Didn't Cyprus just vote down this bailout or something?

3/20/2013 10:34:29 AM

Yes, but we have more important things to discuss here - like the relative, theoretical merits of two vastly different economic systems. You know, what 80% of all TSB threads eventually devolve into.

3/20/2013 10:48:38 AM

Hey, at least I didn't start it this time.

[Edited on March 20, 2013 at 10:52 AM. Reason : ]

3/20/2013 10:51:55 AM

I'm not saying it to be a dick, it's understandable why it happens. It just gets a little tired

3/20/2013 11:30:20 AM

well to be fair, this is literally a country voting to leave the world capital game, so it's not really much of a derailment, even if it is tired.

Quote :

"What I find funny, and what makes me vocal, is that I actually live my ideals. Taking risks and building a profitable business. I the past year I've created jobs and brought valuable services to the local economy. In my experience, most liberals and progressives want the government to do all the work of caring for society for them; rather than living their ideals and their emphatic words."

see, that's what people on the right don't understand. we are the government! it's our government!! the government should help me and i should help it. instead it taxes me to pay for wars and does everything it can to put me into debt b/c people w/ money ask them to.

3/20/2013 12:53:07 PM

You guys hanging out ?

3/20/2013 1:21:19 PM

Quote :

"see, that's what people on the right don't understand. we are the government! it's our government!! the government should help me and i should help it. instead it taxes me to pay for wars and does everything it can to put me into debt b/c people w/ money ask them to."

Persuasion is always better than force. The government is democratically granted the ability too impose force at the will of the majority against the minority.

And therein lies the problem: the bigger and more control the government has, the more those with resources can influence it's legislation.

I suppose we may have fundamental disagreements. I think the individual should act and organize with those of like mind to be the change, rather than legislating everyone's problems away through force.

[Edited on March 20, 2013 at 1:36 PM. Reason : ;]

3/20/2013 1:36:00 PM

But, like, the corporations do the same thing, maaaaan. Think of all the times Wal-Mart has threatened you with jail for not shopping there, or the times that McDonald's has strapped you into a chair and force fed you Big Macs.

On the other hand, look at what a wonderful job government does at helping us and protecting your rights. If your car gets stolen, it's not the insurance company, or GPS tracking, or a car alarm that helps you - the police immediately deploy a crack team of detectives to return your car! It's not like your report gets thrown into an abyss of paperwork never to see the light of day again or anything.

Really, though, this point can't even be disputed. Voluntary interaction with mutually beneficial outcomes is always better than coercion. It's win-win versus win-lose. Everyone instinctively understand this; it's the golden rule. We know that getting along is better than just stealing from or hurting people to get your way, because if everyone used force to get what they want, it would be an incredibly shitty world. In our personal lives, almost all of us live this principle, but we throw out this obvious truth when discussing "public policy".

[Edited on March 20, 2013 at 2:00 PM. Reason : ]

3/20/2013 1:59:13 PM

But what's that got to do with Cypress Hill?

3/20/2013 2:06:54 PM

Quote :

"Really, though, this point can't even be disputed. Voluntary interaction with mutually beneficial outcomes is always better than coercion. It's win-win versus win-lose. Everyone instinctively understand this; it's the golden rule. We know that getting along is better than just stealing from or hurting people to get your way, because if everyone used force to get what they want, it would be an incredibly shitty world. In our personal lives, almost all of us live this principle, but we throw out this obvious truth when discussing "public policy"."

wait, was this supposed to be about capitalism or communism? b/c it sounds like you're describing why capitalism doesn't work. that's also not to say that i'm a communist by definition. there's a lot of ways we could make this work, and it doesn't have to have been outlined by karl marx, but it needs to be different than it is now and it needs to take the concerns of the people as the highest priority, b/c that's what a government is supposed to be. it's not supposed to be a runaway international corporation.

you do know that there's more to the world than the united states right? our economy absolute does not move on mutually beneficial outcomes, at least as far as people are concerned.

3/20/2013 2:28:36 PM

Quote :

"our economy absolute does not move on mutually beneficial outcomes, at least as far as people are concerned."

I'm not saying it does, I'm saying it should. Coercion and force (rather than voluntary agreements) are why state policies often have the opposite of the intended effect. The state doesn't politely ask, it threatens.

[Edited on March 20, 2013 at 2:41 PM. Reason : ]

3/20/2013 2:38:07 PM

here's the thing though, for that to work we need unlimited supplies. if you and i are going to get everything we need from mutually beneficial trade, we need the means to create something that we can trade. but this is very difficult to attain, b/c you need capital to buy the land, or build the factory, or buy the raw materials up front. there's basically no place on earth at this point that you can just show up to and start producing, even as much as just cutting down a tree. if you could, it'd be communism.

so you might say that's bullshit, we can create valuable ideas out of thin air. okay, but to do that you need to be educated, you need to know what ideas already exist, and you need to be of moderate intelligence. in order to do this in a way that is even remotely fair, children must be given fair rations, homes and education almost from conception onward. this is impossible, but you could go along way by distributing wealth rather than concentrating it. again, this is ultimately communism-esque.

just think of how you'd live in a community of two. you'd split the available resources, split the work. or kill each other, but it's pretty obvious, i think, that splitting the work is a better idea. so scale this to 10 people , to 20. at what point does someone step forward and say "okay, now i own this land, if you want anything from it you must give me something in return... b/c i will fight you if you don't."? at what point is that mentality okay?

