Remember me
▼ Content

Half



Page 5 of 5<<<345
24-09-2019 21:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:It can happen to the dollar too. It can happen to any currency. Remember when it happened to the Peso?

You have to specify which peso because many countries call their currency the "peso."

I initially thought you were referring to Colombia whose peso currently trades at 3500 to the dollar. Back when I was going there more frequently (~15 years ago) I chuckled at its 2300 to 1 dollar exchange rate. Sadly, it's a constant erosion of value.

[side topic]
If you ever travel to Honduras, you might be tempted to exchange one dollar for 25 lempiras, all in "nickels" ... so about 500 of them ... which are moderately larger coins ... to use as chips on poker night.


[/side topic]

Actually, I did specifically refer to the Mexican Peso.


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2019 21:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
Harvey,
Just off the top of my head, 50-100 K weddings could be moderated. I know you like your fishing but it is very expensive CO2 wise. The more things i mention the more aggravated someone is going to get. Noone is going to get enthused about spending less unless they fear climate change for their grandchildren.
If they do fear it, they might get motivated to spend less.

I'm not advocating that poorly funded people spend less.


I don't live in fear. I don't see why anyone else should fear 'climate change' since the phrase is an undefined buzzword.

Define 'climate change'.


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2019 21:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
The thing with big expenditures, whether they are for fossil fuel expenditures or not, the money that is spent is received by someone and then it is respent. I've heard that respending any dollar can occur 7 times on average. A lot of that money goes to fossil fuel expenditures. For example, it is hard to think of much that you have that didn't require fossil fuel expenditures to become shipped to you.
The rich people are spending a LOT of money. I don't advocate the less well funded people spend less. It would be a hardship.


No one burns fossils for fuel. Fossils don't burn.


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2019 21:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
HarveyH55 wrote:Besides, if it's a lab created diamond, that's fair chunk of coal, that will never get burned... Carbon sequestered.

You're getting ahead of yourself. We will likely hear in the next wave of Global Warming fear mongering that we have to lower spending and return diamonds back into the ground.

Don't be surprised if keepit suggests that baseball games be limited to seven innings and that pregnancies be reduced to 5 months.


Speaking of which, how much extra CO2 is produced in childbirth? Is that the motivation for limiting families to two children?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-09-2019 21:56
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
IBDN,
That's funny about the pregnancies and the 7 innings.
25-09-2019 00:11
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
keepit wrote:
The thing with big expenditures, whether they are for fossil fuel expenditures or not, the money that is spent is received by someone and then it is respent. I've heard that respending any dollar can occur 7 times on average. A lot of that money goes to fossil fuel expenditures. For example, it is hard to think of much that you have that didn't require fossil fuel expenditures to become shipped to you.
The rich people are spending a LOT of money. I don't advocate the less well funded people spend less. It would be a hardship.


Since you are proposing spending less, then you must also consider yourself 'rich', since it would put us less funded individual through hardship. Rich, is a relative term. A millionaire, might be considered rich, but doesn't mean he has a million dollars cash on hand. His millions might already be spent, and not have the cash to spend, unless he sell some stuff, like a business or piece of real estate. Besides, you don't get rich, by spending your own money. Would a rich man consider himself 'rich', compared to a billionaire? Where do you draw the line, as to who should be spending less, and who is exempt?

Since the 'less rich' wouldn't be required to spend less, do they still get all of their debts forgiven? Or is the debt forgive, only apply to the 'rich', who would then be expected to spend less?

Would spending less, be like a business, no longer profitable, shutting down, rather than spending more, to keep it running, be harmful, to the 'less rich' who work there? I don't know about all folks, but losing a job, was a hardship, until I found a new job, and earned that first paycheck. Businesses cost money to operate, but hopefully people spend enough, to cover those costs, and provide some sort of profit. That's not always the case, it can take years for a new business, to start showing a profit. Even long running business go through years, with losses (spend more, than they take in). Rich people own these businesses, which depend on people spending more, on their products and services. If there aren't enough customers, for long enough, the business goes bust, and the employees are jobless, spending less isn't an option, it's survival. They simply have less to spend, which continues to shrink, until they find new jobs. Generally, a company going bust, will implement cost saving, or laying people off, cutting hours, offering higher paid employees, lower paying positions (at the lower base pay). Generally, the employees that lose their jobs, had already been dipping into their savings, hoping the business would pick up.

