Big Head Press Forum

Online Comics => Escape From Terra => Topic started by: ObscureDragom on November 27, 2009, 02:41:25 am

Title: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: ObscureDragom on November 27, 2009, 02:41:25 am
Nov 27 2009.

This strip kind of calls for a comparison to above prime mortgages and recent fiscal problems.

Some have said the cause of our modern troubles is a reduction of government control over lending institutions.

I assumed it was because the banks thought that gaining houses and having people deeply in dept to them was good and simply failed to see the damage over proliferation of what was essentially a sucker loan would to the economy.

Though even with the assumption that house values would always rise, I can barely imagine most people being able to pay back the remaining 200k of the original 500k loan in their working life time and still pay rent in something that isn't a single bedroom in a crack house with a shared kitchen and bath.

Anyway, unregulated loans to good people wanting a start in life and the looming specter of human greed.

Lets let the more educated thinkers have at it.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: quadibloc on November 27, 2009, 04:54:30 am
Pawn shops are only regulated by the government to prevent them from selling stolen property.

Banks, though, are required to have collateral before they make a loan because they are official government-licensed check kiters. The reason for this state of affairs is so that we can have as much money in circulation at a given time as the economy can support; the previous scheme, sticking to precious metal coinage, meant a shortage of money, restricting economic activity. Since lots of factories and shipyards is what wins wars, we have central banks in every country today.

The other alternative is government issued fiat money. This isn't working too well in Zimbabwe. But even when a government is being careful and conscientious, as with the Assignats in France, or the Continental Currency in the United States, people just don't trust governments to print money - for good reason.

So, while the current banking system is perhaps a monstrosity, and not something that follows Libertarian principles, it was designed as a way of harnessing the ability of the free market to do certain things much better than the government could.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: dough560 on November 27, 2009, 06:18:49 am
It wasn't just home mortgages.  My problems began when my original credit card company was bought by another.  My wife and I each had accounts with this company and I had an account with a second company and she with a third company.  The new company sent me a letter that  my account would be changed from a fixed rate to a variable rate.  I was given the option of closing the account without penalty and paying it off at my original interest and payment rate.  A few days later, I received a letter stating I had received the original letter by mistake and there would be no changes to my account.  Ninety days later my interest rate tippled and the payment doubled.  I attempted to talk to the company and explained that we could not make payments under the new conditions and  asked why  they would not abide by their original agreement and letters.  I was told I had been sent the second letter by mistake and they did not have to abide by the letter.  Additionally, I was no longer eligible to close the account without penalty.  If  I closed the account at this point,  the interest rate would go to the penalty rate plus the prime rate.  That they had the right to change the conditions of my contract at any time to what ever conditions they desired.   I tried to negotiate a lower rate and payments due to hardship and they would not even talk to me.  Shortly thereafter interest rates in our other accounts were affected.  WE had never missed a payment, yet our interest rates in all four accounts soon exceeded thirty percent.    We tried a consolidation company which got our original interest rates reinstated and  we were making the payments.   We made the payments for eight months, until my wife and I lost hours and pay.  To date we have lost approximately twenty-five percent of our income and could no longer make the payments.  Those payments would have taken eight years to pay off our original debt and we would have paid double the original debt. Under the new conditions, again we could not  get our interest or payments modified.  Top it off, our credit rating rating would have still been in the toilet during the eight years of the program and for seven years after.  Since they would not deal with us, we switched to a debt settlement company.  Within thirty days the amounts we had paid down on the accounts were wiped out with interest rates over thirty percent and penalties.  Paying the settlement  company about half the amount of our alleged debt, the settlement company estimates we will settle our combined credit company alleged debt within four years and our credit report will be clear.  In the mean time, the feds have given the creditors a bailout due to the status of our accounts (so they have already received payment for our debts).  The company with two of the accounts, was bought by a third company which is seeking to overturn our contract with the settlement company and reinstate the original contracts with thirty percent plus of interest and penalties.... meaning my wife and I would be in debt to them for the rest of our lives.  Can you say slavery....  The second creditor is also trying the same thing and the third creditor has settled.   To make life really interesting my wife has asthma and contracted H1N1 which turned into double pneumonia (pneumonia in each lung).  Fourteen days in the hospital with twelve days in intensive care.  I'm waiting for the insurance company to settle with the hospital.  We have lost more than two months of her income and if it wasn't for family I would not have been able to pay more than part of our bills.  We will have two other debs payoff in February and March 2010.  If the hospital and doctors will not work with me on the remaining debt, I'll have no choice but to try and file for bankruptcy.

Government regulations permitted these abuses, where we bear the onus of being a dishonorable criminal for not paying our "just debts."   Additionally , even though we are represented by the settlement company and are making payments into an escrow and service account, we can still be sued by the credit companies for what ever amount they decide to claim.

My wife and I had been paying these credit accounts in full and without problem.  When the housing market started coming apart, the credit companies invested in it tried to gouge us to compensate for their bad investments and losses.  Additional government regulation have forced increased costs for health care.  As a result my company has steadily reduced health insurance benefits.  My wife's company doesn't even offer medical insurance.  As a result, I have doctor and hospital bills I would not have had to deal with two years ago.

With the Capping Trade Bill, Health Care Reform, the Copenhagen Accord and the U.N. Small Arms Treaty we could be living in the opening chapters of the "Probability Broach" or the closing chapters of "Unintended Consequences" very soon.  
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: terry_freeman on November 27, 2009, 12:44:58 pm
Gold and silver coinage did not lead to "restriction of money" in any honest sense. It did prevent the dishonest creation of faith-based "money" out of thin air. This troubled governments and their numerous corporate welfare-queen beneficiaries, since it is difficult to raise enough taxes to fund their extravagant schemes.

The century before the creation of the Federal Reserve System, the American economy grew at a fantastic rate. Until about 1971, we were still  nominally on the gold standard ( Central banks could redeem paper for gold, but citizens could not ). You can see two noticeable inflection points in the CPI graph - one in 1933 when FDR made it illegal for citizens to own gold, and one in 1971 when Nixon closed the gold window.

People underestimate how much economic growth happened before 1971. Sure, computers and big-screen TVs are wonderful - but we saw the rise from "third world" standards to "world industrial power." Wood and coal heating were replaced by natural gas and electricity; telephone usage became nearly universal; hot and cold running water became widespread. In short, vast changes came to America on a gold-based economy.

We do not need faith-based paper currency. We need  a stable, honest, dependable currency, free from government manipulation. Under those conditions, the government will shrink, and the economy will prosper.

It is no accident that "thrift" and "thrive" share the same etymological roots.
 
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Rocketman on November 27, 2009, 09:05:18 pm
Nicely put Terry.  The entire banking system in the United States is a fraud against the American taxpayer.  The central bank (aka the "Federal Reserve" ) prints up paper currency with no backing and then charges us the taxpayer interest on it.  If Ron Paul can ram thru his audit of the Fed Reserve it will put a death sentence to it and not one second too soon.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: ObscureDragom on November 28, 2009, 12:35:08 am
Well legally requiring people be paid in an intentionally inflationary  currency  does mandate the worker to immediately spend what he has just earned, as it will never be as valuable as it is right now.

While this is good for the economy it is has negative impact in a mans hope of self-betterment.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: dough560 on November 28, 2009, 01:51:33 am
We can only hope.  The Federal Reserve is a private company with a monopoly.  Without accountability or transparency, government stupidity on display.  The government "Tool" with the potential of destroying the government.

Finance problems stem from government market interference.  This interference via government spending and taxes.  Current regulations and taxes limit the market.  This limited and regulated market secures the government's control of the the individual.  While anyone may take-part in the market, only major players who support the powers that be receive protection in the form of "Rotary Socialism".  These players developed a private language, rules and regulations which shape the market to to their desired goals.

