Free Market fallacy !

[leanlifter1]

Contrary to the statistically void efficiency assumptions made by most Market economists the "Free Market" simply means anyone can do whatever they want and maximize however they want within the confines of legal legislation, legal legislation which make no mistake is also for sale in the "Free Market" as well as are political officials, regulatory institutions and whatever social entity you wish to consider.

The "Free Market" model of Economics is a haphazard and unscientific anarchy of organization which assumes that any person or group with enough money and hence power will be "responsible" in their actions both socially and environmentally. The problem is that the very definition of being "financially responsible" actually means to be socially and environmentally exploitative, manipulative and negligent for the main driver of this system is inefficiency. The more problems in society in general the more jobs are created and the more rich the power elite become. There is an empirical decoupling from what actually supports life and no alteration of the core configuration of the monetary market incentive will likely change that.

On another level this system as an historical evolution is based on a culturally "hegemonic" pretense. Once economic advantage is obtained it will likely be kept. This is why everything in this system favors the wealthy by it's general structure and inherent logic. While the plebs might complain about the fact that that top hedge fund managers bring in over three hundred million dollars per year they often do not find objection with the interest system that rewards those with high deposits and essentially taxes those using credit. While you may buy your home with a loan paying thousands in interest a year a person of wealth can make a CD Investment and gain free interest income simply because they have the money to burn.

Class separation and perpetuation and the growing wealth divide is not a byproduct IT IS inevitable. In the "Free Market" one is actually "free" to take away the liberty of others through the mere economic pressures generated from the game. You are only as free as the size of your wallet.

With the slow grind down of the global workforce as machine automation continues to replace human labor for the benefit of corporate cost efficiency simultaneously reducing buying power and hence inevitably stifling so called "economic growth". With the ever expanding debt crisis born out of the "Fractional Reserve Lending System" and the simple reality that money is created out of debt and sold as a commodity in exchange for interest - interest that can only again come into existence through more loan sales. With the looming military programs growing in virtually all major sectors as the financial crisis coupled with a pending hydrocarbon energy crisis begins to suggest a stage of global conflict never before seen along with the false market psychology of infinite growth consumption that continues delude and distort our values and what it means to live in harmony with nature and a natural finite planet.

It might be time we begin to see that the social problems at hand are not specific to any general policy, administration, or even so called "corporate greed". The real problem at hand is actually systematic via the very core foundation of what defines our Economic System and the psychology that is supported and rewarded.

That being said it must be made clear that the corporations, fractional reserve banking cartel the "free market" the government and wall street are not the source of our problems they are only symptoms of an economic system which will continue to fail by it's the gravity of it's outdated and false assumptions of human conduct and environmental relationships.

The question then becomes what do we put in it's place ? -

[LemonCrush]

At 2/14/13 12:09 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Contrary to the statistically void efficiency assumptions made by most Market economists the "Free Market" simply means anyone can do whatever they want and maximize however they want within the confines of legal legislation, legal legislation which make no mistake is also for sale in the "Free Market" as well as are political officials, regulatory institutions and whatever social entity you wish to consider.

Point 1. This paragraphs proves you have no idea what the concept of a free market actually is.

The problem is that the very definition of being "financially responsible" actually means to be socially and environmentally exploitative, manipulative and negligent for the main driver of this system is inefficiency.

No. A free market is the concept of exchange of things in a compromise transaction. That applies to all monetary transactions actually. No one is being exploited at all in any economic transaction. Both people are gaining things from a transaction.

On another level this system as an historical evolution is based on a culturally "hegemonic" pretense. Once economic advantage is obtained it will likely be kept. This is why everything in this system favors the wealthy by it's general structure and inherent logic.

Well, except it doesn't because in a free market, the wealthy would be kept in check by their consumers and their competition. Only when the government offers protection from consumers and competition, do you have a problem, as we are currently living.

Class separation and perpetuation and the growing wealth divide is not a byproduct IT IS inevitable. In the "Free Market" one is actually "free" to take away the liberty of others through the mere economic pressures generated from the game. You are only as free as the size of your wallet.

Well, no, because in a free market, there is no protectionism and in order to actually stay "at the top" you must actually earn it instead of being kept there because the government gives you a bailout.

With the slow grind down of the global workforce as machine automation continues to replace human labor for the benefit of corporate cost efficiency simultaneously reducing buying power and hence inevitably stifling so called "economic growth".

Machines do not replace humans. For every machine replacing a human, more are employed to build, maintain, ship, sell, etc. those machines and their components. Printing presses didn't cause mass unemployment. It created a whole new segment of the workforce who had to build and maintain them and it's parts.

It might be time we begin to see that the social problems at hand are not specific to any general policy, administration, or even so called "corporate greed". The real problem at hand is actually systematic via the very core foundation of what defines our Economic System and the psychology that is supported and rewarded.

So, you're saying you know more about human life than the human brain/biology does. Ok.

That being said it must be made clear that the corporations, fractional reserve banking cartel the "free market" the government and wall street are not the source of our problems they are only symptoms of an economic system which will continue to fail by it's the gravity of it's outdated and false assumptions of human conduct and environmental relationships.

Modern corporatism and fractional banking have nothing to do with the free market. In fact, they are completely counter to it. I know you're just trolling here, but please, if you're going to bash something, at least know what it actually is.