You really haven't listed anything, that isn't a one time purchase type item. What are common items, which many people buy often, but need to buy less of? Who do you consider 'rich', and should spend less? Who do you consider poor? Wealth tends to shield people from economic extremes. Those who lack wealth face the greatest hardships. If the 'rich' spend less, the poor earn less, and suffer hardships. It's the poor people who end up starving and homeless first, something you can easily look up yourself, plenty of economic disasters around the world to choose from.
25-09-2019 00:27
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
Harvey,
All the hardships you describe should be avoided and hopefully they could be.
I'm not suggesting all debts should be forgiven but interest could be forgiven in large part.
It may not be clear but when the housing crisis came about in 2007 the govt stepped in and subsidized interest expenses for just about every one. It saved the world economy. They could do more of that if it became necessary. If you didn't have to pay interest you wouldn't need nearly as much income and therefore could work fewer hours.
There are many details and some aspects seem impossible but necessity is the mother of invention.
Cancelling interest and a moratorium on big ticket items and waste and voluntary grass roots effort to spend less would add up to a lot less CO2 production.

By the way, i'm not rich but i'm not a big spender so i feel rich.

The big ticket items are purchased every year. Look up the total expenditures year by year for those things and you will see that they amount to a sizable percentage of GDP.
Edited on 25-09-2019 00:57
25-09-2019 00:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
keepit wrote: IBDN, That's funny about the pregnancies and the 7 innings.

It's all in good fun. I know you'd never actually advocate for pregancies to be even a minute shorter than seven months.



Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-09-2019 00:40
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
IBDM,
I know you're not all bad. He he.
Neither am i.
25-09-2019 01:00
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
IBdaMann wrote:
The Federal Reserve was not born an oligarchy in 1913 as VernerHornung strangely claims.

I've no idea what you mean by "oligarchy." ITN implied FDR created the Fed, which is false. The "bank holiday" and subsequent restrictions on gold ownership and foreign exchange came after a wave of bank runs during the last year of the Hoover Administration. Hoover's Treasury Department drafted the Emergency Banking Act, which FDR presented to Congress and signed in March 1933.

Though I'd scarcely be surprised if you're yearning for the specie and wildcat banking that highlighted President Grant's time, complete with private bank notes used as currency. Free silver, anyone? I prefer "FDIC insured."

keepit wrote:
I know there are flaws in what i've been talking about. Just take it in moderation and improve on it so as to ameliorate CO2 emissions. And student debt. And medicare for all.

IBdaMann may have a point on student debt as well. Those who had to repay will resent their successors getting a free ride. Terms on student loans are quite liberal, far easier than with other creditors. You can pay based on 15% of income if you're in a bind, and DOE will discharge the balance, if any, after 25 years. Seems fair.

Medicare for all will depend on whether medicine will—or can be forced to—accept a massive restructuring that would cut into the income of doctors, hospitals, drug companies and underwriters. A GP in Britain makes only $85K a year and the NHS sets the salaries except for those in private practice who take only cash patients. US premium care is very good for those who have access; clinics or hospitals treating those who don't are reasonable. Spiraling medical inflation brings the downside here.

It's possible the industry will shoot itself in the crotch, unable to control costs and soon priced beyond middle-class means. If that happens, look for a national system to appear. But we never escape trade-offs. Europe has coverage gaps, waiting lists, elective procedures citizens must buck themselves, and even a few uninsured folks despite promises to cover all. (Only the NHS really does enroll everyone as far as I know.)

To me, getting GHG emissions down is a matter of efficiency, conservation and switching to sources of power that don't burn carbon-based fuels. Americans love to live large. They'll do so for as long as they can. The young'uns may demonstrate more sobriety than we Boomers did, with status drifting toward things other than big houses and big trucks. Attitude changes have to come naturally, I think. And they do, when it's time. Experiments with forcing them is what led to China's one-party surveillance state.

keepit wrote:
The trouble with economic growth is that it produces CO2. I know, i know.

