THE Super Ultra Wealthy Man can see the future, he sees horror ahead

[jem]

As far as politicans go... eliminating the income tax, term limits and limiting campaign would be a could place to start.
Also eliminating them or their staff from going to work for the industries they regulated would probably be big too.
As far as I can tell the FRB members are just figure heads.

Do you think the monetary and fiscal policy would improve if FRB members
and members of congress were required to have their net worth parked
in FRNotes for the duration of their service?
In the corporate world it is common to incentivize CEOs and key employees
with stock or stock options.
The currency unit is not unlike a share in the country's capacity to produce wealth.

 

[Maverick74]

Martin, capitalists and socialists of high net worth are one and the same. Very much like Wall Street. When the call options are in the money, they are capitalists. When they expire worthless, suddenly they are socialists. Martin, people become what they need to become to survive. That hasn't changed in thousands of years. If you want to make this red state/blue state it's your prerogative.

To be fair Martin, let me be a little more clear about where I'm coming from here. I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories. I don't think "anyone" is behind the curtain so to speak. Instead what I believe happens is, people of means take advantage of what is presented to them. The Fed does what they do. And the uber rich exploit that. The Uber rich exploit government. They exploit loopholes. They exploit information. It's what they do. It's what they always have done. There doesn't need to be any secret handshakes or membership of the freemasonry.

This is precisely why I believe the best solution is to make sure they have nothing to exploit. It's why I prefer gov't small. It's why I prefer the Fed to be seen and not heard. It's why I think "too big to fail" is bullshit. I always find it odd that the political left wants to empower gov't then acts shocked when a starving artist from Austria takes that power and runs with it. You be careful Martin feeding those cute small wild animals. When they get big enough, they seem to conveniently forget who fed them. They don't bite the hand that feeds them Martin. They eat them. It's in their nature.

 

[dbphoenix]

I always find it odd that the political left wants to empower gov't then acts shocked when a starving artist from Austria takes that power and runs with it.

If I may, the "political left" per se is not monolithic. One can argue that many on the left do want "big government", but many do not. Rather they want a government that will protect the weak and promote the general welfare. How "big" the government has to be in order to achieve this state of affairs is something on which we're still working.

Several days ago I posed some questions, which no one ran with, regarding why and how societies are organized. One of the more basic principles has to do with whether the members of the society will care for each other or whether every man will act for himself in what he considers to be his own best interest. If one has adopted one set of beliefs but lives in a society that subscribes to another, he is faced with several choices, among them adopting the beliefs of the society in which he finds himself, persuading the members of that society to adopt his beliefs, or moving to another society which subscribes to the same beliefs that he does. And that's pretty much where we find ourselves today. The rest is primarily details.

 

[Maverick74]

If I may, the "political left" per se is not monolithic. One can argue that many on the left do want "big government", but many do not. Rather they want a government that will protect the weak and promote the general welfare. How "big" the government has to be in order to achieve this state of affairs is something on which we're still working.

Well, you can't really have one without the other right? Government has no money. They are a broker. An intermediary if you will. They take money from us, the taxpayer and give it to whoever, in your argument, we'll say the welfare state. The problem is, the government needs power to do that. Have you ever tried taking money from a grown man before? Try it. See how easy it is. Stalin did it, but used an army to get it. In this country, we do it through laws. But it's still very difficult as has been outlined in this thread. Man will NEVER give his money easily. So government gets bigger, stronger, more creative, more expansive to get that money. The problem is you also have to take the negatives that go with that. You know that whole "cake and eating it too" stuff.

DP, I don't know where you have been in this world, but if you travel a little bit outside our borders, you will learn that no nation on earth gives as much (privately) then our country does. Whether it's the celebrity telethons, the billions in foundations, the charitable giving trusts, and yes, much to the dismay on many on the left, the Church. NOBODY on earth gives more money away privately to the poor then we do. It's in the billions. That money could be increased even more. Hell, I would even suggest that the gov't allow taxpapyers to create something similar to health savings accounts. Where the money could be tax deductible and invested and where the actual taxpayer would "give" that money to a charity of his/her choice. And no, not the Hilary Clinton Foundation. Yes, she calls that a charity. All charities would need to register and could not be political in nature. Why not incentivize people to give that way vs the strong arm of the bloated, inept and incompetent government?

Study history DP. Hitler never TOOK power in Germany. It was handed to him willingly.

 

[dbphoenix]

Well, you can't really have one without the other right? . . .

