Political one liners

Imaginos1892 wrote:'The Market' is composed of people. I would rather see prices set by people with some stake in the process, some interest in seeing the market remain functional, than by other people interested in pushing a political agenda at any cost.
-----------------
At my house, the 'things that go bump in the night' are cats.

Ah yes, people... Out of an average 100 people, how many of those would you actually WANT to have power over you, over your economy?

Then, realise that those you would want to have it, are not the ones who are going to have it, because they don´t have the money or interest for it.

Instead you are mostly getting the absolute worst ones, the ripoffs, robber barons and scammers that makes politicians look like perfection itself.

Yeah, that sounds like such a GREAT choice.

Tenshinai wrote:

Imaginos1892 wrote:'The Market' is composed of people. I would rather see prices set by people with some stake in the process, some interest in seeing the market remain functional, than by other people interested in pushing a political agenda at any cost.
-----------------
At my house, the 'things that go bump in the night' are cats.

Ah yes, people... Out of an average 100 people, how many of those would you actually WANT to have power over you, over your economy?

Then, realise that those you would want to have it, are not the ones who are going to have it, because they don´t have the money or interest for it.

Instead you are mostly getting the absolute worst ones, the ripoffs, robber barons and scammers that makes politicians look like perfection itself.

Yeah, that sounds like such a GREAT choice.

Yes but there is "the mrket' and there is the prey. Consolidated Mining LLC wants copper, It sets wages which is the VALUE of labor, its board of directors don't live in that 3rd world country, don't csre about destroying the ecosystem around their open pit mine, don't care about the air and water pollution, don't care about the long term health effects of the miners, their families and the surrounding population. That also sets a rather low value on people.

They take their copper, their quarterly bonuses, their stock options, bank it, cash out of their stock holdings in time to watch the bust side of the laissez-faire Capitalist market. Oh, you guys got your homes repossessed, your savings gone in bank failures, your wife left you? Tough crap, next time get a REAL job.

It seems to me that in broad terms the best system is for the government to put in sensible regulations, then stand back and let the market operate within those regulations. Unfortunately money talks and in some jurisdictions can ensure that they get away with stuff. That's where a free press comes in to publicise any wrong doing, legal or not.
I'm a firm believer in jail time for dodgy executives rather than fines, as they often consider fines as just another business expense.

Daryl wrote:It seems to me that in broad terms the best system is for the government to put in sensible regulations, then stand back and let the market operate within those regulations. Unfortunately money talks and in some jurisdictions can ensure that they get away with stuff. That's where a free press comes in to publicise any wrong doing, legal or not.
I'm a firm believer in jail time for dodgy executives rather than fines, as they often consider fines as just another business expense.

Therein is The Rub. What is sensible for you or me as reasonable persons, may be totally incomprehensible intrusion to some other equally reasonable person.

Equally unfortunate is the clause in absolutely every set of Articles of Incorporation is the indemnity clause, making Corporate officers 9immune fronm crimes committed while acting as agents for the corporation. We have granted citizenship to corporations {limited or otherwise [Santa Clara County v SPRR (18??0]} That one I can easily look up if you want. we can't imprison executives and we can't imprison a corporation. Too bad we can't revoke their articles of ioncorporation. But tht would be the equivalent of capital punishment.

Tenshinai wrote:

Imaginos1892 wrote:'The Market' is composed of people. I would rather see prices set by people with some stake in the process, some interest in seeing the market remain functional, than by other people interested in pushing a political agenda at any cost.
-----------------
At my house, the 'things that go bump in the night' are cats.

Ah yes, people... Out of an average 100 people, how many of those would you actually WANT to have power over you, over your economy?

Then, realise that those you would want to have it, are not the ones who are going to have it, because they don´t have the money or interest for it.

Instead you are mostly getting the absolute worst ones, the ripoffs, robber barons and scammers that makes politicians look like perfection itself.

Yeah, that sounds like such a GREAT choice.

And out of an average 100 politicians and bureaucrats, how many do you want to have power over you and your economy? The ones that spend your tax money buying the votes of those that do not pay taxes? You believe that all the good crooks are in the government?
-------------------
If you give politicians money to pay the government's debts, they will spend it and borrow more.

Perhaps that's why we rode out the GFC without a recession. We can and do jail executives for doing the wrong thing. Not often enough, but enough that they do think twice.
After all, a madman can kill ten people with a gun, but a company fraudster who rips off thousands of people's life savings can cause fifty suicides.