Smith has had quite a bit to say about free market banking and monetary standards in his books.  

I grew up knowing I would not succeed at everything I tried.  People need to be able to fail.  Learn from their mistakes and try again.  Repeating the process as often as necessary, until they reach their goal.  When the government stops the process, protecting us from ourselves, they destroy initiative.  Destroy initiative and self-destructive behavior accelerates.  Alcohol and Drug  Abuse become epidemic with their attendant problems.  Sound like anything we've seen in the news recently?
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: quadibloc on November 28, 2009, 08:46:00 am
Gold and silver coinage did not lead to "restriction of money" in any honest sense. It did prevent the dishonest creation of faith-based "money" out of thin air. This troubled governments and their numerous corporate welfare-queen beneficiaries, since it is difficult to raise enough taxes to fund their extravagant schemes.

This in no way contradicts or rebuts my previous post. Gold and silver did restrict the amount of money available relative to keeping all the country's factories continuously running at full output - in order to make ships and tanks and airplanes in huge numbers in order to keep up with the country next door. Honesty, as far as whether the extra money being summoned into existence was "real" or not, had nothing to do with it. (Something like the old joke about the fur coat...)

It can indeed be presumed that while bank-created money allows all forms of wealth (land, factories, and so on) in the nation, rather than just one specific form of wealth (gold) to back the currency, a gold-based currency doesn't really cause "restriction of money" because the value of gold can rise, and Fort Knox never did have a 100% deposit requirement. One can have a currency whose value is measured against gold without it being exclusively backed by gold - and, indeed, countries had banking systems for centuries before they started abandoning the gold standard.

Banknotes, at one time, actually used to be printed by banks.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Rocketman on November 28, 2009, 01:48:00 pm
While this is good for the economy it is has negative impact in a mans hope of self-betterment.
 That's the main reason that we have the income tax.  Remember, it's not for the generation of wealth for the government like nearly everyone thinks that it is.  It's about control.  If the world's reserve currency is the American dollar then if the government needs money why don't they just print a little more money and not charge the American people any income tax?  The real reason is an additional layer of bureaucracy.  They can impose more easily their will and it's always easier to impose your will on someone without money or with very little because that limits their options to do something about it.  A Warren Buffet can always sell his U.S. stock,  get an economic citizenship from Dominica or St. Kitts and move there and renounce his citizenship so he doesn't have to pay any more American taxes.  Joe Sixpack who only earns 60 grand a year with a wife, two kids and a 300 grand morgage doesn't have that many options if they get fed up with what the government is doing.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: ObscureDragom on November 28, 2009, 04:11:13 pm
While this is good for the economy it is has negative impact in a mans hope of self-betterment.
 That's the main reason that we have the income tax.  Remember, it's not for the generation of wealth for the government like nearly everyone thinks that it is.  It's about control.

lol, I'm Canadian.  It is deeply obvious from here that it's really a method of control and information gathering.

However I don't think the American version are quite as lenient to the little guy.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Rocketman on November 28, 2009, 06:34:23 pm

lol, I'm Canadian.  It is deeply obvious from here that it's really a method of control and information gathering.

However I don't think the American version are quite as lenient to the little guy.
O. D.  What are you refering to when you say that the government isn't quite as lenient as to the little guy?  I thought I made it pretty clear that if your rich or have some connections that you have some options but if your a poor smuck then you have few or no options.  I don't get your comment.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: quadibloc on November 28, 2009, 08:24:31 pm
That's the main reason that we have the income tax.  Remember, it's not for the generation of wealth for the government like nearly everyone thinks that it is.  It's about control.  If the world's reserve currency is the American dollar then if the government needs money why don't they just print a little more money and not charge the American people any income tax?

The minute they start pulling that trick, the United States dollar stops being the world's reserve currency. And, indeed, starts being "not worth a Continental".

Oh, sure, you can lower the interest rate to increase the money supply a little - but if you start directly issuing new fiat money as a way of raising money, basically the trust on which your currency rests evaporates. (There are limited exceptions: for example, the issuing of United States Notes... but the danger in this kind of activity is high.)

Yes, taxation is for the purpose of grabbing money for the government to spend on things, because it's the safest way of doing that.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: ObscureDragom on November 28, 2009, 10:33:51 pm

lol, I'm Canadian.  It is deeply obvious from here that it's really a method of control and information gathering.

However I don't think the American version are quite as lenient to the little guy.
O. D.  What are you refering to when you say that the government isn't quite as lenient as to the little guy?  I thought I made it pretty clear that if your rich or have some connections that you have some options but if your a poor smuck then you have few or no options.  I don't get your comment.

I mean lenient on the cash gouge. 

The socialist aspects of government tend to favor one particular group above others, usually divided by income.  Like in the 50's I think the US favored the middle class and since has slowly moved to favoring the upper class.

Canada right now favors the lower class.

Thats what I see anyway.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Scott on November 29, 2009, 12:40:10 pm
Government always favors whoever controls the government, and that is nearly always the upper class, either up-front or behind-the-scenes. When more generous bennies are offered to the lower classes, it isn't a matter of "favoring" them so much as a more progressive philosophy of livestock management.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Rocketman on November 29, 2009, 12:45:31 pm



lol, I'm Canadian.  It is deeply obvious from here that it's really a method of control and information gathering.

However I don't think the American version are quite as lenient to the little guy.
O. D.  What are you refering to when you say that the government isn't quite as lenient as to the little guy?  I thought I made it pretty clear that if your rich or have some connections that you have some options but if your a poor smuck then you have few or no options.  I don't get your comment.

I mean lenient on the cash gouge.  

The socialist aspects of government tend to favor one particular group above others, usually divided by income.  Like in the 50's I think the US favored the middle class and since has slowly moved to favoring the upper class.

Canada right now favors the lower class.

Thats what I see anyway.
Interesting comment, but I'm not sure that I agree with it.  If your right then why does the upper most 5% of Americans pay a disproportional amount of tax dollars to the government while the lowest 30% economically pay almost nothing?  If you were correct, wouldn't it be the other way around?
  I believe that it proves my eariler comment.  As far as the government wishes goes the best situation for them is to have as many people as possible in the lower middle class bracket.  They will all have to pay taxes that way and they don't have enough money to get themselves out of the situation by moving to another country and starting over.  I would also add that pretty much everything that the government has done economically over the last 30 years or so has been to nudge the people towards that goal.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: ObscureDragom on November 30, 2009, 03:50:58 am



lol, I'm Canadian.  It is deeply obvious from here that it's really a method of control and information gathering.

However I don't think the American version are quite as lenient to the little guy.
O. D.  What are you refering to when you say that the government isn't quite as lenient as to the little guy?  I thought I made it pretty clear that if your rich or have some connections that you have some options but if your a poor smuck then you have few or no options.  I don't get your comment.

I mean lenient on the cash gouge.  

The socialist aspects of government tend to favor one particular group above others, usually divided by income.  Like in the 50's I think the US favored the middle class and since has slowly moved to favoring the upper class.

Canada right now favors the lower class.

Thats what I see anyway.
Interesting comment, but I'm not sure that I agree with it.  If your right then why does the upper most 5% of Americans pay a disproportional amount of tax dollars to the government while the lowest 30% economically pay almost nothing?  If you were correct, wouldn't it be the other way around?
  I believe that it proves my eariler comment.  As far as the government wishes goes the best situation for them is to have as many people as possible in the lower middle class bracket.  They will all have to pay taxes that way and they don't have enough money to get themselves out of the situation by moving to another country and starting over.  I would also add that pretty much everything that the government has done economically over the last 30 years or so has been to nudge the people towards that goal.

