EXCUSE ME?!..The OFFICIAL Bernie Sanders For President 2016 Thread

[red w. blue]

Here again, I don't understand. So, Bernie Sanders by himself will make it illegal for companies to do tax inversions? Doesn't Congress have a say in tax codes? This is all so complicated. I'm glad you are around to explain.

Are you saying sanders can't do what he has said he will do?

Also, during an era of laissez faire policies when no regulation was in its heyday, Standard Oil completely dominated the oil market to the point of monopoly. Same thing happened to meat packing and railroads became monopolies in their own markets. So 'splain me this, the worst monopolies ever seen in this country was during a time of unregulated markets. Yet you say regulation creates monopolies. How odd. I'm so glad you are here to clarify this.

Until monopolies became a problem there was not a need for regulation. Though you could say that at the time that monopolies were a way of life as there wasn't a lot of choice in anything at all, Not just transportation and kerosene. Regulation came about because of the tactics used to become monopolies. Today someone else would supply whatever you wish so theres no way to become a monopoly! [with a few exceptions] WITHOUT THE HELP OF THE GOVERMENT!

I hope this helps clarify things for you.

 

[Queece]

that's fine.

 

[Fogdog]

You guys need to start providing sources, my arguments are inherently more valid as they are based on reality and not the opinion of John Oliver last night. I'm not seeing any kind of rebuttal, if you want to call me crazy, fine, but that's an opinion. I'm not stating opinions, I'm merely analyzing causes and effects from my best attempt to establish a historically accurate vantage. That is done so by constructing syllogisms from factual events and the consequences there-of. These are not wild conjecture.

This is not free market capitalism:
http://www.rarenewspapers.com/view/568163

so, am I supposed to dig up a report of the murder of strikers at any number of places? Would that convince you? I don't think so.

The labor movement in this country grew out of transgressions by the so-called robber barons of the day like hiring the Pinkerton strike busting force. The labor movement was a necessary opposing force to the wealthy few suppressing its work force.

The wealthy don't act always do things that are in their own self interest. Suppressing and killing workers kind of pisses them off, you know? Also, take the "free market" as an example. As you know, "the market" is actually the result of actions by the players in the market. Without rules and regulators, the market players do their level best to dominate. The strongest eventually prevail and the market is no longer free. It happens all the time. It most notably happened in the US in the latter part if the 19th century-early part of the 20th. Sinclair documented it pretty well but I know that you are engrossed with the hypothetical. Things that actually happened provide inconvenient facts that perturb your fantasy and therefore are explained away or ignored.

That was all an ad hominem attack. Nicely done.
You aren't providing any examples. Bitcoin, please counter. You just state the opinion you hold that there is some kind of "lowest level of behavior" to revert to. That isn't a structured argument.

actually, I did provide an example of bitcoin as a corrupt monetary unit in an earlier post. Look up Gox Japan Bitcoin.
Edit: Oh what the hell, here is a link to a wikipedia site on Gox Bitcoin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Gox

Millions of dollars worth of bitcoin were "lost". Hmm?

Nor is a war economy that the Robber Barons grew out of. Here's a reading suggestion (really good read actually):

http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/dp/0922915865/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453510540&sr=8-1&keywords=smedley+butler

Oh god, how tiresome. Yeah, the war daddies made out and extended their tentacles into all sorts of places. You don't really know much about this do you? The industrialists of that age acted as they should -- in their own self interest. That there was nothing to oppose them was not their fault. They gobbled, murdered, threatened, used, abused, and basically did what they thought best. From opposition to that grew the populist movement, the Grange, and the labor movement. Eventually, our democracy corrected the system and put together rules and regulations that imperfectly oppose self interested actions by the wealthy.

I don't understand why populist is a bad term to be given a politician. Its my guess that the Robber Barons didn't like it. They have undue control over how history is written.

Somehow libertarian loonies like you think that the problem is the opposition to robber barons. Also that the solution to "the problem" is dissolution of the controls put in place to stop them. Robber barons like that.

 

[Fogdog]

Are you saying sanders can't do what he has said he will do?
.

Absolutely, I'm saying that Sanders needs a Congress that will work with him. If he's confronted with two houses in Congress controlled by Tea Baggers, he won't be able to push his agenda forward. Its up to the electorate to give Sanders a Congress that will work with him. For sure, Tea Baggers won't.

Until monopolies became a problem there was not a need for regulation. Though you could say that at the time that monopolies were a way of life as there wasn't a lot of choice in anything at all, Not just transportation and kerosene. Regulation came about because of the tactics used to become monopolies. Today someone else would supply whatever you wish so theres no way to become a monopoly! [with a few exceptions] WITHOUT THE HELP OF THE GOVERMENT!

I hope this helps clarify things for you.

What libertarians propose is that we learn that monopolies are bad all over again. History provides inconvenient facts to counter libertarian theory. I think we are in agreement here. Monopolies became a problem and regulations were put in place to stop them. Do you think that monopolies are a thing of the past? Most recently, IBM anti competitive actions and Microsoft anti competitive actions were successfully ended by this same government. This bit about government causing monopoly is unsupported by facts. Libertarian theory is not based on reality. My god you guys are dense.

 

[NLXSK1]

Absolutely, I'm saying that Sanders needs a Congress that will work with him. If he's confronted with two houses in Congress controlled by Tea Baggers, he won't be able to push his agenda forward. Its up to the electorate to give Sanders a Congress that will work with him. For sure, Tea Baggers won't.

What libertarians propose is that we learn that monopolies are bad all over again. History provides inconvenient facts to counter libertarian theory. I think we are in agreement here. Monopolies became a problem and regulations were put in place to stop them. Do you think that monopolies are a thing of the past? Most recently, IBM anti competitive actions and Microsoft anti competitive actions were successfully ended by this same government. This bit about government causing monopoly is unsupported by facts. Libertarian theory is not based on reality. My god you guys are dense.

Libertarians propose limited government. How this conforms to your monopoly theory escapes me...

 

[Queece]

so, am I supposed to dig up a report of the murder of strikers at any number of places? Would that convince you? I don't think so.

The labor movement in this country grew out of transgressions by the so-called robber barons of the day like hiring the Pinkerton strike busting force. The labor movement was a necessary opposing force to the wealthy few suppressing its work force.

The wealthy don't act always do things that are in their own self interest. Suppressing and killing workers kind of pisses them off, you know? Also, take the "free market" as an example. As you know, "the market" is actually the result of actions by the players in the market. Without rules and regulators, the market players do their level best to dominate. The strongest eventually prevail and the market is no longer free. It happens all the time. It most notably happened in the US in the latter part if the 19th century-early part of the 20th. Sinclair documented it pretty well but I know that you are engrossed with the hypothetical. Things that actually happened provide inconvenient facts that perturb your fantasy and therefore are explained away or ignored.

actually, I did provide an example of bitcoin as a corrupt monetary unit in an earlier post. Look up Gox Japan Bitcoin.

Oh god, how tiresome. Yeah, the war daddies made out and extended their tentacles into all sorts of places. You don't really know much about this do you? The industrialists of that age acted as they should -- in their own self interest. That there was nothing to oppose them was not their fault. They gobbled, murdered, threatened, used, abused, and basically did what they thought best. From opposition to that grew the populist movement, the Grange, and the labor movement. Eventually, our democracy corrected the system and put together rules and regulations that imperfectly oppose self interested actions by the wealthy.

I don't understand why populist is a bad term to be given a politician. Its my guess that the Robber Barons didn't like it. They have undue control over how history is written.

Somehow libertarian loonies like you think that the problem is the opposition to robber barons. Also that the solution "the problem" is dissolution of the controls put in place to stop them. Robber barons like that.

You realize that they accumulated their vast fortunes via uncontested government contracts for the war effort? That isn't a free market, when a government can steal people's income and put it into their drinking buddies' pockets. The problems we are facing now is that, above all else, the regulators are corrupt. Look at Moody's, directly responsible for re-pricing sub-prime assets to AA ratings. You cannot corrupt regulators that do not exist. Your point is invalid.

 

[NLXSK1]

You realize that they accumulated their vast fortunes via uncontested government contracts for the war effort? That isn't a free market, when a government can steal people's income and put it into their drinking buddies' pockets. The problems we are facing now is that, above all else, the regulators are corrupt. Look at Moody's, directly responsible for re-pricing sub-prime assets to AA ratings. You cannot corrupt regulators that do not exist. Your point is invalid.

And Hillary got rich by taking foreign donations, in many cases failing to properly document them for tax purposes and the tiny little fact that she had expressly agreed not to do it while she was Secretary of State. Her e-mail issues are not the worst of her troubles.

 

[Queece]

And what happened with Mt. Gox didn't compromise Bitcoin in the least, in fact the same thing could never happen again mathematically. That is why the architecture is so robust. Meanwhile multi-trillion dollar bailout. Your point is invalid.

 

[Fogdog]

you're crazy

You said in two words what I said in way too many. Nice.

 

[Fogdog]

And what happened with Mt. Gox didn't compromise Bitcoin in the least, in fact the same thing could never happen again mathematically. That is why the architecture is so robust. Meanwhile multi-trillion dollar bailout. Your point is invalid.

