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.

(Think Progress)   Remember when George Washington defeated the British by crashing the world economy?   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 213
    More: Unlikely, world economy, House GOP  
•       •       •

3640 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Oct 2013 at 7:02 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-13 09:39:48 PM  
The don't care if they wreck the national economy because they don't want any of the 33 million people without health insurance to buy it.
 
2013-10-13 09:40:49 PM  

max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?

No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.

I rent my apartment from my landlord. She lives elsewhere, so I am not taking value from her actual home. I pay her rent, so she is making a return investment on her purchase(the property I rent). I also maintain the apartment, doing things like raking and sweeping, and do not charge her for it, saving her on upkeep costs.

How exactly am I parasite to my landlord?

Or is this one of those "Factory workers should be paid eighty bajillion dollars an hour and teachers should work for free" type arguments?

/agrees bankers and stock brokers are parasites

Your landlord is the one acting in a rent like manner.  Read Adam Smith.  He had it right over 200 years ago.  the game has new players and different rules but the same problems.

The landlord is providing value. They are providing a person with a place to live without the expense and long term commitment of property ownership. The freedom of the renter to move after the lease has expired is a value that many renters treasure.


Nope.  The value was added by the workers who cleared the land and built the structure.  The value is maintained by the workers who keep the structure up to its original value.  The act of renting it in no way changes the value of the property.  It has the same value whether it is empty or full.  Full by the person whop owns it or full by a person who rents it.  The difference is that the renter who adds no value whatsoever gets a reward(money that is a voucher of value) without actually doing anything to add value.
 
2013-10-13 09:40:52 PM  
How to fix the budget issue in less then 24 hours

1. Kick starter to build a guillotine on the capital lawn can only donate 1.00 at a time
2. All money for the kick starter after it's built goes to the national debt
3. for ever 50,000,000 in total donations the person that hits the magic number gets to pick one of the top 10,000 individual campaign donators from the last election to have his head cut off
4. For every 1,000,000,000 the luckey doner gets to pick a member of the house
5. For every 100,000,000,000 the winner gets to drag up a cnn, Fox News, or talk radio host to drag up strip naked castrate then cover in honey and dump a hive of fire ants on while slowly lowering into a vat of battery acid
 
2013-10-13 09:41:56 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: With those views you must be a communist or anarchist. Which?

A capitalist. Not a corporatist like we have today. crony capitalism is killing us all. except the .01% R or D your team is for them (0.01%)against you( all of us).


Sounds to me like you would love either one above, but I agree with your corporatist point.
 
2013-10-13 09:42:01 PM  

whistleridge: Here's the part where we mention:

1. The US went massively in debt to fund the American Revolution. An even higher ratio of debt:GDP than today.
2. Debt isn't necessarily a bad thing. Germany, Japan, France, and even Canada have higher debt:GDP ratios than the US does. Think of it as having a mortgage: as low as you continue your payments in a timely manner, that debt can actually help you.
3. What's important is what percentage of the budget is being taken up by interest payments. Ours is actually low right now.
4. The people doing the criticism think gold is a reasonable basis for a national economy. Despite the evidence, the opinions of every economist who is worth a damn, and the conclusions of multiple independent panels (including one by Reagan) pulled together to study the matter.

QED: not only does this person not know what the fark he's talking about, he REALLY DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THE fark HE'S TALKING ABOUT.


And we're done here.
Last one out to shut off the lights.
 
2013-10-13 09:43:05 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?

No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.

I rent my apartment from my landlord. She lives elsewhere, so I am not taking value from her actual home. I pay her rent, so she is making a return investment on her purchase(the property I rent). I also maintain the apartment, doing things like raking and sweeping, and do not charge her for it, saving her on upkeep costs.

How exactly am I parasite to my landlord?

Or is this one of those "Factory workers should be paid eighty bajillion dollars an hour and teachers should work for free" type arguments?

/agrees bankers and stock brokers are parasites

Your landlord is the one acting in a rent like manner.  Read Adam Smith.  He had it right over 200 years ago.  the game has new players and different rules but the same problems.

The landlord is providing value. They are providing a person with a place to live without the expense and long term commitment of property ownership. The freedom of the renter to move after the lease has expired is a value that many renters treasure.

Nope.  The value was added by the workers who cleared the land and built the structure.  The value is maintained by the workers who keep the structure up to its original value.  The act of renting it in no way changes the value of the property.  It has the same value whether it is empty or full.  Full by the person whop owns it or full by a person who rents it.  The difference is that the renter who adds no value whatsoever gets a reward(money that is a voucher of value) without actually doing anything to add value.


