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.

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?
I'm a slacker, hear me snore...

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.   

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.
I'm a slacker, hear me snore...

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. 

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.

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.

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. ;)
I'm a slacker, hear me snore...

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.

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.