Hillary and Trump

[Marblehead]

It is so interesting how sensitive information that became insensitive information is now top secrete information.

 

It's called covering up the truth.

[Jim D.]

I watched Trumps Press Conference in Florida. He is better at addressing a small group than a very large group, like the Republican Convention. He says that he has got a plan to turn things around, but does not want to telescope to his opponent. I want to hear his plan. I will be able to tell the Group if it is a solvent plan or not drawing on my 16 year history in turning failing operations around.

Edited July 30, 2016 by Jim D.

[Marblehead]

Well, if he is elected and if he is serious about wanting to change things he will have to build a lot of divergent channels in order to get past all the bullshit that goes on in Washington.

[Jim D.]

I am aware of the Clinton's Investments since Bill C. left office. How could she/they possibly relate to the average guy? Their portfolio is worth $100M.

[Marblehead]

Hillary does not have the capacity of relating with the average American.  She can't even relate with her husband except to tell him where to put the money.

.

[Jim D.]

One of the cardinal sins, and also a character defect is greed. The Dao talks about materialism as a disconnect from the Great Integrity.

[wilfred]

Hillary Clinton says she wants to get money out politics...lets see what the numbers say:

 

'Hedge-Fund Money: $48.5 Million for Hillary Clinton, $19,000 for Donald Trump'

 

full breakdown of the donations in this article http://archive.is/Hvdzo#selection-3803.0-3803.77

[Aaron]

You have the option of getting a rabid dog, a mutt, or a scarecrow to protect your property. Sure the rabid dog might be the most ferocious, but do you trust it not to bite you? And if you are bitten wont you have to worry about rabies yourself? The mutt isn't a purebred, it's not necessarily trustworthy, but if it does something wrong, it's most likely not going to lead to your death. The scarecrow is great in principle, but how practical is it? Sure you don't want the rabid dog or mutt, but the scarecrow isn't going to do anything and the fact is, the only options are the rabid dog or the mutt if you want anything done. I guess the question is what do we want done?

 

My belief is that Hillary is guilty of all the things people say she is, however I don't worry that Hillary will start a nuclear holocaust or make some terrible decision that will send us into another depression or war that might just end the world as we know it. I also believe we will have time under a Clinton presidency to elect progressives and independents that will allow us to change the government and get money and corruption out of politics. So for me, I will vote for the lesser of two evils, because not voting for the lesser of two evils, might mean the greater evil wins and if that happens, then I am responsible for that. 

Edited July 31, 2016 by Aaron

[Karl]

Good reason not to vote for any evil then. That's my position. Only one thing is assured by progressives. Progressively less freedom, productivity, peace and happiness. All progressive policies end in blood, misery, poverty and violence.

 

How's that progressive Venezuela doing ? Last week they celebrated Chavez birthday with a £100, 000 cake whilst enacting forced labour laws.

[Apech]

The only answer to America's economic problems and inequalities is a centrally planned economy and to nationalise the banks and the crowning heights of the economy like Apple and other big corporations.

[Chang]

The only answer to America's economic problems and inequalities is a centrally planned economy and to nationalise the banks and the crowning heights of the economy like Apple and other big corporations.

 

I am at a loss to say whether you are serious regarding this suggestion or if your words are simply in jest. I fear however that it is the former.

[Apech]

I am at a loss to say whether you are serious regarding this suggestion or if your words are simply in jest. I fear however that it is the former.

 

 

I have come to realise that private ownership is the external evidence of ego-clinging.  And while some level of personal possessions should be allowed - or could be allowed - only when the means of production is collectively owned through the state - will this world heal its wounds.  the US should lead the way.  Though I very much doubt they have the courage to do so.

[Karl]

I have come to realise that private ownership is the external evidence of ego-clinging.  And while some level of personal possessions should be allowed - or could be allowed - only when the means of production is collectively owned through the state - will this world heal its wounds.  the US should lead the way.  Though I very much doubt they have the courage to do so.

Apech, even if we ignore the philosophical error and the economic error, even then we have clear empirical historical evidence that this is not the case. The perfect example-leaving out China, Russia, North Korea-is the immense economic disparity between east and west Germany to the extent that eventually the wall had to fall.

 

You are right to point out that private property is evidence of ego-of course it is. Dead people, or people unborn need no private property.

 

It seems you are falling ever further into a place where authoritarian violence is seen as peaceful co-existence. :-(

[Marblehead]

I have come to realise that private ownership is the external evidence of ego-clinging.  And while some level of personal possessions should be allowed - or could be allowed - only when the means of production is collectively owned through the state - will this world heal its wounds.  the US should lead the way.  Though I very much doubt they have the courage to do so.

 

No, the USA will not be the leader in this.  There are European countries headed in that direction though.

 

Thing about ownership is that no one can come along and make claim on what you have worked hard to gain.  No ownership would result in chaos.  State controlled economy doesn't work.  The USSR and China proved that.  Look at China now after allowing limited private ownership.

