Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

coming from some one who actually used to support Obama, you need to hold him to account for his actions, or you are just as much part of the problem as the people who can't hold the Republicans to account for theirs. Obama's crimes are so bad they ended up becoming a big part of why my ideology has changed so much.

http://nyulocal.com/national/2013/04/15/congress-quietly-rep eals-congressional-insider-trading-ban/

or at least when they do it. To my knowledge, the law was designed to prevent politicians from profiting off of their policies using the stock market. So lets say they pass a law to increase agricultural subsidies, they can't invest in agriculture. The law required them to put all of their dealings on an online database to make this traceable.

This bill was passed unanimously and in an incredibly short period of time. Something like this should have had time to be questioned since its the ultimate conflict of interest.

in the end, the Labor party closed more mines in a shorter period of time than Thatcher did.

At 4/6/13 06:44 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 4/6/13 06:30 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: I'm arguing on behalf of Minarchy, not Anarchy.

Okay, but I'm still confused. Under a minarchy system who would be enforcing this?

Assuming it isn't an emergency, violent or life threatening, the courts. Any other time it would be handled by Police.

At 4/6/13 06:20 PM, Feoric wrote: Who is enforcing the law and property rights without the government?

I'm arguing on behalf of Minarchy, not Anarchy.

At 4/6/13 04:42 PM, Camarohusky wrote: You kidding? What accountability do private entities have? A bunch of pot smoking showerless hippies camping out in their foyer? A bad PR campaign that doesn't hurt business? That is so comperable to having the top brass at constant risk of being voted out by the general public every couple years.

actually, have you ever noticed that these companies are getting sued over some very trivial matters, while government gets away with breaking all of it's most important promises? On top of that, the Hippies camping out aren't even the real mechanic that holds companies accountable, its when the company pisses off the customer enough to switch to a different service provider (the competition). This is why when people threaten to cancel their cable or their phone or internet they find themselves being offered all sorts of nice things to stay on board.

Private entities are only accountable to two groups: their shareholder and the government. Turn this into a minarchism and they become accountable only to their shareholders. How exactly is that better for the country? It's not.

They would be held accountable to shareholders, the law, their customers, and everyone else's property rights. It's government intervention that allows them to only be held accountable to the first, and not the rest.

At 4/6/13 11:33 AM, Camarohusky wrote: This also completely misses one of the bggest problems of minarchism. Some people are so focused on corruption by the state that they completely forget about corruption by a private entity. Corruption is much harder for an entity that is held accountable by those whom its corruption harms. Because private entities have no obligation to anyone but their owners, they can easily become corrupt and harm society far quicker than the government can.

Private industries are held just as accountable as Government is, actually, if this day and age is any sort of indicator, they are held even MORE accountable. Problem is that corrupted government means it will just protect corrupt business. Like so:

At 4/6/13 12:59 AM, Dawnslayer wrote:
There is nothing wrong with wanting a free and fair economy, but to say that it will regulate itself through sheer consumer demand is ignorant of reality. This is the model that's been pushed in the United States since the days of Reagan, and frankly it's been the antithesis of everything it was hoped to be. Wealth is amassed and hoarded rather than shared; rising businesses are bought out or priced out by the well-established, leaving little room for opportunity; and the state-run institutions that are supposed to be keeping the industries in line with fair practice are populated with insiders and lobbied to look the other way.

In short, a laissez-faire minarchist state is economically unsound, and thus no more workable than an anarchic society. If you could implement a different economic system under a night watchman state, then it MIGHT have a better shot.

Part of Minarchy means that the government will be there to resolve disputes between individuals who voluntarily seek a neutral judge, and protecting people from aggression. The market will CLEARLY be regulated by more than just consumer demand, it will be regulated by the law. When a market it regulated by laws that specifically protect people from other people, the only way to achieve success will be to find a way to improve the lives of others at a price that is worth less to the customer than the service you provide is.

At 3/19/13 03:31 AM, Feoric wrote:
The interest on money in a deposit account has nothing to do with currency devaluation.

They actually do interact with each other and the relationship between the two also affects the rest of the economy. First, Low interest rates from the central banks encourages inflation, and lowers interest rates for consumers. Second, when the rate of inflation surpasses the rate of interest, it discourages people from investing and instead to start hoarding assets and/or putting their money else where, most likely a country that has less inflation and little to no taxation.

hyper inflation.

Not happening.

I wouldn't underestimate the stupidity of idiots if I were you. If "crashing economies for idiots" were a real book, the Eurocrats would have a copy for everyone and instructed them to "try everything".

