|
Why do people buy at market tops?
|
|
|
|
I categorize you as someone who can't think clearly on the subject, given your general worship of the free market.
Fortunately, I categorize you as someone who's categorizations have no relevance so, meh... I wouldn't expect you to be able to effectively categorize me given your starry eyed views of markets. You're clearly lacking some information in your analysis, as are market participants. |
|
|
|
My country has cash so i go to you and tell you, Ok sir will you sell me, lease me or anything similar your land for 1billion $. You rub your hands thinking how good deal that was but in fact real value of your land is lets say 100billion $.
Free & fair trade leaves both parties the richer. The value of a good is what the market settles on. If you sell your land for 1 billion, that's what it's worth to you. Such are the naive views of those who worship the free market. Let me correct you: the value of a good is not what the market settles on. The market settles on what the knowledge between two parties have about a good and it's supply and renewability, their perceived individual projection of their need for the good in the future and the unique economic and often peculiar situations both parties find themselves in. Their knowledge is also almost certainly devoid or significantly lacking in the ramifications of the consumption of that good, both in terms of depletion and effects on the world, and furthermore, even if not lacking, often indifferent. Anyone who can think clearly can see that. Since you clearly cannot see that, I categorize you as someone who can't think clearly on the subject, given your general worship of the free market. |
|
|
|
The "end of government" would mean the end of peace, security, freedom, and all the infrastructure that has never worked without a governing authority.
Security is a service, like any other, and we do not need a monopoly provider of this service. Infrastructure, even today, is mostly privately built, contracted by the governments. The "end of government" would only mean the "end of monopoly provision of security." Nope. Security is a status. A service can then make sure a status of peace is maintained. If you do not more or less centralize the power used for maintaining peace you get rivalry (because one mans peace is another mans chaos) and that means no security untill a top dog arises. This top dog would be basically the same thing as a government protecting you only it will be Sony or Nike or Microsoft. And you will live in a city protected by such a multinational and will be working in their (or their friends) factories. This will happen because multinationals have enourmous power world wide (they provide goods, they provide jobs, they have capital, they have real estate and they have an established global organisation). Some multinationals already have more power than some nations. You will exchange a broken democratic system for a slave-worker operated multinational where a human beings life is measured in how much money they can make for the company. And all that because you want to float your peace on a market. microsoft is so so so sooo sooo sooooooooo much more competent than the united states government. Ill take my chances. Microsoft is competent at locking people into bloated software packages, overcharging for said packages, and keeping money for themselves. Microsoft is also incompetent at changing and innovating. I'll take the government over Microsoft any day. |
|
|
|
I don't believe either one of us can be persuaded from our positions so I'm going to refrain from further engagement in a pissing contest. I've found that by and large, an individual's nature is either geared toward bending to the authority of the State and its decrees or its geared to less centralized modes of existence. No amount of debate is going to change a person's nature.
Bending? Wow. You must be the real deal, a guy who whines his whole life and simultaneously projects the facade of being someone who doesn't bend. Guess what? I bet you've bent over all your life just like the rest of us. Only difference is, most of us don't whine, nor feel like we're bending over, because we aren't. But those who whine about it - those are the ones really feeling the shaft. Life sucks so bad for you, dude. |
|
|
|
Sounds like theft by people to me. |
|
|
|
You win bonehead of the year award. Talk about totally missing the point. The household is an analogy. When using analogies, the analogue is something which exists instead of the that which it is analogizing to.
Care to reread my reply instead of throwing insults? It's a question of how you understand property rights. You are saying, you have property rights in your household, and, therefore, you can set up any rules that you like. I agree. If you agree that you can do anything you want on what you clearly demarcate and defend as your property in a universe where no higher authority has domain over your little corner of the world, then you implicitly agree that in our universe on Earth, a country can do anything it wants on a territory which it clearly demarcates and defends as its own and no higher authority has domain over that nation, then we're on the same page. Congratulations if you understand that. And be glad that in a world which offers many nations to choose from, some are pretty damn good. So good, in fact, that you would be a fool to complain and wish for something significantly different, as others here in this forum do indeed do. For example, some dimwitted nitwits in these forums start drooling at the notion of life on oil rigs, or life living in rubber tubes on floating icebergs. Imagine the freedoms afforded by such terrific locales! What's next? Life on some mind numbingly cold and lonely rock in the Kuiper Belt? Or how about some ice rock in the Oort Cloud? Bottom line - you don't know how good you actually have it. Geez, it's always insults with you isn't it? My experience is that generally people throw out the insults when they don't have an argument. And as for the you don't know how good you have it, that is an argument that is made many times to justify criminal behaviour. Hey, we're only taking 25% (or whatever) of your money be thankful that you get to keep the rest. Think I saw that on a Sopranos episode. I'm sure when the mafia runs a protection racket in a town, the same kinds of arguments are made. Hey, this is a great place to live and all you have to do is put up with having your money stole and be told what to do and have the law being constantly changed and expanded on. "Don't make a fuss, shut up, and be thankful for what you've got." The difference being, in your objections, and reality, is you really don't know how good you have it. You don't really see down and out people complaining about taxes, do you? And besides, if you used all your brain cells (yes I'm insulting you because you really do deserve it), you'd realize that the opportunities afforded you to make money which puts you into a position of being taxed are likely because of the existence of the government. If you want to complain, please expend your energy complaining about things which will help us all. |
|
|
|
|
Just a quick note: Bitcoin only allows you to avoid taxes because it's not well adopted. In everyone's fantasies here, with currency collapse and full adoption of Bitcoin, then you'll be back to square one and paying taxes again.
Stop your delusions.
|
|
|
|
You win bonehead of the year award. Talk about totally missing the point. The household is an analogy. When using analogies, the analogue is something which exists instead of the that which it is analogizing to.
