives extant and collectable presently is greater than the GDP of,

Wait for it.

Earth.

So, yeah, that would be a shame if all that just got wiped off the chalkboard like so much poorly drawn stick figures in funny poses. And while you're at it, please tell my how necessary pulling money out of your ass with worthless pieces of gymnastically structured paper issues is to our fiscal well being.
 
2012-10-22 05:23:31 PM

Ricardo Klement: clyph: Ricardo Klement: I may be a jerk, but I still created money.

No, you stole money from Peter and lent it to Paul, on the hope that Paul would repay you before Peter noticed his money was missing.

I still created money. If I offered Peter a free checking account, and charged interest to Paul, I'm distinguishable from a bank only in name.


And we all know that free-checking was created as a way to mine and sell marketing data correct?
 
2012-10-22 05:25:04 PM

mizchief: Ricardo Klement: clyph: Ricardo Klement: I may be a jerk, but I still created money.

No, you stole money from Peter and lent it to Paul, on the hope that Paul would repay you before Peter noticed his money was missing.

I still created money. If I offered Peter a free checking account, and charged interest to Paul, I'm distinguishable from a bank only in name.

And we all know that free-checking was created as a way to mine and sell marketing data correct?


Really kind of irrelevant to the discussion, but note that free checking is going away with the capping of interest rates and penalties on credit cards.
 
2012-10-22 05:31:05 PM

Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....


The markets would adjust to where it wouldn't matter.
 
2012-10-22 05:44:43 PM

bunner: The amount of debt derivatives extant and collectable presently is greater than the GDP of,

Wait for it.

Earth.


That's why the bailouts were such bullshiat. They could have told the banks to repudiate the phony debt they had built up with each other based on bets with phantom money.
 
2012-10-22 05:51:32 PM
 
2012-10-22 05:57:05 PM
I am guessing that there is some kind of economic elasticity in the current system that would be lacking in the one presented in TFA. Mind you, I spend a year and a half in economics classes thinking the best way to learn economics is to read Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds and take a lab course in building and fine-tuning bullshiat detectors, so to me this looks like two farmers arguing over whose herd make the most fragrant plops.

I am also guessing that the subjective evaluation of said elasticity tracks closely to the perceived political biases of the evaluator. People with prodigious credentials will come down firmly on both sides with equal fervor and equal evangelistic certainty, and people who don't understand will agree with whomever seems to be spewing their own particular brand of myopia. In the end, people who don't undertand the models will be the ones choosing betwen them, and their decisions will be based on bias, ignorance, and misidentified self interest. Nobody wins but the money vultures.

I am further assuming, based on what little I know of human nature, that man can create nothing that man cannot undermine, and no system can escape eventual wharrgarrblation when contaminated by humanity's endless ability to corrupt. Even if we change the system and the new one ends up running smoothly, eventually some former politician with his hand firmly in the public purse and his tongue firmly up Satan's backside will start us on the vertiginous backslide into kleptocracy and then people will get all misty-eyed about the good old days when we didn't have problems like these, nosiree, and the goddam pendulum starts its inexorable return to the same place as before with a whole new generation of idiots to screw it up just like we did.

Also, this is from the IMF, so of course they will disavow any knowledge of it. They've been acting squirrely ever since Tom Cruise started working for them.
 
2012-10-22 05:58:35 PM
skullkrusher
for an alleged anarchist, you sure do seem to love our private oligarch enriching federal reserve system. Might wanna re-read your talking points, chum

Don't think I'm advocating it. You can't destroy something if you don't have a clear picture of how it works.


bunner
The amount of debt derivatives extant and collectable presently is greater than the GDP

It doesn't have to all be paid back in one year.
 
2012-10-22 06:06:05 PM

RanDomino: bunner
The amount of debt derivatives extant and collectable presently is greater than the GDP

It doesn't have to all be paid back in one year.



Yeah, we can make earth bigger in a few years. You left out the "of earth" part. That was sort of the point. What do you suppose the probable time needed would be to, like, invent more money to pay that back with from, you know, earth?
 
2012-10-22 06:10:07 PM

slayer199: Kazan: most real-libertarians don't self-identify as "Libertarian" was part of my point

Let me ask you this. Do you agree with everything your party stands for? I don't, but the Libertarian party is the closest thing to small-l libertarianism around.

I took the party to task for nominating Bob Barr (I wrote in Gary Nolan in the General Election) who was a HORRIBLE candidate. Unlike Gary Johnson, he didn't have any legitimate history of leaning libertarian.


of course i don't agree with everything, however i'm still not buying what you're selling because it smells of the south end of a northbound bovine.

reading up on your favored candidates... they're fiscal conservatives

sorry.. fiscal conservatism is bullshiat and is what earns them the Randite moniker. nothing in libertarianism requires that shiat, and more thought out libertarian positions recognize that the concentration of wealth (and economic power) that fiscal conservatism engenders is harmful to actual liberty.
 