At 3/18/13 05:26 PM, lapis wrote:

Had the euro (or maybe even the EU) never existed, the Cypriot government would have mitigated their debt problem either through a default or through quantitative easing, the latter of which would have resulted in people holding money in Cypriot banks keeping all of their cash, but having it lose (at least) 7% of its value. Can you explain how this would have been any different? I'm asking because I believe this was pretty much the norm for several Mediterranean countries until they joined the euro.

I think they would have had the caution to do it gradually enough so that the interest people gained from their deposits would have helped hide that, preventing a mass panic but still driving bigger businesses to other countries.

or, they would have taken it for granted and then caused another episode of hyper inflation.

At 3/18/13 01:41 AM, Light wrote:

If you don't like it, vote with your remote. simply change the channel when the offending show comes on.

That kind of attitude is what has allowed people throughout history to justify the practice of prejudice.

and that's the attitude that allows people to erode the right to free speech.

good, he needs to rip on Muslims a bit to counterbalance how much he ripped on the Jews at the Oscars.

At 3/17/13 10:44 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 3/17/13 10:36 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: no, whether they can make the payment or not has nothing to do with it, even if they are hoarding.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying here, I'm actually in full agreement. I was refuting something HibiscusMallow said and I think we got mixed up.

we probably did

At 3/17/13 05:02 PM, Feoric wrote: Right but this is completely different than saying "every time you spend money you remove resources from the economy." Saving does not necessarily mean hoarding, and I would agree that hoarding is definitely bad for the economy. However, these were all specifically savings accounts which people depended on for lots of things, like day to day expenses. The funds would have eventually been spent and injected into the economy.

Morally I think the Troika overstepped their bounds, but they could have made this somewhat less terrible. Here's a really good analysis of the situation:

"Back in 1941, with the memory of the Great Depression still weighing heavy, an American wrote into the Federal Reserve with an idea. "Would it not be feasible," the member of the public asked, "to impose a Federal tax on the deposit of funds in bank checking accounts?"

The reply from the Fed was polite but succinct: while there's no doubt a tax on bank deposits would have "the advantage of administrative simplicity", it is "not in accord with one of the fundamental principles of taxation in a democracy, namely, that taxes should be imposed in accordance with ability to pay"."

The Fed was absolutely right then. The tax on the savings accounts should have progressively curved out alongside the median yearly wage or whatever. The way this was implemented means that people who just barely or might not even have cash to pay their bills next week are paying a 6.75% tax on their savings, which is ridiculous.

no, whether they can make the payment or not has nothing to do with it, even if they are hoarding. By doing anything like this they ruin investor confidence by showing everyone that their money is no longer safe in banks. When people say Capitalism is based on people's faith in the system, I thought they were just calling it unstable again, but then this happens and I see how it's right. No faith= no investment= no work.

This action they are carrying out is not just ridiculously immoral and corrupt and CRIMINAL, it is going to end with disaster. Want to find out what happens when everyone pulls all of their money out of their bank accounts at once? You are about to.

At least when the savers were saving and the hoarders were hoarding, the money they were hoarding and saving was being reinvested into the economy by the bank to create wealth and fund the essential services that make life in Cyprus possible as well as the nonessential services that make it worth living and finally delivering the bank the profit it needs to deliver the savers the interest rates they promised. Cyprus is looking at a Great Depression.

At 3/17/13 11:35 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/17/13 12:36 AM, HibiscusMallow wrote: People who save have put less into the economy, every time you spend money you inject resources into the economy

FIXED

an important part of the business cycle is being able to save money. People made those savings so that they could retire comfortably and through out their retirement, they will be spending it. take that money away from them to feed some short term plan does nothing in the long run other than ruin investor's confidence in the area. If the government can take the money I saved in this bank, then maybe I won't use banks at all? If people don't use banks, their money won't be invested into the local economy, creating more problems.

That's why people are worried that Russian investors (a big part of the economy in Cyprus) are going to pull all of their money out of the region.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21814325

"We retire and bring our savings to a bank in Cyprus and they can just take our money away without permission and then say we have shares in a bankrupt bank."

Depositors with under 100,000 euros deposited must pay 6.75%
Those with more than 100,000 in their accounts must pay 9.9%
Depositors will be compensated with the equivalent amount in shares in their banks

"Russians that currently keep the economy afloat will leave the country along with their money,"

"Russia agrees to help a troubled EU state, and the EU calls Russian investors money-launderers? This is totally unfair," Moscow-based blogger Igor Kim told the BBC News website.

According to Reuters news agency, almost half of the depositors in Cyprus are believed to be non-resident Russians.

In Berlin, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble called the levy part of the "fair" distribution of the bailout's burden.

this is getting stupid. Why do these governments feel so entitled to their power over every aspect of everyone's lives? They claimed authority over the life savings of all these people and robbed them, all in the name of private interests. Meanwhile people now trying to get their money out of the banks before it can happen and they can't, if they could what would be the point?

this was all done with out their consultation.

here's the best part, Russian investors are getting ripped off too, this is theft on an international scale. It will only make the problems in Europe worsen too.