Depends. If it's all steel and cement plants, as in China, yes. If services, not necessarily so bad. The US and Canada remain energy hogs partly because they don't stress conservation, yet much of it is due to their growing populations, long travel distances and cold winters, factors they have little control over. We could cut emissions hikes by limiting immigration, though progressives won't ever buy that idea.

None of it strikes me as simple.

keepit wrote:
That's okay, as long as the number of dollars printed correspond with the wealth created in a nation, but it is not okay to just print them indiscriminately. The temptation is there, though.

Agreed. The tempter's always around. Yet gold didn't prevent rapid inflations during the 19th century, and it caused countries to struggle with foreign exchange problems, with financiers attacking central banks to empty their vaults. Or a gold-mining nation would flood the world market with gold, dropping the value of money everywhere. Money's gonna be a fight no matter what we peg it to.

keepit wrote:
Unfortunately, those private banks are lorded over by the Fed.

The Fed limits growth in money supply by imposing reserve requirements and setting the funds & discount rates. Without such controls, banks can print money as fast as any government can. If FDR did chew some inane stuff at times (packing the Court), those who whine about him can take a gander at all the irresponsible finance & investment practices that ended in the collapse of 1929.

Bulk of the FDR-era legislation is gone, too. We don't have Glass-Steagall or NIRA or bans on banking across state lines or bans on savings associations making commercial loans. You can own as much bullion as you want. The organizations survive—Board of Governors, Fannie Mae and so on, yet they operate under different rules now.

I believe most operators in capitalism are honest, most of the time. Chiselers inevitably show up, however, rendering umpires and cops a must. Laissez-faire capitalism is as bad for people as Communism.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
Edited on 25-09-2019 01:06
25-09-2019 01:16
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
Vernor,
Money spent on anything eventually gets spent on fossil fuel transportation.
Windmills and solar panels and electric cars are going to increase CO2 emissions in the short term because they all require expenditures of money. They won't put a halt to an increase in CO2 emissions in the short term.
I wish i knew more about the U.N.'s 11 years edict.
25-09-2019 02:03
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
keepit wrote:
Harvey,
All the hardships you describe should be avoided and hopefully they could be.
I'm not suggesting all debts should be forgiven but interest could be forgiven in large part.
It may not be clear but when the housing crisis came about in 2007 the govt stepped in and subsidized interest expenses for just about every one. It saved the world economy. They could do more of that if it became necessary. If you didn't have to pay interest you wouldn't need nearly as much income and therefore could work fewer hours.
There are many details and some aspects seem impossible but necessity is the mother of invention.
Cancelling interest and a moratorium on big ticket items and waste and voluntary grass roots effort to spend less would add up to a lot less CO2 production.

By the way, i'm not rich but i'm not a big spender so i feel rich.

The big ticket items are purchased every year. Look up the total expenditures year by year for those things and you will see that they amount to a sizable percentage of GDP.


So, basically you have no answers, it's just a load a crap to waste time. I won't waste anymore on it.
25-09-2019 02:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
VernerHornung wrote:I've no idea what you mean by "oligarchy."

Sorry, if you are going to be an arrogant azzhole and start playing the "Fact Check" game then you shouldn't be surprised if someone throws it back at you. Learn to read English before you engage in being a prick; it will save a you a lot of grief.

VernerHornung wrote:ITN implied FDR created the Fed,

No he didn't. You mistakenly inferred it. Learn to read English before you engage in being a prick; it will save you a lot of grief.

VernerHornung wrote:Hoover's Treasury Department drafted the Emergency Banking Act, which FDR presented to Congress and signed in March 1933.

So tell me genius, whose "stroke of a pen" would that be? Learn to read English before you engage in being a prick; it will save you a lot of grief.

VernerHornung wrote:IBdaMann may have a point on student debt as well. Those who had to repay will resent their successors getting a free ride. Terms on student loans are quite liberal, far easier than with other creditors.

My point is that if someone requests a loan on the promise of repaying it, then that person should make good on his/her promise ... and repay the loan.