 

I will agree that there is too much ego-clinging by the wealthy.  Better laws and a fairer taxing system would eliminate a lot of that.  The USA has never been a free market economy but the laws are always written to favor the wealthy.

[Karl]

No, the USA will not be the leader in this. There are European countries headed in that direction though.

 

Thing about ownership is that no one can come along and make claim on what you have worked hard to gain. No ownership would result in chaos. State controlled economy doesn't work. The USSR and China proved that. Look at China now after allowing limited private ownership.

 

I will agree that there is too much ego-clinging by the wealthy. Better laws and a fairer taxing system would eliminate a lot of that. The USA has never been a free market economy but the laws are always written to favor the wealthy.

That's not entirely true. The laws have been written to benefit those who want to gain what they didn't produce, or earn. Not all wealthy people gained from such laws, many, such as those often branded 'robber barons' were put out of business on the grounds that they were too competitive and drove down the prices to the extent that parasitic businesses were no longer sustainable.

 

The anti-trust laws were designed to get businesses to cartel together, to stop competing with each other, preventing innovation and maximising profit: it works like this; if you are selling low then you are undercutting/dumping, if your price is high then you are price gouging and profiteering, if the price is similar then you are price fixing. Ironically anti-trust laws achieve exactly what they were supposed to prevent. The losers are everyone else.

 

There is no such thing as a 'fair' taxation system. Tax is coercive theft at the point of a gun. Theft is theft, X is X. I don't know anyone that doesn't understand that stealing is an immoral action, they might justify it but that doesn't make it right. If there was a hell, then be assured, those who support taxation are booking their tickets.

Edited July 31, 2016 by Karl

[Marblehead]

No problem with what you said but I found this below a little too hard core.

There is no such thing as a 'fair' taxation system. Tax is coercive theft at the point of a gun. Theft is theft, X is X. I don't know anyone that doesn't understand that stealing is an immoral action, they might justify it but that doesn't make it right. If there was a hell, then be assured, those who support taxation are booking their tickets.

Without taxes there would be no infrastructure for societies.  No single person is going to give up their wealth to build a road for someone else to use and that they will never have a use for.

 

I hear what you are saying but it's just not possible to have a society without a central government.  And this costs money.  Where else could the funds come from?

 

Now, if "the people" had the right to vote on all taxation authorities then it would be a little better than it is now.  The government presents to the people the need for funding of "X" project.  The people vote on the (dis)approval of the project and at the same time the vote allows for "fair" taxing of the people to acquire those funds and when the project is paid for the tax becomes null and void.

 

Considering human nature, I don't know if there will ever be a "fair" system of central government and taxation.  Smaller communities might be able to create something of equality for "all" the people.  But I doubt it would ever happen with a larger country like the USA, Russia, etc.

[Karl]

No problem with what you said but I found this below a little too hard core.

 

Without taxes there would be no infrastructure for societies.  No single person is going to give up their wealth to build a road for someone else to use and that they will never have a use for.

 

I hear what you are saying but it's just not possible to have a society without a central government.  And this costs money.  Where else could the funds come from?

 

Now, if "the people" had the right to vote on all taxation authorities then it would be a little better than it is now.  The government presents to the people the need for funding of "X" project.  The people vote on the (dis)approval of the project and at the same time the vote allows for "fair" taxing of the people to acquire those funds and when the project is paid for the tax becomes null and void.

 

Considering human nature, I don't know if there will ever be a "fair" system of central government and taxation.  Smaller communities might be able to create something of equality for "all" the people.  But I doubt it would ever happen with a larger country like the USA, Russia, etc.

I have a chuckle when you regurgitate perceived wisdom. One of the regular questions asked of free marketeers is 'who will build the roads' ?

 

The answer is that the most succesful infrastructure builders in your own country have been privately financed. Burnt Folsom is good on this.

 

https://youtu.be/4Vw6uF2LdZw

 

Now, I didn't say that you could do without some form of Governance-that's an anarchists stance (Murray Rothbard was a great proponent and he makes some good points economically). The US had limited Government in the early 19th century and it was paid through small tariffs on imported goods. This, it is true to say, is still a form of taxation but it is severely limiting. It has the effect of reducing imports and therefore the revenue stream, which means Governments have to be careful not to ramp it up, unlike income tax (once reserved only for the very wealthiest at a tiny few percentage points). It's not my purpose here to discuss other ways of funding limited Government, but there are other possibilities.

 

Government should be limited to providing law, order and defence of the nation. It should not be into any form of welfarism either corporate, nor public. Just like the Church was seperated from state, so should commerce and state be kept apart as should charity and state.

 

The reason we have become accustomed to the idea that only the state can find infrastructure projects is obvious with a bit of thought. The state doesn't want entrepreneurs because the Government would be seen as less necessary and those that live on the backs of the people as special interest groups don't want competition. The end result is essentially socialism. Those that own the wealth have done so without producing anything and if they did produce, then they did so with massive tax payer funding and a Government that sheltered them from competitors.