How does the renter get money?
 
2013-10-13 09:45:04 PM  

NFA: Deliberately damaging the nation and it's economy is not treason, nope, not treasonous at all.

What a god damn traitor!

trea·son
ˈtrēzən/
noun
1.the crime of betraying one's country,


done in one.  try the traitors and be done with it
 
2013-10-13 09:46:29 PM  

max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?

No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.

I rent my apartment from my landlord. She lives elsewhere, so I am not taking value from her actual home. I pay her rent, so she is making a return investment on her purchase(the property I rent). I also maintain the apartment, doing things like raking and sweeping, and do not charge her for it, saving her on upkeep costs.

How exactly am I parasite to my landlord?

Or is this one of those "Factory workers should be paid eighty bajillion dollars an hour and teachers should work for free" type arguments?

/agrees bankers and stock brokers are parasites

Your landlord is the one acting in a rent like manner.  Read Adam Smith.  He had it right over 200 years ago.  the game has new players and different rules but the same problems.

The landlord is providing value. They are providing a person with a place to live without the expense and long term commitment of property ownership. The freedom of the renter to move after the lease has expired is a value that many renters treasure.

Nope.  The value was added by the workers who cleared the land and built the structure.  The value is maintained by the workers who keep the structure up to its original ...


The person who rents the property pays the renter.
 
2013-10-13 09:49:06 PM  

ox45tallboy: KellyX: [scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x225]

That needs a "KEEP CALM and" above it.


scontent-a-mia.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-10-13 09:49:19 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?

No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.

I rent my apartment from my landlord. She lives elsewhere, so I am not taking value from her actual home. I pay her rent, so she is making a return investment on her purchase(the property I rent). I also maintain the apartment, doing things like raking and sweeping, and do not charge her for it, saving her on upkeep costs.

How exactly am I parasite to my landlord?

Or is this one of those "Factory workers should be paid eighty bajillion dollars an hour and teachers should work for free" type arguments?

/agrees bankers and stock brokers are parasites

Your landlord is the one acting in a rent like manner.  Read Adam Smith.  He had it right over 200 years ago.  the game has new players and different rules but the same problems.

The landlord is providing value. They are providing a person with a place to live without the expense and long term commitment of property ownership. The freedom of the renter to move after the lease has expired is a value that many renters treasure.

Nope.  The value was added by the workers who cleared the land and built the structure.  The value is maintained by the workers who keep the structure up to its original ...

The person who rents the property pays the renter.


I was a renter for years before I bought a house, I was never paid once.
 
2013-10-13 09:51:21 PM  

max_pooper: But one could sell shares of cooperative: one 5,000 square foot lot with 720,000 owners.


Corporations don't get the vote now. Some real estate developer tried to add that in to their deal with the local zoning board (IIRC, it was a Denver suburb) and were crucified in the media for daring to suggest it.

Even if they did, they would get one (1) vote.
 
2013-10-13 09:52:21 PM  

Leader O'Cola: NFA: Deliberately damaging the nation and it's economy is not treason, nope, not treasonous at all.

What a god damn traitor!

trea·son
ˈtrēzən/
noun
1.the crime of betraying one's country,

done in one.  try the traitors and be done with it


Been calling for it for over a week now... At this point I think Obama should cite the 14th Amendment, then issue warrants for everyone that actively was pushing to destroy the economy
 
2013-10-13 09:53:54 PM  
KellyX - at the very least, the hundreds of thousands of folks out of work should file a class-action suit against Speaker Boehner and the Republican Party for lost wages...

Does the President have any power to ORDER a vote?  What I'm hearing is that Boehner will not call for a vote and so the whole process is stopped.

Is there any means to relieve Boehner of his duties?  If his reluctance to call for a vote is causing severe damage to the U.S. it seems to me that he is in dereliction of his duties, and someone with more responsibility should be put in place.
 
2013-10-13 09:57:53 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.


I've got a problem with the "add no value" thing.

How much would you pay for drugs manufactured in a country with no type of oversight?

How likely would you be to invest your money in a market with no regulations against insider trading, or requirements that brokers act in their clients' best interests?

How much more does it add to the value of a property you are considering purchasing to know that it meets or exceeds certain standards of construction, and don't have to pay for an independent inspection?

