taks

besides not even being close to the mandate of government (it is there to protect your rights), government is in NO WAY capable of setting an example by which its citizens should live their lives. taks

there's where you fail to understand the distinction: i think everyone should believe as i do, but i do not profess to have the right to make them do it by force. i believe people should think as i do because it is rational and logical to do so. xard advocates forcefully making us think as he does. there is no irony, there is no inconsistency. xard's position is internally inconsistent. tsk, tsk. that's a simple one to see. taks

well, in their defense, they were somewhat led to believe that doing so was in their best interests. granted, stupidity ain't no true excuse, but the favorable lending environment was extremely misleading. people were actually encouraged to own a home, and everyone believed that the favorable environment would continue forever. some of this was predatory, some of it just ignorance. like i said, i benefited from the unusually low interest rates. 3.875% on this loan (which is now 6.5%). i took a risk, but given my career, i was reasonably confident that i would continue to advance (and i have). my house never went through the boom, however, as it had only gained about 20% in 5 years till now. overall, a good CD could have outperformed my home. the good news is that my rate will go DOWN next year, and my home isn't really losing value, either, since it wasn't inflated in the first place. for comparison, my first house near the coast of florida had an 8.25% loan (maybe 8.75%), and it jumped over 20% in the first two years, nearly doubling again since then. it is now back down, i'm guessing, to the same level i sold it at 6 years ago. taks

so what, you're saying you want some of that power, too? hmmm... and who has an ideology based on greed? really, and bill gates inherited all of his wealth? steve ballmer? andrew viterbi? warren buffet? yup, that sucks, can't argue there. it was known that this would happen before it did. don't be so naive. ok, let me repeat, this has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism. it is ridiculous that you fail to recognize this. the regulations that set this whole bailout up are not a part of capitalism. none of what you just complained about in that last paragraph could ever have happened in a capitalist system. none. take away the government intervention and there is no bailout for the rich, there are no back room deals, and CEOs aren't getting rich taking risks they shouldn't take! you can't blame capitalism for something socialism created. taks

ah, yes, now we finally get to the truth. it's not about morality... that was just a ruse. it's about you (and at least, those that think like you) asserting, BY FORCE, your will over others. yeah, hypocrites as i said. you don't believe in rights, you only believe in making sure people think the way you do. btw, look it up, you've just defined tyranny. good job, xard. taks

yes and no. pros 1. walmarts end up employing a lot of people. 2. walmarts were always paying higher than minimum wage, even for the greeters (hence they supported the wage hike, since it improved their competitiveness... hmmm) 3. walmarts generate a TON of tax revenue for the counties/towns that they are located in 4. walmarts do provide a very large, low-priced selection for those that would otherwise have to drive quite a ways and pay higher prices. cons 1. walmarts drive lots of mom and pop shops out of business 2. walmarts ultimately steer local politics (unavoidable for such a large business) 3. walmarts offer lower-end products (anecdotal, and not always a "con," except to those that prefer top of the line stuff) 4. hmmm... i don't shop at walmart because, well, because i'm a snob. i want higher-end products. i'd rather buy something expensive that lasts a long time, than something cheap that i have to keep rebuying every few years. quite frankly, not all their stuff is cheaper, either. particularly when you compare same level items (my new tv was considerably more expensive at walmart, for example). best buy is now offering "digi-paks," btw. it seems you go in and buy the pak, then hit the online thing to DL them. DRM all the same i guess. taks

most don't understand reality, moat. we'll spiral down (as we have been doing) this collectivist funnel until it implodes, and it will unless those that are smart enough, and in possession of large enough kahones, step up and work to de-program the masses that think they will benefit from the gun to their heads. once people realize that what the third way proponents are really telling us is "help your fellow man or go to jail," maybe they'll see the light. taks

you should come around on this, lest you be taken in when they take over. uh, yes, i realize that you were referring to xard. not sure where i was going with that other than... who knows. wow, i laughed out loud, literally, at this one. ooookkkkkaaaaay. taks

like all of the well-known arguments as to why socialism, and the so-called third way plans don't work? there is really only one argument necessary: an inability to cope with demand. my point, btw, is that you are incapable of providing your own definition of what is morality, one that calls for equality. instead you misdirect to some "criticism of capitalism."* you can't do this because you'd have to admit that your definition of morality actually does provide more rights to one over another. you require that some people are seen as more deserving, and therefore, your morality is based on inequality. taks *the "criticisms" are all either incorrect (such as a tendency towards monopoly... boy is that tired), or simply not problems associated with capitalism, but with our third way implementation.

