Silkroad Online Forums

BAM*


I typed it, Xemnas.

Your reply to everything can't be "You just don't get it" wth kind of answer is that.

Fact: AIG was one of the top 20 companies in the world. To call it worthless is just ignorant.
Fact: The total amount of assets controlled by the companies that went under is upwards of $600 Billion. If that responsibility had not been claimed by another company more than the shareholders would've lost out on alot of money.
Fact: The Federal Gov't which you have on several times stated should stay as far away form business as possible was ESSENTIAL in the transition of the assets from bank to bank.
Fact: Making sure that trade on the market goes smoothly CANNOT BE DONE WITHOUT REGULATION YOU MORON. You can't impose a form of order or control onto something without in some way regulating it at the same time./ The more regulations you have in place the more you can insure the market goes in the right direction. Of course over bearing regulation will create stagnation but too little regulation will make the Gov't unable to respond to issue like this.

I am not in favor of bailouts as i have already stated but the fact is if the gov't hadn't removed those laws that prohibited banks from loaning to risky people we wouldn't be in this mess. Thats solid fact.

You're not stupid, i know, we know, but reading books and reading theories without knowing how to apply them to real life situation renders all of your knowledge VOID. Your market theories are just that theories, Not only are they theories but they haven't been effectively tested enough to even know if they're right. You sit on a pedestal and spout wiki garbage like you've got a PHd in Business Econ and a Masters in World History. When something based in reality challenges your theory you dismiss the comment as a lack of understanding of your idea. As if you've seen laissez-faire and its effects first hand or have proof of a sucessful age in history when the gov't was entirely hands off from the economy which means you'd have to go back to a time b4 a coin system was ever used because coins are printed, issued, validated, and backed by the Gov't always have been. Your blind following of this laissez-faire BS is so overzealous and ridiculous its practically religious, come off it, you're becoming more the articles you post than the actual person posting them.

i like you so much

Isn't that what you do? But instead of dismissing it, you rage and start attacking people personally?

Thats very pot calling the kettle black. The only difference between my old post and your post are that your personal remarks were admittedly sharper and more clever.

i've stopped thinking i can change the world through my SRF post. racist will keep being racist, people will still believe in god etc. Im only trying to get them to prove there point...

I don't use Wiki, Xemnas.


Translates to: Preventing others from using force on the market. It does not mean forcefully preventing market competition.

Where have you challenged me in this thread, Xemnas? Where have you asked me to apply free market to reality in this thread, Xemnas? What have I been doing in this thread, Xemnas? Why was the revolution fought, Xemnas? What good has the so called "necessary" evil known as Government brought about, Xemnas? The first intercontinental railroads? Thank the market. The first good roads? Thank the market. Medicine? Thank the market. Industry? Thank the market. Technological advancement? Thank the market. Government plays arbitrator and protector, not controller. There's a difference. Take your cheap straw man elsewhere. The market just is, has, and will be.

"You just don't get it" is adequate, because you don't get it. If you did, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

Your role should be to prove me wrong. Questions without substance won't get us anywhere.

AIG is worthless now.



Being a mediator is not control "moron." See, I can insult people too.

A: the sky is blue
B: see my shoes ? they fit very well

Now prove me and the Austrians wrong.

No ones denying the market but behind the market has always been the gov't. A fact which you constantly ignore because roads, railroads, medicine, industry, and technological advancement was, is, and will always be backed and supported by some form of gov't. Economies may fail but no matter what there has always been a Law on the Land from some form of gov't that will rebuild and start the process you love all over again.

Actually the first good roads in England and the United States were built independent of Government. The turnpike systems[1]*. Railroad police[2]* (which were far more efficient than government police) were created without government "sparking" it. Most discoveries in the past were made and marketed without government aid. Need moar citations. Government can't produce anything. It can only take and redistribute. Government isn't necessary for people to interact with one another. The study of our interactions and choices in regards to our needs and wants: Does government need to regulate that too? Wait, it already is. How many citations do I need?

1*[here]
1*[here]
2*[here]
In the early 20th century onward the idea of government's role started to change. What happened to not trusting government and self reliance? It was killed by government propaganda.

The Entire US Highway System is maintained, mostly created by, and held together by who. The Gov't. There have always been private roads no ones denying that but theres not a single corporate owned or started Highway system in the world. The biggest innovations in technology in the 20th century, the computer was only possible and popularized with the aid of governments....

Yet history tells you that free-market enterprise, given enough time, would have taken up the mantle and progressed forward with or without government. Did government come up with the idea of cars? Had government not provided the money for modern day research successful entrepreneurs would have taken it up and done it better. Anything government can do was done (and still can be done) better by the free market. It forces excellence and is self-regulating. All government, is wasteful, cumbersome, and unnecessary. Of course, you will deny that and rage at me as you've done previously.

"don't come at me with that optimistic bullshit, etc... statement without substance."

you'll have to explain that, not cite it, because i beg to differ. The history that i know has always had a gov't at the head of civilization so unless your going on an alternate time line your wrong. But wait, you could be right according to one of your yet unproven and untested theories.