It is when positions of power are abused that this becomes an issue. When the health care provider becomes interested in finding ways to avoid paying for treatment in order to enrich himself, instead of finding ways to provide health care. When the inspector takes bribes to ignore deficiencies in construction, or in pollution, or in production of medicines, this is a Bad Thing. Having regulations actually adds value to producers by providing standardization of fitness for an intended purpose.
 
2013-10-13 09:59:04 PM  

max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?

No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.

I rent my apartment from my landlord. She lives elsewhere, so I am not taking value from her actual home. I pay her rent, so she is making a return investment on her purchase(the property I rent). I also maintain the apartment, doing things like raking and sweeping, and do not charge her for it, saving her on upkeep costs.

How exactly am I parasite to my landlord?

Or is this one of those "Factory workers should be paid eighty bajillion dollars an hour and teachers should work for free" type arguments?

/agrees bankers and stock brokers are parasites

Your landlord is the one acting in a rent like manner.  Read Adam Smith.  He had it right over 200 years ago.  the game has new players and different rules but the same problems.

The landlord is providing value. They are providing a person with a place to live without the expense and long term commitment of property ownership. The freedom of the renter to move after the lease has expired is a value that many renters treasure.


That's...basically exactly what my response was. Thanks for that.

Here's what you're missing steve. Just because YOU don't see the value in something, doesn't mean it has no value.
 
2013-10-13 09:59:40 PM  

KellyX: ox45tallboy: KellyX: [scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x225]

That needs a "KEEP CALM and" above it.

[scontent-a-mia.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x499]


PERFECT!

That'll get you a month.
 
2013-10-13 10:00:02 PM  
 max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?......................................................

The person who rents the property pays the renter.


I was a renter for years before I bought a house, I was never paid once.

No you rented from the renter.  rent like behavior was one of the things that the founding fathers were trying to stop.  They came from countries were if you had land you were a member of the aristocracy.  Commoners could not own land because it was all owned by the royals.  Quite a few of the rules that they set down was to avoid what is happening today.  Few have the many by the short and curlies.
 
2013-10-13 10:01:32 PM  

brandied: KellyX - at the very least, the hundreds of thousands of folks out of work should file a class-action suit against Speaker Boehner and the Republican Party for lost wages...

Does the President have any power to ORDER a vote?  What I'm hearing is that Boehner will not call for a vote and so the whole process is stopped.

Is there any means to relieve Boehner of his duties?  If his reluctance to call for a vote is causing severe damage to the U.S. it seems to me that he is in dereliction of his duties, and someone with more responsibility should be put in place.


Force a vote? No, the only thing the President can do is call congress to session. They can just sit there twiddling thier thumbs if they want.

Remove Boenher? Congress has the power to expel members but that requires 2/3 majority.
 
2013-10-13 10:02:01 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I hadn't thought of that, so I will concede the point. But I will be damned if anyone thinks I'll halt the construction of my 100 story 1 square inch skyscraper.

I don't need FAA permits.


Sure. Good luck on demanding easement for construction, much less occupation, as it seems you'll likely be hanging over all sides no matter which floor you occupy.
 
2013-10-13 10:05:45 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: Nope. The value was added by the workers who cleared the land and built the structure. The value is maintained by the workers who keep the structure up to its original value. The act of renting it in no way changes the value of the property. It has the same value whether it is empty or full. Full by the person whop owns it or full by a person who rents it. The difference is that the renter who adds no value whatsoever gets a reward(money that is a voucher of value) without actually doing anything to add value.


By the way, I should mention that the guy who does any major repairs (we take care of the little stuff) is the landlord's son, so by your definition the owner's family maintains the property's value. Furthermore, before we moved in, several renovations were done to the property(increasing it's value according to you) which were paid for by the owner.

Furthermore, the house was originally constructed by people and that gives its initial value, yes, but you're forgetting something important. Someone PAID those people to build the house. They didn't just show up and decide to build something for shiats and giggles.
 
2013-10-13 10:07:23 PM  

grumpfuff: max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?

No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.

I rent my apartment from my landlord. She lives elsewhere, so I am not taking value from her actual home. I pay her rent, so she is making a return investment on her purchase(the property I rent). I also maintain the apartment, doing things like raking and sweeping, and do not charge her for it, saving her on upkeep costs.

How exactly am I parasite to my landlord?

Or is this one of those "Factory workers should be paid eighty bajillion dollars an hour and teachers should work for free" type arguments?

/agrees bankers and stock brokers are parasites

Your landlord is the one acting in a rent like manner.  Read Adam Smith.  He had it right over 200 years ago.  the game has new players and different rules but the same problems.