I meant like striving for the richest rich people vs the richest poor people.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Gillsing on November 30, 2009, 12:57:57 pm
Joe Sixpack who only earns 60 grand a year with a wife, two kids and a 300 grand morgage doesn't have that many options if they get fed up with what the government is doing.
Couldn't he just sell the house for 300 grand, use the money to pay off his mortgage and move to a cheaper country, learn the language and work for less pay?

Granted, I could see a lot of reasons why Joe Sixpack wouldn't want to go through all that trouble, because uprooting an entire family and learning a new language and live in a new country with a different culture, well... quite often it takes war and violent persecution to force people to go through that ordeal. But the choice certainly seems to be there! Even if there were no money or governments in this world, it'd still take a lot of effort and resources to settle in a different country. Perhaps even more so than today. Is the universe conspiring against you?
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: dough560 on November 30, 2009, 01:11:20 pm
The universe is not conspiring against us.  The government is .  A few years ago, I saw a report where every $1.00 of service we received, we paid a $1.48 in taxes.  The more we're taxed, the fewer services we receive at higher cost.  Every service the government has become involved in, operates at higher costs, requiring higher taxes to support it.  With higher taxes, the individual does not have the resources to seek or acquire low cost market solutions.  Thus the government eliminates competition and ensures domination.   
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Rocketman on November 30, 2009, 11:31:19 pm
Couldn't he just sell the house for 300 grand, use the money to pay off his mortgage and move to a cheaper country, learn the language and work for less pay?
Granted, I could see a lot of reasons why Joe Sixpack wouldn't want to go through all that trouble, because uprooting an entire family and learning a new language and live in a new country with a different culture, well... quite often it takes war and violent persecution to force people to go through that ordeal. But the choice certainly seems to be there! Even if there were no money or governments in this world, it'd still take a lot of effort and resources to settle in a different country. Perhaps even more so than today. Is the universe conspiring against you?
  Gillsing, that's assuming that he can get the 300k out of the house because a whole lot of people are upside down in their morgages in the first place.  It also assumes that he has steady employment and has had for some time.  As just about anyone can tell you if your working for someone else in this economy job security in the USA is pretty much out the window.   Having said all that I think that a lot of people are seriously considering leaving America.  A Pew research pole was done about 4 or 5 years ago said that the number of people that was at least thinking about leaving was around 10% of the population.  Considering how this country is being run that number is only going to go higher and higher.  I read an article recently that said that the Congress is considering taking over control of everyones retirement accounts and having the government manage it for them.  The same people taking control of my money that ran Social Security, the post office, freddie and fanny just to name a few names, right into the ground by spending every nickel that was taken in and giving us back nothing except lame excuses.  Think people are fed up with the government now just wait till that happens.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Sean Roach on November 30, 2009, 11:56:29 pm
I don't know what the percentage of people is that can die before a society can't be sustained, but whatever that number is, from somewhere between half that number and twice that number deciding to up and leave, the government will become concerned and enact sweeping legislation making emigration illegal and very difficult.  It might be by declaring all possessions untransportable across national boundaries, (something along the lines of a one-suitcase rule for overseas travelers,) fences designed to keep people IN, (think Berlin Wall, and east Germany in general,) possibly travel restrictions on persons without a clear reason to travel, (no vacationers, very few people visiting family, a few executives checking on overseas interests...actually, perhaps a few vacationers, once vetted, but no people visiting family, as the safety net that would provide an ex-pat would be a mark against them on the probability of emigration scale.)
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: quadibloc on December 01, 2009, 08:32:32 am
Despite every imperfection the United States may have, it is less "socialist" than almost every other industrialized country. Possibly some people with a considerable amount of money behind them have found a way to be more free in some part of Latin America (Costa Rica? Belize?) but the odds of a military coup, a terrorist "uprising", or foreign invasion are so high that I'm afraid that I, personally, find it difficult to take that seriously as an alternative for someone who seeks freedom.

Maybe I'm just ignorant about the possibilities of that, of course.

And, economically, the United States is still the land of opportunity.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Rocketman on December 01, 2009, 11:13:51 am
Quad, I don't know how old you are but I'm 57.  If I had to guess at where the USA would be now say twenty years ago I wouldn't even have come close.  Since 9/11 this country has rapidly been heading down the tubes and accelerating.  While technically right now, it may be less socialistic than say Germany, France or England for example just wait and see if five or ten years down the road if you can say that.  This is taking place because the USA is becoming an empire and empires are naturally unstable.  The tea parties that are taking place are a good sign but I'm not the least bit confident that even if they manage to succeed and the liberal democracts are tossed out of office we won't still have the extremist right to deal with.  With that I saw the other day on television that Dick Cheney is considering a run in 2012 for president.  If he's really going to run then I think that shows to some degree that the message to the Republican Party from the tea parties was lost.  The GOP mistaking thinks that the average person is endorsing what they stand for instead of opposing what the democrats and to a lessor degree what the republicans stand for.  The suggestion that I made about not voting for any republican or democrat I believe is the only way that the message is going to get through to both parties.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Ike on December 01, 2009, 11:15:42 am
One important method of governmental interference in the financial markets is via "regulations" which have the effect of altering financial contracts, especially consumer contracts, without the consent of the parties to the contracts.  Incidentally, this isn't limited to the financial markets.  Now obviously, the financial companies are all in favor of that, since those rules allow them to make unilateral changes to consumer financial contracts leaving consumers without recourse.  Several posts here report anecdotes of such behavior by credit card companies.  Imagine a complete marketplace without government regulations such as those.

In one of my economics courses - undergrad, I'm not an economist thank Bog! - the textbook discussed the effects of insufficient money supply on economic growth and claimed that the growth of the American economy was unnecessarily restrained by the gold standard as it prevented the government from expanding the money supply to match the market requirements.  The facing page in that particular book had a graph of money supply over time superimposed over GNP over time, covering the same time period of (IIRC) 1792 - 1982.  The money supply line was nearly flat while the GNP line rose roughly exponentially.  (If I could find it, I'd cite it for your attention.)  Remember the core of Von Mises' critique of socialism?  The central planners could not obtain enough information soon enough to manage an economy.  That's why we're in trouble now.  The details only identify the culprits who substituted their political and economic advantage for what the market actually needed; their benefit was and is superior to ours because they're in power.  Plain and simple.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Gillsing on December 01, 2009, 07:31:08 pm
Gillsing, that's assuming that he can get the 300k out of the house because a whole lot of people are upside down in their morgages in the first place.  It also assumes that he has steady employment and has had for some time.  As just about anyone can tell you if your working for someone else in this economy job security in the USA is pretty much out the window.
Oh, I'm quite aware of that, but as far as I know, that's not the government's doing. Unless you subscribe to some type of conspiracy theory where the government is working with (or for) the Federal Reserve, who first expands and then constricts the money supply in order to force people and companies to go bankrupt so that the 'international bankers' can buy a lot of cheap stuff. Yes, I listened to all 3,5 hours of The Money Masters, and I still don't know if it's true, embellished or completely ridiculous. Every now and then I ask about it in various forums, but I never get any replies. Perhaps because no economist with enough knowledge has time to listen to a 3,5 hour documentary.

Makes me remember a certain webcomic called She's A Nightmare (www.highaims.com - but it seems to have been taken down). The creator had an idea for a superhero whose superpower would be auditing (or something like that). While regular superheroes would catch regular criminals, this superhero would be able to follow paper trails and expose white collar criminals. I think the world could use a league of superheroes like that. Preferably bulletproof ones too. That'd shine some light on exactly what is going on with the governments and the bankers. Then again, the recent financial crisis seems to be based on the fact that not even the bankers themselves know what their derivatives are worth, so maybe they'd actually be glad to have some light in their black boxes?