He explains it, you call him a wiki quoting know-nothing. He cites it, you beg to differ with no justification.

So because most civilizations have had a government behind them you conclude that government causes trade, profit, and wealth? All Civilizations have had a form of government? Why was Ireland so hard for the English to conquer? So did government compel inventors to discover and invent? Philosophers to philosophize? It's called Human ingenuity.



I can see the future.

EDIT:

I don't understand this statement. My theories? As if I have the time to write 700+ pages worth of arguments debunking Keynes and Marx while proving "my" theory right with hundreds of historical citations. I didn't know that I was born in the 17th, 18th, or 19th century. I also did not get the memo when Keynes was proven right; I did get the memo when his theory blew up in America's face though.

+1

If God doesn't kill us all then politics will.

there is no point in history where a form of gov't has not been at the helm of civilization. I need no more proof or citation than that to show his statement is nothing more than a theory, an unproven and untested one once again. To claim something as baseless as "Yet history tells you that free-market enterprise, given enough time, would have taken up the mantle and progressed forward with or without government." when no such thing has ever happened only lowers his credibility and shows his zealousness...

Gov'ts conquer lands. Gov'ts decide how money is spent. There is a reason why the greatest entrepreneur's wealth will never equal the greatest nation. Gov'ts have always regulated the economy from Kings, to presidents, to a tribal council. The Gov't has always decided where the focus of its people should be and thus the state of the market. If the Gov't goes to war does that not fuel production? If the Gov't cuts funding to education do more people not enter manual labor.? If the Gov't decides to offer cheap fertile land will that not spur the rise of produce? The influence the gov't has on the market is so great that people learned a long time ago that the best way for business to prosper was to control the gov't. You've gone from being laissez faire to being anarchist claiming that Gov't which has ALWAYS been at the helm of society isn't necessary, as if you would know what would happen if all the worlds Gov'ts collapsed when in reality you have no idea.

if the invisible hand of the market is actual the progression or regression of its people then the gov't who controls those people is the greatest influence on them thus the greatest influence on the "invisible hand"

The man denies citations and claims my arguments are from wikipedia. W/e, dude.

Maybe I should be a fortune teller.

The same unproven theories that predicted the depression, the 1973 slump, and every bubble afterwards. *Yawn. I guess that goes to show you; never argue with a fool. You can't debunk the Austrians. Now he says government guides the free market; I almost choked from laughter. Maybe someone else will drink the kool-aid, I mean, a whole generation of Americans have been drinking it for how long? Keep us perpetually ignorant government; I am your servant.



WHAT!? Then what has been the point of my citing and arguing? Has it all been for naught? Once again you call them my theories. Prove. The. Austrians. Wrong. Xemnas. Of course that would require extensive knowledge of the competing theories of Keynes and Von Mises.

Government being at the "helm" does not mean government caused it. Government does not tell men to create, think, live or trade. Men just do it. Government does not make people invent. Government is a coercive monopoly that rules by force. It can't exist without using force. Did government also decide to create money? No, individual men came up with these ideas and government just adopted it to further w/e agenda they had at that time. Usually conquest and imperialism. Government won't survive long if the population is knowledgeable. What of the Celts. What is extortion and tribute?

Hell, the colonist started printing their own money independent of their "leader." Of course, you will deny it, I will explain it, you will deny it, I will cite it, you will deny it, I will question, and you will deny some more. Pointless, worthless discussion is pointless and worthless.

~ Barotix out.

This is almost like an instant messaging coversation, are both of you camping this thread waiting for the other to reply?

who is more foolish. The fool, or the fool who follows him.


and i haven't brought up your wikiness in my last 3 post i've ignored your citation because whatever your citing no matter what it is cannot logically support "Yet history tells you that free-market enterprise, given enough time, would have taken up the mantle and progressed forward with or without government" because there is no proof of such a thing every happening.

If you're looking for an out i'd have gladly given you one awhile back. keep reading keynes because its not as if there are others schools of thought contradictory to his that never predicted positive economic outcomes . I know shocking to think that there is one school of thought that predicted were opposite and still proved true in their economic predictions....

I can see we're done here though but if your going to argue a point you'll have to understand the counter points just as well because theres a whole world out there of people who have disagreed with Keynes and it turns out they were right on more than one occasion. Your ignorance of this fact doesn't make it untrue it just means you choose to ignore that several other credible market economist have disagreed with your school of thought and been proven successful. So where does that leave everything that Keynes came up with garbage, no of course not but it does make his school of thought less credible....

"Right now, the media is in a frenzy about the dead bailout plan. A lot of people are forecasting the doom of our economy.

Personally, I have a big problem with the government going in to bail out companies who make bad business decisions. When these mortgages were bundled and sold in mass to Fannie and Freddie, they knew that there were taking a risk. However, they calculated that they would be able to make the money back. Unfortunately, they were wrong.