The question then becomes what do we put in it's place ? -

This doesn't even make sense. We've never had free markets here in America, so how can we replace it?

[leanlifter1]

At 2/14/13 12:52 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 2/14/13 12:09 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Contrary to the statistically void efficiency assumptions made by most Market economists the "Free Market" simply means anyone can do whatever they want and maximize however they want within the confines of legal legislation, legal legislation which make no mistake is also for sale in the "Free Market" as well as are political officials, regulatory institutions and whatever social entity you wish to consider.

Point 1. This paragraphs proves you have no idea what the concept of a free market actually is.

Why cause you say so LOL LOL TROOOLOOOLLLL !

The problem is that the very definition of being "financially responsible" actually means to be socially and environmentally exploitative, manipulative and negligent for the main driver of this system is inefficiency.

No. A free market is the concept of exchange of things in a compromise transaction.

What you are referring to is not inherent to the so called "free market".

That applies to all monetary transactions actually. No one is being exploited at all in any economic transaction.

Tell that to the people that can hardly feed there kids because the Auto plant shut their doors and moved to Mexico for cheaper labor, materials and little to no Union intervention for things like worker health and safety, medical benefits and guaranteed pay rates. Or you could also talk to the Millions of Chinese factory workers that earn less in a year than a Halliburton construction labor makes in a week.

Both people are gaining things from a transaction.

Only regulation and mandates will ensure that the transaction is fair and legal otherwise you get what we have now which is massive corporate monopolies getting rich of other people backs.

On another level this system as an historical evolution is based on a culturally "hegemonic" pretense. Once economic advantage is obtained it will likely be kept. This is why everything in this system favors the wealthy by it's general structure and inherent logic.

Well, except it doesn't because in a free market, the wealthy would be kept in check by their consumers and their competition.

Well being how apathetic consumers are I don't think they will be keeping anything in check otherwise they already would be practicing boycott. There is not competition only collusion and the illusion of completion. The free market will not empower anybody like you try to claim as people will still be apathetic.

Only when the government offers protection from consumers and competition, do you have a problem, as we are currently living.

The Government offered protection as a last resort because people and corporations were miss behaving. Take General Motors corp as an example.

Class separation and perpetuation and the growing wealth divide is not a byproduct IT IS inevitable. In the "Free Market" one is actually "free" to take away the liberty of others through the mere economic pressures generated from the game. You are only as free as the size of your wallet.

Well, no, because in a free market, there is no protectionism and in order to actually stay "at the top" you must actually earn it instead of being kept there because the government gives you a bailout.

Once a monopoly is attained there is little to keep it from falling. Take Apple Inc for instance they offer an inferior product, practice massive controlled obsolescence, wrap it up in a nice package and charge sometimes up to 100% over market value. You can gift wrap a turd but it's still a POS.

With the slow grind down of the global workforce as machine automation continues to replace human labor for the benefit of corporate cost efficiency simultaneously reducing buying power and hence inevitably stifling so called "economic growth".

Machines do not replace humans. For every machine replacing a human, more are employed to build, maintain, ship, sell, etc. those machines and their components. Printing presses didn't cause mass unemployment. It created a whole new segment of the workforce who had to build and maintain them and it's parts.

Oh really I guess that's why you see 2 out of 12 tills open at the supermarket and the rest is all you guessed it 100% computer automated. Also that's just the beginning and the only reason why we don;t see automation overtaking even faster is because it would crush the monetary system and make it known for what it actually is a useless system of coercion.

That being said it must be made clear that the corporations, fractional reserve banking cartel the "free market" the government and wall street are not the source of our problems they are only symptoms of an economic system which will continue to fail by it's the gravity of it's outdated and false assumptions of human conduct and environmental relationships.

Modern corporatism and fractional banking have nothing to do with the free market.

They are all symptoms of a failing economic system.

[LemonCrush]

At 2/15/13 06:50 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

Point 1. This paragraphs proves you have no idea what the concept of a free market actually is.

Why cause you say so LOL LOL TROOOLOOOLLLL !

Well, no. Because it goes against everything free market economics teaches.

What you are referring to is not inherent to the so called "free market".

Um, yes it is. At least according to any free market economist or theorist. IDK, you seem to be the only person saying otherwise.

Tell that to the people that can hardly feed there kids because the Auto plant shut their doors and moved to Mexico for cheaper labor....

Well damn, I guess we should try to fuck people over when they try to start businesses in America then? It's got nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with the fact that it's impossible to get a fair shake in America because the government favors some more than others.

Only regulation and mandates will ensure that the transaction is fair and legal otherwise you get what we have now which is massive corporate monopolies getting rich of other people backs.

Well, the monopolies are formed by govt. protectionism. IE corporations lobbying for legislation that favors them, and hurt there competition (IE Rockefeller, or Obama's green initiatives). Corporations would NEVER be able to gain the foothold they have (monopolies, or near-monopolies/oligopolies) without favorable legislation and welfare (like TARP money, and tax loopholes)

The free market will not empower anybody like you try to claim as people will still be apathetic.

