A Complete Waste of Space

nicolas10 wrote:

callmeslick wrote:nic, when is monetary creation done without credit? Cite me an example.

Everytime gold or other metal was used

Nic

...I was waiting for this old chestnut. The problem is that one has to 'credit' the fact that either metal has inherent value, which I can't. Copper or silicon would be more useful and of tangible value. You are merely assigning value to some arbitrary substance.
No different from issuing currency on monetary credit.

Barfly wrote:Well, they seem to have the same perspective on the individual's relationship to the state, and are pushing 'forward' to implement the structure necessary to realize that.

still have nothing tangible to offer, huh? You say to read up, I point out that I have read both sides' positions. Once again, put up some facts instead of throwing your stupidity out for the world to see.

"I have read both sides positions" is not a fact that supports your statement.

Barfly wrote:"I have read both sides positions" is not a fact that supports your statement.

Obama's position is clear, return rates on those making over 200K to Clinton level and keep everything else the same.
Romney seems to want to keep all the rates the same, and suggests eliminating both inheritance tax and cap gains tax.

First off, Romney's idea wouldn't work, the govt would either run out of money, or risk eliminating much of Defense, Social Security and Medicare to keep solvent. Second, the lower and middle classes would doubtless be hit by a massive rise in costs needed to maintain any economic security. Tell me how you see it different, and especially how you see as cost-effective for the average working American. Remember, it's not all about income taxation, it's cost of getting by. If you eliminate healthcare laws, everyone pays more to remain insured or goes broke if a medical calamity hits, for one common example.

callmeslick wrote:...I was waiting for this old chestnut. The problem is that one has to 'credit' the fact that either metal has inherent value, which I can't. Copper or silicon would be more useful and of tangible value. You are merely assigning value to some arbitrary substance.

Then please do tell how it worked for several thousand years?

No different from issuing currency on monetary credit.

I don't dignify such bullshit with an answer. But to be honest I can't tell if you're plain lying or just very very dumb & ignorant.

Nic

callmeslick wrote:

Barfly wrote:"I have read both sides positions" is not a fact that supports your statement.

Obama's position is clear,

Obama's rhetoric is pretty clear, his legislation and regulation, and selective enforcement of existing laws, not so much. So you 'buy' the sales pitch?

Remember, it's not all about income taxation, it's cost of getting by. If you eliminate healthcare laws, everyone pays more to remain insured or goes broke if a medical calamity hits, for one common example

Remember what? Some previous 'lesson' you imagine you imparted upon us at some time? When has the cost of 'getting by' gotten cheaper due to intervention by government regulation. If you don't believe in the efficiency of the free-market system, then I know where you are coming from, and it is pointless to respond to this. However, here's a supposition for you, the same quality as the one in your second sentence above: Reducing regulatory control over healthcare issues will allow the market to form insurance solutions better adapted to individual's desires including catastrophic insurance. Additional regulation to insurance that forces inclusion of more services that are not needed by the individual will drive costs to a larger portion of their already dwindling ability to 'get by'.

Any country where there is a central bank isn't a free market.

Speaking of this... all your sports leagues couldn't get more communist if they were run by Lenine himself.

Nic

nicolas10 wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...I was waiting for this old chestnut. The problem is that one has to 'credit' the fact that either metal has inherent value, which I can't. Copper or silicon would be more useful and of tangible value. You are merely assigning value to some arbitrary substance.

because it was universally accepted, hence it's credit was good, so to speak. Not true anymore.

Barfly wrote:

Remember, it's not all about income taxation, it's cost of getting by. If you eliminate healthcare laws, everyone pays more to remain insured or goes broke if a medical calamity hits, for one common example

Remember what? Some previous 'lesson' you imagine you imparted upon us at some time? When has the cost of 'getting by' gotten cheaper due to intervention by government regulation. If you don't believe in the efficiency of the free-market system, then I know where you are coming from, and it is pointless to respond to this. However, here's a supposition for you, the same quality as the one in your second sentence above: Reducing regulatory control over healthcare issues will allow the market to form insurance solutions better adapted to individual's desires including catastrophic insurance. Additional regulation to insurance that forces inclusion of more services that are not needed by the individual will drive costs to a larger portion of their already dwindling ability to 'get by'.

puhlease....all you'd get with your 'solution' is cut-rate insurance with more holes than swiss cheese. Even more so than at present,
you would have large numbers of people in bankruptcy court over health costs. You see, the issue is that you don't know that you won't need coverage, you make an assumption. One accident can show the need for catastrophic coverage, one chronic illness at a young age can wipe a person out(not deemed catastrophic, just steady longterm expenses).