Do you know any Communists?

KyussBishop · 28-02-2014 02:09PM

sin_city wrote: »

Do you struggle with Maths?

Gold was around $350 in 2003...it went to $1900 but around $1400 (now) it is 400%

$350 X 4 = $1400

If you require further help with history or maths let me know.

And was this prediction as a result of hyperinflation claims?

KyussBishop · 28-02-2014 02:25PM

sin_city wrote: »

I don't recall any of this happening under small government systems...Did Jefferson invade?

If you think the US is capitalist now, you trully are lost

Sure, this all happened under the US in its modern form, but the US before that was no paradise - committing a gradual genocide of the Indians and annexation of Indian land, not to mention slavery...

sin_city · 28-02-2014 02:31PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Sure, this all happened under the US in its modern form, but the US before that was no paradise - committing a gradual genocide of the Indians and annexation of Indian land, not to mention slavery...

Most indians died as a result of disease. The spanish and portuguese did it too....do you think Peru and Brazil also has a lot to answer for like the US?

Slavery? You mean the thing that lasted for thousands of years that the British got rid of? The thing that Indians, Africans and Europeans did to each other for centuries? Named after the white slavs of eastern europe being enslaved by the Ottomans? Let's mention it...............let's also learn about it.

You don't know much about it really....do you?

karma_ · 28-02-2014 02:33PM

sin_city wrote: »

You should be working for a The Sun..

yes, him:

During his lifetime, Jefferson attempted twice to legislate the emancipation of slaves, one time in 1769 at the Virginia General Assembly, and another in 1784 at the Continental Congress. Jefferson also railed against King George III of Great Britain and the slave trade in his draft copy of the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776.

Twice you say... that's a supreme effort isn't it really. So am I to take it that this great man of liberty freed all his own slaves as he was so vehemently for emancipation? Or was it a case he only ever freed two Slaves in his entire lifetime and the great man of liberty even had the heart to free a couple more in his will.

Isn't it comforting to know that all those in favour of small a government and maximum economic freedom have their priorities in order. Should we abolish Slavery or just demand more economic freedoms?... the latter Thomas please.

sin_city · 28-02-2014 02:37PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

And was this prediction as a result of hyperinflation claims?

You're welcome.....see its easy ...$350 up to $1400.....400%

If you understood economics you'd understand Peter Schiff.........but I guess you don't.

He bases his predictions on fundamentals, logic, history and so on.....he's warned of a massive future collapse in 2002 but it took until 2008 to take place......was he an idiot in 2006??? maybe in your book

KyussBishop · 28-02-2014 02:38PM

sin_city wrote: »

Most indians died as a result of disease. The spanish and portuguese did it too....do you think Peru and Brazil also has a lot to answer for like the US?

Slavery? You mean the thing that lasted for thousands of years that the British got rid of? The thing that Indians, Africans and Europeans did to each other for centuries? Named after the white slavs of eastern europe being enslaved by the Ottomans? Let's mention it...............let's also learn about it.

You don't know much about it really....do you?

So you don't contest any of it, you just engage in whataboutery 'well others did it too'.

Your example of ideal capitalism is built on genocide and slavery - and you don't bother contesting it; enough said.

KyussBishop · 28-02-2014 02:41PM

sin_city wrote: »

You're welcome.....see its easy ...$350 up to $1400.....400%

If you understood economics you'd understand Peter Schiff.........but I guess you don't.

He bases his predictions on fundamentals, logic, history and so on.....he's warned of a massive future collapse in 2002 but it took until 2008 to take place......was he an idiot in 2006??? maybe in your book

So this has nothing to do with his hyperinflation claims - meaning my claim that Schiff's rabid hyperinflation scaremongering, lost some people 40%-70% of their investments, stands.

I don't give a toss about his non-hyperinflation-related investments, so you can stop pretending that has anything to do with my argument - blatant straw-man.

sin_city · 28-02-2014 02:41PM

karma_ wrote: »

Twice you say... that's a supreme effort isn't it really. So am I to take it that this great man of liberty freed all his own slaves as he was so vehemently for emancipation? Or was it a case he only ever freed two Slaves in his entire lifetime and the great man of liberty even had the heart to free a couple more in his will.

Isn't it comforting to know that all those in favour of small a government and maximum economic freedom have their priorities in order. Should we abolish Slavery or just demand more economic freedoms?... the latter Thomas please.

Please read White liberals and black rednecks to understand more about slavery.......are you comparing Jefferson to people today or to people of his time?

You clearly don't understand the politics involved at the time but go on...have the audacity to speak more on something you have not researched at all.

sin_city · 28-02-2014 02:43PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

So this has nothing to do with his hyperinflation claims - meaning my claim that Schiff's rabid hyperinflation scaremongering, lost some people 40%-70% of their investments, stands.