And that's their CHOICE to be so. If they don't care that much about it, then they can keep participating. That's kind of what freedom is about. Having and making your own CHOICES. It's hardly a corporation's fault if people don't give enough of a shit to boycott, or buy locally, or whatever other means of protest.

On the other hand, in a free market, with no govt handouts for anyone, and large amounts of competition in industry, people would have to care, if they care about their quality of life or value of what they purchase.

The Government offered protection as a last resort because people and corporations were miss behaving. Take General Motors corp as an example.

General Motors was a slave to it's unions. Here's a clue that any basic econ student can teach you. DON'T GIVE OUT FREE MONEY AND BENEFITS IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT. GM had the same problem the govt does. Spending money they don't have.

Don't get me wrong, GM has every right as a business to do what they want with their money. But it shouldn't be my responsibility to fix their fuckups. My family used to own a business that went under due to various factors. Where was our bailout? Where are bailouts for the thousands of american businesses going under?

Oh wait, they don't line Obama's pockets with money and political favors. Guess we're all just supposed to "eat cake", right? ;)

Once a monopoly is attained there is little to keep it from falling. Take Apple Inc for instance they offer an inferior product, practice massive controlled obsolescence, wrap it up in a nice package and charge sometimes up to 100% over market value. You can gift wrap a turd but it's still a POS.

Exactly. So, make monopolies impossible by removing corporate safety nets and welfare. Maybe, instead, to stay afloat, the actually make a decent product to gain an edge over their competition. Apple is far from a monopoly, btw.

Oh really I guess that's why you see 2 out of 12 tills open at the supermarket and the rest is all you guessed it 100% computer automated. Also that's just the beginning and the only reason why we don;t see automation overtaking even faster is because it would crush the monetary system and make it known for what it actually is a useless system of coercion.

Exactly. And someone must maintain and build those machines. Machines break. Easily. And they don't fix themselves.

They are all symptoms of a failing economic system.

I agree. Corporatism and fractional banking are a failing economic sytstem.

[Memorize]

At 2/15/13 06:50 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

Tell that to the people that can hardly feed there kids because the Auto plant shut their doors and moved to Mexico for cheaper labor, materials and little to no Union intervention for things like worker health and safety, medical benefits and guaranteed pay rates. Or you could also talk to the Millions of Chinese factory workers that earn less in a year than a Halliburton construction labor makes in a week.

Maybe if the workers who were already making more than the national average in just wages (not including benefits) didn't complain about "not being paid enough", on top of mandated benefits some people didn't ask for because they didn't need them (medical/dental), then costs wouldn't have been so high as to shut down the factory.

I like how you people pretend that shutting down factories and setting them up in other countries is cheap.

Only regulation and mandates will ensure that the transaction is fair and legal otherwise you get what we have now which is massive corporate monopolies getting rich of other people backs.

I never knew those bailouts were voluntary.
Or that I gave the Government permission to write checks to the oil industry.

Well blow me down!

Well being how apathetic consumers are I don't think they will be keeping anything in check otherwise they already would be practicing boycott. There is not competition only collusion and the illusion of completion. The free market will not empower anybody like you try to claim as people will still be apathetic.

Question: Do you support the bailout of a multi-billion dollar auto industry?

The Government offered protection as a last resort because people and corporations were miss behaving. Take General Motors corp as an example.

Oh, there's the answer.

Funny how your solution is exactly what you're bitching about.

Once a monopoly is attained there is little to keep it from falling.

Count up the biggest and most wealthy industries and tell us how many of them get Government assistance vs those who don't.

They are all symptoms of a failing economic system.

Corporatism is a form of Socialism. It's just a type of system that's redistributed to the wealthy.

Let me demonstrate.

You're blaming this on Capitalism by calling it Crony Capitalism.

But Crony Capitalism is also called Corporatism.

Corporatism is the economic side of Fascism.

Who did we call Fascists during World War II? The Nazis.

But what did the Nazis call themselves? National SOCIALISTS.

[MattDogg]

At 2/16/13 08:32 PM, Memorize wrote:

You're blaming this on Capitalism by calling it Crony Capitalism.

But Crony Capitalism is also called Corporatism.

Corporatism is the economic side of Fascism.

Who did we call Fascists during World War II? The Nazis.

But what did the Nazis call themselves? National SOCIALISTS.

WTF

[Camarohusky]

You are right in some of your ideas. Mainly in that the idea of a truly free market the being best for everyone is completely and wholly flawed.

The economic theory of capitalism relies upon a few ground rules that never exist in real life: consistent intelligent decision-making, and equal power among bargainers. That's not to say that those don't exist at all, as they definitely do, but they are nowhere near as universal as required to make capitalism benefit all.

If a party is too impulsive, short-sighted, or stupid (or any combination thereof) their ability to function in a capitalist world immediately goes out the window as they will not be making the proper assessments in a transaction and thus are prone to getting the short end of the stick. I would venture to guess than at least 90% of the population is too ignorant to enter anything close to 50% of the marketplace with the fortitude and knowledge needed to make an intelligent bargain. (though that number drops significantly if you are just going to take people strong markets, such as a plumber in plumbing, or a doctor in medicine, but to expect a plumber to know the legal market, or a doctor to know the grain market is absurd).

Power differential between parties can also erode the foundations of capitalism. The fundamental tenet of capitalism is that the buyer will pay what the item is worth. However, if the seller has a great deal of power and the buyer little, the seller can strong arm the buyer (through false demand, brow beating, fraud, or other tactics) to pay for more than the item is truly worth. This does go hand in hand with comptence, as in capitalism, competence is close to as good as money when it comes to judging power.

The oddest part of capitlism that is surpisingly overlooked, is what actually happens to the supposed savior of capitalism: competition. The notion is that the problems caused by power differential or incompetence will be made up by competition in that a person who takes too much advatnage of these will be undercut by another. This definitely does account, and it comes into play a lot. However, truly unfettered capitalism results in an end game where competition is destroyed. Once a company corsses the threshold into monopoly territory, it has grown so big that it can use its power to rub out the competition and then become the only game in town. (See WalMart for an example of this.) Once it is the only game in town the savior of competition ceases to function and the business can do whatever it wants with its buyers as they have no other options. This is the natural end game of Lasseiz Faire ecnomic systems, as seen in the US, Europe, Japan, Korea and so on in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.

[DeathRayGraphics]

At 2/16/13 08:32 PM, Memorize wrote:

You're blaming this on Capitalism by calling it Crony Capitalism.

But Crony Capitalism is also called Corporatism.

Corporatism is the economic side of Fascism.

Who did we call Fascists during World War II? The Nazis.

But what did the Nazis call themselves? National SOCIALISTS.

And North Korea calls itself a Democratic People's Republic, even though it is none of these. What is your point?

Of course, I KNOW your point: "Those who forget history are doomed to remember just enough of it to use as a a feeble burn in a Web forum."

The resort to "what the Nazi's called themselves" is a tedious and limp argument, very popular amongst the talk radio intellectuals. One of Hitler's first acts upon gaining power was to terrorize the trade unions and ultimately dissolve them, later instituting what was basically urban serfdom on the working classes, making it virtually illegal to leave their jobs. This has nothing to do with any socialist program.

Crony capitalism works on both sides of the aisle, and is alive today under Obama as it was under Bush. The example of Cheney/Haliburton is well understood, and at this point the most egregious Democratic example would be Breuer/HSBC, and more broadly, the genuflecting to Wall Street that has defined Obama's response to this Depression. Both parties, however, are equally steeped in the shenanigan they ascribe to the "other".

Solyndra and GM may make for a fine talking point against liberals, but where will conservatives line up when the call comes from Fox News to protect the war socialism that is the Pentagon budget? For that matter, where will liberals be when they finally get what they have always claimed to want, a cut in defense spending, when it costs local jobs and Democratic congresspeople rally to save their district's bases at any cost?

[Ceratisa]

At 2/19/13 09:25 AM, DeathRayGraphics wrote:

At 2/16/13 08:32 PM, Memorize wrote:

You're blaming this on Capitalism by calling it Crony Capitalism.

But Crony Capitalism is also called Corporatism.

Corporatism is the economic side of Fascism.

Who did we call Fascists during World War II? The Nazis.

But what did the Nazis call themselves? National SOCIALISTS.

And North Korea calls itself a Democratic People's Republic, even though it is none of these. What is your point?

Of course, I KNOW your point: "Those who forget history are doomed to remember just enough of it to use as a a feeble burn in a Web forum."

The resort to "what the Nazi's called themselves" is a tedious and limp argument, very popular amongst the talk radio intellectuals. One of Hitler's first acts upon gaining power was to terrorize the trade unions and ultimately dissolve them, later instituting what was basically urban serfdom on the working classes, making it virtually illegal to leave their jobs. This has nothing to do with any socialist program.

Well actually he formed a new super union (and the unions were not economically viable to Germany's recovery at the time either. Even if it was a puppet union. And his own party was for massive expansion of welfare and increased taxation of businesses. The Nazi party also claimed it required a strong centralized government to make all of its goals possible.

[DeathRayGraphics]

At 2/19/13 09:28 AM, Ceratisa wrote:

At 2/19/13 09:25 AM, DeathRayGraphics wrote:

At 2/16/13 08:32 PM, Memorize wrote:

You're blaming this on Capitalism by calling it Crony Capitalism.

But Crony Capitalism is also called Corporatism.

Corporatism is the economic side of Fascism.

Who did we call Fascists during World War II? The Nazis.

But what did the Nazis call themselves? National SOCIALISTS.

And North Korea calls itself a Democratic People's Republic, even though it is none of these. What is your point?

Of course, I KNOW your point: "Those who forget history are doomed to remember just enough of it to use as a a feeble burn in a Web forum."

The resort to "what the Nazi's called themselves" is a tedious and limp argument, very popular amongst the talk radio intellectuals. One of Hitler's first acts upon gaining power was to terrorize the trade unions and ultimately dissolve them, later instituting what was basically urban serfdom on the working classes, making it virtually illegal to leave their jobs. This has nothing to do with any socialist program.

Well actually he formed a new super union (and the unions were not economically viable to Germany's recovery at the time either. Even if it was a puppet union. And his own party was for massive expansion of welfare and increased taxation of businesses. The Nazi party also claimed it required a strong centralized government to make all of its goals possible.

The Nazi "Labor Front" was not a "super union" or a "puppet union". It was wholly an instrument of the Nazi party, and like everything the Nazis did, it was dedicated to deducting the rights of the people it was instituted for. It set wages and controlled working conditions in a manner entirely removed from the wishes of the labor force. It was not a free union in any sense of the word.

The fact that the Nazi government was centralized did not make it "socialist" any more than centralized power in Russia made the Bolsheviks Nazis.

[morefngdbs]

At 2/14/13 12:09 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: The question then becomes what do we put in it's place ? -

;;;
Good question
There is no question anymore of the free market being manipulated. You only have to look at what's done int he metal markets particularly gold when last year millions of pounces of gold were offered up & sold in 30 minutes driving the price of gold down over 30 dollars
WHY you may ask would anyone dump so much gold on the market they would lose over 30 dollars on each ounce & they dumped millions of ounces !?!?!?!

Simple it was paper gold, not real gold. THe free market is being manipulated by paper ETF's which are suppose to be backed up by real physical bullion. But they are not, there isn't enough gold out there to allow for physical backing of the 'paper' gold offered.
So there is proof of free market manipulation.

THen there's the slowly failing American Petro dollar ... the reason Iraq was invaded & after 40 years Lybian leader Kydaffi over thrown .... & the real reason for sanctions against Iran & why they keep up the pressure to wage war on Iran. They aren't the least bit worried about Iran possibly building a nuclear weapon, but they are very worried that they will lose their Petro dollar advantage ...which IS happening & will come to pass .

All 3 of these countries/leaders did exactly the same thing , refused American dollars for oil.
Since the USA simply has to print American dollars to buy whatever they want, they can't print Euro's (what Iraq & Lybia wanted for oil) nor can they print gold what Iran & Lybia wanted for oil or euro's or anything that wasn't American money ....

Free market manipulation is everywhere & we are all just pawns in the games the Banksters & big business play !

[morefngdbs]

Here I was just speaking of Banksters the other day.
This article has (at least for me) some points of interest. I like the opening quote from Musillini.
But near the end of the article are some interesting points.

The most interesting, & this has been asked by many people including Ron Paul.
WHy is the Gold Reserves belonging to the American People a secret ?

THat IMO is another really good question.

Oh , yeah the article
http://www.24hgold.com/english/news-gold-silver-the-great-go ld-deception-and-misdirection.aspx?article=4250111102G10020&
redirect=false&contributor=Stewart+Dougherty

[DeathRayGraphics]

At 2/20/13 08:26 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Here I was just speaking of Banksters the other day.
This article has (at least for me) some points of interest. I like the opening quote from Musillini.
But near the end of the article are some interesting points.

The most interesting, & this has been asked by many people including Ron Paul.
WHy is the Gold Reserves belonging to the American People a secret ?

THat IMO is another really good question.

Oh , yeah the article
http://www.24hgold.com/english/news-gold-silver-the-great-go ld-deception-and-misdirection.aspx?article=4250111102G10020&
redirect=false&contributor=Stewart+Dougherty

Great article: An epic, Galtian screed against unidentified "banksters" encouraging readers to buy precious metals, and published by: a precious metal brokers website!!

You know, I think I DO see the conspiracy afterall ;)

[morefngdbs]

At 2/20/13 10:49 AM, DeathRayGraphics wrote: Great article: An epic, Galtian screed against unidentified "banksters" encouraging readers to buy precious metals, and published by: a precious metal brokers website!!

You know, I think I DO see the conspiracy afterall ;)

;;;;
& why is the American gold reserves a secret ? ? ? did you read anything except what you could criticise easily ?

China & Russia along with many other countries ARE STOCKPILING GOLD.

China has been telling its citizens to purchase & hold gold.
India is attempting to stop people from hoarding their gold by putting additional taxes on it, because they are seeing people not wanting to hold their currency.

If you had been paying attention for the last 10+ years (I've been doing it for over 20) you'd see just how huge the rise in gold & silver has been.
And its not because its worth more, its because your so called paper dollars are worht so much less !

[Feoric]

At 2/20/13 04:17 PM, morefngdbs wrote: And its not because its worth more, its because your so called paper dollars are worht so much less !

Maybe it has more to do with the fact that China and India are developing countries and need gold for industrial applications and the fact that hundreds of millions of people are suddenly having enough money to buy jewelry. That's a hell of a demand from 2 countries with over 2 billion people combined.

[leanlifter1]

At 2/20/13 04:21 PM, Feoric wrote:

ell of a demand from 2 countries with over 2 billion people combined.

Anyway back on topic !

[DeathRayGraphics]

At 2/20/13 04:17 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 2/20/13 10:49 AM, DeathRayGraphics wrote: Great article: An epic, Galtian screed against unidentified "banksters" encouraging readers to buy precious metals, and published by: a precious metal brokers website!!

You know, I think I DO see the conspiracy afterall ;)

;;;;
& why is the American gold reserves a secret ? ? ? did you read anything except what you could criticise easily ?

China & Russia along with many other countries ARE STOCKPILING GOLD.

China has been telling its citizens to purchase & hold gold.
India is attempting to stop people from hoarding their gold by putting additional taxes on it, because they are seeing people not wanting to hold their currency.

If you had been paying attention for the last 10+ years (I've been doing it for over 20) you'd see just how huge the rise in gold & silver has been.
And its not because its worth more, its because your so called paper dollars are worht so much less !

I'm glad the WiFi in your bunker is working, but something about you makes me think that you are not actually a sophisticated trader within the metals market but more likely a guy who listens to a lot of Prison Planet.

Am I wrong? Wow me.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 2/18/13 11:50 AM, Camarohusky wrote: The economic theory of capitalism relies upon a few ground rules that never exist in real life: consistent intelligent decision-making,

People are dumb, therefore we need a government elected and ran by said dumb people!

and equal power among bargainers.

People have unequal power, therefore we need an all powerful institution!

never mind that making such a instiution so powerful only magnifies the damage done when the dumb, greedy people running said instiution act dumb and greedy...

[morefngdbs]

At 2/20/13 05:38 PM, DeathRayGraphics wrote: but more likely a guy who listens to a lot of Prison Planet.

;;;;
While I don't live in a bunker, I do live in a rural area.
as opposed to playing the paper chase.
I actually own things of value like land.
a home.
physical gold & silver.
A business, which has a large equipment inventory ....& I don't owe money to the banks.
Mortgages are all paid off.
Loans to banks are all paid off.
My truck & car are paid for .
No credit card debt

THese simple things keep your money coming into your pocket & limit how much can be legally stolen from you.

To really save yourself money , from things like Obama's plans to tax the rich (which is a scam by the way) simply incorporate yourself.
Do the homework. Corporations are allowed huge tax savings that no individual can claim or access ....& you don't have to be rich. Just have an accountant that knows what can legally be done & you can make tens of thousands of dollars a year & pay no tax on it.

Although unlike American we pay Hst on our goods & services, buy a coffee pay a couple of cents tax. So even Warren buffet could be taxed. But chances are no rich controler of America will ever allow that to happen !

[Camarohusky]

At 2/28/13 09:56 AM, morefngdbs wrote: To really save yourself money , from things like Obama's plans to tax the rich (which is a scam by the way) simply incorporate yourself.

Ha, nope. The IRS can easily see right through that. Not to mention that the process of incorporation itself is quite expensive. AND let's finally not forget that corporstions get taxed twice (even though the double tax is largely a myth). Trust me, people have tried this stuff ever since income taxes were levied and they do not work.

Do the homework. Corporations are allowed huge tax savings that no individual can claim or access ....& you don't have to be rich. Just have an accountant that knows what can legally be done & you can make tens of thousands of dollars a year & pay no tax on it.

The IRS has the power to levy taxes upon any entity however they wish, if they believe that entity is a mere shelter. So, unless you catually have a business and business earnings (a W2 does not count) your corporate taxes will be ignored and the IRS might even penalize you for attempted tax fraud.

Trust me, this just won't work.

[morefngdbs]

At 2/28/13 11:05 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 2/28/13 09:56 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

Ha, nope. The IRS can easily see right through that. Not to mention that the process of incorporation itself is quite expensive.

Sorry sir
You haven't got a clue about what you are speaking
1st -incorporating my business $800.00
2nd CRA does investigate Corporate companies ....I've been audited 3 times since 1999, never been found in conflict ...not once, not for anything.
May help that my accountant was a Business Revinue Canada Tax Auditor for 17 years before going into business for herself

Do the homework. Corporations are allowed huge tax savings

The IRS has the power to levy taxes upon any entity however they wish, if they believe that entity is a mere shelter. So, unless you catually have a business and business earnings (a W2 does not count) your corporate taxes will be ignored and the IRS might even penalize you for attempted tax fraud.

I actually have a business with a property, shop for maintenance, storage of equipment.
I do all work including my consulting work via invoicing, all numbers & clients are given incorporation numbers & H.s.t. tax code .
Everything is 100% above board & the CRA cannot just levy any tax they want, they may have some right to attempt to, but that is why I have filled out all forms & any/all contact with the tax man by law has to be directed to my accountant.
I write off the office space & storage I also have in my home , also 100 % legitimate.
As I informed them at the revenue office my last audit ...I am a rigger not a tax specialist. I don't know what the F@(# you are talking about ... so see my tax specialist.

Before my year end I meet with her & we go over my books & at that point make purchase ,investment decissions etc. based deliberately of allowing the maximum allowable deductions & I have year after year seen $0.00 income tax on 6 figures earned by my company .

Trust me, this just won't work.

Trust me , on this point , you don't know what you are talking about.

I have even had years where I have spent more than I have taken in, & instead of paying the balance of H.s.t. collected by me after deducting what I have spent on my business in H.s.t.
I have come out where they have owed me money.

In building my business I have accued in excess of $50,000 that I can take out of the business tax free. Because it came from earnings I had previously paid tax on .

THe differences in CRA & IRS tax laws must be huge, for corporations to be under the what you are speaking of .

But me I'm golden baby. & my company is what's keeping me solvent now that I can't work !

[Camarohusky]

At 2/28/13 03:53 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Sorry sir
You haven't got a clue about what you are speaking

You have a business so none of this applies to you.

Your advice was to incorporate yourself as a person. Very different than incorporating a business. The IRS will see right through a person who becomes and entity without any business just to avoid taxes. Best to be clear about your advice, as those seemingly small details can be very large based on the situation.

Actually, now that you are getting married, it would be far better for tax purposes to have a pass through entity than a corporation. As with a coporation the business' losses apply only to the business and so you will be taxed fully on your spouse's income. Whereas a pass through means any loss taken by the business is your loss, for tax purposes, and thus you can offset your wife's income with the losses and pay less tax and the same amount of income.

[morefngdbs]

At 2/28/13 05:38 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 2/28/13 03:53 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Sorry sir

Your advice was to incorporate yourself as a person. Very different than incorporating a business. The IRS will see right through a person who becomes and entity without any business just to avoid taxes.

;;;;
While they are cutting down on that in Canada for those who attempt to do it, when they are actually an "Employee" of a company (in my caser a Production company formed solely for the purpose of making 1 movie, then disbanding)
That doesn't hold true for consulting ...which is something else i do. WHen I work for a movie Production or a rock show, dance troop, theatre or out door event.
I work for the Production as an incorporated person.
I bill my hours through my business, & even though no equipment is rented, I bill all hours at my set rates, add the overtime & H.s.t. tax in & they pay my company , with no taxes deducted.

Just exactly the same as a rental invoice.
WHere an employee, would have taxes, CPP (canada pension plan) vacation etc.

So it depends on what you do. I have a truck driver friend who also 'freelances ' for a major trucking company, they pay his invoices into his 'corporation' .
I also know a guy who owns a dumptruck, float & excavator, does all his work for one of our larger Construction companies. But instead of being an employee, who gets paid 7 wage & rents them his equipment. He works as the equipment operator of his Corporation that rents equipment as well as bills wages.

I don't know why/how it works for these situations in the USA in Canada it is quite common & I know it is Canada wide because of co workers I have know for years who do it in Ontario, B.C. , Newfoundland, Manitoba & Alberta.

[Camarohusky]

At 3/1/13 06:14 PM, morefngdbs wrote: I don't know why/how it works for these situations in the USA

The situations you're discussing have mor to do with the line between an employee and an independent contractor. The general rule is an independent contractor is their own indepedent business and thus can set up their work under any business entity they so choose. However, if that person crosses the line to employee (really complex yet horrendously vague rules, and can be both at the same time for different legal ends) they no longer can claim that work as part of a buiness entity, and instead it gets treated as personal income as an employee.

Add on top of that all of the term of art uses for words such as employee and such you have something so elegantly described as a major clusterfuck. (<-- my cynnical guess is this is made intentionally confusing by attorneys to ensure the profession stays as robust as possible.)

[HeavenDuff]

At 2/14/13 12:52 PM, LemonCrush wrote: No. A free market is the concept of exchange of things in a compromise transaction. That applies to all monetary transactions actually. No one is being exploited at all in any economic transaction. Both people are gaining things from a transaction.

There is always power involved in every single relationship between two or more human beings. Especially with the free market, since both parties involved are there for their own good. Things get extra-difficult when one of the parties has way more economical or political power than the other party. When the weakest of both parties is in an extreme need for something (anything), you cannot pretend that there was a "mutual gain". Especially if you consider that it is not everysingle human being that is able to define what is good and what isn't for him as there is too much variables to consider when trying to figure what would be the best decision to make. Some might do bad transactions because they are in need of a quick and immediate gratification, and thus wouldn't consider long-term good.

Thinking that "free market" means "fair and voluntary trade" is wrong.

[LemonCrush]

At 3/1/13 11:55 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: Some might do bad transactions because they are in need of a quick and immediate gratification, and thus wouldn't consider long-term good.

So, we should adopt a much worse, non-free system, so that idiots do don't stupid shit?

People still, even with all the safety nets in the world, make stupid transactions. It will always be that way. Except now, the debt burden is passed on to others, and/or you are indebted to the government.

You can't force people to be smart with their money. What we can do, is stop making people responsible for those who are bad with money

[HeavenDuff]

At 3/2/13 01:06 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 3/1/13 11:55 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: Some might do bad transactions because they are in need of a quick and immediate gratification, and thus wouldn't consider long-term good.

So, we should adopt a much worse, non-free system, so that idiots do don't stupid shit?

Who's talking about idiots? Every single of your relationship implies a degree of power, no matter what kind of power it is. Having a political, economical, emotional, psychological edge over someone doesn't imply that this person is stupid.

People still, even with all the safety nets in the world, make stupid transactions. It will always be that way. Except now, the debt burden is passed on to others, and/or you are indebted to the government.

How than, can you argue for this "rational choice theory" ? If by nature, like you seem to propose it, humans make bad decisions, how would reducing social nets be of any kind of help to anyone ?

You can't force people to be smart with their money. What we can do, is stop making people responsible for those who are bad with money

Reading your post makes me think about that joke I've heard recently. Not going to go through the whole thing, just the important part. So little boy is playing with his baseball in his parents room when he ears noises of people coming up the stairs, so he hides in the closet and sees her mother with another man doing "adult activities", when the husband comes home and the mother's lover is forced to hide in the closet. "Dark in here, isn't it?" Asks the boy to the mother's lover. "Sure is." Answers the lover. "I have a baseball for sale" Says the kid. "Not interested." says the man. "My father is just outside the door." Says the kid. "How much?" The man asks. "A hundred bucks." The kid answers back. "Deal!" Says the man.

If you are interrested by the rest of the joke, just google it. My point was just to show that when you are offered a deal, you are not in an equal-to-equal relationship and that you can be forced to take bad decisions or short-term good decisions, but that aren't still very beneficial. Now imagine this kind of relationship full-scale...

Just accept the idea that there is no neutral system with equal-to-equal relationship. Every and all relationship implies power.

[TheMason]

At 2/14/13 12:09 PM, leanlifter1 copy & pasted from a pro-OWS site:

A bunch of stuff...

...but forgot to link his SOURCE.

You know...this is the second time you've cut and pasted. Remember 13 key signifiers of Fascism?

[LemonCrush]

At 3/3/13 04:17 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: Who's talking about idiots? Every single of your relationship implies a degree of power, no matter what kind of power it is. Having a political, economical, emotional, psychological edge over someone doesn't imply that this person is stupid.

Well, power is a basic part of human biology/nature. There is no work around for it. The only true balance for it, is compromise AKA economy. Which is based on freedom of choice anyway. You cannot force a balance of power. never in the history of humanity, has it ever, ever happened. There always have been and always will be haves and hove nots. Economics is the only way to equalize imbalances of power. Human history is ripe with examples.

How than, can you argue for this "rational choice theory" ? If by nature, like you seem to propose it, humans make bad decisions, how would reducing social nets be of any kind of help to anyone ?

Help? What help? Why help? There is no remedy for human nature. You can't "help" it anymore than you can help the sunsetting and rising.

No point in spending billions to try to fix something that is unfixable.

If you are interrested by the rest of the joke, just google it. My point was just to show that when you are offered a deal, you are not in an equal-to-equal relationship and that you can be forced to take bad decisions or short-term good decisions, but that aren't still very beneficial. Now imagine this kind of relationship full-scale...

You're missing out on two major points.

A) It's a person's CHOICE to participate in whatever actions or transactions they see fit. They should be the only ones to deal with the consequences.

B) when you are offered a deal, you are in a equal-to-equal relationship. There is no imbalance. both parties are compromising to gain something from the other.

Just accept the idea that there is no neutral system with equal-to-equal relationship. Every and all relationship implies power.

Power has no bearing on compromise/free market. A free market is the equalizer because in order for it to work, compromise must exist.

[HeavenDuff]

At 3/3/13 07:05 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Well, power is a basic part of human biology/nature. There is no work around for it. The only true balance for it, is compromise AKA economy. Which is based on freedom of choice anyway. You cannot force a balance of power. never in the history of humanity, has it ever, ever happened. There always have been and always will be haves and hove nots. Economics is the only way to equalize imbalances of power. Human history is ripe with examples.

This is a fallacy in capitalist argumenting. You present the "free market" as the natural way of things. As if intervention was un-natural. Neoliberalism in an ideology. There is no such thing as a neutral, normal or natural system. The free market is a policital intervention on the market in itself. Otherwise, your lecture of human history is incorrect. Because there was no perfect balance ever, doesn't mean that there never was a control on the economical system. Economical system that neoliberals often tend to perceive as naturaly separated from the political market. Which is also man-made and not "natural". Political power and economical power are intertwined.

You see the free market as a "compromise" and cannot seem to understand that there is no equal-to-equal relationship. You can with your ressources influence someone in a direction. These ressources are of all kind. Money, militay, information, etc.

Help? What help? Why help? There is no remedy for human nature. You can't "help" it anymore than you can help the sunsetting and rising.

Please explain me that human nature you keep talking about. Humans are mostly if not completely social-products. If you are taught something that is wrong, how is it your fault ?

No point in spending billions to try to fix something that is unfixable.

Except inequalities have grown and kept growing since the end of the 80's. Governments have drifter down that neoliberal approach for the past 30 years, and yet they still can't manage to make huge deficits...

You're missing out on two major points.

A) It's a person's CHOICE to participate in whatever actions or transactions they see fit. They should be the only ones to deal with the consequences.

How was the mother's lover not forced in the transaction?

B) when you are offered a deal, you are in a equal-to-equal relationship. There is no imbalance. both parties are compromising to gain something from the other.

No. When poverty is rising and when there is an high level of unemployment, there is a competition between lower-classes for employment. So the working conditions usually drop, and the salary two. When looking for a job, if you've been unemployed for a while, you don't have high-education or a formation to hope for a better job and you don't have the money to study, you are stuck dealing with the rules of the market. Rule you didn't decide of. You are then forced, because you need to eat, pay the bills, pay the appartment, to accept a deal. You might end up with a shitty job, with piss-poor working conditions, no insurance and an high-risk of injuries, but you still take it cause that's your only fucking option.

But hey, that's "equal-to-equal" relationship...

Power has no bearing on compromise/free market. A free market is the equalizer because in order for it to work, compromise must exist.

False. Free market is plutocracy. It is in no way an equalizer. If I give you a choice between a fist to the face and dildo to the butt. You might be under the impression that I'm giving you a choice and that this is a compromise. But if you have not eated anything for the last three days and that I offer you a hundred bucks for it, you might accept it. Based on your analysis, that would be a compromise and an equal-to-equal relationship. Sorry but that's not what it is...