When it comes to leaving USA for something different, I guess it's a matter of balance. You can have much less violent crime and a lot more taxes if you move to Sweden, or you can have more violent crime and less taxes if you move to some lawless place. But I could see how the living expenses might ramp up if you need to get adequate protection against local warlords, so perhaps paying taxes to a mighty government isn't such a bad deal compared to the alternative.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: SandySandfort on December 02, 2009, 08:40:12 pm
When it comes to leaving USA for something different, I guess it's a matter of balance. You can have much less violent crime and a lot more taxes if you move to Sweden, or you can have more violent crime and less taxes if you move to some lawless place. But I could see how the living expenses might ramp up if you need to get adequate protection against local warlords, so perhaps paying taxes to a mighty government isn't such a bad deal compared to the alternative.

That is a false dichotomy. Crime and taxes are not inversely proportional or necessarily connected at all. You can move to Panama, Uruguay or dozens of other places that have less violent crime and less taxes than the US. 
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Rocketman on December 02, 2009, 09:35:15 pm
Gillsing: Number one--- iT IS THE GOVERNMENTS DOING.  When any government sets up a series of circumstances where the free market is not allowed to do what needs to be done and then totally screws up the enforcement of the regulations that it implemented, who is supposed to be responsible for that---martians???  Secondly, independant autitors who are independant of the government and it's control?  Not going to happen.  First, look at what happened recently with the ACORN scandal.  Now the two young independant journalists that stinged the ACORN offices are being sued and the news media with the exception of FOX news and a few other conservative outlets are trying to dig up any dirt that they can find on them.  They'll find it too, even if they have to take a small innocent incident and turn it into something much bigger than it really is.  An lastly look at what happens in some countries where formerly powerful people who don't like journalists shining a light on them.  They are usually found dead in an alleyway.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: PT on December 03, 2009, 03:22:53 am
Quote
Gold and silver coinage did not lead to "restriction of money" in any honest sense. It did prevent the dishonest creation of faith-based "money" out of thin air.
Not necessarily so! This was achieved in France in the early 1700s. First the government managed to inflate a precious metal currency by recalling one issue of coins and replacing it with another of equal face value, but 20% less metal. After they did this two or three times people actually lost faith in gold. Then in 1720 there was a stock bubble, during which they established a central bank empowered to issue paper currency, which it did as fast as its presses would run. This resulted in 400% inflation in one year, but nobody cared because they were all getting rich on stock speculation. It all came to an end when the stocks slipped. People lost confidence in the paper, causing a run on gold and silver reserves, of which there was only enough to cover about half the paper. So to stabilize things, the government made it illegal to own gold.

Not long after that there was a revolution.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Gillsing on December 03, 2009, 07:40:45 am
That is a false dichotomy. Crime and taxes are not inversely proportional or necessarily connected at all. You can move to Panama, Uruguay or dozens of other places that have less violent crime and less taxes than the US.
I see. So perhaps more people should move there?

Gillsing: Number one--- iT IS THE GOVERNMENTS DOING.  When any government sets up a series of circumstances where the free market is not allowed to do what needs to be done and then totally screws up the enforcement of the regulations that it implemented, who is supposed to be responsible for that---martians???
Well, I guess you do subscribe to some type of conspiracy theory then? Personally I'm more inclined to believe that the government might be more or less corrupt, which means that certain people might do certain things to benefit certain participants in the free market. I also believe that the government is relatively powerless in a free market, because when you're not allowing yourself to use military might to boss the corporations around, money is the next most powerful thing. And the free market has a lot more of that than the government does. And another possibility is that the government consists of individuals who are easily manipulated by the free market, as the individual might lack insight, while the free market has enough money to pay entire teams of lobbyists to find ways to get things done.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that you get system failure when you allow people to vote on complicated issues that most people have little or no experience with. And I'm not talking about citizens voting on politicians, I'm talking about politicians voting on laws and regulations. Most of them probably don't know what they're voting on, and while the government might try to regulate the free market, the free market will try to wriggle free, and certain crucial parts of a system might fail, leaving huge holes to be exploited, which the free market will do. Just look at any computer program. It has bugs. Look at any online or Pen-and-Paper Role Playing Game, it has imbalances. Which will be exploited until they get adjusted, which might lead to new imbalances. So I don't judge a government's intentions by the final result, because there's ample room to fail miserably even if you do your best.

The only governments I know of that actively tried to stop their citizens from leaving seemed to do that because they had an ideology which they wanted to spread, and thus they probably didn't want to lose ground by losing citizens. Quite a lot of governments seem to restrict entry into their nations, and with unemployment being quite high, I don't see why governments would want to force people to hang around. How exactly does anyone benefit from having a lot of people to feed if you're not able to put them to good use? If Joe Sixpack really wanted to pack up and leave, I'm sure he could be replaced. But perhaps he feels that he is trapped. And I agree. He is trapped. Trapped in the real world. Which is why I don't like the real world, and try to focus as much as I can on imaginary worlds. Which is why I probably don't know what I'm talking about. ;)
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: SandySandfort on December 03, 2009, 08:30:19 am
That is a false dichotomy. Crime and taxes are not inversely proportional or necessarily connected at all. You can move to Panama, Uruguay or dozens of other places that have less violent crime and less taxes than the US.
I see. So perhaps more people should move there?

More people are already moving to these places.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Rocketman on December 03, 2009, 12:25:18 pm
Gillsing:  I don't even know where to begin.  No, the free market isn't totally perfect.  And that's because man himself isn't totally perfect.  But to realistically compare the free market and government run intervention is totally ludicrous.
   Despite what you might think there are "conspiracy theorists" out there who are right.  For many years, some scientists who doubted the existance of "global warming" tried to speak up and say that the data didn't add up.  The same people who have now been caught red handed falsifying climate data and many of their supporters shouted them down, openly questioned their judgement and sanity and tried to run them out of the scientific community.  Wouldn't you call that a conspiracy???
    However I find myself in agreement with you concerning people who are not experts testifying before Congress and trying to pass legislation that they want.  During the ALAR scare back in the late 80's I think it was, I saw Marel Streep testifying before Congress.  She's an actress not a biologist or chemist.  The supporters of banning ALAR put her there to influence the vote by appealing to the emotions of the senators.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Brugle on December 03, 2009, 01:54:12 pm
That is a false dichotomy. Crime and taxes are not inversely proportional or necessarily connected at all. You can move to Panama, Uruguay or dozens of other places that have less violent crime and less taxes than the US.

And there are places (like the U.K.) that have more violent crime and higher taxes than the U.S.  Within the U.S., places with the most violent crime (the inner cities) typically have higher taxes.

Of course, to many of us, the collection of taxes (by violence or the threat of violence) is criminal.

Gillsing: Number one--- iT IS THE GOVERNMENTS DOING.  When any government sets up a series of circumstances where the free market is not allowed to do what needs to be done and then totally screws up the enforcement of the regulations that it implemented, who is supposed to be responsible for that---martians???
Well, I guess you do subscribe to some type of conspiracy theory then?
It seems that you are the only contributor to this thread who is interested in conspiracy theories.  As far as I can tell, the rest of us are more concerned with what is done than with the motives of the participants.