I don't give a toss about his non-hyperinflation-related investments, so you can stop pretending that has anything to do with my argument - blatant straw-man.

If someone bought gold at $1900 and sold at $1300....they lost.....Schiff never says to sell gold.

He's a long term investor....not a momentum monkey

sin_city · 28-02-2014 02:44PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

So you don't contest any of it, you just engage in whataboutery 'well others did it too'.

Your example of ideal capitalism is built on genocide and slavery - and you don't bother contesting it; enough said.

No....what the Japanese and Germans did after 1945 seemed good....funny enough...no slaves....hmmmmmmm opps...there goes your theory.

KyussBishop · 28-02-2014 02:44PM

sin_city wrote: »

Please read White liberals and black rednecks to understand more about slavery.......are you comparing Jefferson to people today or to people of his time?

You clearly don't understand the politics involved at the time but go on...have the audacity to speak more on something you have not researched at all.

You're touting an ideal economic system, and you're basing your example of ideal capitalism on a slave economy.

Your example is bad purely on economic grounds, without even having to get into the politics of it.

sin_city · 28-02-2014 02:49PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

You're touting an ideal economic system, and you're basing your example of ideal capitalism on a slave economy.

Your example is bad purely on economic grounds, without even having to get into the politics of it.

Nope, I referenced a book written by a black man in which he explains that slavery existed for thousands of years but that it was abolished in the West whereas it declined in the Arab states.

The Arab states had twice as many slaves as the Western Hemisphere.....you won't look into this because it doesn't fit your agenda....I keep coming back with fact but you ignore them.

Anyway...why didn't the Arab states prosper? They had more slaves?

you probably didnt know blacks in the US had slaves....more facts....damn....you hate them.

After the civil war until 1913 is not a bad time to look at a decent system....lots of people went there with nothing.....wonder if they would have went if it were communist......not likely

Iwasfrozen · 28-02-2014 03:04PM

coolemon wrote: »

Putting two concrete barriers at ether side of where the intersection joins would make the other road unusable. And I could do that, because it would be my property. I could also stipulate that nobody using my road could enter from that road on to the other via my property. And I could do that, because it is my property.

Id also leave it until the very last minute to put the concrete barriers up so my would-be competitor has invested his money in something redundant, thus eliminating the competition.

Building concrete barriers to prevent cars entering from the other road to purposely sabotage your opponents business would be illegal the court system will still exist to solve these problems and new legislation would constantly have to be written and brought into law to deal with these issues as they emerge, as with today. Stipulating that a car that enters your road cannot also enter another road would be not only illegal it would be impossible to enforce.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Uhm, that doesn't stop you requiring a tariff on everyone using your road, that encircles their town?

It doesn't but it keeps the cost to a minimum through competition. You'd end up with a race to the bottom where the profits from the road are barely just enough to keep it maintained.

coolemon · 28-02-2014 03:10PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Building concrete barriers to prevent cars entering from the other road to purposely sabotage your opponents business would be illegal

Why would it be illegal? Surely I can do whatever I want with my property. Its my property - not someone else's or, god forbid, societies.

I mean, if you are going to restrict my use of my property, then god knows what unholy things might result from the precedent.

And - in an anarcho-capitalist society - who or what determines whether something is illegal? How is it enforced?

the court system will still exist to solve these problems and new legislation would constantly have to be written and brought into law to deal with these issues as they emerge, as with today.

But not in an anarcho-capitalist society.

Stipulating that a car that enters your road cannot also enter another road would be not only illegal it would be impossible to enforce.

No it wouldn't. Automatic bollards controlled via number plate recognition. Indeed, from my profits, I might even pay someone to police the junction.

Iwasfrozen · 28-02-2014 03:17PM

coolemon wrote: »

Why would it be illegal? Surely I can do whatever I want with my property. Its my property - not someone else's or, god forbid, societies.

I mean, if you are going to restrict my use of my property, then god knows what unholy things might result from the precedent.

And - in an anarcho-capitalist society - who or what determines whether something is illegal? How is it enforced?

It's illegal because as your actions would be deemed anti-competitive. Against the core foundations of a libertarian legal system. It's your land, your business and your property but you can't use it to force others out of the market.

But not in an anarcho-capitalist society.

I'm talking about minimal government. Society would still maintain a police force and small military.

No it wouldn't. Automatic bollards controlled via number plate recognition. Indeed, from my profits, I might even pay someone to police the junction.

Both illegal.

Mjollnir · 28-02-2014 03:17PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why? Your response to his assertion isn't adequate.

Because the poster I was responding to has demonstrated in numerous sub forums and threads that he/she/it is laughably historically and economically pig-ignorant, to say nothing of intellectually dishonest in the rankest sense.

Adequate enough for you?

Iwasfrozen · 28-02-2014 03:20PM

Mjollnir wrote: »

Because the poster I was responding to has demonstrated in numerous sub forums and threads that he/she/it is laughably historically and economically pig-ignorant, to say nothing of intellectually dishonest in the rankest sense.

Adequate enough for you?

No. Even the dumbest person can have moments of epiphany, you can't dismiss someone's arguements that easily.

KyussBishop · 28-02-2014 03:30PM

sin_city wrote: »

Nope, I referenced a book written by a black man in which he explains that slavery existed for thousands of years but that it was abolished in the West whereas it declined in the Arab states.

The Arab states had twice as many slaves as the Western Hemisphere.....you won't look into this because it doesn't fit your agenda....I keep coming back with fact but you ignore them.

Anyway...why didn't the Arab states prosper? They had more slaves?

you probably didnt know blacks in the US had slaves....more facts....damn....you hate them.

After the civil war until 1913 is not a bad time to look at a decent system....lots of people went there with nothing.....wonder if they would have went if it were communist......not likely

In other words, the Gilded Age. In those years the US engaged in an agressive invasion of the Philippines and engineered a coup to annex Hawaii:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Kingdom_of_Hawaii

The Gilded Age is especially well known for exploitation of workers and general inequality (including child labour), massive monopoly industries, that eventually had to be reigned in with the imposition of anti-trust laws to break up the monopolies.

Included in this time, is the gradual genocide of the Indians and annexation of their land as the railroads went out west.

It was also a period of US protectionism against foreign trade, through high tariffs on international trade - not very capitalist.

It's also a period marred by multiple extremely frequent and damaging financial panics/recessions, which eventually resulted in the creation of the Fed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States#Free_Banking_Era_to_the_Great_Depression

Mjollnir · 28-02-2014 03:33PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No. Even the dumbest person can have moments of epiphany, you can't dismiss someone's arguements that easily.

No? Damn.

I guess you'll just have to remain unsatisfied, then.

KyussBishop · 28-02-2014 03:37PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It doesn't but it keeps the cost to a minimum through competition. You'd end up with a race to the bottom where the profits from the road are barely just enough to keep it maintained.

No not really, anyone wanting to cross over your road - whether they use someone elses road to get there or not - has to pay you whatever you demand.

Iwasfrozen · 28-02-2014 03:40PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

No not really, anyone wanting to cross over your road - whether they use someone elses road to get there or not - has to pay you whatever you demand.

If they could go road A or road B they'll choose the cheapest.

coolemon · 28-02-2014 03:40PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's illegal because as your actions would be deemed anti-competitive. Against the core foundations of a libertarian legal system. It's your land, your business and your property but you can't use it to force others out of the market.

But what is 'anti-competitive'?

Surely property rights in and of themselves are anti-competitive. By virtue of someone owning something they are excluding and forcing another from operating on a level playing field.

Intellectual property rights, for example. If I invent something intrinsically irreplaceable like, oh, the wheel, I have a monopoly on it. Unless me inventing the wheel from my own pure genius is something I should be forced to give up?

I'm talking about minimal government. Society would still maintain a police force and small military.

But, I mean, what are the inherent principles of the society?

Because if I say something, oh, well such and such would be done. Or such and such would be illegal. That is, the making up of hypothetical laws as you go along.

KyussBishop · 28-02-2014 03:42PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's illegal because as your actions would be deemed anti-competitive. Against the core foundations of a libertarian legal system. It's your land, your business and your property but you can't use it to force others out of the market.

I'm talking about minimal government. Society would still maintain a police force and small military.

Both illegal.

The road debate originated from an anarcho-capitalist position; when you have a state, there's pretty much no need for private roads on a major scale, because the state can just build them.

KyussBishop · 28-02-2014 03:44PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If they could go road A or road B they'll choose the cheapest.

We're talking about a road encircling a town. There is no choice about where or not you want to pass that road, and no choice about paying the toll.

sin_city · 28-02-2014 11:55PM

You guys ignore my responses to your posts economics and, on slavery and comparisons of the US with other countries that had larger slave populations

Then you like each others posts.

KyussBishop · 01-03-2014 12:58AM

sin_city wrote: »

You guys ignore my responses to your posts economics and, on slavery and comparisons of the US with other countries that had larger slave populations

Then you like each others posts.

A lot of the time, what you reply to my posts, isn't actually replying to what I've said, but to something completely different that only has a superficial appearance of relating to what I've said.

If I'm ignoring part of your response, show me what I am ignoring, and then - if what you quote was a reply to one of my posts - show how the quote from you was relevant to my previous post.

Your comparisons to other countries are also whataboutery, which do nothing to discredit what you are replying to; it's a diversionary tactic to avoid addressing the fact, that the 'ideal capitalist' time period of US history that you put forward, was chock full of massive easily identifiable problems.

Do you know any Communists?

Comments