The landlord is providing value. They are providing a person with a place to live without the expense and long term commitment of property ownership. The freedom of the renter to move after the lease has expired is a value that many renters treasure.

That's...basically exactly what my response was. Thanks for that.

Here's what you're missing steve. Just because YOU don't see the value in something, doesn't mean it has no value.


WRONG.  I do not define value.  value is what it is.  Take a ton of iron ore that is still in the ground.  Until someone digs it up it has 0 value.  The digger adds value.  Ore itself is not valuable.  The smelter adds value during the refining process to make steel.  Steel itself has little value until shaped by machinists into say....a automobile.  The machinist added value.  No one else added the value to the ore.  The banker for the purchase of the car nor the retirement fund manager of the machinist added value.  They did however suck the vouchers of value(money) from both the purchaser and the machinist without adding one iota of value to the car.
 
2013-10-13 10:10:27 PM  

grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: Nope. The value was added by the workers who cleared the land and built the structure. The value is maintained by the workers who keep the structure up to its original value. The act of renting it in no way changes the value of the property. It has the same value whether it is empty or full. Full by the person whop owns it or full by a person who rents it. The difference is that the renter who adds no value whatsoever gets a reward(money that is a voucher of value) without actually doing anything to add value.

By the way, I should mention that the guy who does any major repairs (we take care of the little stuff) is the landlord's son, so by your definition the owner's family maintains the property's value. Furthermore, before we moved in, several renovations were done to the property(increasing it's value according to you) which were paid for by the owner.

Furthermore, the house was originally constructed by people and that gives its initial value, yes, but you're forgetting something important. Someone PAID those people to build the house. They didn't just show up and decide to build something for shiats and giggles.


When you maintain the property you do add value.  All other financial transactions that you get are parasitic as they are non value added.
 
2013-10-13 10:14:38 PM  

bigsteve3OOO:  max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?......................................................

The person who rents the property pays the renter.

I was a renter for years before I bought a house, I was never paid once.
No you rented from the renter.  rent like behavior was one of the things that the founding fathers were trying to stop.  They came from countries were if you had land you were a member of the aristocracy.  Commoners could not own land because it was all owned by the royals.  Quite a few of the rules that they set down was to avoid what is happening today.  Few have the many by the short and curlies.


No, I was the renter. I rented from the property owner.

We don't have an aristocracy where only the protected gentry can own land. We live in a society where anyone with the means is legally allowed to own property. When people are barred from ownership the only choice is to rent. We do not have that system. People are free to rent or purchase property as they choose.

I don't live under the oppression of an aristocratic rent seeker because I had the freedom to purchase my own property, something the Founding Fathers would greatly appreciate. I had the means to purchase a property because I chose to live in a low cost rental unit giving me the freedom to save money for the property purchase.

The "rent seeking" landowners of 18th century aristocratic Birtian are very different from modern apartment owners.
 
2013-10-13 10:16:31 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: The banker for the purchase of the car nor the retirement fund manager of the machinist added value.


The banker provided the loan that allowed the person to purchase the car, thus allowing the maker of the car and everyone down the chain to be paid.


bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: Nope. The value was added by the workers who cleared the land and built the structure. The value is maintained by the workers who keep the structure up to its original value. The act of renting it in no way changes the value of the property. It has the same value whether it is empty or full. Full by the person whop owns it or full by a person who rents it. The difference is that the renter who adds no value whatsoever gets a reward(money that is a voucher of value) without actually doing anything to add value.

By the way, I should mention that the guy who does any major repairs (we take care of the little stuff) is the landlord's son, so by your definition the owner's family maintains the property's value. Furthermore, before we moved in, several renovations were done to the property(increasing it's value according to you) which were paid for by the owner.

Furthermore, the house was originally constructed by people and that gives its initial value, yes, but you're forgetting something important. Someone PAID those people to build the house. They didn't just show up and decide to build something for shiats and giggles.

When you maintain the property you do add value.  All other financial transactions that you get are parasitic as they are non value added.


I notice you completely ignore the bolded part.
 
2013-10-13 10:18:16 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: When you maintain the property you do add value.  All other financial transactions that you get are parasitic as they are non value added


An electrical inspection, plumbing inspection, certification of clear title, easement guarantees, 911 service, municipal water and sewage hookups, not to mention the quality of neighborhood schools, all of these add ZERO value to a home?

Please tell me you're not in the real estate business.
 
2013-10-13 10:22:06 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?

No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.