Just this morning I saw this short (800 word) paper on 6 of the U.S. government policies that create financial instability and led to the recent crisis and recession.  (There are other harmful policies, but those will do for a start.)
http://www.iedm.org/uploaded/pdf/Horwitz0909_en.pdf
Did some of the people responsible for those policies (mistakenly) think that what they were doing was for the good of the citizenry?  Probably.  Did some of them intend to divert wealth from the citizenry to politically powerful people, but (mistakenly) think that it wouldn't do much harm?  Probably.  Did some of them realize the danger they were causing and not care?  Probably.  Did some of them conspire?  Probably.  Did some clueless people have responsibility that they shouldn't?  Probably.  The point is, those things don't matter.  What matters is that the U.S. government has the power to replace bottom-up market regulation with top-down government edicts, and when that power exists it will be used, and when it is used then bad things will happen.  Even if most government functionaries are highly-educated well-meaning people, and even if most of them aren't corrupted by the power that they hold, there is no way that their edicts can come close to doing as well as the best efforts of millions of market participants. The most heavily government controlled parts of the economy (finance, medicine, education) are the most messed up, which is not a coincidence.

I also believe that the government is relatively powerless in a free market, because when you're not allowing yourself to use military might to boss the corporations around, money is the next most powerful thing. And the free market has a lot more of that than the government does.
This is nuts.  The government (at any level) can toss anyone they want into a cage and make their life a hell.  No market company (unless it has a lot of political clout, such as the company formerly known as Blackwater) can do that.

Mattel has much, much more money than I do.  What are they going to do to me?  Offer to sell me toys for a very low price?  Offer to give me a job at a very high price?  Doesn't sound too scary.  But any local cop can stop me because he doesn't like my beard, beat me up, then arrest me for resisting arrest, and there isn't anything I can do about it.

But, since we don't live under a free market, Mattel can rip me off using political power.   But don't think that the problem is Mattel.  The problem is the political power.  Was CPSIA caused by Mattel bribing certain people with suitcases full of cash?  Was CPSIA created by well-meaning people "for the children"?  Or was there some other reason?  Who cares?!  What matters is that (as is often the case with government edicts) some politically-powerful people gain and that (as is almost always the case with government edicts) the citizenry are screwed.

the free market has enough money to pay entire teams of lobbyists to find ways to get things done.
A free market is not controlled by government, so there would be no lobbyists.  Companies (or individuals) can make money only by selling people stuff that they want (or by crime, but it's hard to do that on a large scale without political power).

In our (far from free) market, companies have the choice of either trying to satisfy customers or trying to obtain wealth using political power (or some of each).  The more power that governments have, the more that a typical company (or individual) will try to obtain political power and the less that it will try to satisfy customers.

I don't judge a government's intentions by the final result, because there's ample room to fail miserably even if you do your best.
Who cares about a government's intentions?  Case 1: government actors at all levels tried their best, and the result was mass murder, mass starvation, mass destruction, and mass misery.  Case 2: government actors didn't try to do much at all (maybe they were lazy, maybe they were bribed), and the result was general peace, general prosperity, and general happiness.  Which would you prefer?
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: dough560 on December 04, 2009, 04:57:49 am
A prime example of government interference is the firearms market.  This interference has resulted in three classes of individual arms.  We have approved arms,  generally available to the market.  Controlled arms, (selective fire side/long arms, silencers, etc., individual or crew served.)  And the Black Market.  Arms which slipped through the  regulations, which have disappeared of anyone's books.  Each firearm class has a separate value.   John Ross ("Unintended Consequences") explains this market better than I can. 

When Ross first published "Unintended Consequences", I loaned my copy to a local firearms dealer whose past included an engineering degree and private pilots license.  He and I could not find anything factually wrong with this work of fiction.  He began passing the book to other clients who included several lawyers and collage history professors.  Other professionals were also given the book for review.  To my knowledge, no one has found anything factually wrong with this book.  Quite a few of the reviewers did not care for the direction of the book.  But they all admitted it was factually accurate.  If anyone can find anything, please let me know. 

At this point in our history, It is not what the government and bureaucrats have done, but what are they doing now and what do they base their actions and intentions on.  The government passes a law and turns it over to the bureaucrats who actually write the regulations, which they interpret and re-interpret as they desire.   Political beliefs and goals shape these regulations.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives abuses are excellent  examples.

Example:  #1 You own an AR-15.  A semi-automatic version of the military's M-16.  According to BATFE regulation, if your AR-15 has any of the 16 parts needed for reliable full automatic fire, you have an unlicensed controlled firearm.  Each specialty part is worth five years in prison and a $25,000 in fine.  This regulation pertains to any semi-automatic firearm with a full automatic counterpart.

Example #2:  A few years ago you could buy a $4.00 aluminum adapter you could fit to the end of a rifle or pistol barrel and screw a plastic pop bottle in place.  The combination would suppress the sound of a gunshot for one or two shots.  The BATFE decided this was a sound suppressor and required a $200 tax. 

Example 3: A guy who had a sound suppressor for his rifle  took some extra parts and mounted them on a board which he displayed at his sales table at a gunshow.   He is now bankrupt and will spend most of his remaining life in prison.  The BATFE decided retro-actively each suppressor piece was now a suppressor and each piece required a $200 Tax.

The BATFE is a member of the Treasury Department which operates their own courts.  These courts operate independently of the regular federal court system.  Each of the above examples were not about possession of a item but the possession of an item without paying a $200 Tax.

How extreme can the government get?

#1:  Ruby Ridge:  The government alleged Randy Weaver sold undercover agents two rifles.  Each rifle had a legal length barrel, but were shorter than the twenty-four inch minimum length for a legal firearm.  The shoulder stocks had been cut down to pistol grips.  Weaver stated the rifles had shoulder stocks when he sold them to the undercover agents.  The agents had been trying to force Weaver to work for them and infiltrate a skin head group.  (Anyone want to speculate which party is lying?)  When it was over, a fourteen year old boy was shot in the back and killed.  A woman standing in a doorway, holding a newborn baby, was shot in the head and killed.  The federal marshal who killed the boy was also killed.  During the siege, the government issued illegal shoot on sight orders for anyone carrying a gun.  All over an alleged bill for $400 in taxes.

#2: Waco:  Ever see the complaint department novelty gifts; a bronzed hand grenade with the number #1 attached to the pull ring?  The Branch Dividians were making these, selling them at local flee markets and gun shows.  They had ordered inert surplus grenade cases which while being shipped, the packing case broke open in a UPS Terminal.  UPS called BATFE who started an investigation.  BATFE allegedly believed the grenades were being rearmed.  The government learned a few things from Ruby Ridge.  In the initial assault, a BATFE agent died.  He allegedly bled to death.  It is still not clear whether friendly fire was involved, no autopsy reports were ever released.  When it was over, few of the Dividians survived.  Those who died, died from cyanide gas.  Cyanide gas formed when the CS riot control agent the government pumped into the building was exposed to open flame.  (One of the side effects of the cyanide gas is extreme muscle contractions, breaking major and minor bones as the individual dies.)  Allegedly, government agents threw or fired flares and thermite grenades into the building after the CS was pumped in.  (Wonder if they wanted to insure the CS conversion to Cyanide?)  When the Dividian autopsy results started to leak, word began getting out over the internet.  (The news agencies did not report on the story.)  Public outrage began to grow and the autopsy reports were quickly sealed.  Without evidence, the uproar died with a whimper.  After all, who wants to believe the U.S. Government was no better than Germans gassing the Jews during WWII.   At any rate the feds retained control of the site, fenced it in and bulldozed the remaining structures.  Major pieces of evidence, such as the compound steel entry door disappeared.  To my knowledge, the government controls the site to this day.

