Lol  That's hilarious.  I guess it pays to play the devil's advocate.

I'm pretty sure I'm not on anything right now, but reading this thread makes me think otherwise...

Before the rating system was implemented, I heard lots of people asking for it.  It was implemented.  I think to myself that it can be a good tool if people take it seriously.  Now people are complaining about it, and even the members who should know better are using it like a game.  So whatever, I'm not going to lose any sleep about it.  But don't fault me for trying to understand what's going on.

Prophecy, apparently.     http://youtu.be/HpskvfE06yw

That's a pretty jerk thing to do.  How does that show how out of alignment it is?  The only way the system will work is if people actually take it seriously.  If even the established members like you act this way, then yes there really is no point.  But the only thing you are doing is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy...

So did you down vote me?

To be fair I don't think those guys will vote you down for disagreeing with them, they don't seem to be that type.  The rating system could be useful if people gave feedback on why they rate people, but they don't.  I've been trying to inform people why I rate them as I would want others to do the same.  But I just got a -1 and am not sure why.    Oh well. 

I wasn't attempting to be incendiary, so if I came across as insulting to BCEmporium, I apologize.  Sometimes I take things too seriously?   

Ha, ha, ha, I probably don't know what I'm talking about then.  I thought Marx was the dude who invented communism?  So what is the main tenet of communism? It seems like you can't have communism without the state because someone has to distribute the resources to the appropriate people and make sure the greedy capitalist pigs aren't owning property.  

Edit:  You also don't need a computer, or more than one or two pairs of clothes, or more than 1400 calories a day.    The difference between needs and wants can be rather arbitrary; at least when it comes to specific amounts.  We need food, but how much?

Also, I played your game twice.  Spent 0.5 BTC each time and won the second time.    I think I'll stop there....

Except that it is more in line with the corporate model: the amount of shares (hash power) you have determine your profit.  A communist pool would reward you according to your need, not your ability, right? 

I'm willing to discuss this if you are still interested, but I would like a little more information.  Let me know if you are still in the market for a loan. 

Dood, that refund was incredibly generous and great customer service.  I'm giving you a +1 rating because I want to support good businessmen like you.

I am interested in an ounce or two of American Eagles.  Send me a PM so we can discuss price and shipping.

Nothing fancy, eh?  This is my current watch, you should get one:  http://processors.wiki.ti.com/index.php/EZ430-Chronos?DCMP=Chronos&HQS=Other+OT+chronoswiki   

Which two positions are uncontested?  Also, are you requiring the editors to contract for a certain period of time, or is it on a month by month basis?  I enjoy writing, and I enjoy bitcoins so I am interested in being involved.  If not as an editor, perhaps as a freelance writer, and at the very least as a dedicated reader.   

Can you give an example of a State-run communist system that did better?  China was an apalling disaster as well, and only started to grow strong when they allowed some economic reforms in.

Wow, I am so jealous.  I've missed the bitcoin mining movement and shall regret it all my life. 

Anyway, awesome rigs, guys, I enjoyed seeing pictures and the video too.  You guys are keeping our bitcoin system strong! 

Ha ha, the bankers certainly are doing very well.  The current system is horrible, but I think the Soviet Union showed that it (the current system) is still better than a State-run communist system.  Perhaps not for much longer.  End the Fed.   

That, I believe, is the right question.  Here is an article from the Mises site that talks about government spending and its affects on the economy.  It's rather long so I've included a couple paragraphs of what I feel summarizes his main points:

"Government, in fact, is a large disequilibrating force on the market. It forcibly redistributes economic goods, removing them from a process of economization and instead investing them toward the realization of less important, or less preferred, ends. In other words, it distorts the continuous process of coordination."

He goes on to say:

"Whether some degree of government is necessary to allow the market to operate, while being outside the scope of this essay, deserves commentary. The belief that government is necessary to at least guarantee individuals's property rights is not uncommon. However, knowing that property rights are absolutely essential for a working coordination process, it seems difficult to think that individuals themselves would consider the allotment of resources toward the end of securing their property rights as having secondary importance to something else — especially since the attainment of "something else" may require secure property rights."

And finally:

"Overall, we can safely conclude that government spending causes more harm than good; it redistributes the means of production toward the attainment of ends considered inferior by the individuals who make up the society that government is allegedly acting to improve."

I think that last sentence pretty well describes my opinion.  In the question of "more bottom up or more top down" I am definitely supporting the "bottom up" philosophy.

In keeping with my ratings policy of informing those I rate (plus OR minus):

I'm giving trentzb a +1, because he's been articulate, polite and engaging in our conversation about taxes.  Also, no one can accuse me of trying to get a reciprocal vote from him, because he doesn't have enough posts and is a long way from having enough.