I rent my apartment from my landlord. She lives elsewhere, so I am not taking value from her actual home. I pay her rent, so she is making a return investment on her purchase(the property I rent). I also maintain the apartment, doing things like raking and sweeping, and do not charge her for it, saving her on upkeep costs.

How exactly am I parasite to my landlord?

Or is this one of those "Factory workers should be paid eighty bajillion dollars an hour and teachers should work for free" type arguments?

/agrees bankers and stock brokers are parasites

Your landlord is the one acting in a rent like manner.  Read Adam Smith.  He had it right over 200 years ago.  the game has new players and different rules but the same problems.

The landlord is providing value. They are providing a person with a place to live without the expense and long term commitment of property ownership. The freedom of the renter to move after the lease has expired is a value that many renters treasure.

That's...basically exactly what my response was. Thanks for that.

Here's what you're missing steve. Just because YOU don't see the value in something, doesn't mean it has no value.

WRONG.  I do not define value.  value is what it is.  Take a ton of iron ore that is still in the ground.  Until someone digs it up it has 0 value.  The digger adds value.  Ore itself is not valuable.  The smelter adds value during the refining process to make steel.  Steel itself has little value until shaped by machinists into say....a automobile.  The machinist added value.  No one else added the value to the ore.  The banker for the purchase of the car nor the retirement fund manager of the machinist added value.  They did however suck the vouchers of value(money) from both the purchaser and the machinist without adding one iota of value to the car.


The ore in the ground does have value. The value of land rich in iron ore is more valuable than a patch in the desert 100 miles from the nearest town.

The different between in value is the value of the iron ore in the ground.

There is value in potential. Whether that potential is iron ore, dense old growth trees, an apartment in downtown Manhatten.
 
2013-10-13 10:22:38 PM  

grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: The banker for the purchase of the car nor the retirement fund manager of the machinist added value.

The banker provided the loan that allowed the person to purchase the car, thus allowing the maker of the car and everyone down the chain to be paid.


bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: Nope. The value was added by the workers who cleared the land and built the structure. The value is maintained by the workers who keep the structure up to its original value. The act of renting it in no way changes the value of the property. It has the same value whether it is empty or full. Full by the person whop owns it or full by a person who rents it. The difference is that the renter who adds no value whatsoever gets a reward(money that is a voucher of value) without actually doing anything to add value.

By the way, I should mention that the guy who does any major repairs (we take care of the little stuff) is the landlord's son, so by your definition the owner's family maintains the property's value. Furthermore, before we moved in, several renovations were done to the property(increasing it's value according to you) which were paid for by the owner.

Furthermore, the house was originally constructed by people and that gives its initial value, yes, but you're forgetting something important. Someone PAID those people to build the house. They didn't just show up and decide to build something for shiats and giggles.

When you maintain the property you do add value.  All other financial transactions that you get are parasitic as they are non value added.

I notice you completely ignore the bolded part.


Saw the bolded part.  No value added.  Paying for something does not add value.  sorry.  Also giving money to someone to pay for something does not add value.  sorry again.  Unless you take something, anything, and work it to be something more valuable.  You did not add value.  Brittney Spears adds value.  She takes an idea and turns it into entertainment.  You renting a house or other property = NO VALUE ADDED.  Justin Beiber is more value added than you.
 
2013-10-13 10:25:54 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: The banker for the purchase of the car nor the retirement fund manager of the machinist added value.

The banker provided the loan that allowed the person to purchase the car, thus allowing the maker of the car and everyone down the chain to be paid.


bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: Nope. The value was added by the workers who cleared the land and built the structure. The value is maintained by the workers who keep the structure up to its original value. The act of renting it in no way changes the value of the property. It has the same value whether it is empty or full. Full by the person whop owns it or full by a person who rents it. The difference is that the renter who adds no value whatsoever gets a reward(money that is a voucher of value) without actually doing anything to add value.

By the way, I should mention that the guy who does any major repairs (we take care of the little stuff) is the landlord's son, so by your definition the owner's family maintains the property's value. Furthermore, before we moved in, several renovations were done to the property(increasing it's value according to you) which were paid for by the owner.

Furthermore, the house was originally constructed by people and that gives its initial value, yes, but you're forgetting something important. Someone PAID those people to build the house. They didn't just show up and decide to build something for shiats and giggles.

When you maintain the property you do add value.  All other financial transactions that you get are parasitic as they are non value added.

I notice you completely ignore the bolded part.