At 3/14/13 08:33 AM, robotking98 wrote: So... they didn't want the baby, legally settled the case to where she HAD to get an abortion, didn't get one, ran to another state, had the baby, and gave it to another couple, even when the family who had requested her be a surrogate claimed custody.

Sounds to me like she kidnapped it.

she actually used a loop hole and went to a state that recognized her as the mother. This was all pretty much legal.

if I were that baby I would be absolutely pissed if i wound up as a vegetable for the rest of my life.

The numbers and facts are on the pro cannabis side, but they aren't even important, all that matters is that it is a personal decision and whether it fucks your life up or not is the users problem alone. Why everyone insists on controlling other people's lives so much is beyond me, especially for a drug that is so mild that even the behavioral effects are harmless to the rest of society. Its just a matter of people wanting other people to stop liking what they don't like.

maybe the lives of those scientists matter. Maybe they worked hard to be where they are today. maybe they are the kind of people we are supposed to be looking up to. Maybe some of the work they are doing really will benefit Iran's medical research and save lives?

At 2/8/13 08:33 PM, thegarbear14 wrote:

you've got to be kidding.

oh you know me all to well

At 2/7/13 02:31 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Thank goodness.

Too bad for gun manufacturers though. The idea of a ban really boosted their sales quite a bit.

too bad their boom in profits didn't get followed up with with their businesses being closed.

At 2/3/13 02:19 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

At 2/3/13 11:02 AM, Ericho wrote: Since when do only Jews have beards? I do see Jewish stars or yamakas on any of them. In fact, if you asked me, they were probably just trying to imitate how God is sometimes represented with the facial hair. Wait, does that mean God is Jewish?

Because the fucking artist admitted they were Jewish.

"The Los Angeles-based artist, Kalen Ockerman, acknowledged that some of the bankers were Jewish but said the mural was not anti-Semitic."

At 2/3/13 11:02 AM, Ericho wrote: Since when do only Jews have beards? I do see Jewish stars or yamakas on any of them. In fact, if you asked me, they were probably just trying to imitate how God is sometimes represented with the facial hair. Wait, does that mean God is Jewish?

his son was, so probably.

@Korri what do you make your sculptures out of?

At 2/3/13 12:08 AM, Ceratisa wrote:

At 2/2/13 03:10 PM, Fim wrote:

At 1/30/13 10:22 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: probably should have done this in the first post but here's the actual mural.

I don't think there's anything overtly anti semetic there.. it's pretty pseudo-conspiracy theorist esk, and it's pretty cheesy in what it's trying to say, but racist? Not at all. If we're going to have freedom of speech than I think they have every right to draw something like this.

A mural painted on a wall in East London depicting Jewish bankers apparently exploiting black men is set to be removed following complaints that it has anti-Semitic undertones.

The council of the London borough of Tower Hamlets has called in the police and reportedly given the owner of the property 28 days to remove it.

The mural, titled Freedom for Humanity, depicts a group of businessmen and bankers counting money around a Monopoly-style board balanced on the backs of men with dark complexions. It was reportedly spray-painted on private property.

The Los Angeles-based artist, Kalen Ockerman, acknowledged that some of the bankers were Jewish but said the mural was not anti-Semitic.

You are so full of it.

1. the men under the board have varying complexions and are actually being shadowed by the board.

2. if there is a mix of Jewish and non Jewish bankers, then its not targeting them.

3. using ad homina in your arguments against people who have nothing against you doesn't just hurt your case, it makes you look like an asshole.

At 1/31/13 10:11 AM, Ceratisa wrote:

what stops us from doing that with Alcohol?

IT HAPPENS WITH ALCOHOL! and even more people don't even confirm age!

That is my point you ignorant tool, it already happens with these substances! Why do you think it would be any different?

if it already happens with alcohol, then you have 2 choices to keep your opinions consistent, either prohibit alcohol, or legalize marijuana. what's it gonna be, bub?

At 1/30/13 12:35 PM, Camarohusky wrote: But, they all have big noses....

I guarantee you that on human scale my nose is bigger than any of theirs.

At 1/30/13 10:39 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

So basically no real way to stop the resale.

If we restrict sales to those 21 and older, it'll help a lot.

I said resale, do you understand the idea of buying or growing marijuana for recreational use then reselling it to kids for more?

what stops us from doing that with Alcohol?

At 1/30/13 10:28 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: oh god who gave alex jones and david icke artistic skills? and yes anti-semetic.

I'd say it has some weird mix of Alex Jones and Cenk Uygur written all over it, but still fail to see why people are calling it anti-semetic.

probably should have done this in the first post but here's the actual mural.