I think we are headed to $175.
Doubtful. Exactly... Why would BAC pick some very unlikely BTC price point, and then to say that s/he it thinks that such price is going to happen? Very unlikely given recent event and recent price movement and recent volume.. .. Even the fact that BTC prices bounced off of $275 with such volume should cause a large number of rational observers to believe that this market has reversed and is very unlikely to return to such price points, absent some pretty bad news.... Accordingly, we have NOT been hearing any real bad news in regard to bitcoin.... much of the news is either good or neutral and with a few negative pieces here and there ... yet any negative news, to the extent it comes up, is largely outweighed by good and neutral news. In other words, seems like stupid-ass trolling statements to be realistically attempting to assert that we are returning to anywhere below $360 without some kind of meaningful analysis and explanation... .. otherwise making bare assertions of such seems either trollish or fantasy landia-sh.
|
|
|
what do ppl think?
Hodl or take short term gains?
Hodl as always! And buy. ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fs8.postimg.org%2F5sxj6yf6t%2Fjimjones.jpg&t=665&c=Nx_uaVorget-pQ) BUY, BUY, BUY, HODL, HODL, HODL and BUY, BUY, BUY. Exactly!!!!!!
|
|
|
Where the hell did adam go??
Occam's Razor: reconciliation with wife means abstinence from bct. I bet we could tempt him back by turning this thread into a discussion about Ripple. Go start your own thread: Wall Observer XRP/USD - Ripple price movement tracking & discussion. Yeah, they will have a total of 2 subscribers.. Walsoraj and Mah87. ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif)
|
|
|
Where the hell did adam go??
Occam's Razor: reconciliation with wife means abstinence from bct. I bet we could tempt him back by turning this thread into a discussion about Ripple. When the cat is away, the rats will play. Walsoraj: YOU DIRTY RAT!!!! ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif)
|
|
|
It's a bad joke
Wouldn´t say so. At least he seems to have webz in jail, must be one of those humanitarian ones: "Re: (No subject) « Sent to: fonzie on: Today at 01:34:26 AM » Reply with quoteQuote ReplyReply Remove this messageDelete Quote from: fonzie on Today at 01:22:13 AM Hi Adam, i know you´re in jail due to the SR2 bust. But if you or someone you trust could deliver me all the private keys to the coins that would be great. I swear i´m going to invest them all in DOGE and we will split 50/50 once 1 DOGE = 1$ so that we can both party hard when you´re out of jail. ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) KTHXBYEBYE adamstgBit reply: all the keys were lost in the fire.
only coins left are the ones poeple are playing hot potato with on the exchanges.
good luck." Personally, my most recent theory is that they issued Adam a computer and he is able to surf the internet and to peruse the various forums including bitcointalk.org; however, he is NOT permitted to directly submit any messages. However, I have some confidence in Adam's ability to figure out some subtle and/or direct ways to communicate with us. For example, he may have Loaded wink at us, or something like that. ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
|
|
|
You're all f---ing dead and you don't even know it, yet. Calling it... we don't get higher than $395 on this rally and we may have already seen the top. Back down to the low, low 300s. The bears haven't even placed most of their reserved shorts on the market, yet. This is going to get ugly.