These people died over Taxes and if the BATFE allegations were correct, the lack of a license.  Additionally the suspected government abuses could have rocked this government like nothing since the revolution.  To date no government agent has been charged in civil or criminal court.  In civil court, the government settled with the surviving Weaver Family Members.  The records or the out of court are sealed.  In state criminal court, pretrial motions for the defense of the government agents was, "They were just following orders. Charges were dismissed with the state court stating they did not have jurisdictions, since the marshals were just following orders.  ("It was allowed to stand for U.S. Government Agents, but not for German Soldiers after WWII.)  Kevin Harris was acquitted of murder charges in the death of the marshal who shot the Weaver boy in the back.  It was ruled, self defense.  In the Waco incident, the surviving Dividians were acquitted of murder in the death of the BATFE Agent.  His death was also ruled, Self Defense.  The surviving Dividians did spend time in prison, I believe for racketeering.   

Ruby Ridge and Waco still bother me.  Government interference and suppression of civil rights, market and property rights affect all of us.   Some of us have not survived that interference. 
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Gillsing on December 04, 2009, 06:00:15 pm
Despite what you might think there are "conspiracy theorists" out there who are right.
Yes, that seems quite possible, but my trouble is knowing which ones are right and which ones are wrong. Which is why I'd like to find out more about the reasons for why you seem to think that the US government is trying to keep people from leaving USA. Because from where I'm sitting, it looks more like they're trying to make it difficult for people to get into the USA. Which is fine by me, what with all the scary stories I hear about that place. (Some of them in this very thread!)

Granted, my own government could certainly abuse me in pretty much the same way. Our cops are known for occasionally having killed restrained prisoners by using too much force, but since I avoid living in the real world, I've never had any problems with the police. So perhaps it'd be just as easy for me to avoid trouble in USA, assuming that I get past the Homeland Security at the airport. I hear that they like to 'confiscate' things?

It seems that you are the only contributor to this thread who is interested in conspiracy theories.  As far as I can tell, the rest of us are more concerned with what is done than with the motives of the participants.
Indeed! I just found it strange to see a claim that the US government would actively want to stop people from leaving the country and settle somewhere else. As for what I believe of governments in general, I'd like to refer to my first post (http://forum.bigheadpress.com/index.php?topic=352.msg4083#msg4083) in this forum. We should be relieved that we don't live in North Korea, where I just read that all savings beyond $60 has been rendered worthless because the government has issued new currency. A government can do whatever it wants, but at least in a democracy the people in charge have to hide their intentions to make it look like they're trying, or the citizens will vote for someone else.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: terry_freeman on December 04, 2009, 11:36:14 pm
Inflation is _not_ "good for the economy" -- it's good for making the phony numbers look good, that's all.

Inflation makes things good for the "first spenders" - the government and the banks, the various teat-suckers who get government checks, and so forth. But there's always the downside; every dollar printed represents value taken from someone else. A further downside is that accounting and business calculation are skewed in several ways. Prices move upward in fits and starts due to the monetary expansion. The interest rates vary according to the whims of Helicopter Ben or whoever controls the printing presses, not according to actual savings and lending by real people with real money at stake.

As I said earlier, "thrift" and "thrive" derive from the same root. In a healthy economy, there is no disincentive to limit savings. Savings are not "idle" unless one actually stuffs the savings into a mattress or bell jars in the back yard. In a world of honest banking, one might choose to take the risk of lending savings to those who have productive purposes in mind.

Fiat currency leads to boom-bust cycles. The boom feels great. The bust is a delayed part of the package deal; it is like the hangover after a really good drunk. More "hair of the dog" may alleviate one's misery, but the real cure is to stop drinking like a fish.

It is a myth that government intervention and faith-based paper "improve the economy." They are vastly destructive.
 
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Sean Roach on December 04, 2009, 11:53:01 pm
I didn't say the U.S. government was currently trying to keep people in.  I said that if enough people started leaving such that the government realized society/the economy was going to be disrupted or was already being disrupted, they'd throw up all sorts of roadblocks to emigration to save the country at the expense of the well being of its people.

Actually, some of those roadblocks already exist.  Already you can not just walk on to an airplane with too much cash in your pockets.  I don't remember what the limit is, but you have to declare anything over a certain amount.

Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Gillsing on December 05, 2009, 03:18:51 am
Well, I didn't get it from you, I got it from Rocketman's post (http://forum.bigheadpress.com/index.php?topic=367.msg4601#msg4601). Then again, if it's true that the government has worked toward that goal for 30 years (or more), perhaps they're playing chess, and anticipate that there will come a time when people will want to emigrate in vast numbers. And by that time, all the roadblocks will be in place. It doesn't sound likely to me, but I guess it's a possibility. :-\

As for having to declare money being carried out of the country, does that actually prevent the money being taken out, or is it primarily a way to keep track of who is moving large sums of money? Tax evasion and funding (OMG!) terrorists come to mind.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Rocketman on December 06, 2009, 04:39:36 pm
Well, I didn't get it from you, I got it from Rocketman's post (http://forum.bigheadpress.com/index.php?topic=367.msg4601#msg4601). Then again, if it's true that the government has worked toward that goal for 30 years (or more), perhaps they're playing chess, and anticipate that there will come a time when people will want to emigrate in vast numbers. And by that time, all the roadblocks will be in place. It doesn't sound likely to me, but I guess it's a possibility. :-\

As for having to declare money being carried out of the country, does that actually prevent the money being taken out, or is it primarily a way to keep track of who is moving large sums of money? Tax evasion and funding (OMG!) terrorists come to mind.
 
You more than likely got that from me.  Why do you think that right now when pretty much everyone can see that with the world's economy is in the toliet and higher taxes are going to be implemented to pay for government run health care that will be much less affordable and less efficient than we currently have that many of the "free" market nations like the U.S. and England have decided to implement new tax policies and new tax regulations that go after "overseas tax cheats"?  They don't care as much for the lower middle class that have little to contribute because they will likely not have to steal from them but the individuals that have money that can make a contribution to keeping them in power a tad longer.  I'm talking about the individuals that have the money and connections to leave the country with their money and contribute to some other nation.  
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Gillsing on December 07, 2009, 04:19:48 pm
I'm not sure I understood that. But it makes sense to me that a government would try to keep people from tax evasion of all kinds. And I don't really see anything wrong with preventing people from making a lot of money in one country, then moving it to another country to evade taxes, while they themselves remain in the lucrative country to make even more money that is never taxed. It's like they're having the cake and eating it too, while honest workers pay full taxes.

Then again, if every government is a criminal institution, and all taxes are theft, perhaps I should be supportive of the clever people who manage to sneak their wealth away from the thieving government? I guess it's a matter of perspective, and I'm not quite there yet.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Rocketman on December 07, 2009, 10:08:29 pm
Okay Gillsing, then let's go back to the basics.  A person should have the right if he or she chooses to leave a country with the money that they have accumulated up to that point in time, minus whatever taxes for the year that have been charged against that person UP TO THAT TIME IN THAT COUNTRY.  That I believe has the force of law because that's part of a U.N. declaration and the U.S. government has signed into it.  Only that's not the way that the United States is playing the game.  If you walk into a U.S. embassy to end your citizenship they want an immediate 35% (I'm not quite sure of the exact number but 35% is pretty close) of everything that you have accumulated.  Not earned that year, accumulated throughout your lifetime.  As bad as that is before that they wanted to tax you for an next 10 years of your life even though you were not living in the United States and didn't have amerikan citizenship.  That changed not too long ago because they must have realized that even they wouldn't have been able to get away with that if it came to a supreme court case.  If Sandy is reading this could he please verfiy everything that I just said?  With his situation he's a lot more familar with it than I am.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: SandySandfort on December 07, 2009, 11:01:28 pm
Okay Gillsing, then let's go back to the basics.  A person should have the right if he or she chooses to leave a country with the money that they have accumulated up to that point in time, minus whatever taxes for the year that have been charged against that person UP TO THAT TIME IN THAT COUNTRY.  That I believe has the force of law because that's part of a U.N. declaration and the U.S. government has signed into it.  Only that's not the way that the United States is playing the game.  If you walk into a U.S. embassy to end your citizenship they want an immediate 35% (I'm not quite sure of the exact number but 35% is pretty close) of everything that you have accumulated.  Not earned that year, accumulated throughout your lifetime.  As bad as that is before that they wanted to tax you for an next 10 years of your life even though you were not living in the United States and didn't have amerikan citizenship.  That changed not too long ago because they must have realized that even they wouldn't have been able to get away with that if it came to a supreme court case.  If Sandy is reading this could he please verfiy everything that I just said?  With his situation he's a lot more familar with it than I am.