Saw the bolded part.  No value added.  Paying for something does not add value.  sorry.  Also giving money to someone to pay for something does not add value.  sorry again.  Unless you take something, anything, and work it to be something more valuable.  You did not add value.  Brittney Spears adds value.  She takes an idea and turns it into entertainment.  You renting a house or other property = NO VALUE ADDED.  Justin Beiber is more value added than you.


Entertainment? Are are now talking about a service instead of a good.

A landlord provided a valuable service to the leasee: a safe place to live.
 
2013-10-13 10:25:55 PM  
The economy was gutted decades ago, and we've been kicking the can down the road, using debt, money creation and accounting fraud, ever since. Blaming the mess on anybody or anything recent is ridiculous.
 
2013-10-13 10:26:46 PM  

max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right ......................................

The ore in the ground does have value. The value of land rich in iron ore is more valuable than a patch in the desert 100 miles from the nearest town.

The different between in value is the value of the iron ore in the ground.

There is value in potential. Whether that potential is iron ore, dense old growth trees, an apartment in downtown Manhatten.
  ..

OK I agree.  You are right I am wrong.  I misspoke due to excessive quantities of Milwaukees best light a value added commodity.
 
2013-10-13 10:30:34 PM  

max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: The banker for the purchase of the car nor the retirement fund manager of the machinist added value.

The banker provided the loan that allowed the person to purchase the car, thus allowing the maker of the car and everyone down the chain to be paid.


bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: Nope. The value was added by the workers who cleared the land and built the structure. The value is maintained by the workers who keep the structure up to its original value. The act of renting it in no way changes the value of the property. It has the same value whether it is empty or full. Full by the person whop owns it or full by a person who rents it. The difference is that the renter who adds no value whatsoever gets a reward(money that is a voucher of value) without actually doing anything to add value.

B...................
 notice you completely ignore the bolded part.

Saw the bolded part.  No value added.  Paying for something does not add value.  sorry.  Also giving money to someone to pay for something does not add value.  sorry again.  Unless you take something, anything, and work it to be something more valuable.  You did not add value.  Brittney Spears adds value.  She takes an idea and turns it into entertainment.  You renting a house or other property = NO VALUE ADDED.  Justin Beiber is more value added than you.


Entertainment? Are are now talking about a service instead of a good.

A landlord provided a valuable service to the leasee: a safe place to live.


Nope you are wrong.  entertainment is value added rent is not.  If you take anything and add value then you are a producer.  If not you are a parasite.
 
2013-10-13 10:33:08 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: Saw the bolded part. No value added. Paying for something does not add value. sorry. Also giving money to someone to pay for something does not add value. sorry again. Unless you take something, anything, and work it to be something more valuable. You did not add value. Brittney Spears adds value. She takes an idea and turns it into entertainment. You renting a house or other property = NO VALUE ADDED. Justin Beiber is more value added than you.


Ok. So if that person doesn't pay the builders to build the house, they don't build the house, and it stays an empty lot with little to no value. Why exactly is the initial investment not important?

And I never claimed to be adding value to the property(I did claim I *maintain* value because I *maintain* the property), so congrats on winning that strawman.

Seriously, do you have any concept of economics? You sound like the type of guy who is all "COAL MINER GOOD! TEACHER BAD!"
 
2013-10-13 10:35:27 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: The banker for the purchase of the car nor the retirement fund manager of the machinist added value.

The banker provided the loan that allowed the person to purchase the car, thus allowing the maker of the car and everyone down the chain to be paid.


bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: Nope. The value was added by the workers who cleared the land and built the structure. The value is maintained by the workers who keep the structure up to its original value. The act of renting it in no way changes the value of the property. It has the same value whether it is empty or full. Full by the person whop owns it or full by a person who rents it. The difference is that the renter who adds no value whatsoever gets a reward(money that is a voucher of value) without actually doing anything to add value.

B...................
 notice you completely ignore the bolded part.

Saw the bolded part.  No value added.  Paying for something does not add value.  sorry.  Also giving money to someone to pay for something does not add value.  sorry again.  Unless you take something, anything, and work it to be something more valuable.  You did not add value.  Brittney Spears adds value.  She takes an idea and turns it into entertainment.  You renting a house or other property = NO VALUE ADDED.  Justin Beiber is more value added than you.

Entertainment? Are are now talking about a service instead of a good.

A landlord provided a valuable service to the leasee: a safe place to live.


Nope you are wrong.  entertainment is value added rent is not.  If you take anything and add value then you are a producer.  If not you are a parasite.