Whatcha mean? Shorts are up 50% in the last 36 hours? Seems ultra bullish. It would be... if they had already entered their shorts. Those are just reserved Bitcoin swaps that can be entered as shorts at any time... I mean, unless you saw about 6,000 BTCs fly off the board in one fowl swoop. Also, look at the one day... the wave is closing and the downdraft will be lower than the last proximate bottom. Dude, I'm thrilled for people who took a long and made some money, but you might want to find the next short wave peak to exit... if you are lucky you might catch 380 or 390... but, absent the ETF breaking in the next couple of days or something dramatic, your bets are going to start turning against you. Note: I don't even have a position so I'm not even just talking my book (moms needed some money short term so I'm outta the game for about a week). You guys are some randos that I shoot the s--- with on, here, so as much as I like s--- talking, I want to see you all win this game. So, at least rethink your position. I think it's turning against you... I can be terribly wrong... but look. You are wrong quite frequently, even though you have a tendency to give specific recommendations with some kind of attempt at compelling conviction... seems a bit much to be attempting such.. and really in the end, your supposedly quasi-objective predictions do tend to come off as a form of book-talk. Says the guy who berated everybody for not buying at $600, $550, $500, $450, $400... I actually tend to be right about the direction, but still kind of suck at nailing entry and exit points... I make some money, but I could do a lot better if I could get over laziness and actually aim to be better at TA. You... probably don't make much money, but then again, you'll probably also never say you lost any money because you refuse to ever sell. My father was like you... he'd always talk about how much he won at the dog track, but we'd never have money for more than spaghetti-o's every time he went to the track. He'd only call his winners and pretend his losers never happened. Actually seems to be a big thing on this gambling site. You are really full of shit, now... hahahaha... Trying to make me out to be a trader or someone who is attempting to predict the market and to guide people in their investment choices. The only guidance I give is to buy and hold and to continue to buy and hold... because that is mostly what I do. I very rarely sell because my BTC portfolio has mostly been in the red.. ever since I started investing in BTC at the top of the market in November 2013. So, I am in long and i am investing long and I am generally NOT trading, unless I feel a certain level of confidence that the market will go down 5-10% - and you are right to suggest that I never feel that b/c if I were to sell, then I would be too worried about the manipulators pushing BTC prices in the upward direction and never to return to my selling point... So in that regard, I sleep better in BTC and I continue to invest on a regular basis.. currently my average buy in price is a bit under $550.. so yes, I remain in the red... but I am NOT too worried b/c I am pretty sure in the next couple of years, BTC prices will be far above my average buy in price (which will continue to adjust with my continuation in buying and accumulating BTC). Regarding your father, I am sorry about that and I am sorry about your having to eat spaghetti-o's. That may explain some of your communication ways. I deny being like your father because I am NOT trading as I said, but I am engaged in a form of dollar cost averaging.. which seems to be a bit different dynamic than betting on dog races. Also, my investment amount is much within my budget. Without going into a large number of details, my BTC investment continues to be less than 10% of my total investment package, even though since about November 2013, I have invested nearly all of my new available investment allocated money into BTC, rather into any other asset classes. Additionally, I have taken some of my other investments and diverted those towards BTC... which I will likely continue to do in the near future. I imagine that at some point my BTC investment is going to represent a much larger percentage of my total investment package, and I am anticipating that larger percentage will evolve due to appreciation of BTC prices. However, if my anticipation of BTC price appreciation does NOT proceed in an anticipated upward direction between 1 month and 2 years as anticipated, then I may need to reconsider my overall investment strategy..and the involvement of BTC in that investment strategy. At the same time, I am involved in studying BTC and including my participation in this forum and this thread b/c I am continuing to monitor the fundamentals of BTC.. and to assess whether any material and/or fundamental changes may develop that will cause me to lose confidence in BTC as part of my diversified investment strategy. Yes, there has been some bad news over the past year; however, so far such bad news has NOT outweighed the good news, and I continue to consider BTC as a very decent investment vehicle that I would NOT have any problems recommending people to invest in such.. especially at these price points and especially given recent market dynamics and what appears to be various ongoing strengths in BTC.... In other words, seems much better to buy now rather than to short.. the potential for upside seems much greater than the potential for downside.. even greater than it was at $600, $500 and $400.... he hehehehe. So go ahead and talk your book all you want and continue to argue for the shorting of bitcoin like you have been doing.. but you really seem to be a walking bag of contradictions and to be holding out yourself to be much more of an expert than you are, even when you are making your predictions that give conditions suggesting the price could go either way.. but you overall believe X or Y... or whatever...
|
|
|
You're all f---ing dead and you don't even know it, yet. Calling it... we don't get higher than $395 on this rally and we may have already seen the top. Back down to the low, low 300s. The bears haven't even placed most of their reserved shorts on the market, yet. This is going to get ugly.