If you are asking for a legal opinion, I cannot provide one. I only pay marginal attention to what these jerks are doing. However, I believe your description of the tax bites is pretty close to what I recall. The details are not important. The concept is that somehow you owe the government something if you just want to get the hell of Dodge. As you might guess, I am not sympathetic to this idea.

To me an even more alarming new regulation is that US persons flying out of the US MUST have a return ticket. WTF?
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Gillsing on December 08, 2009, 12:28:46 pm
I googled a bit, but I only found a few examples of a destination country requiring a visitor to have a return ticket, as a way of showing that they intend to leave and not stay permanently. I didn't look too carefully though, because "regulation" and "return ticket" aren't very specific. Sounds crazy if you need a return ticket to show that you're coming back.

And that 35% of live savings seems like robbery. How do they even justify something like that? The free elementary school education that you had as a kid? (Assuming that it's free.)
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: SandySandfort on December 08, 2009, 02:27:51 pm
I googled a bit, but I only found a few examples of a destination country requiring a visitor to have a return ticket, as a way of showing that they intend to leave and not stay permanently. I didn't look too carefully though, because "regulation" and "return ticket" aren't very specific. Sounds crazy if you need a return ticket to show that you're coming back.

I don't know the rationale. only the effect of the regulation. And I did not say it was a foreign country requirement. It is a US requirement. Just to make this as clear as possible, here is an example:

A US citizen decides to fly to Mexico City from the US. He buys a one-way ticket. Once in Mexico City, he intends to take local ground transportation back to the US boarder. The airline will not allow him to board unless he has a return ticket. So much for your right to travel.

I am currently trying to get more specific information about this regulation. When I do, you will all be the first to know. Just in case this sounds like an urban legend, I have been refused boarding without a return ticket to the US. I finessed the problem, but others might not be so persistent. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out various ways around this ridiculous, morally offensive and unconstitutional rule.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Rocketman on December 08, 2009, 11:41:14 pm
Sandy:  Didn't know about that until now, but do you think that it might have something to do with getting rid of your Amerikan citizenship and how the authorities might use the excuse to go before a judge and say "He obviously didn't mean to end his citizenship because he bought a return ticket to America your honor"?

Gillsing:
"And that 35% of live savings seems like robbery. How do they even justify something like that?"
     Now your starting to understand.  

Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: SandySandfort on December 09, 2009, 07:54:45 am
Sandy:  Didn't know about that until now, but do you think that it might have something to do with getting rid of your Amerikan citizenship and how the authorities might use the excuse to go before a judge and say "He obviously didn't mean to end his citizenship because he bought a return ticket to America your honor"?

They are not that Machiavellian. It's just another case of slightly raising the temperature to see if the frogs will jump.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Rocketman on December 09, 2009, 10:42:29 am
Yea, I agree.  I was thinking about that last night before I dropped off to sleep and concluded that as a whole they're just not that bright.  My guess is that some american tourists have gone to the american embassy in say Panama and told the officials there that they spend more money than they intended to (probably hitting the push buttons, but that's a whole nother story) and now they don't have enough money to buy a ticket and return home.  Some State Dept. whiz kid said to himself "Get a law passed that any tourist leaving America has to have a return trip ticket back here so they don't inconvienence any more of our people."  That's probably the origin of it.   ;D
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: SandySandfort on December 09, 2009, 11:26:58 am
Yea, I agree.  I was thinking about that last night before I dropped off to sleep and concluded that as a whole they're just not that bright.  My guess is that some american tourists have gone to the american embassy in say Panama and told the officials there that they spend more money than they intended to (probably hitting the push buttons, but that's a whole nother story) and now they don't have enough money to buy a ticket and return home.  Some State Dept. whiz kid said to himself "Get a law passed that any tourist leaving America has to have a return trip ticket back here so they don't inconvienence any more of our people."  That's probably the origin of it.   ;D

Could be, your guess is as good as mind. I have quarried the airline that pulled this stunt on me to get chapter and verse on the reg. Will share if they do.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: quadibloc on December 10, 2009, 12:05:05 am
Could be, your guess is as good as mind. I have quarried the airline that pulled this stunt on me to get chapter and verse on the reg. Will share if they do.

My guess is that it has something to do with terrorism. After all, one reason for not purchasing a return ticket is because you plan to hijack the airplane into a building on your way out. As for emigrants, I think that in their sweet innocence, they never even considered the possibility.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: SandySandfort on December 10, 2009, 10:24:51 am
[My guess is that it has something to do with terrorism. After all, one reason for not purchasing a return ticket is because you plan to hijack the airplane into a building on your way out.

You may be right in so far as that is the cover story given by the government, but it is obviously utter bullshit. A terrorist is generous enough to give his life for the cause, but too cheap to buy a round trip ticket? Give me a break. No, there is definitely more at work here.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Rocketman on December 10, 2009, 10:30:47 am
I agree Sandy.  It's kind of like that if someone is thinking about hijacking an airline and wants to learn how to fly it, he's smart enough not to go to any flightschool and say to them "Just teach me how to fly it, I don't need to take off or land."
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Sean Roach on December 11, 2009, 12:17:52 am
I've been meaning to ask.  WHERE were to flying TO?
I know Japan won't allow visitors to enter the country without a return ticket away.  Could it have been the airline fronting for the destination, as opposed to the origin?

Personally, I'd have to be pretty desperate to emigrate on a 747.  Too little room for luggage.  The QM2 would be a better choice, or perhaps better yet, a cargo craft as my own supercargo.

I couldn't pack a quarter of my library in a rolling bag, and I'd have to leave my guns behind too.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: dough560 on December 11, 2009, 06:42:51 am
That's the crux of the problem.  Government suppression of civil liberties.  Government control of individuals through taxes and  money supply.  One money guy I was listening to on the radio last week stated today's dollar was only worth $.67 of a dollar 10 years ago.  Additionally today's dollar was only worth a few cents of a gold based dollar from the 1930's.  Factor in increased regulation and I can see our standard of living and technological development gong down hill fast. 

Today's paper currency has an embedded magnetic strip.  With proper scanning equipment, the government can tell how much money you are carrying.  Add this to property seizure laws and you get cases like the green house owner in Florida.  He was carrying cash during a buying trip.  Many greenhouse suppliers discount for cash sales.  Stopped for speeding, local police seized his funds without probable cause.  He did not have the money to post bond (the required bond was the same amount as the seized funds) .  Result.  The police and the feds got a large chunk of cash.  The greenhouse owner was never charged with a crime but did not get his money back,  Since he could not post bond, he did not get his day in court.  In court he would have been required to prove the funds were not going to be used in a crime.  The police have no requirement to prove the funds would be used in a crime.  By the way, ever try to prove a negative?  This incident is the result of  laws directed at the war on drugs.  There are many more just like it.