The idea of the government simply stepping in and repaying loans is as absurd as the idea of the government stepping in and covering people's losses at the blackjack table.

VernerHornung wrote: You can pay based on 15% of income if you're in a bind, and DOE will discharge the balance, if any, after 25 years. Seems fair.

Lenders have an interest in working out terms with borrowers who run into difficulty because the only other option is to simply write off the entire loan as a loss. For this flexibility, lenders need to be able to set their own requirements for issuing loans so they can have some control over the risk they accept.

If you deny lenders this ability, as Bill Clinton did, you end up with the housing bubble bursting, like it did in 2007.

VernerHornung wrote: To me, getting GHG emissions down is a matter of efficiency, conservation and switching to sources of power that don't burn carbon-based fuels.

Is there any reason we would want to do that?

What is a GHG anyway? ... outside of mere Global Warming dogma, that is.


VernerHornung wrote:Americans love to live large.

Yes!

VernerHornung wrote: They'll do so for as long as they can.

Don't think I didn't notice the use of the pronoun "they" to virtue signal to other leftists that you aren't one of "THEM," unintentionally revealing your bigotted hatred for "THEM."

VernerHornung wrote: The young'uns may demonstrate more sobriety than we Boomers did,

Yes, I see that you want our younger generation to be living in fearful obedience to a one-world government.

Your position sucks. Make America great again, baby! Make America great again!

VernerHornung wrote: ... with status drifting toward things other than big houses and big trucks.

That's the problem with Marxist leftists. They are incapable of just enjoying life and the good things in it, which is why Marxist leftists are always angry, hate-filled discontents ... and typically they are losers ... who look upon the nice things in life with envy and just want the government to confiscate those nice things from those who have them and "redistribute" the wealth to other lazy, loser, Marxist leftists as punishment to those who dare to be successful and to enjoy life.

Hey VernerHornung, big houses and big trucks aren't for "status" you moron ... they're simply great things to have. If you don't have any, then go get some. Life is short. You can waste your life living in fear from the WACKY Marxist religion that you adopt ... or you can actually add value to society, create wealth, be successful and ENJOY life. There's no better place to do that than the United States of America! Make America great again!

So, to you I would add that you need an attitude change, but it has to come naturally. And it will, when it's time. Trying to force it is what led to China's one-party surveillance state.

VernerHornung wrote: The Fed limits growth in money supply by imposing reserve requirements and setting the funds & discount rates.

The Fed does not control Congress. Congress increases the money supply as it wishes by printing more money ... to pay off the debts it incurs as it wishes.


VernerHornung wrote: I believe most operators in capitalism are honest, most of the time.

I believe that all Marxists are required to remain in solidarity with dishonesty to continually disguise the sheer hatred for humanity.

VernerHornung wrote:Laissez-faire capitalism is as bad for people as Communism.

Support this assertion.

Statements like this broacast to the world that you are incompetent in economics. Markets, and thus the people within laissez-faire capitalism will flourish moreso than any other system. Laissez-faire capitalism is like the ideal blackbody of economic systems, i.e. it's so perfect that it isn't possible to achieve. Communism, on the other hand, is the white body of economics, i.e. no economic activity can happen and is a disaster of such monstrous proportions that it is only theoretical.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-09-2019 03:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The Federal Reserve was not born an oligarchy in 1913 as VernerHornung strangely claims.

I've no idea what you mean by "oligarchy." ITN implied FDR created the Fed, which is false.

Never did. FDR gave it oligarchy power though. An oligarchy is a dictatorship by committee.
VernerHornung wrote:
The "bank holiday" and subsequent restrictions on gold ownership and foreign exchange came after a wave of bank runs during the last year of the Hoover Administration. Hoover's Treasury Department drafted the Emergency Banking Act, which FDR presented to Congress and signed in March 1933.

There it is. FDR signed it.
VernerHornung wrote:
Though I'd scarcely be surprised if you're yearning for the specie and wildcat banking that highlighted President Grant's time, complete with private bank notes used as currency. Free silver, anyone? I prefer "FDIC insured."