Whatcha mean? Shorts are up 50% in the last 36 hours? Seems ultra bullish. It would be... if they had already entered their shorts. Those are just reserved Bitcoin swaps that can be entered as shorts at any time... I mean, unless you saw about 6,000 BTCs fly off the board in one fowl swoop. Also, look at the one day... the wave is closing and the downdraft will be lower than the last proximate bottom. Dude, I'm thrilled for people who took a long and made some money, but you might want to find the next short wave peak to exit... if you are lucky you might catch 380 or 390... but, absent the ETF breaking in the next couple of days or something dramatic, your bets are going to start turning against you. Note: I don't even have a position so I'm not even just talking my book (moms needed some money short term so I'm outta the game for about a week). You guys are some randos that I shoot the s--- with on, here, so as much as I like s--- talking, I want to see you all win this game. So, at least rethink your position. I think it's turning against you... I can be terribly wrong... but look. You are wrong quite frequently, even though you have a tendency to give specific recommendations with some kind of attempt at compelling conviction... seems a bit much to be attempting such.. and really in the end, your supposedly quasi-objective predictions do tend to come off as a form of book-talk.
|
|
|
You're all f---ing dead and you don't even know it, yet. Calling it... we don't get higher than $395 on this rally and we may have already seen the top. Back down to the low, low 300s. The bears haven't even placed most of their reserved shorts on the market, yet. This is going to get ugly.
YEAH right... Good luck with betting on that, that is if you are betting or if you just are trying to preserve what you have already mistakenly bet.
|
|
|
Bitshittity been down for you guys most of the last 12 hours or so?
NOT down.. but it just keeps losing its connection.. so up and down and up and down and up.... etc.
|
|
|
i cannot guess at the intelligence of anonymous individuals and their ability to apply basic logic. those funds are lost if they cannot provide an ID, and if they get caught with a fake those funds are also lost.... that has been known for 1 year or so. if not verified, funds are lost. period. basic logic. being able to withdraw without ID lasted until end of sept or octo 2013 right before the SR take down.... you really think someone is going to trade on an account they cannot withdraw funds from? at best they sell it to someone else at a discount and they try to get the funds out and take the risk.
What if you are one of their clients, and then suddenly they tell you that you have N days to provide document X or your funds are lost (that's right, not blocked until you provide the document, just fucking lost). Then they proceed to justify this action with a reference to a blog post of a year ago... well let see i actually am one of their clients and last year i got an email (not blog post) saying i need to verify and after 30 days i would not be able to withdraw btc/dollars without ID... i didn't.... if i didn't provide an ID my funds would have been lost anyway.... at least that is the thought that entered my mind... i can only speak from actual experience, but i guess in this forum logic does not carry any weight... so when i logged in about a year ago and tried to take out some btc and was blocked... hmm.. what to do... what to do... oh that's right... send them my ID, utility bill, etc.... because i am not running a criminal enterprise... anyway i am not saying it is right/wrong moral/immoral, what i am pointing out (you may have missed the start of this discussion) is that this is certainly not the impetus for the 10% rally we are seeing for the reason i have outlined above and for other reason. sure it is likely not fair that they had a no ID policy and then changed their tune, but people did have 30 days to take out their BTC last year. if i had not been lazy i could have taken my btc off bitstamp without ID just like anyone else. as a side note it is fun seeing the people who post on here and clearly lack the ability to think logically, it is no wonder some of us can realize way above average returns in our crypto portfolios.Bolded part above..... hehehehehehe haha +1
|
|
|
your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government).