I don't think it's the government's responsibility to make sure a company doesn't go under. Here's a thought: instead of surviving after making bad business decisions, why don't we just let businesses fail?

Everyone's talking about how housing prices are going to plummet. For me, this is a good thing. Otherwise, there is probably no way I would ever be able to buy a house.

From now on, I fully expect mortgage companies to go back to more of a traditional 25% down style approach as they used to. There was a time when mortgages were incredibly hard to attain. They were hard to attain for a dang good reason: they're a big risk for the company lending the money.

In conclusion, I fully expect the market to plummet for a few weeks. Somewhere in that time I would like to buy stock. Here's the thing about stock: if you buy it while it's cheap you'll make a buttlload of money when it comes back up. It WILL come back up. only this time it'll be sound rather than falsely inflated."

That's a little something my older bro wrote on FB

You should all trade each others msn, and do it there. Im almost 99.784% sure no one other than Dom, Xemnas, and Barotix is reading word for word what you guys arguing about.

Because of the economic crisis. Bush is going to declare martial law...




lol.


And rumpleKillskin

I'm actually reading... I like learning.

....You think I support Keynes. You think government makes people interact with each other, you think it makes them think, you think it makes them invent. You even admitted to ignoring my citations. It's as if you've been reading 1/4th of my post, taking what you want, and raging. I have been arguing with a wall; a wall of ignorance.

You thinking I support Keynes (as if Keynes half-assed theory ever supported the free-market). You haven't been reading a damned word of what I have been posting. Keynes was an Englishman. The Austrians debunked Keynes. Keynesian economist said the business cycle was behind us. Austrians said regulations caused it.

Keynes is a broken theory. What have I been arguing against for the last 3 pages? And you're proud of not comprehending my post. Go troll somewhere else, Xemnas. Because that's exactly what you're doing. As if government asked people nicely; "Hey, would you guys mind making better roads than us, would you mind coordinating your efforts so they're mutually beneficial, while you're at it invent a lot of things, don't forget to think, and change the timezones; 53 is to much." Yeah, government is the cause of all great inventions. Freedom is the cause: Free thought, time, and Ingenuity. I thought you understood where my PoV was but I was wrong. LAWL, he thinks I support Keynes. I guess I support big government too and socialism. Government doesn't create wealth. Government steals wealth.

fixed

wrong name, my mistake but the same logic applies. Theres a valid and well thought out counter point to all economic schools of thought, if there was a proven one then we'd avoid all economic crisis all together. Be it Keynes or Hayek, Marx or Plato. There is no perfection. To assume that one school of thought will suffice for all situations is a terrible way of thinking. Right now the economy needs regulation, you can argue that regulation is wrong but we wouldn't be in the mess if regulation hadn't been lifted and we wouldn't have gotten out of it so easily if the gov't hadn't stepped in. bail outs are bad idea its giving money to people who were greedy and dumb enough to lose it in the first place but arguing that anarchy and laissez-faire will solve our problems without being able to properly apply them to our current situation in a realistic manner is daydream. You can spout theories till your blue in the face but it doesn't change the facts of whats happening now nor will it help the cause, we don't need what could happen if we need what will happen...

btw i haven't raged yet....if you think i've been raging go back to my 1k-3k post era..thats raging....

im done here

you've been beautiful

No other economist have proven Von Mises and Hayek wrong but Von Mises and Hayek have argued against them all and won every battle. Of course, the agenda of government remains the same: Imperialism.

The federal reserve, although not truly federal, is given it's power by the Government. By manipulating interest rates it caused the 1921 crash, the 1929 crash, and today's recession; thus, government is at the root of this problem. Take it's sword and put it in a contained area. Industry grows and prospers without government twisting arms and making people think.

Government does not cause the many interactions between people in regards to their needs and wants. That is fact; government is not the market. The market is independent and self-regulating. Of course you would have to know what the market is, so what is the market?

The market is the result of human interaction and ingenuity in regards to needs and wants. It does not require a government to take place. No matter where you are, even in the absence of government, people will think, interact, trade, imagine, speak, and create. It's as if we're hardwired with the blueprints to do great things. Of course, those wanting power, will fashion coercive manipulative monopolies; for no man would willingly give up his freedoms unless lied to and manipulated.

Dispute it.
Or, as usual; deny moar, call me a radical, and an idiot.



Thankfully, there were men born before me that created a solid foundation for me to argue from. Why am I defending freedom and liberty? You should be defending w/e school of thought (or lack of) that you come from. You're proposing that government supports free thought outside of the military.

~I'm Done. Finish. Complete. You deny anything you disagree with and don't even bother proposing counter-proposals. You try to come off as logical when you're doing the opposite; to make matters worse you're projecting a lot.

this topic is still being argued by ignorant people?

oh well... ignorant people = ignorant people in office so dont whine about the economy

I think this proverb fits to you though:

Ignorance doesn't kill you, but it does make you sweat a lot.



I guess we'll just have to wait for the grand decision ad finally lock this thread because noone
can build a cooperative discussion here.

I hope this is the end of turbocapitalism...