You are banking (if you'll forgive the phrase) on a bad safety net. The FDIC will not save you.
VernerHornung wrote:
keepit wrote:
I know there are flaws in what i've been talking about. Just take it in moderation and improve on it so as to ameliorate CO2 emissions. And student debt. And medicare for all.

IBdaMann may have a point on student debt as well. Those who had to repay will resent their successors getting a free ride. Terms on student loans are quite liberal, far easier than with other creditors. You can pay based on 15% of income if you're in a bind, and DOE will discharge the balance, if any, after 25 years. Seems fair.

To who? Some get free ride, others have to make payments for 25 years first???
VernerHornung wrote:
Medicare for all will depend on whether medicine will—or can be forced to—accept a massive restructuring that would cut into the income of doctors, hospitals, drug companies and underwriters. A GP in Britain makes only $85K a year and the NHS sets the salaries except for those in private practice who take only cash patients. US premium care is very good for those who have access; clinics or hospitals treating those who don't are reasonable. Spiraling medical inflation brings the downside here.

Price controls and oligarchies running such things always bring the same thing: shortages. In this case, shortage of medical care itself. See the horror stories about government healthcare in Canada. They don't get any. They have to go to blackmarket doctors to get care or come to the United States. That's of course paying through the nose in taxes for their 'free' healthcare!
VernerHornung wrote:
It's possible the industry will shoot itself in the crotch, unable to control costs and soon priced beyond middle-class means. If that happens, look for a national system to appear. But we never escape trade-offs. Europe has coverage gaps, waiting lists, elective procedures citizens must buck themselves, and even a few uninsured folks despite promises to cover all. (Only the NHS really does enroll everyone as far as I know.)

You can have it. No thanks.
VernerHornung wrote:
To me, getting GHG emissions down is a matter of efficiency, conservation and switching to sources of power that don't burn carbon-based fuels.

Such as? Solar panels on cars and aircraft don't produce the power to do anything but move an unloaded car or aircraft, and slowly at that. Windmills don't work on cars and aircraft. Hydroelectric is not an option either. Batteries are heavy (even lithium batteries) and are a fire hazard on aircraft (remember, you're STUCK with that fire until you get on the ground!). Such battery systems in aircraft mean very little to no useful load.
Nuclear power is too heavy for either cars or aircraft because of the shielding required and the poor acceleration steam power provides.

Coal, oil, and natural gas are cheap and plentiful.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using IR from the Earth's surface.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't trap heat.
* You can't trap light.
* You can't warm a warmer surface using a colder gas. Heat does not flow from cold to hot.
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.

CO2 is a naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere. It is absolutely necessary for all life on Earth.
VernerHornung wrote:
Americans love to live large.

Why not? Who are YOU to decide how much is too large?
VernerHornung wrote:
They'll do so for as long as they can.

We are creating wealth. That can go on a VERY long time.
VernerHornung wrote:
The young'uns may demonstrate more sobriety than we Boomers did, with status drifting toward things other than big houses and big trucks.

No, they are into drugs just as much as the Boomers were.
VernerHornung wrote:
Attitude changes have to come naturally, I think. And they do, when it's time. Experiments with forcing them is what led to China's one-party surveillance state.

YOU don't get to determine what the attitude change is going to be, what it's going to be, or whether it happens at all.
VernerHornung wrote:
keepit wrote:
The trouble with economic growth is that it produces CO2. I know, i know.

Depends. If it's all steel and cement plants, as in China, yes. If services, not necessarily so bad.

Who cares? Irrelevant. CO2 is not harmful.
VernerHornung wrote:
The US and Canada remain energy hogs partly because they don't stress conservation,

It's ingrates like you that really get me angry. My company cleaned up Puget Sound. We cleaned up a lot of waterways. We helped to clean the air too. Then ingrates like you come along and claim the US or Canada doesn't conserve. You DO realize energy costs money, right? You don't think people want to save?
VernerHornung wrote:
yet much of it is due to their growing populations, long travel distances and cold winters, factors they have little control over. We could cut emissions hikes by limiting immigration, though progressives won't ever buy that idea.

Strawman fallacy. Immigration makes no difference.
VernerHornung wrote:
None of it strikes me as simple.