Dude, its not regulated. You can't say you know that it can't happen. Nobody can. Nobody predicted the Gox meltdown either. Your problem is that you don't even have 20:20 hindsight.

 

[NLXSK1]

Dude, its not regulated. You can't say you know that it can't happen. Nobody can. Nobody predicted the Gox meltdown either. Your problem is that you don't even have 20:20 hindsight.

So what? Does everything need to be regulated?

 

[Queece]

You see, it isn't regulated, but it self-audits the entire history of the blockchain as a means to verify every single transaction. It cannot lie, it has no agency, therefore it cannot act out of self-interest. The blockchain is the most democratic model of price discovery ever constructed. It doesn't need to be regulated, it would be as futile as regulating nature, as it is large enough to encompass nature and the economy beside it. Look at what forum you are on, and tell me how trying to regulate nature goes.

 

[Queece]

Former KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov on leftists in the United States:

 

[Fogdog]

You realize that they accumulated their vast fortunes via uncontested government contracts for the war effort? That isn't a free market, when a government can steal people's income and put it into their drinking buddies' pockets.

Dude, I'm talking about what happened after the Civil War. The Civil War is its own thing. Five years of complete chaos. Its the actions of the industrialists 20 or 30 years later that caused the need for anti monopoly regulations, labor laws and food and drug regulations. What's so hard about this to understand?

The problems we are facing now is that, above all else, the regulators are corrupt. Look at Moody's, directly responsible for re-pricing sub-prime assets to AA ratings. You cannot corrupt regulators that do not exist. Your point is invalid.

Man you don't know a thing do you? Moody's was not a regulating agency. Moody's is a contractor that provides securities ratings for a fee levied on the firm selling the security -- a form of self regulation otherwise known as "Fox guarding the hen house" or incest. The Bush team thought that "self regulation" was dandy. Bush and his team kept the government regulators such as the SEC and FDIC out.

 

[Fogdog]

So what? Does everything need to be regulated?

Financial markets, yes, they do.

 

[Fogdog]

Former KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov on leftists in the United States:

I find it astounding how you can continue to spew ignorance yet denigrate those that at least are paying attention to even recent events. Oh well, a retarded person can't understand intelligent ones. Same goes for right wing nuts, I guess.

 

[Fogdog]

You see, it isn't regulated, but it self-audits

That sounds pretty familiar, doesn't it? Self regulation was the bane of the economy not less than 8 years ago.

 

[Queece]

Man you don't know a thing do you? Moody's was not a regulating agency. Moody's is a contractor that provides securities ratings for a fee levied on the firm selling the security -- a form of self regulation otherwise known as "Fox guarding the hen house" or incest. The Bush team thought that "self regulation" was dandy. Bush and his team kept the government regulators such as the SEC and FDIC out.

Yes, exactly. The fact that these independent ratings agencies were not subject to oversight means that there is an issue of moral hazard. FDIC Fanny May and Freddy Mac were also convicted of predatory collection. All regulators are venal because they are human, a machine is a much better candidate because they aren't trying to accumulate wealth through arbitrage. They don't go on vacation and they don't want to buy $140million Modiglianis.

Dude, I'm talking about what happened after the Civil War. The Civil War is its own thing. Five years of complete chaos. Its the actions of the industrialists 20 or 30 years later that caused the need for anti monopoly regulations, labor laws and food and drug regulations. What's so hard about this to understand?

Read War is a Racket. It details exactly who were war profiteers in every conflict going as far back as the Revolutionary War. No bid contracts have been around for a long time. War was the greatest financial instrument ever invented up until the Blockchain made it irrelevant.

 

[abalonehx]

Kortney killed Kurt with the leadpipe in the conservatory of Building 7....

 

[Queece]

Monopolies are built by state intervention. Once again, you are denying reality. We currently have an incredibly state-interventionist system and under which, companies like Apple have over $1trillion in liquid assets. That's like saying human activity is destroying biodiversity in the ocean with blue whales cruising around (biologist by trade, any claim that biodiversity is in jeopardy is a fabrication). How were all these monopolies formed? Oh, they all had former central bankers on their payroll. Look at that. Then we give the central bankers all authority on chartering money creation. Interest rate from a direct loan from the Fed: 0.25%. Interest rate you pay on a credit card from the bank: 18%. This is all perfectly legal because they hire lobbyists to literally write the legislation Congress will be convening to discuss.

State intervention creates monopolies, that is a fact because that's what we have. What is their biggest threat right now? Losing their hegemony on the money creation process via free-market forces.