This is where you go wrong. Community != government. There's a MASSIVE difference between the two. Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class. I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues. I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills. This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or divide and conquer. Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality. Not fox. By the way, reality seems to be an in-word currently. I guess part of my point is that your perception seems to be extremely diluted if you believe that poor people are moving any kind of corruption in any kind of meaningful way. In many instances (societies), especially in the US of A, poor people receive a very minor fraction of the benefits, and a lot of the major breaks go to the rich banks and large companies tied to finance, military, pharmacy, energy etc. I know, but if you live off the state, you become anxious if the state's income is threatened. The same goes for all kinds of government jobs. It is not corruption. It is a delusion, because they would all be better off with a small government or no government. I don't expect everybody to agree with that without a discussion. If you are focusing on poor people getting too many benefits or government workers being too spoiled or having too much job security, then in my view you are focusing on pie crumbs while the banks, oil tycoons, military contractors and pharmaceutical industries are running off with the lion's share of the resources and corrupting the government with money influences. Surely, it would be good if the people could wrestle back control of their various elected officials and the election process in order that these people would be forced to work in the public interest rather than being bought out and being scared to go against insurance companies for example... I don't really see, short of some kind of revolution, that you could completely abolish these many governmental infrastructures.. and seems that many people agree that there is too much money corruption that is being allowed to influence elected reps away from true fighting for the needs of regular people. Don't try to blame hate on me. The statists are the ones who peddle tension and hate. I know that corporations get welfare, and it should end. It (corporate welfare) should end first, really, (individual) welfare should end last, if you can envision a gradual diminishing of government. Still, welfare as it works, is not good for the recipients, because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money. We have a pretty high level of agreement here (in the above bolded part); however, the rest of your statement fails to focus on this point, and you seem to get distracted by crumbs and engaging your energy in such baloney talk about the crumbs.. when a lot of the major corruption and stealing from the government coffers is at a very much higher and more abstract level.. including currency which goes in the pockets of bank financiers and other wealthy folk that do NOT need more money.... and goes away from infrastructure and quality of life issues in order that regular people are desperate and get exploited in the workplace.. to the extent that they can find meaningful and fulfilling jobs that have not been exported to some place in which less than $1 per hour is paid. I agree with all that, wtf. The worst is the general upfucking of the money system, QE and ZIRP. Then corporate wellfare. Go through all regulations, remove those that are unecessary and bad. As you analyze regulations, you will find that all regulations are distortions that take away freedom and prosperity. You end up with the traditional basic functions of the state, courts, police military. You need roughly six months of thinking to also let those go. I don't believe that by nature regulations take away freedom from individuals - except to the extent which they are focused to give advantages to the wealthy. Surely, most of our lives would be much better if infrastructure was better, and we are able to pursue jobs and dreams with dignity. Frequently we are told that regulation and the government are the bad guys; however, if we did not have regulations and government, it is possible that we would be getting screwed even worse by the rich and powerful b/c there would be little to no infrastructure and we would all be living in cabins with dirty water killing us. Personally, I have the sense that the government is the vehicle to keep in check the exploiters who become too powerful and lose their sense of community (b/c of their greed); however, there are a lot of ways that government has been coopted.. and distracted to work on the wrong side and to complicate the way in which regular people are being screwed by the rich and powerful... the rich and powerful do NOT contribute their fair share, and they strive to separate themselves from contributing to community... b/c they are too busy either stealing more of what they do NOT need and/or preventing those resources from being used for broader and common application(s). I'm in with Alonzo Ewing here. Some openmindedness and thinking reqired. See you in the future. You call lack of engagement and explanation open-mindedness? Yes, we seem to be at loggerheads, but I doubt that either you or Alonzo Ewing is more open minded than me, merely because you are attempting to get me to answer some stupid-ass questions about defining government, when I have sufficiently engaged in such definitions to the extent it is necessary. Having various opinions does NOT make a person lacking in open-minded-ness, and refusing to engage in tangent discussions also does NOT cause a person to be lacking in open minded ness. I am fine with agreeing to disagree or at least leaving this discussion area for the time being - even though it is a theme that frequently arises in the bitcoin space.
|
|
|
Way to ignore my question.
I addressed your question sufficiently, so accordingly, probably, you should respond to my various points if you have anything substantive to add in this direction.. . But you didn't answer it. In this thread, you've made some statements which show you don't really have a grasp of some basics--things like equating government with community, "will of the people", etc, and you've brushed aside some arguments with Fox News references. So I'm merely asking to start a civil dialogue with you. I promise to stay polite. Please respond: What is your definition of "government"? My definition can be stated in a sentence. How about you? We seem to be in disagreement regarding the responsiveness of my previous responses, so it seems to be a big waste of time to engage in further exchange regarding these matters. I believe that I have already sufficiently stated my position and that was merely challenging the statements of others regarding their description of no need for taxes and that government services do NOT serve useful societal purposes in light of how much they cost. In fact one of the most efficient and effective government services in the world is the social security system that was established in the US of A in the 1930s. Yet, nonetheless, there is NO burden on me to back up the various multitude of status quo system, even though I have a large number of gripes regarding them. In essence, so far, I have NOT made any real and/or significant claims regarding the dismantling of such systems in large ways, as was the logical outgrowth of the original statement made by Rpietila (that I have repeated several times to be the origination of this line of discussion).
|
|
|
... because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money. ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmakeameme.org%2Fmedia%2Fcreated%2FThey-took-our-gggfx8.jpg&t=665&c=D8bmPcq3frKbvg) The video is much more hilarious. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qikthat American flag should be replaced with an EU flag Why?
|
|
|
your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government).
This is where you go wrong. Community != government. There's a MASSIVE difference between the two. Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class. I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues. I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills. This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or divide and conquer. Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality. Not fox. By the way, reality seems to be an in-word currently. I guess part of my point is that your perception seems to be extremely diluted if you believe that poor people are moving any kind of corruption in any kind of meaningful way. In many instances (societies), especially in the US of A, poor people receive a very minor fraction of the benefits, and a lot of the major breaks go to the rich banks and large companies tied to finance, military, pharmacy, energy etc. I know, but if you live off the state, you become anxious if the state's income is threatened. The same goes for all kinds of government jobs. It is not corruption. It is a delusion, because they would all be better off with a small government or no government. I don't expect everybody to agree with that without a discussion. If you are focusing on poor people getting too many benefits or government workers being too spoiled or having too much job security, then in my view you are focusing on pie crumbs while the banks, oil tycoons, military contractors and pharmaceutical industries are running off with the lion's share of the resources and corrupting the government with money influences. Surely, it would be good if the people could wrestle back control of their various elected officials and the election process in order that these people would be forced to work in the public interest rather than being bought out and being scared to go against insurance companies for example... I don't really see, short of some kind of revolution, that you could completely abolish these many governmental infrastructures.. and seems that many people agree that there is too much money corruption that is being allowed to influence elected reps away from true fighting for the needs of regular people. Don't try to blame hate on me. The statists are the ones who peddle tension and hate. I know that corporations get welfare, and it should end. It (corporate welfare) should end first, really, (individual) welfare should end last, if you can envision a gradual diminishing of government. Still, welfare as it works, is not good for the recipients, because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money. We have a pretty high level of agreement here (in the above bolded part); however, the rest of your statement fails to focus on this point, and you seem to get distracted by crumbs and engaging your energy in such baloney talk about the crumbs.. when a lot of the major corruption and stealing from the government coffers is at a very much higher and more abstract level.. including currency which goes in the pockets of bank financiers and other wealthy folk that do NOT need more money.... and goes away from infrastructure and quality of life issues in order that regular people are desperate and get exploited in the workplace.. to the extent that they can find meaningful and fulfilling jobs that have not been exported to some place in which less than $1 per hour is paid. I agree with all that, wtf. The worst is the general upfucking of the money system, QE and ZIRP. Then corporate wellfare. Go through all regulations, remove those that are unecessary and bad. As you analyze regulations, you will find that all regulations are distortions that take away freedom and prosperity. You end up with the traditional basic functions of the state, courts, police military. You need roughly six months of thinking to also let those go. I don't believe that by nature regulations take away freedom from individuals - except to the extent which they are focused to give advantages to the wealthy. Surely, most of our lives would be much better if infrastructure was better, and we are able to pursue jobs and dreams with dignity. Frequently we are told that regulation and the government are the bad guys; however, if we did not have regulations and government, it is possible that we would be getting screwed even worse by the rich and powerful b/c there would be little to no infrastructure and we would all be living in cabins with dirty water killing us. Personally, I have the sense that the government is the vehicle to keep in check the exploiters who become too powerful and lose their sense of community (b/c of their greed); however, there are a lot of ways that government has been coopted.. and distracted to work on the wrong side and to complicate the way in which regular people are being screwed by the rich and powerful... the rich and powerful do NOT contribute their fair share, and they strive to separate themselves from contributing to community... b/c they are too busy either stealing more of what they do NOT need and/or preventing those resources from being used for broader and common application(s).
|
|
|
... because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money. ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmakeameme.org%2Fmedia%2Fcreated%2FThey-took-our-gggfx8.jpg&t=665&c=D8bmPcq3frKbvg) The video is much more hilarious. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qik
|
|
|
your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government).