Very little of what you are arguing makes any sense at all.
VernerHornung wrote:
keepit wrote:
That's okay, as long as the number of dollars printed correspond with the wealth created in a nation, but it is not okay to just print them indiscriminately. The temptation is there, though.

Agreed. The tempter's always around. Yet gold didn't prevent rapid inflations during the 19th century,

What inflation? There really wasn't any until Nixon removed the gold standard entirely. Since then, the dollar has dropped to less than 1/25th of it's former value.
VernerHornung wrote:
and it caused countries to struggle with foreign exchange problems,

No, it didn't. International trade ran quite well. If a nation became unbalanced with other nations in gold, the effect was self correcting. No central bank needed!
VernerHornung wrote:
with financiers attacking central banks to empty their vaults.

There WAS NO CENTRAL BANK.
VernerHornung wrote:
Or a gold-mining nation would flood the world market with gold,

Nope. Not enough gold.
VernerHornung wrote:
dropping the value of money everywhere.

Nope. Gold IS the money.
VernerHornung wrote:
Money's gonna be a fight no matter what we peg it to.

Only for people that haven't figured out how great capitalism is.
VernerHornung wrote:
keepit wrote:
Unfortunately, those private banks are lorded over by the Fed.

The Fed limits growth in money supply by imposing reserve requirements and setting the funds & discount rates. Without such controls, banks can print money as fast as any government can.

WRONG. Banks gave you a certificate of deposit when you put some of your gold in the bank. That note was a direct claim on your gold in the bank.
VernerHornung wrote:
If FDR did chew some inane stuff at times (packing the Court), those who whine about him can take a gander at all the irresponsible finance & investment practices that ended in the collapse of 1929.

Yup. Governments around the world were pretty irresponsible. It was all that debt from WW1 that cause the conditions for the crash of '29.
VernerHornung wrote:
Bulk of the FDR-era legislation is gone, too.

Fortunately, but a lot is still there too. The Fed oligarchy is still there.
VernerHornung wrote:
We don't have Glass-Steagall or NIRA or bans on banking across state lines or bans on savings associations making commercial loans.

Only because the Fed currently allows it. They dictate these rules.
VernerHornung wrote:
You can own as much bullion as you want.

True. In the end, the government can't stop someone from owning anything.
VernerHornung wrote:
The organizations survive—Board of Governors, Fannie Mae and so on, yet they operate under different rules now.

Nope. Same ones. The Fed sets the rules rather arbitrarily.
VernerHornung wrote:
I believe most operators in capitalism are honest, most of the time.

It is not about honesty or dishonesty. It is about creating wealth through productivity and innovation. Dishonest businessmen quickly build a bad reputation and they lose their customers.
VernerHornung wrote:
Chiselers inevitably show up, however, rendering umpires and cops a must.

No umpires. Cops have nothing to do with economy, other than protecting society as a whole. They can't be everywhere, of course, which is another reason why we have the right to bear arms.
VernerHornung wrote:
Laissez-faire capitalism is as bad for people as Communism.

WRONG.

Capitalism can build up cities out of the wilderness...no government needed (or even exists!).
Capitalism can create new markets where NONE existed before, such as the personal computer and cell phones. Capitalism is the only economic system that creates wealth.

Communism is only one form of socialism, the other being fascism. Socialism can only exist by stealing wealth. Under fascism, business are privately held, but the government dictates how they will be run, who they can sell to, what they can sell it for, when they can sell it, etc. In other words, theft of your labor (slavery). Under communism, the government owns the businesses outright. They just take it (theft). No one owns anything. They are all serfs to the government (slavery).

Socialism can ONLY exist when there is a capitalist system nearby to steal from.


The Parrot Killer
25-09-2019 03:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
Vernor,
Money spent on anything eventually gets spent on fossil fuel transportation.
Windmills and solar panels and electric cars are going to increase CO2 emissions in the short term because they all require expenditures of money. They won't put a halt to an increase in CO2 emissions in the short term.
I wish i knew more about the U.N.'s 11 years edict.


The UN can go **** themselves. They have no jurisdiction in this country.


The Parrot Killer
Page 5 of 5<<<345





Join the debate Half:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact