a-train
-
Posts
2474 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by a-train
-
-
then another bonehead spends billions supporting 700 military bases throughout the world and a couple of wars. Don't forget bailing out foreign governments like Mexico and the Soviets (which didn't help anyway).
:lol::lol:or that democrats keep creating a numerous amount of failing social programs. Or a governor that becomes president, raking the Social Security coffers and tells the nation, "look at what I have done for you in bringing down the debt." -a-train
-
While the scriptures warn of environmental turmoil in the last days, we cannot be sure that what is currently referred to as 'global warming' is the beginning of some apocalyptic world-wide catastrophe. It is possible, that in our lifetime, the trend could reverse (either by our reigning in of greenhouse gasses or some act of nature) and we could go clear to 2100 without the return of our LORD. Like the dust storms that passed over America about a century ago, the ozone holes that are now closing, or the global dimming of latter part of the 20th century, we could see that the Saviour will not come in the midst of the current environmental scenario.Not even last days prophecies?
What is simply stupid is the notion that we should simply be unconcerned about the environment because the end is so near. Those advocating such ideas are plainly the "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" crowd. It would be a pretty big bummer if we ruin our children's capacity to produce wealth a century before the Saviour returns.
-a-train
-
Concur.What I mean by "survival of the fittest" is that in a free market, entities (be they banks, businesses, or people) who mismanage their assets (money) will fail. So banks that give loans to high risk borrowers (who then default on those loans) will go under. Businesses that allow their executives to embezzle funds while ripping off their customers and investors will fail. People who spend more than they make will go bankrupt and be responsible for the money they owe. On the flip side, those who manage their money wisely and make good business decisions will succeed and grow and prosper.
What you say about the Federal Reserve is absolutely correct and frightening, however this too could be changed by popular vote if somebody had the wherewithall to get the petition signatures to put the measure on the ballot (and the money to inform the general public about it) - and this is where I become a hypocrite because, like everyone else, I don't like it, but I'm not going to be the one to change it.
The bill is HR 833, introduced Feb 3, 2009 by Texas Congressman Ron Paul who has been trying to blow the horn on the FED since the late 1970s.
H.R. 833: Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act (GovTrack.us)
It says: "Effective at the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and each Federal reserve bank are hereby abolished."
It also provides for the management during the dissolution period and the liquidation of its assets by transferring after meeting all obligations any remaining to the U.S. Treasury.
Congressman Paul has introduced bills of this nature many times before in the face of harsh criticism and ridicule. HR 833 is currently in the Financial Services Committee chaired by Congressman Barney Frank. Congressman Paul reports that Frank has said he wants the FED audited, a move that has Paul positive about the way this is going.
Economists have studied for a long time how to denationalize money in America. Take a look at Hayek's thoughts:
http://mises.org/books/denationalisation.pdf
-a-train
-
So I am not sure what this statement means when given in response to mine. Let us take for example those families that are living the lowest standard of living in the country right now. Would it help them or would it hurt them for their housing expenses to fall?Quote:
Originally Posted by a-train
Despite the attempts at proping up the real estate market, it will still go as low as the market demands, it will only take longer to do so.
-a-train
Right. Survival of the fittest is a key principle in a free market, and it is so for a reason.
What our government's bailout of the financial institutions does is it prevents the much needed relief for these families in order to protect unproductive businesses.
Now we could call the money monopoly of the FED: the socialization of money. We could say that the means of production of money has been completely overtaken by government. But I would admit that this is not actually true, the government has handed this monopoly to a private entity. This entity has never been audited since its creation in 1913. Even Barnie Frank wants it audited.
The same is true of all the U.S. government's control of the means of production. Rather than calling it socialism, it hands the ownership out to a crony and calls it "capitalism". Then, it socializes the losses while allowing the gains to be privatized. This is more of a characteristic of fascism than socialism. I don't care what sort of "ism" it is, I don't like the redistribution of wealth from the masses to a select few through government arrangements, especially that of the FED and I don't know many Americans that do.
-a-train
-
Call it whatever you want, the United States is over-regulated. When government takes over a certain industry or product in the economy, it can cause other players in the economy to make bad decisions that lead to major misallocations of resources. The worst of all such situations is a government created money monopoly.
People blaming the "unregulated" banking industry for our current economic contraction fail to recognize that the banks are heavily regulated by the FED. The FED set artificially low interest rates which caused the whole fiasco. This did not begin a couple of years ago or even within a decade ago. This situation has been building up for decades.
The monetarist views of Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke caused them to move the interest rate in a direction opposite of what the market would have done. A free market would have raised interest rates when demand shifted higher, but they, under the assumption that such rises in the interest rate would lead to unemployment, lowered rates in order to prevent contractions of GDP.
This actually deepened bad investments and caused investors in every sector of the economy (not just in banking) to continue to allocate resources to what would have been demonstrably unprofitable locations.
With free market money, the interest rate would have risen long ago and bad investments would have been made painfully obvious. Now, there is nothing the FED can do any longer. The rate is 0% and nobody even wants the a loan for free. Now the number of people that will be unemployed as the economy finally undergoes a long overdo reallocation of resources will be much greater than it would have been if the corrections were allowed to have taken place long ago.
Add to this a fiscal policy designed to keep prices (especially real estate prices) from falling and the whole painful correction will be sustained longer and will go deeper. Despite the attempts at proping up the real estate market, it will still go as low as the market demands, it will only take longer to do so.
-a-train
-
As far as I can tell, there is nothing in Mormon Doctrine that would either support or object to the notion of global warming.
-a-train
-
Salvation is from physical death, which is the seperation of the spirit and the body, and it is from spiritual death, which is the seperation of the soul from God.
-a-train
-
Transparency has been coming and is coming Obama or no Obama, this is the information age.
So we have millions of houses in surplus, and our government's response is to stimulate housing, to keep housing prices up. Scary.
Limbaugh? Who is that?
-a-train
-
? A GOOD capitalist brings his supply at a time of great demand. That is the whole point: to supply demand. Now if capitalism is in anyway defined such that it does not allow the supplier to exchange his/her supply on his/her own terms, it is not free-market capitalism. Jesus was in no way compelled to the terms of his offering his supply, he gave it completely on his own terms. He personally took control of the means of production and produced according to his own value judgments. He then supplied demand on his own terms. This is the very definition of free-market capitalism.But he would have made a poor capitalist, since his supply came at a time of great demand and his profit was not in coins. He freely gave his gift. Couldn't make the Fortune 500 with that attitude!
PS, who cares about the fortune 500?
-a-train
-
If only two men were equal to a man and his wife.....
-a-train
-
Our subject is clearly state socialism. There is no such thing as "non-bureacratized compulsary state socialism". As an advocate of free-markets, I highly approve of private socialism. A group of individuals who willfully form a collective and live within it should not be in any way hampered by government from so doing. It is when people are compelled by violence to enter into such orders and are forbidden to produce or consume according to their own conscience that I begin to object.Sounds like socialism is being confused with over-bureaucratization. Sort of like in Terry Gilliam's movie Brazil. Reminds me of a University office worker who once said to me, "Sorry Sir, but rules are regulations!".
:)
Jesus produced wine and food without involvement in any socialist system either public or private.
-a-train
-
Anyone who tells someone who claims to be a Christian that they are not a Christian is not a Christian.Definition of a Christian
-a-train
-
Jesus broke some major state socialist rules. He turned water to wine and fed thousands with only a few loaves of bread and a few fishes. He did this production and encouraged consumption without any government authorization. This would be a major "no no" in a socialist state.Hey, don't forget about Jesus. He too wanted us to give big time!
-a-train
-
What a paradox. It will never happen because socialism takes the means of production and wage control OUT of the hands of the workers. In socialism, a single worker would have no right to produce on his own. Suppose he decides to make t-shirts, he would not be allowed. The machines, the cotton, the labor force, would all be owned and controlled by the "workers" as a whole.An ideal Socialist State would put the means of production, to include wage control, into the hands of the workers. I doubt that this will ever happen though.
Whoever controls the voice of the workers controls everything else. A group of workers has to somehow convince or compel the others, or at least a majority, to vote "YES" for the production of t-shirts if such a society is to get any. So the minority workers, who want to make t-shirts, don't have any control over any means of production while the majority, which doesn't want to make t-shirts, has their way.
Free-markets allow for each individual worker to control his own means of production. If indeed there are many who wish to reap the benefits of his production, he will be able to produce more for them. The worker who sets up a small t-shirt production facility in his basement, can use the profits from strong sales to make a larger facility and increase production. In this system, the members of society who want t-shirts can have them, the others are not compelled in any way to lend their efforts to the production, distribution, or consumption of t-shirts.
In a free-market, if demand for t-shirts falls, only the producer of t-shirts will directly suffer any loss due to over-investment. He will quickly become aware of the t-shirt surplus and will stop allocating resources toward their production, leaving such resources available for other producers (the cotton he does not buy will be available for producers of boxer shorts who are seeing an increase in demand, for example).
In a socialist system, not only are the workers not free to produce anything, they are not free to consume anything. They are only free to consume whatever the socialist bureau sees fit to produce. If they want or need more, or something else, they are not free to consume it just as they are not free to produce it.
This becomes sharply annoying when we consider whether or not we are to produce copies of sacred texts (Bibles, copies of the Book or Mormon, copies of the Koran), chapels, temples, sacred vestments, and so forth. Imagine if we LDS folks required a U.S. government bureau to produce our garments, the copies of the Book of Mormon which our missionaries give out, the temples, etc. Would we have them?
Workers in a socialist system do not control anything. They are slaves. They merely produce and consume whatever is decided through whatever process (whether democratic or otherwise) is established for making such value judgments.
The slaves on American plantations lived in such conditions. They had no power to decide what to produce, how much to produce, or how to distribute it. They had no voice in what they consume, when the consume it, how much they consume, or how they obtain it. Does it matter if the master of the plantation is a white man or a black? A woman or a man? A single individual or a group? Do such changes free the slaves? Suppose the plantation master actually works among the slaves himself. Does this free them?
Does it free a slave if the master of the plantation is another slave? What if it is a group of slaves? Are the slaves now free? What if the slaves as a whole make their decisions, but those who wish not to go along with the majority are compelled to do so. Are those dissenters free? What real control do they have over the means of production?
Socialism does not put the means of production into the hands of the workers, it puts the means of production into the hands of whatever body controls the bureau which controls the means of production.
-a-train
-
Let us live to make men free!
-a-train
And yes, Ron Paul is the man!
-
One day we will abolish the IRS.
-a-train
-
There are no bad people, only bad choices.
-a-train
-
No. Jesus taught: "Ye are gods". (John 10:34)A-Train, are u saying that Jesus taught that we can all become gods?
-a-train
-
Another good video.
-a-train
-
Precisely! LDS folks need not shy away nor be ashamed of this beautiful Gospel truth. It is biblical, it is Christian, it is true. Jesus Christ, the Great Jehovah, the Eternal God, came down from heaven and lived out the human condition on this earth just as we are now. As man now is, God once was. Proclaim it, it is the Gospel!
He now sits enthroned in yonder heavens. Having risen from the grave to immortality and Eternal life, the King of kings sits on His throne! And to what purpose did He do these things? For to raise up man to the same. His work and glory is the immortality and Eternal life of man. As He is, man may be. It is the Gospel of Jesus Christ!
We need not be embarrased by it. All of Christianity believes it. What we know that so many question is that the Father also passed through such experiences and triumphed over death to rise to immortality and Eternal life. Further, we know that the species of God and man are one and the same. Declare it boldly and happily! It is true!
-a-train
-
If we, as Mormons, feel uncomfortable being called Christian, then we need to remember our baptismal covenant wherein we took upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ.
-a-train
-
Government should have no control whatsoever over marriage. This point was heavily asserted by the Church and the Saints in the 19th Century. However, inasmuch as it does, in a democracy, the people have the choice put before them as to HOW government will regulate marriage.
Modern regulation of marriage is strongly joined to macroeconomic controls. Taxation and a slew of government regulations are affected by one's marital status. This is the reason for the existance of the "gay marriage" issue in the first place. It has nothing to do with love, human rights, or any of the dramatics it is so often associated with.
Long story short, California had before it with proposition 8, the question of "how" government should regulate marriage. The proposition did not ask "if" marriage should be regulated, but "how". Neither a "YES" or "NO" on prop 8 was a vote against all government regulation of marriage.
So the question comes to: If government is going to regulate marriage, how shall it be done? Should it institutionalize homosexual marriage and give taxation and legal benefits with accompanying tax and legal constraints to such couples or not? Answering "NO" does not necessarily indicate a "YES" for the same question applied to heterosexual couples.
As I said earlier, Mormons actually tried to AVOID government involvement in marriage in the 19th Century. Because of Washington's insatiable hunger for power over every inch of our lives, we are currently stuck with these regulations. In my opinion, Proposition 8 was a victory for homosexual couples who don't want government regulating their unions.
If Proposition 9 was "Should the state Constitution be amended to repeal all marriage laws?" I'd vote YES.
-a-train
-
This centuries old Marxist claim has been disproven innumerable times by economists from every part of the world. I want you to think about it for a minute.A-Train I am sorry but I have to disagree with your reponse. I believe Free Market would be a terrible idea for health care.
The problem with the health care system is that it is for profit. Prices go up because money has to be make to make a profit.
The assertion is "Profits make products and services more expensive."
How does one make profits? Does one obtain profits by raising or lowering the number of his/her clients? What effect does price have on one's number of clients? If you have noticed that lowering prices will enable one to sell their products and/or services to a broader number of people, then you are starting to understand one of the most basic dynamics of free-market capitalism and its effects: mass production.
Now think about this please for a moment. What does 'mass production' imply? Does it imply expensive products only available to the rich, or does it imply products available for the masses?
Also think about the effect of high profits. If profits are high for a given product or service, what effect will that have? If you considered that it will invite more people to want to provide that product or service, you are right. High profits bring more producers (competition). Competition drives prices down.
Think about this also. Do entities looking to make a profit wish to see costs get higher or lower? Decreases in costs mean increases in profits. This is why producers are in constant search for ways to provide their product or service at a lower cost. If you sell widgits for $5, it is more profitable if you can produce them for $2 than for $2.50.
Once an entity is able to lower its production costs, it is able to provide its products/services at a more competitive (lower) price in the market.
Take the example of Henry Ford. His idea was to put an automobile in every American driveway. Why did he want to do this? Charity? Did he make any profit in his endeavors? He made huge profits. How did he do it? By making the automobile LESS expensive, a LOT LESS expensive, less than half price.
Ford's Model T was introduced at about $850 (about $20,000 in modern nominal terms). The least expensive cars at that time were $2000 (about $48,000 today), with luxury models up to $5,000 ($118,000 today).
Through innovation in manufacturing, assembly, and ultimately in distribution, Ford made cars affordable. All of this was in the effort to make a profit. It made the convenience of the automobile, once reserved only for the wealthy, a reality for the common American.
Now consider the fact that today one can buy a new car for much less that a Model T (remember to consider the Model T at $20,000 because of inflation) with so many more features that it boggles the mind. Antilock Brakes, air-conditioning, CD players with XM radio, cruise control, fuel injection, A TOP, the list is enormous. This is the result of a century of competitive innovation in a profit seeking free market (albiet regulation continues to slow the process).
The cost of personal computers has fallen at mind-numbing rates for decades. Why? Because government socialized the personal computer business and took profits out of the costs? No. Because massive entrance into a very PROFITABLE market produced sharp competition and enormous innovation which has made PCs better and less expensive.
Consider one by one the various technological devices in your home. Think about how many of these were available only to the rich a century ago, and many were not available at any price. When refrigeration technology was developed, competing businesses sought to mass produce refrigerators in the effort to make a profit. New innovations in the technology resulted and prices fell dramatically. Today, like the automobile, the masses have refrigeration which was once reserved only for the rich.
So with all this unimpeachable evidence, why do some still push the old Marxist bit? Because companies want to stop being so innovative. They don't like free-markets. They don't like competition. They don't like working so hard. So what do they do? They hire lobbyists to push for laws that will protect them. They want special licenses that will prevent competitors from eating away at their business. They want government contracts to assure them their business. They want protectionist tarrifs from government to prevent foreign competition.
The lobbyists push all of this with compelling arguments that sound as though it will actually benefit the public at the expense of the evil corporations. The truth? It will cause the public to pay higher prices at the aggrandizement of favored cronies. The real advocates of government intervention ARE THE BIG BUSINESS GUYS that so many seem to think government will protect us against.
Economists have understood all of this since before there was a United States of America, yet we continually suffer for lack of the masses understanding it.
Huge reform IS needed, but not in the direction of more intervention and cronyism. We need free-market competition to be fully restored so that the prices of medical services can fall again.
-a-train
-
The disparity between health service costs in the U.S. and in France which you experienced are not the disparity between health services in a free-market system and such services in a socialized system. It is the disparity between two different socialized systems.I agree with you on that Gabelpa. I spent a semester in France while studied abroad. Best experience I ever had. I did get sick and I was amazed at the fast treatment I recieved for a cold not to mention the cost for a doctor was only 25 Euros and the price of medication was about 15 Euros. I had a student health care insurance and it was all paid back but being unemployed with no insurance now in the states and having to pay 80 to 100 dollars for seeing a doctor for a cold and about 45 to 50 dollars for medcine. There is a diffrence in the cost and the care in Europe. I think the Health Care system here ought to be improved. It's just too cost prohibited to people who want treatement but can't afford it.
Over 45% of the healthcare expenditures in the U.S. last year were funded by the government. Further, the regulations and control government has over healthcare in the U.S. is already at socialized levels.
The United States has not allowed the medical services industry to operate a free-market within our lifetime. That, in fact, is partly why it is so expensive. Another reason however, is the rise in nominal prices due to increases in our nation's money supply (inflation).
The rise in money prices due to inflation is not uniform in an economy, it usually consolidates in certain sectors. Products and services that people simply cannot or will not do without are the easiest in which such rises can accumulate. Medical services are certainly among those things.
Although we sure hear a lot of noise about the Americans who don't have health insurance (although nobody bothers to look into what percentage of them are in that position voluntarily versus involuntarily), about 85% of Americans have health insurance.
Medical service costs would be dramatically reduced with a return to free-markets. With that reduction, affordability would increase the number of those insured.
If, on the otherhand, we institute a manditory single-payer program, the only means government will have to supress prices is simply price controls (exactly how Canada and the UK do so). With that, comes all the market woes associated with the loss of the free-market price mechanism: shortages and surpluses.
Today, the global black market for donor organs and other medical commodities is enormous. If the U.S. goes to single-payer, this black market will go galactic. Much of the more specialized treatments will be made even more exclusive to the wealthy.
The best solution for bringing the best healthcare to the most amount of people at the very lowest prices is free-markets. I just hope one day I may live to see such a thing.
-a-train
:lol:
Climate Change Threatens Our World
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by a-train
What is the REAL agenda of those who so vehemently assert the notion of global warming? Are they truly convinced and innocently concerned? Is there a hidden agenda?
Also, what is the REAL agenda of those who so vehemently disavow the notion of global warming? Are they harboring a hidden agenda? Are they defending themselves against a perceived hidden agenda?
Why are we arguing about whether or not global warming is real, or whether it is caused by man? So what if it isn't and we lower our carbon dioxide emissions? What harm is there in that? Why is this issue so heated?
Has anyone read Al Gore's book?
-a-train