I'm not arguing with you. I am only pointing out that a government that promotes the general welfare -- and that refers to the Constitution, not a "welfare state" -- need not be "big". More important is efficiency. But, again, what is basic is the principle: care for each other or let everyone take care of himself. If one subscribes to the former, there remain the issues of funding and of laws and regulations. I, for one, have no problem with paying taxes per se as they are what's paid for the privilege of living and working here. The difficulties arise with inefficiencies and corruption. And those who choose to act in ways that do not promote the general welfare cannot be allowed to do what they please, if one wants something other than an anarchical society.

But this isn't about libertarianism as such; it's about the kind of society that one wants to live and work in. If I wanted to live in one other than the one we've had, I would. But I don't.

 

[Maverick74]

I'm not arguing with you. I am only pointing out that a government that promotes the general welfare -- and that refers to the Constitution, not a "welfare state" -- need not be "big". More important is efficiency. But, again, what is basic is the principle: care for each other or let everyone take care of himself. If one subscribes to the former, there remain the issues of funding and of laws and regulations. I, for one, have no problem with paying taxes per se as they are what's paid for the privilege of living and working here. The difficulties arise with inefficiencies and corruption. And those who choose to act in ways that do not promote the general welfare cannot be allowed to do what they please, if one wants something other than an anarchical society.

But this isn't about libertarianism as such; it's about the kind of society that one wants to live and work in. If I wanted to live in one other than the one we've had, I would. But I don't.

Well, I agree with you there. I think at a minimum, the one common ground that all people have whether they are left or right or libertarian, is at the very least, we want efficiency. As someone who has had his own business before, I'm biased to believe that efficiency comes easier when organizations are small and lean. That's just what I believe from personal experience. Now, let's say we have that. I guess then we have the fork in the road. I think Martin and I came to an agreement that money spent on education has the highest payoff both for the individual and for society as a whole.

Can you imagine if the Fed would pump trillions into our education system vs the banking system. The irony here of course is one of the stated goals now of the Fed is the employment rate. And they are pumping trillions into debt to keep rates low when all they need to do is spend a few billion and they could probably cut the unemployment rate in half. How do you like dem apples?

 

[dbphoenix]

Speaking of caring for each other:

Conservative groups protested the possible housing of Central American children in Vassar, Michigan, on Monday by marching through town, some with AR-15 rifles and handguns, according to The Detroit News. more . . .

Reminds me of Little Rock, back in the fifties.

 

[Maverick74]

Speaking of caring for each other:

Conservative groups protested the possible housing of Central American children in Vassar, Michigan, on Monday by marching through town, some with AR-15 rifles and handguns, according to The Detroit News. more . . .

Reminds me of Little Rock, back in the fifties.

This might come as a shock to you or might not, but the most liberal and progressive countries in the world, like France, Norway, Sweden, etc have a ZERO tolerance policy for illegals. In some cases they will come to your home in the middle of the night like the gestapo and remove children and send them home. Just sayin...

And the reason these socialist countries do that you ask? Because it's the only way they can AFFORD to be socialist and take care of their own. There seems to be a contradiction in policy in this country to try to move the country left AND to increase immigration (illegal or otherwise). As they say in the ghetto "that shit don't fly".

 

[dbphoenix]

This might come as a shock to you or might not, but the most liberal and progressive countries in the world, like France, Norway, Sweden, etc have a ZERO tolerance policy for illegals. In some cases they will come to your home in the middle of the night like the gestapo and remove children and send them home. Just sayin...

And the reason these socialist countries do that you ask? Because it's the only way they can AFFORD to be socialist and take care of their own. There seems to be a contradiction in policy in this country to try to move the country left AND to increase immigration (illegal or otherwise). As they say in the ghetto "that shit don't fly".

No shock. But then they don't have enormous statues in their harbors welcoming the tired and the poor.

But let's not forget that while the US turned away the MS St Louis in 1939, Britain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands took its passengers in.

Again, there are many ways to organize a society.

 

[Maverick74]

No shock. But then they don't have enormous statues in their harbors welcoming the tired and the poor.

But let's not forget that while the US turned away the MS St Louis in 1939, Britain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands took its passengers in.

Again, there are many ways to organize a society.

Let's pick a direction. Let in everyone and get rid of all social welfare. Hey, this is America, the land of opportunity right? Afterall, our ancestors came here with nothing and worked their way up.

Or, we don't let them in and take care of the millions upon millions upon millions of EXISTING American children and adults who have no food, no shelter, no eduction and are destitute. It seems ludicrous to me that we are providing for illegals that which we won't even provide for American children. Unless of course this is just a political ruse....