DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW AN ECONOMY WORKS??

by Terry 23 Replies latest members politics

• 

  Terry

  Okay...Makes sense to me. I would say though, that not all political laws are set up for loop holes for themselves and their buddies. I personally think deregulating the Cable Industry was a mistake. There's not enough competition in this sector.

  Competition!

  Think of a simple footrace.

  Government regulation allows one set of runners a headstart. Then, when they have a substantial lead ahead, deregulation allows the "others" a chance.

  Ha! Some chance. Try breaking into a market completely dominated by entrenched headstart runners!

  It isn't competition that doesn't happen; it is the headstart that tips the balance the wrong way.

  Laws and regulations always seem like they are "protecting" the consumer. That is a smokescreen. You have to look closer at who gets the advantages and who they are connected with. Scratch a law and you'll find underneath an advantage given one group over another.

  It is cynical to say so; but, this is the tool of the advantaged to eliminate or cripple competition.

  Where government is theoretically useful is to enforce simple cheating and dishonesty. I say "theoretical" because it comes down to fair enforcment of those laws which is another problem altogether. Justice is for sale just like regulations are for sale. This ain't a perfect world by no means.

  At least, in a free market, the runners begin the race at the same time. Who has the inside track? That is determined by the past.

  T.
• 

  Terry

  How did you come up with Rome existing for almost 1500 years? Wasn't it more like 800?

  
  The best kept secret in History 101!

  
  The books tell us Rome "fell" in 476 A.D. However, the empire of the Western half is what sunk into Barbarian hands. The actual seat of power had been moved by Constantine and his successors to Constantinople a century earlier. Constantinople managed to survive as the engine that drove the policies and protocols until the Muslims invaded successfully in 1453.

  T.
• 

  Terry

  Were credit cards introduced in the 60s?
  
  
  I remember my Dad being proud not to own one.
  
  
  Of course, eventually he had one. But I rememer the prevailing feeling was one of caution and distrust of the credit card system. Now you see people buying Starbucks with their credit cards.

  The system is rigged. Your credit rating is your lifeline in America. This reliance on Credit Cards is inimical. Imagine asking yourself before each purchase: "Hmmm, do I want to pay 18% more for this?"

  People are pretty stupid about financial matters.

  I have had many customers come into the bookstore where I work and tell me they are driving around to all the Half-Price Books' stores trying to find a certain book. This is insane!

  1.Use the telephone and find out FIRST if the book is even there before you waste your time and your gasoline trying to save a few bucks on a used book!!

  2. Order your book using the Internet. (I hear people complain they will have to pay shipping. I remind them that an Internet purchase REQUIRES NO TAX payment!)

  People just don't think and that is the problem.

  T.
• 

  ballistic

  I used to brew my own beer, I guess that is a kind of investment, until it comes to the drinking of it.
• 

  Terry

  I have some Jdub friends that are scared to consider leaving the religion because they feel there would be no meaning to life. Their goal is to be missionaries. As you mention, this shows they have lost any sense of personal worth and unfortunately converting others may make them feel good about themselves but can adversely affect the balance of other cultures.

  Once your sense of personal value is destroyed and you become a drone in the service of others, the only way you can have any "worth" is by more and more of this "trading-self-for-others". Think of the implications! When you take care of yourself it is viewed as "selfish" and when you neglect yourself to take care of others this is viewed as "noble". The maximum value a human can achieve under Altruism is when the self is utterly destroyed in service to others! YOU MUST DIE to be regarded as valuable! Think of how much lip-service is paid to kids who die on the battlefield of a war started by politicians for some obscure purpose.

  The reward system of an altruistic society is rigged to emphasize sacrifice as the noblest of all of man's efforts. Self-maintenance is viewed suspiciously and regarded as disgraceful.

  The Watchtower Society is a model of altruism. The constant drumbeat is for MORE MORE MORE service service service! Anybody who has to stop and attend to a personal need is marked as weak and spiritually sick!

  Altruism is at the heart of both Socialism, Communism and most religions. People are kept dependant on the group because their ability to achieve personal financial freedom is destroyed in the process of sacrifice to "others". This erosive mentality kills the individual and allows tyrants to rule the mob easily.

  Look at a man's assets and you will discover his core philosophy!!

  T
• 

  Terry

  ...Economy of the Five Nations.....

  Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas
  
  
  
  

  The fact of the matter is quite the opposite.

  Native Americans were living at about the same level of existence as Stone Age Neanderthals! They could not even produce metal! The women were the slaves who served the needs of the men from dawn to dusk, living short and miserable lives. The banding together as a "nation" came from the utter necessity of facing off against a common enemy who was implacable: the white man. When the white man arrived the "Indians" marvelled at them because of the miraculous advancement of technology in metals, dress, agricultural know-how and engineering acumen, comprehension of the geography of the earth, science and organizational skills. There were approximately 10 million "Indians" on this continent. Yet, they were unorganized until it was too late for them. White men knew how to exploit the soil for rich crops in a way unknown to the native Americans. White men "owned" land because they could live off it permanently in a way the "Indians" had no conception of. (Nomads are force to drift). In short, the economic advantages of the whites had given them an advancement light years beyond the poverty level of the indigenous tribes.

  How did the white man win? Superior technology.

  How did the white man get a superior technology? Superior economy.

  T.
• 

  jstalin

  Terry,

  It's rare that I run into someone who "gets it." Have you read Frederic Bstiat's "The Law"? He breaks society down into two classes: the producers and the plunderers. Those of us who do something productive and are self-sufficient through free trade of our skills and works, are the producers. Those who steal the fruits of our labor, largely through political constructs, are the plunderers. I think it is Bastiat that says, "As soon as a majority realizes that it can vote itself wealth from the minority, society is done." In my view, democracy is just the tyranny of the majority! Just because 50% plus 1 agree on something, doesn't make it right!
• 

  Terry

  It's rare that I run into someone who "gets it." Have you read Frederic Bstiat's "The Law"? He breaks society down into two classes: the producers and the plunderers. Those of us who do something productive and are self-sufficient through free trade of our skills and works, are the producers. Those who steal the fruits of our labor, largely through political constructs, are the plunderers. I think it is Bastiat that says, "As soon as a majority realizes that it can vote itself wealth from the minority, society is done." In my view, democracy is just the tyranny of the majority! Just because 50% plus 1 agree on something, doesn't make it right!

  In his DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA, Alexis de Tocqueville discusses the advantages and dangers of the majority rule--which he thought could be as tyrannical as the rule of the aristocracy.

  The way the ideas of the Founding Fathers were constructed it was never intended that the "common" non landholder would have a say in legislation of a prospering nation because the workaday grunt would be more of a consumer than a producer. Ideally, only a producer is entitled to be a consumer by virtue of the fact he has "produced" something for trade which balances out the equation.

  The real question is hidden, however. The average American voter is presented with only two entrenched parties and the rest are feckless and powerless also-rans. This sort of "choice" is hardly much of a choice at all. Why? The laws have been used to keep out grassroots movements by making the hurdles they leap (to have a place at the starting gate) almost impossible without unlimited funds at their disposal. That is why H.Ross Perot came so close (22/23 % of the popular vote). Then, there is the fact that a popular vote does NOT guarantee election either!

  Once an incumbent, the odds of an outsider unseating an officeholder are slim to none.

  The key to government power is MONEY. Which brings us back around to our topic of discussion.

  T.
• 

  Golf

  Terry, where may I ask did you get the following information from?
  
  
  Golf
• 

  stillajwexelder

  as usual Terry brilliant