 

This is the reason we are in such a bloody mess. The Government has been acting like an entrepreneur that has no restrictions required of an entrepreneur who must avoid loss. Over time the Government has dug ever deeper into producers profits and the money has flowed from the true entrepreneur to the parasitic businessman. Now we have reached the point at which the losses for this behaviour have become unsustainable. The Government has been handing money to these crony capitalists, taking a big chunk for itself and, it has been forced to maintain the living standards of the workers through greater taxation/ welfare payments. Currently the US has a debt of 23 trillion dollars and this is the cost of letting a Government act as an entrepreneur, it has lost money and the debt has fallen on the producers. In an era where the state decides what the build and has taken away the risks of building it, then no one will risk their capital when they can allay the risk onto the tax payer. Eventually this shell game ends when no one produces anything and the state prints money at a rate that destroys the currency completely. This is what will happen to the USA, just as it did to China, Britain, the Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire.

[Chang]

I have come to realise that private ownership is the external evidence of ego-clinging.  And while some level of personal possessions should be allowed - or could be allowed - only when the means of production is collectively owned through the state - will this world heal its wounds.  the US should lead the way.  Though I very much doubt they have the courage to do so.

 

No matter how many times it is proved that Socialism ends in disaster you still refuse to see the facts.

 

It is indeed a case of “having eyes they see not and ears they hear not.

 

I assume that you will have us all dressed in Mao Suits and perhaps then we can do without names and simply be known by our number. Oh brave new world.

[Apech]

No matter how many times it is proved that Socialism ends in disaster you still refuse to see the facts.

 

It is indeed a case of “having eyes they see not and ears they hear not.

 

I assume that you will have us all dressed in Mao Suits and perhaps then we can do without names and simply be known by our number. Oh brave new world.

 

 

I would keep names but I think the idea of the nuclear family needs deconstructing.  I favour the Kibbutz model.  I think we have more chance of modifying the thoughts of the young in this way to get rid of selfishness and greed.

[Jim D.]

I would keep names but I think the idea of the nuclear family needs deconstructing.  I favour the Kibbutz model.  I think we have more chance of modifying the thoughts of the young in this way to get rid of selfishness and greed.

 

From what I have read about Kibbutz there seems to be a degree of capitalism and ownership involved in this model (2012). My experience with the group model, there always seems to be a group leader that emerges.

[Karl]

I would keep names but I think the idea of the nuclear family needs deconstructing.  I favour the Kibbutz model.  I think we have more chance of modifying the thoughts of the young in this way to get rid of selfishness and greed.

What the heck ? Clockwork Orange isn't an instructional film. You want to turn human beings into sacrificial lambs ? You were never like that so I can only conclude you are messing about.

[idquest]

Apech, even if we ignore the philosophical error and the economic error, even then we have clear empirical historical evidence that this is not the case. The perfect example-leaving out China, Russia, North Korea-is the immense economic disparity between east and west Germany to the extent that eventually the wall had to fall.

 

You are right to point out that private property is evidence of ego-of course it is. Dead people, or people unborn need no private property.

 

It seems you are falling ever further into a place where authoritarian violence is seen as peaceful co-existence. :-(

 

To compare West and East Germany pre-unification is not very accurate. East Germany paid huge contributions to the USSR right after the war; and kept paying its share for Warsaw Treaty membership up until the end in early 80-s. Whereas the West Germany enjoyed the Marshall Plan capital infusion and also received funds from from the USA for use of its territory for all the USA military bases not paying anything for NATO membership.

 

As for China, let's not forget that it was western (largely the USA) capital that lift up China from its extreme poverty level to current highs. Whatever system you have, you still need capital infusion. And it has been huge for China.

[Apech]

What the heck ? Clockwork Orange isn't an instructional film. You want to turn human beings into sacrificial lambs ? You were never like that so I can only conclude you are messing about.

 

 

Karl,

 

Do you think I would stoop so low as to just post to get a reaction?

[Karl]

Karl,

 

Do you think I would stoop so low as to just post to get a reaction?

I'm hoping.

[Karl]

To compare West and East Germany pre-unification is not very accurate. East Germany paid huge contributions to the USSR right after the war; and kept paying its share for Warsaw Treaty membership up until the end in early 80-s. Whereas the West Germany enjoyed the Marshall Plan capital infusion and also received funds from from the USA for use of its territory for all the USA military bases not paying anything for NATO membership.

 

As for China, let's not forget that it was western (largely the USA) capital that lift up China from its extreme poverty level to current highs. Whatever system you have, you still need capital infusion. And it has been huge for China.

So what exactly is your argument ?

 

West Germany received Marshall plan funding because it embraced western capitalism. East Germany had to pay because it ended up under a communist system. In other words nothing changes in my example. The problem for East Germany was communism and success for West Germany was the result of capitalism. There were no capital infusions until China moved towards capitalism either. Companies don't invest in communist countries for obvious reasons.