So a place to live does not add value to a person's life? Why does anyone waste money renting if it does not provide them with value?
 
2013-10-13 10:35:38 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: If your economic system requires government spending to survive your country is already failed it is just a matter of time.


The economy doesn't actually care where the money comes from.  A billion dollars to improve infrastructure is a billion whether it comes from the government or a private company.
 
2013-10-13 10:35:45 PM  

Gergesa: LasersHurt: On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.

Anyone know the legalities of this?


If you follow the legal opinions of Bush Administration counsel John Yoo, if the country faced with an emergency the chief executive could do anything up to and including having Congress indefinitely detained and tortured.

Somehow I imagine all of those Bush supporters wouldn't agree with the legal arguments they proposed prior to a Democrat being president.
 
2013-10-13 10:37:41 PM  

grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: Saw the bolded part. No value added. Paying for something does not add value. sorry. Also giving money to someone to pay for something does not add value. sorry again. Unless you take something, anything, and work it to be something more valuable. You did not add value. Brittney Spears adds value. She takes an idea and turns it into entertainment. You renting a house or other property = NO VALUE ADDED. Justin Beiber is more value added than you.

Ok. So if that person doesn't pay the builders to build the house, they don't build the house, and it stays an empty lot with little to no value. Why exactly is the initial investment not important?

And I never claimed to be adding value to the property(I did claim I *maintain* value because I *maintain* the property), so congrats on winning that strawman.

Seriously, do you have any concept of economics? You sound like the type of guy who is all "COAL MINER GOOD! TEACHER BAD!"


Money is a voucher of value.  It should only be given to people who add value.  Rent like behavior adds no value yet collects vouchers of value. I find that abhorrent.  That is all I have to say on this topic.
 
2013-10-13 10:46:13 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: Rent like behavior adds no value yet collects vouchers of value.


You seem to have an unorthodox definition of "value".

Please repeat that sentence to hotel owners during a large convention or event such as the Olympics. You will find that rent-like behavior (i.e., occupancy) adds tremendous value to property.
 
2013-10-13 10:46:15 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: Saw the bolded part. No value added. Paying for something does not add value. sorry. Also giving money to someone to pay for something does not add value. sorry again. Unless you take something, anything, and work it to be something more valuable. You did not add value. Brittney Spears adds value. She takes an idea and turns it into entertainment. You renting a house or other property = NO VALUE ADDED. Justin Beiber is more value added than you.

Ok. So if that person doesn't pay the builders to build the house, they don't build the house, and it stays an empty lot with little to no value. Why exactly is the initial investment not important?

And I never claimed to be adding value to the property(I did claim I *maintain* value because I *maintain* the property), so congrats on winning that strawman.

Seriously, do you have any concept of economics? You sound like the type of guy who is all "COAL MINER GOOD! TEACHER BAD!"

Money is a voucher of value.  It should only be given to people who add value.  Rent like behavior adds no value yet collects vouchers of value. I find that abhorrent.  That is all I have to say on this topic.


A landlord does provide value. He provides a safe place to live and keep belongings in exchange for an agreed upon amount of money determined by the free market. If the apartment does not adequately provide a safe place to live and keep belongings then nobody will rent it.

Remember this is not 18th century aristocratic Britian where commoners were forced into renting because they were barred from landownership. In the US anyone with the means can purchase property, even regular schmos like myself.
 
2013-10-13 10:54:30 PM  

ox45tallboy: bigsteve3OOO: Rent like behavior adds no value yet collects vouchers of value.

You seem to have an unorthodox definition of "value".

Please repeat that sentence to hotel owners during a large convention or event such as the Olympics. You will find that rent-like behavior (i.e., occupancy) adds tremendous value to property.


Steve is conflating money payments made to landlord and Adam Smith definition of rent. He defined it as money made outside of a mutually beneficial transaction.

In a modern real estate rental agreement, both sides benefit. The landlord benefits through money paid by the renter and the renter benefits through having a safe place to live.
 
2013-10-13 11:06:47 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: due to excessive quantities of Milwaukees best light


Did that get the best of him?
 
2013-10-13 11:08:37 PM  
Hey, guys, nice job letting the thread get jacked by BIG!! STEVE!! +9000.
/WINNING
 
2013-10-13 11:09:13 PM  
Washington never did it, but Jefferson tried to.