3/20/2013 2:53:43 PM

Quote :

"there's a lot of ways we could make this work, and it doesn't have to have been outlined by karl marx"

Don't you go pinning that Marxist stuff on my homeboy!

3/20/2013 3:28:19 PM

hey i didn't say marxism.

3/20/2013 3:57:02 PM

I took it as you referencing Marxist ideology and saying Karl Marx.

3/20/2013 4:06:51 PM

basically everything i've said has been written by karl marx, though. so i am talking about him, not necessarily about marxism, which i agree w/ you (and marx, i guess) on. i don't think i've strayed too far. but you know, united front and all.

what i'm trying to say is that i'm not advocating for a violent takeover and implementation of some outdated philosophical system, no matter where its origins are or how well written it is. but we need to start taking steps in the right direction. honestly a lot of the things that i advocate for were in place in this country fifty years ago, namely heavily progressive taxes, social programs and workers' rights. yet somehow they're total impossibilities today.

3/20/2013 6:08:06 PM

That actually is pretty consistent with Marx AFAIK. ...I also just really wanted to post the picture.

3/20/2013 6:16:07 PM

Quote :

"I'll stick with the feudalism reference. The king is given a different set of choices than the serf. The capitalist has capital, his existence presupposes inequity."

Your reference to feudalism in this example reveals the fallacy in your arguments. The king is not king through any choices or actions of his own. He is king because he plopped out of the right vagina, from the right penis, at the right time. Very little, if anything, can change the fact that he is king, except for exceptional mismanagement. The capitalist, however, is not often given his position by birthright, and he can easily lose it at any time. Moreover, someone not born into nobility has effectively zero chance of becoming king, while someone not born a capitalist has a much higher chance of becoming one, especially if he has the requisite skills to do so. The king maintains his position through force, the capitalist through good business decisions. The difference between the two is so night and day that to even begin to compare the two is to show a striking lack of understanding of the concepts involved at all.

3/24/2013 9:20:12 PM

Quote :

"The capitalist, however, is not often given his position by birthright"

"Not often?" Are you sure you don't mean "most often"? (http://faireconomy.org/sites/default/files/BornOnThirdBase_2012.pdf)
65% of the people on the Forbes 400 come from a state of wealth known by only 5% of the population.

Basically you are just making things up., you should have some sort of evidence to back up things before you pull them out of your ass.

[Edited on March 24, 2013 at 9:40 PM. Reason : ]

3/24/2013 9:40:23 PM

Let's be clear here: Paris Hilton is not, in any way, a capitalist in the sense we have been talking. If you conflate "having a shit ton of money" with "being someone who runs businesses" then I don't know what to tell you.

Moreover, it is not deniable that being born to wealthy parents can help you stay wealthy or succeed in business, yet we very clearly see the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs emerging. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, however, do NOT grow up to be king. Ever. Q.E.D.

3/24/2013 9:45:16 PM

How are you an expert at the businesses Paris Hilton has?

3/24/2013 9:48:36 PM

I was fucking her in the ass last night and she told me all about it. How bout you?

3/24/2013 9:49:58 PM

I never claimed to be one

3/24/2013 9:54:01 PM

That's fine. I guess I just don't consider "being paid for the use of your name" as being synonymous with "running or funding a business."

3/24/2013 9:55:51 PM

she's had at least a dozen businesses per my google

3/24/2013 10:27:44 PM

How many of them involve something more substantive than the use of her name?

3/24/2013 11:04:51 PM

I'm guessing most of them, at the very least, use(d) her money

3/24/2013 11:11:54 PM

And her name...

3/24/2013 11:58:18 PM

Quote :

"Paris Hilton is not, in any way, a capitalist in the sense we have been talking."

Why not? She invested capital into a business. She could have invested it and failed. She follows the definition of a capitalist.

Quote :

"Moreover, it is not deniable that being born to wealthy parents can help you stay wealthy or succeed in business"

That was never the issue. You stated "The capitalist, however, is not often given his position by birthright". This is absolutely false, and I'll hope you took note in how I used EVIDENCE to prove it. The capitalist is most often given his position by birthright.

[Edited on March 25, 2013 at 12:11 AM. Reason : ]

3/25/2013 12:11:24 AM

paris hilton makes money by virtue of the simple fact that she already has money. she is also featured in as many advertising campaigns as will have her. she's a capitalist in a lot of ways.

3/25/2013 1:37:54 AM

Using Paris Hilton as an example of capitalism is a pretty shitty argument. It's like resorting to using North Korea as an example of your socialist dreams.

3/25/2013 7:31:15 AM

I didn't pick that example. The reference I gave referred to the Forbes 400.

