For years

[Phatscotty]

Tell me...what is fundamentally wrong with having one government over the entire world? Not pre-supposing what form that government is...what is wrong with the idea? Do you enjoy war? Do you enjoy poverty? Removing the nationalistic bullshit would probably go a long way toward helping this,

i think the OWG that scotty is talking about is something rather closer to the OWG of stoners' zeitgeist fantasies. a shady, totally unaccountable organisation that just pushes the world around as it sees fit with little concern for the vast majority of global citizens.

time will tell

[Woodruff]

Tell me...what is fundamentally wrong with having one government over the entire world? Not pre-supposing what form that government is...what is wrong with the idea? Do you enjoy war? Do you enjoy poverty? Removing the nationalistic bullshit would probably go a long way toward helping this,

i think the OWG that scotty is talking about is something rather closer to the OWG of stoners' zeitgeist fantasies. a shady, totally unaccountable organisation that just pushes the world around as it sees fit with little concern for the vast majority of global citizens.

Which is why the first part of my post (that you removed) is relevant.

[Maugena]

There's no fucking right answer. Will you ever get it?

Actually, in the US there is one clear answer: following the Constitution.

Because the Constitution is the be all and end all answer to everything ever.
There weren't amendments or anything. (And there never will be...) *Cough*

[Night Strike]

Corporations still can't vote and such, nor should they be able to. But when they are directly taxed (and demonized by administrations like the current one), then they definitely have the freedom to protest and speak their positions.

And you claim I am the one living in fantasy land???

Begin with its one person ONE vote.. not 2 or twenty. Continue on with corporations are entities specifically designed to sheild investors from various types of risk.. whereas individuals have to accept the immediate consequences of what they say.

add in a few other things, but you can start there and your "arguments" are pure garbage. Corporations got more power because they are able to hire better attorneys than the US government, funded by just taxpayers.

So they're allowed to hire better attorneys than the ones the US government who they're also paying for with their taxes.....who cares? And yes, each person only gets one vote. I've never protested against that. In fact, it's only the liberals who are making sure that it remains possible for people to illegally gain more than one vote.

What is your problem with corporations existing to protect personal assets? Why should you get to go sue any person you claim has harmed you when their personal actions have nothing to do with their business actions? Corporations exist because there are people like you who want to take from people who have more than you and because it allows for a cleaner delineation between personal wealth and business wealth. You do not have a right to sue someone's personal wealth unless they directly harm you due to their private actions. You always decry these massive claims that health care costs people houses and wealth, yet you want to open up other people to have their wealth taken away from them simply because they own a business and someone in the business might screw up.

[Woodruff]

There's no fucking right answer. Will you ever get it?

Actually, in the US there is one clear answer: following the Constitution.

Because the Constitution is the be all and end all answer to everything ever.
There weren't amendments or anything. (And there never will be...) *Cough*

By definition, the Amendments are included within the term, as is the process for enacting Amendments.

[PLAYER57832]

Corporations still can't vote and such, nor should they be able to. But when they are directly taxed (and demonized by administrations like the current one), then they definitely have the freedom to protest and speak their positions.

And you claim I am the one living in fantasy land???

Begin with its one person ONE vote.. not 2 or twenty. Continue on with corporations are entities specifically designed to sheild investors from various types of risk.. whereas individuals have to accept the immediate consequences of what they say.

add in a few other things, but you can start there and your "arguments" are pure garbage. Corporations got more power because they are able to hire better attorneys than the US government, funded by just taxpayers.

So they're allowed to hire better attorneys than the ones the US government who they're also paying for with their taxes.....who cares? And yes, each person only gets one vote. I've never protested against that. In fact, it's only the liberals who are making sure that it remains possible for people to illegally gain more than one vote.

reread what you just said. We have freedom of speech because we are citizens, we have rights supported by the constitution. You claim corporations are "just people" and therefore have the same rights.

What is your problem with corporations existing to protect personal assets? Why should you get to go sue any person you claim has harmed you when their personal actions have nothing to do with their business actions? Corporations exist because there are people like you who want to take from people who have more than you and because it allows for a cleaner delineation between personal wealth and business wealth. You do not have a right to sue someone's personal wealth unless they directly harm you due to their private actions. You always decry these massive claims that health care costs people houses and wealth, yet you want to open up other people to have their wealth taken away from them simply because they own a business and someone in the business might screw up.

I don't have a problem with corporations protecting personal assets when they stick to protecting assets from business errors.. though even that can be grossly misused. If you sell a product that is intentionally harmful why are you any less negligent than a drunk driver who only, after all kills 1 peron, while bad products kill, injure hundreds EACH every year?


However, when you try to claim that this protection should extend to a "right" to speak.. and that corporation is used as front to keep the individuals from accepting culpability or responsibilty for their words, then yes, I very much do have a problem.

Funny how "responsibility" only applies to those on the lower ranks. Start trying to hold CEOs and such responsible for the impacts of their decisions and all you get is smokescreens.

And yes, if you "screw up", as you say, then you SHOULD be responsible. I have no problem with a CEOs. stockholders, protecting his kid's college funds (provided they actually GO to the kids' college payments and not to start a new business venture!) or a basic house. I have a problem with this idea that CEOs and the like get to keep all the gains from any good decision.. but when it comes to payment for bad decisions, then other people are left holding the bag.

[Gillipig]

This sums up my world view:

Politics =
Religion =
Sports =
Science =

[Maugena]

There's no fucking right answer. Will you ever get it?

Actually, in the US there is one clear answer: following the Constitution.

Because the Constitution is the be all and end all answer to everything ever.
There weren't amendments or anything. (And there never will be...) *Cough*

By definition, the Amendments are included within the term, as is the process for enacting Amendments.

My point being is that not all of the answers are actually in the Constitution. Even if one could be amended.

[Woodruff]

There's no fucking right answer. Will you ever get it?

Actually, in the US there is one clear answer: following the Constitution.

Because the Constitution is the be all and end all answer to everything ever.
There weren't amendments or anything. (And there never will be...) *Cough*

By definition, the Amendments are included within the term, as is the process for enacting Amendments.

My point being is that not all of the answers are actually in the Constitution. Even if one could be amended.

You're going to have to give me a "for instance" on that one.

[Maugena]

There's no fucking right answer. Will you ever get it?

Actually, in the US there is one clear answer: following the Constitution.

Because the Constitution is the be all and end all answer to everything ever.
There weren't amendments or anything. (And there never will be...) *Cough*

By definition, the Amendments are included within the term, as is the process for enacting Amendments.

My point being is that not all of the answers are actually in the Constitution. Even if one could be amended.

You're going to have to give me a "for instance" on that one.

It would be a hypothetical. I'll take the *dodge* pass.

[Woodruff]

Actually, in the US there is one clear answer: following the Constitution.

Because the Constitution is the be all and end all answer to everything ever.
There weren't amendments or anything. (And there never will be...) *Cough*

By definition, the Amendments are included within the term, as is the process for enacting Amendments.

My point being is that not all of the answers are actually in the Constitution. Even if one could be amended.

You're going to have to give me a "for instance" on that one.

It would be a hypothetical. I'll take the *dodge* pass.

Fair enough...but I didn't mind a hypothetical. See, my position is that it either IS already covered by the Constitution or the Constitution can be amended so that it IS covered by the Constitution at that point. That's why i took exception to what you said, and why I do consider the U.S. Constitution (when it is followed, which we aren't doing very well at all and haven't for quite some time...thank you, Supreme Court fuckups, do your job for a change) to be a pretty robust guide. Now, can you argue that perhaps the Constitution isn't as strong a document as I claim, since obviously we're not following it? Sure...that's a reasonable argument. But what answer CAN there be when a government doesn't follow it's own rules? That hamstrings any situation.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, so what should we do about my country getting it's credit rating downgraded for the 3rd time in the last year?

Accept reality and declare bankruptcy.

Twenty years ago there might have been a chance for radical fiscal conservatism to save the U.S. treasury. Maybe. Today, it's not a possibility any more. Regardless of who gets elected, regardless of what their policies are, the wall of debt is too high to ever be surmounted. There is absolutely zero chance that you will ever pay the principle on your national debt, and if interest rates go up even a few points, you won't even be able to pay the interest.

The wealth of the world is being poured into the Ponzi scheme of U.S. Treasury bills, and like any Ponzi scheme, it will one day fail. I'm not marking a date, because so far the bankers have proved amazingly creative at whipping up new twists to keep the great fraud going, but astonishing as their creativity is the end will one day come. And as with any Ponzi scheme, the total pain people must endure will be less if it comes sooner than later, but nobody wants to hear that. Everybody hopes that the game will somehow go on as long as they live.

The only difference between the U.S. and Greece at this point is that the U.S. had enough prestige to continue to sell its worthless bonds for a little longer.

At this point you're bankrupt, and you may as well elect Democrats who will give you lots of handouts in the Final Days. The one thing you should not do is elect a multimillionaire Republican who will save the best goodies for his bum-buddies. The road to ruin will be every bit as certain, but there will be fewer refreshments along the way. The time when there was hope that a radical fiscal conservative could turn things around passed long ago.

This is an example of how it would be fun and interesting to debate about economics and politics, though without the last paragraph, because it would have the Phatscottys and the pimpdaves started with their childish fights. Note that it's redacted in such a way that it's recognizing shortcomings of both parties, in a rather satirical way, not being stupid like "na-aaa obama is better because he's with the people", but nevertheless it would be enough to start Democrats vs Republicans MMMMMMMMMMCCLXII.

Austrian economics perspective (basically, kinda sorta, but good enough)


Neoclassical economics' homo economicus