Embargo of 1807

In the Napoleonic Era, the US was constantly stymied in their efforts to remain neutral to the conflict between France and Britain.  They were especially angered over the ongoing violation of American sovereignty by the British, via acts such as the impressment of US citizens into the British Navy.  In response, Jefferson attempted to force the major powers into heeding the whims of this brash upstart nation by enforcing an embargo on French and English goods.  His gambit succeeded in driving the US into a deep recession, and in not at all accomplishing any of his goals.

Do you see Tea Party?  When you talk about learning from history or being doomed to repeat it, this is the shiat you should be learning.
 
2013-10-13 11:13:32 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: Nope. The value was added by the workers who cleared the land and built the structure. The value is maintained by the workers who keep the structure up to its original value. The act of renting it in no way changes the value of the property. It has the same value whether it is empty or full. Full by the person whop owns it or full by a person who rents it. The difference is that the renter who adds no value whatsoever gets a reward(money that is a voucher of value) without actually doing anything to add value.

By the way, I should mention that the guy who does any major repairs (we take care of the little stuff) is the landlord's son, so by your definition the owner's family maintains the property's value. Furthermore, before we moved in, several renovations were done to the property(increasing it's value according to you) which were paid for by the owner.

Furthermore, the house was originally constructed by people and that gives its initial value, yes, but you're forgetting something important. Someone PAID those people to build the house. They didn't just show up and decide to build something for shiats and giggles.

When you maintain the property you do add value.  All other financial transactions that you get are parasitic as they are non value added.


You're certainly not adding anything to the value of this thread.
 
2013-10-13 11:20:23 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: JAYoung: I remember the Revolution as being caused by Parliament enacting laws to benefit the British East India Company that we Colonials objected to -- you know, taxing the People to benefit the Corporation.

The Tea Act actually made the East India Company's tea cost less, even with the tax. The objections to the taxes without representation were real, but that fire was stoked by monied interests in the tea smuggling trade and other colonial profiteering businesses. So I guess things don't ever really change.


Correct. In fact the EIC tea was cheaper and tasted better than the smuggled shiat the colonists were getting.

But that didn't stop the outrage. Lol.
 
2013-10-13 11:33:27 PM  

ox45tallboy: KellyX: ox45tallboy: KellyX: [scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x225]

That needs a "KEEP CALM and" above it.

[scontent-a-mia.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x499]

PERFECT!

That'll get you a month.


*BOW*

Thanks, now can we put them up against the wall ;)
 
2013-10-13 11:35:19 PM  

Kittypie070: Hey, guys, nice job letting the thread get jacked by BIG!! STEVE!! +9000.
/WINNING


Don't look at me, I have that troll account on ignore.
 
2013-10-13 11:46:58 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Kittypie070: Hey, guys, nice job letting the thread get jacked by BIG!! STEVE!! +9000.
/WINNING

Don't look at me, I have that troll account on ignore.


Yea, I figured that out now after he showed his brilliant stupid understanding of economic theory.
 
2013-10-14 12:27:44 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Kittypie070: Hey, guys, nice job letting the thread get jacked by BIG!! STEVE!! +9000.
/WINNING


Don't look at me, I have that troll account on ignore.


So do I but it sure doesn't help.
 
2013-10-14 12:29:08 AM  

Kittypie070: Satanic_Hamster: Kittypie070: Hey, guys, nice job letting the thread get jacked by BIG!! STEVE!! +9000.
/WINNING

Don't look at me, I have that troll account on ignore.

So do I but it sure doesn't help.


I'm working on being insulting without getting the banhammer.
 
2013-10-14 12:45:41 AM  

LasersHurt: Peki: LasersHurt: worlddan: Gergesa: LasersHurt: On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.

Anyone know the legalities of this?

It is patently unconstitutional otherwise he's have already done it. And I don't know why any sound democrat would want him too. Obama hates the idea of the "imperial presidency" as much as I do.

What is patently unconstitutional? What, specifically? You sound quite sure that "it" is, whatever "it" means.

Also: hasn't done it because we haven't actually defaulted yet. I have no doubt he has a team of legal scholars that have 50 IQ points on the both of us that will keep his butt as clean as possible (SCOTUS shenanigans notwithstanding).

This. I don't claim to know precisely what he might do, but I would bet my last cent he's looked into it with the brightest legal minds he can get a hold of. When it gets to the "11th hour", we'll see if anything happens.


Keep in mind that whatever precedent he establishes will be available to the next Republican President. That's the fear that's kept the 'nuclear option' on the filibuster from being triggered in the Senate by both the Democrats and Republicans.
 
Displayed 50 of 213 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report