2012-10-22 06:15:19 PM

Kazan: fiscal conservatism is bullshiat and is what earns them the Randite moniker. nothing in libertarianism requires that shiat, and more thought out libertarian positions recognize that the concentration of wealth (and economic power) that fiscal conservatism engenders is harmful to actual liberty.


I'm curious: what do you think "fiscal conservatism" actually means?
 
2012-10-22 06:24:39 PM

Koalacaust: Kazan: fiscal conservatism is bullshiat and is what earns them the Randite moniker. nothing in libertarianism requires that shiat, and more thought out libertarian positions recognize that the concentration of wealth (and economic power) that fiscal conservatism engenders is harmful to actual liberty.

I'm curious: what do you think "fiscal conservatism" actually means?


It means "we've found this ostensibly wise and mind soundbite phrase that is just nebulous and malleable enough to keep pulling the same sh*t, and we can redefine it as we go."
 
2012-10-22 06:26:43 PM
Something tells me that if this was easy and consequence free, they'd have done it already.
Putting things in the hands of congress as it is now, a bunch of oligarchs owned by corporations, also seems like a bad idea.

/I'm gonna nope my way right out of this, as it seems like nothing good will come of it.
 
2012-10-22 06:30:59 PM
Fat, disingenuous old men who managed to concoct and hand down a small set of scalable hat tricks involving what they can make money do and define money as, have written a check that the entire GDP of the planet can't cash. Game over. Period. There's nothing left TO do but shake the etch a sketch and frankly, this looks like it would be a lot less violent than the other, more historically prevalent methods.
 
2012-10-22 06:31:15 PM

way south: Something tells me that if this was easy and consequence free, they'd have done it already.
Putting things in the hands of congress as it is now, a bunch of oligarchs owned by corporations, also seems like a bad idea.

/I'm gonna nope my way right out of this, as it seems like nothing good will come of it.


Just keep it directly in the hands of corporations (as an instrument of debt to them) then.
 
2012-10-22 06:32:26 PM

bunner: Koalacaust: Kazan: fiscal conservatism is bullshiat and is what earns them the Randite moniker. nothing in libertarianism requires that shiat, and more thought out libertarian positions recognize that the concentration of wealth (and economic power) that fiscal conservatism engenders is harmful to actual liberty.

I'm curious: what do you think "fiscal conservatism" actually means?

It means "we've found this ostensibly wise and mind soundbite phrase that is just nebulous and malleable enough to keep pulling the same sh*t, and we can redefine it as we go."


^^^ pretty much that

Koalacaust: Kazan: fiscal conservatism is bullshiat and is what earns them the Randite moniker. nothing in libertarianism requires that shiat, and more thought out libertarian positions recognize that the concentration of wealth (and economic power) that fiscal conservatism engenders is harmful to actual liberty.

I'm curious: what do you think "fiscal conservatism" actually means?


in practice: cut taxes, deregulate businesses that need regulated, cut programs that help the less advantaged, etc.

and low and behold - that's exactly the shiat the US Libertarian party and all it's followers endorse!
 
2012-10-22 06:35:56 PM

YixilTesiphon: DerAppie: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Live within your means and you won't need credit.

Right, but how do you start a business without credit?


Get together a group of folks who can all afford to pitch in a little bit. They stay within their means, capital is raised for the venture. It's really summed up by one word I learned on Sesame Street many moons ago: cooperate.

I understand the simplicity of my example-in-a-vacuum, but... how `bout that?
 
2012-10-22 06:47:25 PM
If the money movers haven't learned by now that they'd be better off unscrewing the pooch themselves when the obligatory endgame to all this manipulative BS they pull loops back to zero, instead of waiting until bread is 70.00 a loaf and motherf*ckers are burning sh*t down, then we might as well all go make some mud and berry face paint and fashion some spears and have at it, because there is little hope for civil order for this species, let alone an economy.
 
2012-10-22 06:49:49 PM

Meatybrain: I spend a year and a half in economics classes thinking the best way to learn economics is to read Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds and take a lab course in building and fine-tuning bullshiat detectors.


Love the Madness of Crowds. I am reading The Perfect Swarm by Len Fisher right now and think it makes a good companion piece.
 
2012-10-22 06:51:47 PM

Kazan: in practice: cut taxes, deregulate businesses that need regulated, cut programs that help the less advantaged, etc.


So you use it as a catch-all phrase to describe policies with which you disagree. Sort of like how Republicans cry "socialism" every time Obama does something that they don't like.

You're cheapening and discrediting a viable political sentiment by associating it with things like excessive tax cuts to the wealthy and wanton deregulation of the economy, neither of which are in any sense fiscally conservative. At least take the time to understand what the thing is before you go blaming it for all manner of problems.
 
2012-10-22 06:55:31 PM

halB: What idiot would have their money in a bank right now?


Just for the sake of argument, where would you suggest having your money? (Unless you are not using "bank" to encompass Credit Unions as well, which is what I mostly use.)
 
2012-10-22 06:55:57 PM
To be fair, TFA is talking about implementing this in the UK, not in the USA.
 
Displayed 50 of 402 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report