no, it is not missing the point, not at all. third way is, as you correctly surmise, a way for social democrats to reinvent themselves in order to win elections. the reason they weren't in the first place is that everyone correctly deduced that they were really socialists in disguise. concepts of socialism are patient. they will work their way into society. once you start putting all these regulations in place, and redistributing wealth accordingly, you need more and more of the same to maintain the system. the current crisis is a perfect example. we're talking about implementing the largest socialist bailout in US history. more regulations, more government control. why? on the surface, because capitalism failed. we need the "third way" since this way just ain't working. unfortunately, what politicians refuse to admit is that the "failure" of the system was a result of the very regulations in the first place. australia survived its crisis because of regulations? sure, but the crisis wouldn't have happened without the regulations in the first place. it's merely an excuse to exert ever more control over our lives. no, i'm sorry, but third way proponents are socialist, even if they don't know it. most don't. most are incapable of seeing their own hypocrisy. hard to be conservative politically, as i am so often accused, when i have so many beliefs that are absolutely opposite of what is conservative. the only thing they have in common with me is the belief in a small government and capitalism, but even the right-wingers only pay lip-service to the idea. taks

immaterial. financial matters are ultimately what is used to survive. no one person can do everything, therefore he needs to obtain the services and products of others. the most equitable way to do this is through trade. since not everyone has something the other needs, or wants, we have money. suddenly it's a financial thing. since when does any consensus mean anything? the rest of the world has spent its life in poverty, subjugated to the very thing you claim will save them. of course they advocate a third way, it is easy to advocate taking from others to serve their own needs. instead, we end up with more of the same. yes, indeed. keynesian philosophies don't work, and there aren't many sane economists that believe in him. funny your quote regarded policies in the 40s, not today. no, austrian economist speak, true capitalists. there is no middle ground, anyone that thinks there is is either self-deluded, lying or simply incapable of understanding. so, you mean, you can't deduce morality from your own beliefs? i don't care what wiki's criticism of capitalism is, it was written by someone that approves of socialism, i.e., one of them thar self-deluded, lying or incompetent folks i mentioned already. certainly my economic beliefs stem from those such as von mises (who admittedly, i haven't read a lot of... economics can be sooo boring), but my sense of morality is my own, not borrowed from someone else. either way, you have yet to provide a solid rationalization of what morality is, one that is actually moral. one that actually treats everyone as equal. try it, i dare you. taks

sorry, but still not true, and history beyond 100 years ago hardly counts. when communities were small, socialism was required. not so anymore. ah yes, china as an example, dictatorship, communism. moving towards free market and capitalism... yeah, good example. examples of collectivist societies is not proof that we are as such by nature, it is merely proof that some are capable of asserting their will over others. communism/collectivism is an immaterial difference. it is, at best, sematic. hopefully, no. but either way, you need to shed your programming. really, you're smart enough, i don't understand why you can't do it. taks

btw, there is a way to convert DRM music to MP3s legally. tunebite. it is actually a recording, taken from the stream that is being sent to the DAC of your soundcard. i use it and the recordings actually turn out pretty good. at least, you can't tell the difference between the recording and the original, DRM version. taks

clinton was realistically a huge statist. he truly attempted to socialize many facets of our economy, but was unable to. as i have noted on many occasions, he was unable to simply because he had a republican controlled congress to deal with. they were weak, however, so some of his measures got through. ultimately, the president has very little to do with markets and economics. congress wields the signature on the checks. the fed controls the money supply. the president is merely a voice. taks

i could care less where you think you stand politically, if you favor any collectivist mechanism, you are inevitably promoting socialism, even if you don't think you are. the mythical "third way" is nothing more than an incremental step towards such an end. saying you're individualistic, yet promoting such a system is either hypocritical or delusional. in either case, you ain't individualistic. why, too, is it so hard to really look into what the word "moral" means, and realize that the only true "morality" is one in which everyone is treated equally, and no one person has rights that are more important than another's? there is one, and only one, system that guarantees this moral equality. no, this is utter nonsense. we are individualistic by nature. not sure where you are getting these concepts. again, you're either making things up, or just plain lacking in understanding of human nature.