WeirdlyWired wrote:

Daryl wrote:It seems to me that in broad terms the best system is for the government to put in sensible regulations, then stand back and let the market operate within those regulations. Unfortunately money talks and in some jurisdictions can ensure that they get away with stuff. That's where a free press comes in to publicise any wrong doing, legal or not.
I'm a firm believer in jail time for dodgy executives rather than fines, as they often consider fines as just another business expense.

Therein is The Rub. What is sensible for you or me as reasonable persons, may be totally incomprehensible intrusion to some other equally reasonable person.

Equally unfortunate is the clause in absolutely every set of Articles of Incorporation is the indemnity clause, making Corporate officers 9immune fronm crimes committed while acting as agents for the corporation. We have granted citizenship to corporations {limited or otherwise [Santa Clara County v SPRR (18??0]} That one I can easily look up if you want. we can't imprison executives and we can't imprison a corporation. Too bad we can't revoke their articles of ioncorporation. But tht would be the equivalent of capital punishment.

Imaginos1892 wrote:And out of an average 100 politicians and bureaucrats, how many do you want to have power over you and your economy?

Many more than i want bigwigs having it. Why? Because out of those 100 politicians and bureaucrats, a number of them are going to be people just trying to do the best job they can rather than just get rich quick.

Imaginos1892 wrote:The ones that spend your tax money buying the votes of those that do not pay taxes? You believe that all the good crooks are in the government?
-------------------
If you give politicians money to pay the government's debts, they will spend it and borrow more.

Sorry, i just cannot take this part of your rant seriously. It´s just so narrowmindedly ignorant my mind automatically treats it like the parody it sounds like.

Tenshinai wrote:

Imaginos1892 wrote:And out of an average 100 politicians and bureaucrats, how many do you want to have power over you and your economy?

Many more than i want bigwigs having it. Why? Because out of those 100 politicians and bureaucrats, a number of them are going to be people just trying to do the best job they can rather than just get rich quick.

Imaginos1892 wrote:The ones that spend your tax money buying the votes of those that do not pay taxes? You believe that all the good crooks are in the government?
-------------------
If you give politicians money to pay the government's debts, they will spend it and borrow more.

Sorry, i just cannot take this part of your rant seriously. It´s just so narrowmindedly ignorant my mind automatically treats it like the parody it sounds like.

Why are you incapable of having a civil disagreement? Why must you behave like a three-year-old? Why can you not get it through your fat head that you do not know everything? That intelligent, well-informed people can actually have opinions that differ from yours?

Imaginos1892 wrote:Why are you incapable of having a civil disagreement? Why must you behave like a three-year-old? Why can you not get it through your fat head that you do not know everything? That intelligent, well-informed people can actually have opinions that differ from yours?

When people come up with bloody stupid prejudiced knee-jerk delusions and tries to force everyone to accept that reality only accepts according to their warped statements?

Probably not no.

Shall we take a look at your idiocies?
"The ones that spend your tax money buying the votes of those that do not pay taxes?"
A tiny, miniscule minority of politicians and/or bureaucrats comes even close to fitting that description(and even most of them doesn´t actually ever do that), yet you use it as an indirect personal attack and insult, and now you want to blame me for calling you out on it? Pathetic.

"You believe that all the good crooks are in the government?"
Well duh, did i ever say that? Did i ever even imply that? Again you state by implication a delusional version of reality and demand that i agree with it.

Eh, NO.

"If you give politicians money to pay the government's debts, they will spend it and borrow more."
And once more another blanket statement, again one where in reality it only concerns a tiny part of your targets, and is in fact dependent on demands of reality more than any of your target´s morality or ability, or lack thereof.

But hey, it´s just your kind of thinking that has made sure USA is in the deepest shithole of debts that it is, and it´s really amazing how you cannot understand it, despite how it is the most basics of national economics.

Tenshinai, I agree with your statements, but also agree that you are lacking in tact and seem to always present your case in an aggressive manner. Those of us here come from a wide range of value systems, and disagree often, but most do try to be respectful of other's opinions.
It actually is a bit sad but both sides are somewhat right in the present debate. Most developed countries seem to have reached a balance of government expenditure that fluctuates within certain reasonable bounds. The US ironically has a real problem, despite their mantra of small government and state's rights. Their debt is huge and getting huger, yet their government provides less services than most.