This is where you go wrong. Community != government. There's a MASSIVE difference between the two. Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class. I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues. I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills. This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or divide and conquer. Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality. Not fox. By the way, reality seems to be an in-word currently. I guess part of my point is that your perception seems to be extremely diluted if you believe that poor people are moving any kind of corruption in any kind of meaningful way. In many instances (societies), especially in the US of A, poor people receive a very minor fraction of the benefits, and a lot of the major breaks go to the rich banks and large companies tied to finance, military, pharmacy, energy etc. I know, but if you live off the state, you become anxious if the state's income is threatened. The same goes for all kinds of government jobs. It is not corruption. It is a delusion, because they would all be better off with a small government or no government. I don't expect everybody to agree with that without a discussion. If you are focusing on poor people getting too many benefits or government workers being too spoiled or having too much job security, then in my view you are focusing on pie crumbs while the banks, oil tycoons, military contractors and pharmaceutical industries are running off with the lion's share of the resources and corrupting the government with money influences. Surely, it would be good if the people could wrestle back control of their various elected officials and the election process in order that these people would be forced to work in the public interest rather than being bought out and being scared to go against insurance companies for example... I don't really see, short of some kind of revolution, that you could completely abolish these many governmental infrastructures.. and seems that many people agree that there is too much money corruption that is being allowed to influence elected reps away from true fighting for the needs of regular people. Don't try to blame hate on me. The statists are the ones who peddle tension and hate. I know that corporations get welfare, and it should end. It (corporate welfare) should end first, really, (individual) welfare should end last, if you can envision a gradual diminishing of government. Still, welfare as it works, is not good for the recipients, because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money. We have a pretty high level of agreement here (in the above bolded part); however, the rest of your statement fails to focus on this point, and you seem to get distracted by crumbs and engaging your energy in such baloney talk about the crumbs.. when a lot of the major corruption and stealing from the government coffers is at a very much higher and more abstract level.. including currency which goes in the pockets of bank financiers and other wealthy folk that do NOT need more money.... and goes away from infrastructure and quality of life issues in order that regular people are desperate and get exploited in the workplace.. to the extent that they can find meaningful and fulfilling jobs that have not been exported to some place in which less than $1 per hour is paid.
|
|
|
your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government).
This is where you go wrong. Community != government. There's a MASSIVE difference between the two. Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class. I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues. I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills. This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or divide and conquer. Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality. Not fox. By the way, reality seems to be an in-word currently. I guess part of my point is that your perception seems to be extremely diluted if you believe that poor people are moving any kind of corruption in any kind of meaningful way. In many instances (societies), especially in the US of A, poor people receive a very minor fraction of the benefits, and a lot of the major breaks go to the rich banks and large companies tied to finance, military, pharmacy, energy etc. I know, but if you live off the state, you become anxious if the state's income is threatened. The same goes for all kinds of government jobs. It is not corruption. It is a delusion, because they would all be better off with a small government or no government. I don't expect everybody to agree with that without a discussion. If you are focusing on poor people getting too many benefits or government workers being too spoiled or having too much job security, then in my view you are focusing on pie crumbs while the banks, oil tycoons, military contractors and pharmaceutical industries are running off with the lion's share of the resources and corrupting the government with money influences. Surely, it would be good if the people could wrestle back control of their various elected officials and the election process in order that these people would be forced to work in the public interest rather than being bought out and being scared to go against insurance companies for example... I don't really see, short of some kind of revolution, that you could completely abolish these many governmental infrastructures.. and seems that many people agree that there is too much money corruption that is being allowed to influence elected reps away from true fighting for the needs of regular people.
|
|
|
|