Voting Democrat in a blue state: supporting the status quo.
It's even worse than that. By helping make sure it's a landslide in your state, you ensure that the candidate will pay zero attention to your state next time around. If you love your state, try and make it a swing state.  |
|
|
|
|
I think they'd both be strongly against it. Almost equally but for somewhat different reasons.
|
|
|
|
We have no bitinstant debit card in the news. A preloadable debit card is bitcoin's only hope for any introduction into mainstream usage, while too many members of this forum make a big deal over something as silly as bitcoin taxi payments or vending machines.
Bitcoin price is inflated by irrational, Atlas-esque bulls who think bitcoin will succeed by proselytizing its merits to the masses. The notion that bitcoin will grow by getting our collective relatives' small businesses to all accept bitcoin is as delusional as canvassing for a presidential 3rd party.
We need to piggyback bitcoin's decentralized characteristics onto the popularity of a mainstream currency, thus acting as a medium between "real" currencies, so to speak. Only once this niche role is established can bitcoin hope to make the next leap as a self supporting currency. The Bitcoin Foundation and the pre-loadable debit card have been the only significant bitcoin news as of late, the rest is all noise.
How will another bitcoin-accepting small business with ZERO bitcoin transactions help bitcoin?
How will ASIC's that do nothing but further secure an already impenetrable network help bitcoin?
How will planting proselytizing media stories that reach only libertarians and techies help bitcoin?
Meh, I can remember when the web was a bunch of text with no images. Bitcoin is (in my opinion) pretty much inevitable now. There may be some false starts and some missteps but I don't think there's much need for anyone to be running around pushing things, just take advantages of opportunities as they occur and it will grow by itself. If it needed to be forced, it *deserves* to fail. |
|
|
|
I guess I look at it more in a way of everyone being healthy and that is important. I wish that everyone would be wealthy, happy and healthy. I believe in education, I think you should have a right to learn and make a better of yourself. If we don't care about each other then who will?
I pay taxes and I would like then to pay for my health too and not just for people who are old.
Don't take this the wrong way but why did you leave Russia? I suspect those reasons and the differences in healthcare are not completely unrelated. As an immigrant myself, I can say I definitely prefer the freedom and such here (for what it is and for as long as it lasts) compared to where I come from and the difference in healthcare is a small price to pay. |
|
|
|
|
Possibly one of the least excusable realms for government to be getting involved in.
|
|
|
|
The proposed mechanism of both seems to be:
Give more money to those who already have money in the hope that they then pass it on to those without money.
Indeed. Anyone who is anti-big-corporation and is rooting for Obama needs their bumps read. Similarly for tea-partiers and Romney. |
|
|
|
|
Dang, I need to get my mtgox acct set up. I'm gonna get me some bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
What happened there? I thought the forum software blocked empty posts. |
|
|
|
You apparently think it is about throwing rocks through windows.
You have equated it with trickle-up economics. You are retarded and should have your posting privileges removed. A quite astounding defense of your position right there. A round of applause for you. Your bi-polar histrionics make you of no further interest. |
|
|
|
Broken window fallacy. LOL. You apparently lack any understanding of the broken window "fallacy" at all. You apparently think it is about throwing rocks through windows. |
|
|
|
Covering point 2, Trick down economics is usually applied to help growth, however to aid growth most business really require the low and middle class to have a decent amount of money to spend. The more excess income, the more spending power the masses have.
So why make it so the already rich have even more money? It doesn't help, give tax breaks, to the poorest so they do have more money available to go out and spend. Trickle up economics makes more logic sense, but take a guess who does the more potent lobbying for which method? Of course it's the big companies who have government convinced they can solve all the problems with the economy if they just had a few tax breaks here or there. The masses love to spend money, for the most part they have to, just how much they can afford to is their limitation, so if the masses have more money you've already given them all the incentive they need to go out and spend it.
Broken window fallacy. Without trying to pull a Mitt, many of the poor are poor because they have shitty money management strategy and will just end up wasting the money, probably giving it to those corporations who you decried above. Trickle-down economics does have issues and has been abused and used to justify some truly crappy policies though. But in principle, it benefits nearly everyone to have money stay in the private sector than funnel it through the flaming-money-pits of government coffers. |
|
|
|
I can think of several exceptions, and for me it's those things that justify different rules, even though it makes markets imperfect. E.g.: kids can't choose what family they are born into, or whether their parents squander money or spend it wisely. Therefore, in my mind at least, market perfection ought to be taken down a couple of notches to make room for "state charity" even if it tends to get abused.
For me, the free market is not an end unto itself, it's more about allowing people free association and to trade however and with whoever they wish. It's about the individuals involved. That that happens to provide a more efficient system than central planning is a happy coincidence. In fact, it's even robust enough to still provide amazing dividends even when hobbled with quite severe interference. I'll just add that your want for "state charity" is not completely at odds with a mostly-free-market (It does distort things depending on degree though). |
|
|
|
Ummm is this going to happen this century?  Nope. I will design and build a complete CRM system from the ground up for 3btc and a Hershey bar. It will have walnut veneer inlay and gold filigree. This response is about as serious as this thread. |
|
|
|
The US, which always claims to be the best in everything, yet rich people travel to Mexico for their cancer treatment?
OMG! That's almost like a free market!!! |
|
|
|
This is simply not true. You are making this up. Give one example of a country with a free market health system that is better and more efficient than a public health system. One single case. Just one!
Give one example of a country with a free market health system. Health care was cheaper and more friendly back when it *was* free market. Unfortunately, startling increases in health care technology which brings both improvements in care and more expense happened at the same time as massive socialization and regulation of the healthcare industry, thus it is difficult to separate the variables. I actually kinda like the UK model (though I disagree with it on principle). It's nice not to have to worry about healthcare, changing or losing your job and whatnot (it does have a lot of shortcomings too though). Unfortunately, the US seems to have taken the worst of all worlds and Obamacare just makes it worser. |
|
|
|
If you don't want the laws to apply, you need to start your own country.
This was already done. |
|
|
|
|
Depending on circumstances, electricity used for mining could be considered cheap to free through the colder months (unfortunately I'm on gas so it's still a marginal cost for me)
|
|
|
|
I tend to take an eyewitness description of a cop that was there over the words of those of us that weren't:
I wouldn't take the eyewitness description of a cop that the sky was blue. |
|
|
|
What I don't understand from the conspiracy theory angle is that if they did plan it, how did they keep the secret from coming out? Say what you will, governments are not really good about keeping big secrets. And with a false flag operation of this scale surely some documents would have made it to the public.
Conspiracy theorists have no hard evidence, and the fact that there is no hard evidence for their theories speaks a lot by itself.
The press aren't exactly free any more. Belgium had no elected government for 2 years (and got on just fine without them), surprising how few folks know about that, it didnt make the news for some reason. Compared to that keeping 'crackpot conspiricy theories' out of the news isn't such a big thing and considering how little of (for example) windows source code gets out from microsoft even big organisations can keep secrets. I'm with Myrkul, things don't add up so I'm keeping an open mind but that doesn't mean that anyone can pour any old crap in. All this conspiracy serves to do is group anyone who does have concerns about what happened in with a bunch of crazies. So maybe the conspiracy theory is part of the conspiracy. (Yes, I know South Park did that) |
|
|
|
|
I can tell you this much: It's wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