i still don't know who i'm voting for, but obama ain't on the top-10 list. i've heard the libertarian candidate is in a large part responsible for the ridiculous drug-laws, though he has also apparently since stated that they were a mistake. hindsight, however, does not free those that were unjustly incarcerated as a result. taks

btw, an interesting side effect of this crisis: oil is dropping pretty quickly. sitting at $96/bbl right now. trump has an interview with cavuto in which he discusses this. normally i don't like trump, but he seems to be spot on with this one. my gas has been coming down, too (oil and gas are not directly tied, but obviously related). i'm also surprised that hurricane ike didn't cause more problems with gas prices since that cut a path right across all of the US' refining capabilities. guess damage to the refineries wasn't as bad as originally forecast. taks

ah, gotcha. not sure i buy into that notion, however. at least, i'm not sure i agree that any politician we've had in the US is actually "free market," at least not for quite some time. nafta is a bad thing, IMO, too. oh, that movie i watched, bordertown (mentioned on the movie thread), had some not-so-nice things to say about nafta and the problems it has caused. not a big deal with canada, since they are economically on par with the US (so there isn't really any wage imbalance problem with them), but with mexico, and central america... taks

it is, and mopes like krezack don't understand why. socialism in any form is still socialism, and it cannot succeed long-term. it does not have a means to account for demand, period. "injecting morality into capitalism" is an unbelievable concept. it requires immoral decisions: giving a buyer more rights than a seller, giving the underprivileged more rights than the privileged. yeah, that's moral. good thing these backers of the "third way" get to determine morality for others... nice of them to assume that responsibility for folks like me, otherwise i'd just go along living in sin. yes, not only did he misrepresent me, he didn't even understand why it matters. the bigger powers all spend roughly the same percentage on their respective militaries (as a function of GDP). but the smaller ones do not. they all benefit from the fact that the US has around 30% of the total global GDP, which means a really, really big military stick. taks

hardly. though the american use of the term "liberal" is backwards. taks

my god, you are deluded. bull****. um, socialism IS collectivist, so is communist, fascist, marxist, etc. there is no meaningful difference. they are all variations of the same. tell me, do any of you read anything other than pro-collectivist rants? really, what the heck are they teaching you eurosnobs? taks

Jesus Christ, couldn't your world be any more black and white? What the hell do you even mean with socialism? It must be very different from meaning rest of the world gives to it excuse me? exactly what is YOUR understanding of socialism? you all seem so sure of yourselves... tell me. bull****. taks

watched bordertown with j-lo and antonio banderas. not too bad, but j-lo ain't the best actress. the movie was sort of schizophrenic, hopping around without much coherence, but the story was overall pretty good. taks

no, the truth. read some von mises. there is no "middle ground." you're either a capitalist or a socialist (collectivist, actually). pretending to "enjoy the fruits of both" is nothing more than a ruse. rubes such as yourself are either self-deluded, or incapable of understanding. i do understand the benefits: reduced quality of care, being trapped in a welfare cycle. nowhere, ever, has anyone ever been able to show that either of these things actually improve the quality of life. face it, the only thing that can improve the quality of life, for everyone, is a means to build wealth. there's only one way to do that. not sure where i quoted that idiot. i didn't bring it up, i was actually responding to a direct quote regarding their military (or lack thereof). yet again you can't read, apparently. your reply was about their "economic model" to which i never referred. i simply pointed out they get a benefit, a huge economic benefit, whether you like to believe it or not. since you can't read, i guess you can't understand. not a surprise. taks

based on the cartoon? hardly indicative of anything other than political bias. reagan was the one that passed the balanced budget act (and the compromise with congress was a tax raise, btw). clinton got the benefit of being required to balance the budget, and a republican controlled congress. tax and spend liberals can't spend unless congress and the president are willing to do so. when there's a split, there is no spending. when there's control of both by one party, they're all spendy, liberal or conservative. clinton is apparently one of those "third way" guys, from what i've been reading. nothing more than a silly disguise for "socialist that doesn't want to admit it." taks