3/25/2013 9:19:55 AM

aaronburro used that to try to disprove his claim that capitalists often come from money

(and failed because, while she isn't the best example, she is still a capitalist)

3/25/2013 9:21:42 AM

Quote :

"yet we very clearly see the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs emerging"

Are you claiming that Bill Gates didn't come from money to begin with? What college did he drop out of again?

Steve Jobs is a slightly better point, but clearly his adoptive parents were a much better shake than most get.

3/25/2013 9:54:09 AM

Quote :

"and failed because, while she isn't the best example, she is still a capitalist"

Are we counting bodily orifices as a "means of production" now?

3/25/2013 2:07:41 PM

Hey sign me up to get paid $75k just for making appearances at parties.

3/25/2013 3:12:41 PM

If you had over $150,000 in a bank account, some of which is going toward your retirement, would you stand by while the government takes out as they see fit (over $150,000 of course)?

3/25/2013 7:01:50 PM

it's really not relevant how fluid the ruling class is or how one joins it: there is still a ruling class.

3/25/2013 7:09:18 PM

There will always will be a ruling class as long as people are willing to sacrifice long term wealth for short term pleasure. In other words, people who don't understand how credit/debt works.

3/25/2013 8:44:10 PM

i have a lot of issues w/ that post, so i'll just go through them one by one.

- you essentially said "there will always be poor people as long as creditors are allowed to blatantly abuse uneducated people (i.e. poor people)". well, no kidding.
- your sentiment depends on a concept of private wealth, which i do not agree w/ as a viable system. there's a lot of outcomes that can be guaranteed if you go in w/ the right assumptions, but i'd rather not assume anything.
- the entire world population completely turns over every ~120 years, and to boot we are facing unprecedented disruptions in global trade via changes in the oil supply, changes in the climate, etc., so to say that the way things are right now are the way things always will be is pretty shortsighted.
- you say this w/ a tone that implies that you think do understand how credit/debt works. that must mean that you fancy yourself a member of the ruling class? i find this very difficult to believe. how many politicians do you have in your rolodex? lobbyists?

3/25/2013 9:18:35 PM

I fancy myself an entrepreneur on a track to be retired in about 8 years. Having multiple streams of income, that support a lifestyle of leisure and the ability to do what I love.

3/25/2013 9:27:15 PM

that's not ruling class

3/25/2013 9:36:04 PM

you didn't respond to a word of what i said and then bragged about your retirement plans.

3/25/2013 9:42:03 PM

Quote :

"- you essentially said "there will always be poor people as long as creditors are allowed to blatantly abuse uneducated people (i.e. poor people)". well, no kidding."

So do you think we should stop lending to poor people? I am not arguing either way. Let's have a realistic, pragmatic conversation. What do YOU propose?

Quote :

"- your sentiment depends on a concept of private wealth, which i do not agree w/ as a viable system. there's a lot of outcomes that can be guaranteed if you go in w/ the right assumptions, but i'd rather not assume anything."

Wealth, IMO, is having time, money, health, and relationships that are balanced in a way to provide an optimal living experience.

Quote :

"- the entire world population completely turns over every ~120 years, and to boot we are facing unprecedented disruptions in global trade via changes in the oil supply, changes in the climate, etc., so to say that the way things are right now are the way things always will be is pretty shortsighted."

What's your point? Change brings opportunity to the entrepreneur.

Quote :

"- you say this w/ a tone that implies that you think do understand how credit/debt works. that must mean that you fancy yourself a member of the ruling class? i find this very difficult to believe. how many politicians do you have in your rolodex? lobbyists?"

I am not an expert on credit, debt, financial, and monetary policies. But I do have a very firm grasp on how to leverage them to build a business, earn a profit, and not be a slave to the slow bleed of parasitic debt.

Quote :

"that's not ruling class"

I never claimed to be a member of the ruling class. Only an entrepreneur.

Quote :

"you didn't respond to a word of what i said and then bragged about your retirement plans."

Happy? The only thing you said really worth responding to is your assumption that I was claiming to be part of the ruling class. Which I am not, and don't claim to be. The way I operate: Learn the rules of the game, and which are bendable to my will. Then build a business or a way of life that allows me to build the wealth I described above.



[Edited on March 26, 2013 at 5:44 AM. Reason : wordz]

3/26/2013 5:31:16 AM

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100604210

Hoo boy, this is pretty ugly.

3/30/2013 8:23:20 PM

I guess it's not commonly know that when you deposit money, you are giving it to the bank. You do not own it anymore. What you do own is an IOU from the bank. Your collateral is faith in the bank and FDIC (whatever Cyprus has).

Sounds like most people don't understand how banks work.

4/1/2013 8:41:21 AM

I'm hoping this makes people reconsider their options for offshore bank accounts. Banking oversees can be risky, and this situation makes paying taxes look like a deal.

[Edited on April 1, 2013 at 8:51 AM. Reason : not really holding my breath, but surely it makes people think twice]

4/1/2013 8:51:28 AM