Care to reread my reply instead of throwing insults? It's a question of how you understand property rights. You are saying, you have property rights in your household, and, therefore, you can set up any rules that you like. I agree. If you agree that you can do anything you want on what you clearly demarcate and defend as your property in a universe where no higher authority has domain over your little corner of the world, then you implicitly agree that in our universe on Earth, a country can do anything it wants on a territory which it clearly demarcates and defends as its own and no higher authority has domain over that nation, then we're on the same page. Congratulations if you understand that. And be glad that in a world which offers many nations to choose from, some are pretty damn good. So good, in fact, that you would be a fool to complain and wish for something significantly different, as others here in this forum do indeed do. For example, some dimwitted nitwits in these forums start drooling at the notion of life on oil rigs, or life living in rubber tubes on floating icebergs. Imagine the freedoms afforded by such terrific locales! What's next? Life on some mind numbingly cold and lonely rock in the Kuiper Belt? Or how about some ice rock in the Oort Cloud? Bottom line - you don't know how good you actually have it. |
|
|
|
Government is almost universally inept and inefficient in everything it does.
I'll take that over a system which is fueled solely by the immediate desires of those who don't understand or acknowledge the long term effects. |
|
|
|
|
Most of you in this thread suffer from a delusional sense that you are being oppressed by a system that works quite well, instead of a common sense view which acknowledges the utility of it.
'Tis true that those who have it quite well will find something to complain about.
|
|
|
|
If I create a currency, and use it regularly in my household between residents in my household, and I agree to let you stay in my household, and let you use my currency, and i let you own stuff in my household at my discretion, and I charge you a fee based on transactions you engage in using my currency in my household, is that theft?
That's basically what governments do.
What if bitcoin charged you a fee for engaging in transactions using bitcoins? Is that theft?
What was stated when you moved in was that the rules can change. Take it or leave it. If you were born in my household, play by my rules or leave. Clear enough? Even if I'm in your household, I still have to play by the rules set up by government. Therefore, according to your logic, you have no household. Everything belongs to the government. And if you are unlucky enough to be a US citizen, you belong to your government too, 'cause you have to pay your taxes anywhere you go. Once more. You have no property. You yourself are a property. Are you OK with this? Are you here to defend this system? You win bonehead of the year award. Talk about totally missing the point. The household is an analogy. When using analogies, the analogue is something which exists instead of the that which it is analogizing to. |
|
|
|
If I create a currency, and use it regularly in my household between residents in my household, and I agree to let you stay in my household, and let you use my currency, and i let you own stuff in my household at my discretion, and I charge you a fee based on transactions you engage in using my currency in my household, is that theft?
That's basically what governments do.
What if bitcoin charged you a fee for engaging in transactions using bitcoins? Is that theft?
Depends; was the household fee clearly stated when I first moved in, or was it created after? And may I opt out if I decide I no longer want to use said currency or the benefits it entails? What was stated when you moved in was that the rules can change. Take it or leave it. If you were born in my household, play by my rules or leave. Clear enough? |
|
|
|
|
If I create a currency, and use it regularly in my household between residents in my household, and I agree to let you stay in my household, and let you use my currency, and i let you own stuff in my household at my discretion, and I charge you a fee based on transactions you engage in using my currency in my household, is that theft?
That's basically what governments do.
What if bitcoin charged you a fee for engaging in transactions using bitcoins? Is that theft?
|
|
|
|
Luke has a point.
As much as I'm a libertarian, it's also true that social rules make life a lot easier.
AFAIK libertarians believe that social rules are n3ecessary, but there should be a minimal government. Over in the Politics forum, there's a constant argument between the libertarians and others. I can't stand libertarianism myself. Just my opinion, but libertarianism is a terrible idea, Then you will make a great slave. But don't count me in. Think. If Bitcoin becomes useful, then taxes will be implemented differently. For example, taxes will be based on the height of your fence, or how many shingles are on your roof, or how big your waist is.
They can take your car and your house, but they will still be unable to take your Bitcoins. You can sell the house and car for Bitcoins, and they cannot take anything from you anymore. So taxing people having Bitcoins is not as easy as it might seem at first. This will probably lead to lowering taxes to an acceptable (for almost everybody) level. I myself think that the TOTAL amount of taxation (including all hidden fees and taxes) should not exceed 10%. 10% is a fair amount of taxation which i could bear. Are you going to live in your flashdrive full of bitcoins? No. You're then going to have to rent from someone who owns a house and pays taxes, and he'll pass the expense on to you. You're a bonehead. |
|
|
|
Luke has a point.
As much as I'm a libertarian, it's also true that social rules make life a lot easier.
AFAIK libertarians believe that social rules are n3ecessary, but there should be a minimal government. Over in the Politics forum, there's a constant argument between the libertarians and others. I can't stand libertarianism myself. Just my opinion, but libertarianism is a terrible idea, and there are sound arguments as why it is. Oh, and besides, Bitcoin is impotent against taxes. How deluded do you have to be to think Bitcoin could ever allow one to evade taxes except when it's a hobby currency? Think. If Bitcoin becomes useful, then taxes will be implemented differently. For example, taxes will be based on the height of your fence, or how many shingles are on your roof, or how big your waist is. Don't be a moron. |
|
|
|
I watched that one a month or two ago. Great and sad story. |
|
|
|
I'm not as knowledgeable as many real film buffs are. But I like Viskingar och Rop, l'Avventura, Picnic at Hanging Rock, Blow-Up, and Ran. Those have stuck with me over the years.
Most of those are Criterion films. Hence you might like a lot of the ones I've mentioned here. |
|
|
|
slavery is better than 100% tax
And dying by having a piano falling on you is better than being swallowed up by the Earth. My statement is as relevant as yours. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