The original income tax bill was four pages and was intended to help pay for WWI.  Current federal tax code is over 10,000 pages.  This does not include local and state tax codes.  Today's tax laws are exercises in social engineering and government domination.  You own your property, Right?  Wrong!  See how long you get to keep it, if you don't pay property taxes.   All tax codes reward and punish behavior.  Many taxes and fees are intended to protect companies and industries from competition.   Companies who "follow the rules" are rewarded with government contracts, a-la rotary socialism.  If the government's goal was raising revenue, and not domination.... we would have a flat tax and no property taxes.






Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: SandySandfort on December 11, 2009, 07:59:22 am
I've been meaning to ask.  WHERE were to flying TO?
I know Japan won't allow visitors to enter the country without a return ticket away.  Could it have been the airline fronting for the destination, as opposed to the origin?

I was returning to Panama where I live. Panama is very flexible about such things. To the extent they ask, you can show them expired credit cards and they are happy. No, the airline staff made it clear it was a US federal requirement. I didn't really care which TLA (three letter agency) it was, though I think it was the FAA in this case, but it could have TSA or "Homeland Security." (Incidentally don't you just love that name? It sounds like something from the NAZIs. Next they will be calling the "Defense" Department the Wehrmacht. and it will be protecting the vaterland.)
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: quadibloc on December 12, 2009, 12:09:21 am
It's kind of like that if someone is thinking about hijacking an airline and wants to learn how to fly it, he's smart enough not to go to any flightschool and say to them "Just teach me how to fly it, I don't need to take off or land."

NOW they are. Remember the initial news stories after 9/11? Some of those hijackers did ask to skip the landing lessons.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: SandySandfort on December 12, 2009, 07:26:02 am
Remember the initial news stories after 9/11? Some of those hijackers did ask to skip the landing lessons.

I don't believe those stories. The are just disinformation to imply intent. Have any of you ever taken flying lessons? I have. Just how would those lessons have been given if I had expressed no interest in learning to take off and land? I certainly would never have told my instructor something as crazy as that. If these men existed, they certainly would have been evil, but I seriously doubt they would have been that stupid.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Rocketman on December 12, 2009, 11:07:36 pm
Sandy:  Going to have to disagree with you on this one.  I'm a pilot too.  Soloed at 17 and got my private pilot's license at 19 which is more than a few years ago.  I really do think that the terrorists were that stupid.  Even given the fact that this was before 9/11 and things were a lot more relaxed than they are now, the flight instructor down in Clearwater (I think I remember reading) contacted the local police and the FBI and told them about it.  The police as I remember shrugged it off and the FBI told the instructor that the terrorist was already under surveillance (which is an incredibly stupid thing to tell a non law enforcement person but that's another story) so the instructor went ahead and taught him.  What should have been a red flag was ignored.  The FBI prior to 9/11 were watching Atta who was the pilot of one of the planes but they weren't watching him that closely.  Poor intel, missed opportunities and a failure of the intelligence departments of the U.S. to put all the pieces together in time.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: SandySandfort on December 13, 2009, 08:45:21 am
Sandy:  Going to have to disagree with you on this one.  I'm a pilot too.  Soloed at 17 and got my private pilot's license at 19 which is more than a few years ago.  I really do think that the terrorists were that stupid.  Even given the fact that this was before 9/11 and things were a lot more relaxed than they are now, the flight instructor down in Clearwater (I think I remember reading) contacted the local police and the FBI and told them about it.  The police as I remember shrugged it off and the FBI told the instructor that the terrorist was already under surveillance (which is an incredibly stupid thing to tell a non law enforcement person but that's another story) so the instructor went ahead and taught him.  What should have been a red flag was ignored.  The FBI prior to 9/11 were watching Atta who was the pilot of one of the planes but they weren't watching him that closely.  Poor intel, missed opportunities and a failure of the intelligence departments of the U.S. to put all the pieces together in time.

I'm sorry, the story stinks. It sounds like something made up after the fact to fit circumstances. Ditto for Todd Beamer's "Let's roll" which has become a phrase in Afghanistan. Same with finding the terrorists passport in the rubble (but being unable to find any of the black boxes). Give me a break. For whatever reason, we have not be told the truth. The official story is a transparent lie.
 
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Rocketman on December 13, 2009, 11:06:29 am
Sandy:
One thing that I always consider when looking at any story is how does the story make the people telling the story look.  The better they look as they tell the story the less I am to totally believe it.  The story that I remember hearing from somewhere makes the FBI look bad and unprofessional.  If the story had been changed to make the flight instructor the one who totally was responsible for not warning the authorities in time then I wouldn't have believed a word of it.  The truth is usually found somewhere in the middle and normally governments and individuals who work in it don't want the public know just what kind of mistakes they make on a daily basis.
  Doubts lead to questions which leads to loss of confidence in the government.
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: Brugle on December 13, 2009, 02:01:02 pm
The better they look as they tell the story the less I am to totally believe it.
Most people feel the same as you.  I first learned that (and a great deal else) from RAH.  From "If This Goes On--":
Quote
Get this, John: if you are ever suspected of something, try to make the evidence point to a lesser offense.  Never try to prove lily-white innocence.  Human nature being what it is, your chances are better.
I expect that many government officials are aware of this, since those in certain positions will be selected for (and have incentives to learn) skill with lies and propaganda.  While any given bit of the official story might be true, from past performance it's safe to conclude that a significant part of it is false.
The story that I remember hearing from somewhere makes the FBI look bad and unprofessional.
From that, my conclusion is that the truth would make them look a lot worse (in some way).
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: KBCraig on December 14, 2009, 01:36:39 am
(re: requirements for round-trip tickets)

No, the airline staff made it clear it was a US federal requirement.

And bank branch managers insist that it's a violation of federal law to carry a gun in a bank. They never seem to be able to cite that law, but they "know it's there somewhere!"

It's easy to blame everything on fed.gov, because there's nothing so stupid that we won't believe it's a federal law.

I think you just got rooked out of a worthless return ticket..
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: SandySandfort on December 14, 2009, 06:26:10 am
(re: requirements for round-trip tickets)
It's easy to blame everything on fed.gov, because there's nothing so stupid that we won't believe it's a federal law.

I think you just got rooked out of a worthless return ticket..

Well, no. My mother didn't raise any stupid children (with the possible exception of my brother). As I wrote before, I finessed my way around the requirement.  ;)
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: GeoModder on December 14, 2009, 09:08:16 am
Well, no. My mother didn't raise any stupid children (with the possible exception of my brother). As I wrote before, I finessed my way around the requirement.  ;)

Let me  guess, you waved with a Panamese identity card.  :D
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: SandySandfort on December 14, 2009, 12:28:03 pm
Well, no. My mother didn't raise any stupid children (with the possible exception of my brother). As I wrote before, I finessed my way around the requirement.  ;)

Let me  guess, you waved with a Panamese identity card.  :D

Nope. I'm a tourist. I did go ahead and make a return flight reservation. It cost a pretty penny, because I bought a refundable ticket...
Title: Re: High finance in a market free of Government Regulation
Post by: KBCraig on December 15, 2009, 03:21:51 am
(re: requirements for round-trip tickets)
It's easy to blame everything on fed.gov, because there's nothing so stupid that we won't believe it's a federal law.

I think you just got rooked out of a worthless return ticket..

Well, no. My mother didn't raise any stupid children (with the possible exception of my brother). As I wrote before, I finessed my way around the requirement.  ;)

Forgive me for misunderestimating you.  ;)


I did go ahead and make a return flight reservation. It cost a pretty penny, because I bought a refundable ticket...

Okay, in light of recent information, I think you got rooked out of an expensive refundable ticket.  ;D

Without independent confirmation or a cite to the relevent statue or regulation, I'm still calling shenangians on the airline agents who fed you this line of bull.