Somebody prove this wrong please.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-04-2013, 12:24 AM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
(27-04-2013 12:12 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  ~a bank loaning money is not the same thing as selling a coke.

Yes it is. It is a voluntary transaction between a consenting supplier of a commodity and a consenting consumer of that commodity.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bbeljefe's post
27-04-2013, 12:27 AM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
(27-04-2013 12:02 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(26-04-2013 01:03 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  bemore and el jefe,

I feel both of you'ns are right from idealists perspective. However men are greedy. People with power will always use that power to retain or increase their power, or at least do their best to. I am all for abolishing the Federal Reserve though, by whatever means.

I'm sorry, I meant to address your comment earlier.

I agree that some people are greedy. Not just men and not all people. I too would like to see an end to the Federal Reserve, although there are limits to the means I support.

On the subject of power and considering that we seem to be in agreement... why focus on the Federal Reserve? The Fed is a symptom of the abuse of power that is the state. It's only just 100 years old this year, while the institution that it was borne of is ~250 years old just in this country. If we look further past and outside the constraints of the US, it is a 6000 year old power grab that birthed the Fed.

As the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But that's a truism. The reality is that the uncorrupted don't seek power over others, while the already corrupt do. Power doesn't make people evil... it merely expands the reach of the already evil.
I thought it was obvious when I said men, I meant 'mankind'. If you prefer a neuter variation then humankind. Whatever.

I think we've gone round in the second bit before, and as I have said before, I agree that a state government is always evil, it always seeks to place limits on people despite it's founders best intention. A government is comprised of men, and men (uh, I mean humans!) are corruptible so it's only a matter of time. I also think it is a necessary evil. It's all one big cycle for us humans. No government, war, small government, war, big government, war, rinse and repeat.

A government is necessary to prevent powerful people from preying on the weak and taking their freedoms. A government is also necessary to maintain a military force. I know you think isn't necessary for those reasons, we disagree.

I recognize in the first part it may well do as much harm as good in many cases. Whatcha gonna do? No system is perfect.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2013, 12:58 AM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
(27-04-2013 12:27 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(27-04-2013 12:02 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  I'm sorry, I meant to address your comment earlier.

I agree that some people are greedy. Not just men and not all people. I too would like to see an end to the Federal Reserve, although there are limits to the means I support.

On the subject of power and considering that we seem to be in agreement... why focus on the Federal Reserve? The Fed is a symptom of the abuse of power that is the state. It's only just 100 years old this year, while the institution that it was borne of is ~250 years old just in this country. If we look further past and outside the constraints of the US, it is a 6000 year old power grab that birthed the Fed.

As the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But that's a truism. The reality is that the uncorrupted don't seek power over others, while the already corrupt do. Power doesn't make people evil... it merely expands the reach of the already evil.
I thought it was obvious when I said men, I meant 'mankind'. If you prefer a neuter variation then humankind. Whatever.

I think we've gone round in the second bit before, and as I have said before, I agree that a state government is always evil, it always seeks to place limits on people despite it's founders best intention. A government is comprised of men, and men (uh, I mean humans!) are corruptible so it's only a matter of time. I also think it is a necessary evil. It's all one big cycle for us humans. No government, war, small government, war, big government, war, rinse and repeat.

A government is necessary to prevent powerful people from preying on the weak and taking their freedoms. A government is also necessary to maintain a military force. I know you think isn't necessary for those reasons, we disagree.

I recognize in the first part it may well do as much harm as good in many cases. Whatcha gonna do? No system is perfect.

Who said there has to be a system?

To be sure, it has been a cycle but the problem is that far too many people are worrying about managing that cycle and finding breathable air a gazillion miles from Earth when the answer is in stopping the cycle.

Mankind, er.. humankind doesn't need another planet to land on or another law to enforce. We need to stop what we are doing to our children so that when they become the next "leaders" of the world, they won't be powermad sociopaths hellbent on controlling others.

The Federal Reserve... like the constitution that loosely authorized it, was invented by men (men is correct in this context) who only understood the world from a top down hierarchical control perspective. And that's understandable because that's how they were raised.

We know better now. The trouble is that we don't want to admit that our parents made mistakes and the result of our cowardice is the repetition of the murderous cycle of top down hierarchical control wherein we bicker with one another over minutia that is little more than thinly veiled childhood scar tissue.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2013, 02:28 AM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
Dude, what the hell are you blathering about? What 'system'? Do you mean government, a la "FUCK THE SYSTEM!"? I ain't trying to be an asshole, I'm just honestly unsure of that's what you mean; my guess is based on the context of our back and forth. Your second an forth sentences sound like something I might say if I were drunk or high. Kind of out of left field. Your third paragraph is just pointing out the obvious. I feel like this is one of those conversations that would best be said face to face....er, at least voice to voice. This is one of those things that are frustrating to type...whatever.

I honestly think we would disagree on far fewer things than we disagree on if we were to sit down and talk.

Also, fuck the Chinese proverb. Language is a living organism, and words are relative. That is all.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2013, 03:49 AM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
(27-04-2013 12:12 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(26-04-2013 11:51 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Do DVD rental places also not place bets on the credibility of a person? They trust (or distrust) that you will return the DVD, and in good condition.

And banks too act as middlemen.
The person putting money into the bank is the supplier, and the person that requires the service of borrowing money is the customer.

I'm going to disregard rentals since that isn't what I responded to at all. That's more like a reverse pawn.

Your second paragraph is correct, but incomplete. There is no company that supplies the bank with money, it's a series of people with no connection at all aside form the fact that they choose the same bank, and coincidental connections. Generally speaking people don't put money into banks to make money, they do so to have their money protected. There are obvious and multiple exceptions such as buying CD's and the like. Private banks (as opposed to Federal Banks or Credit Unions) do invest via various loans, they do this to make a profit, but also so they have the ability to afford the security to protect the investment that others have made to remain viable (in addition to self-preservation).

I could go on, but I think it's obvious that a bank loaning money is not the same thing as selling a coke. It's much more complicated. Whether or not you agree it is a stupid thing to argue as it has no bearing (that I can see) on this topic. Eh, whatever.


Of course it's much more complex. My point is that the basic principles are the same.
The fact that people have absolutely no connection to someone else who uses that bank is completely irrelevant.
A grocery store for example stocks many many different types of goods as well as many many different brands of goods. Sealord (sea food company here) has no connection to coke for example.

The idea that there is a suppler and a buyer and the bank acts as a middleman just as a grocery store acts as a middleman. Yes it is more complicated, as you mentioned, protection of money etc.. and the amounts of money are far far greater. But the principle is the same.

Bringing it back to the original point that interest on loans is somehow "evil" (which I know you're not saying, I'm not saying you're saying that, this is mostly directed at bemore), I am saying that it is no more "evil" then a grocery store, or a corner store or whoever, adding on 50c or however much, to a bottle of coke as to cover their expenses and make a profit.

Also, the reason why people put money into a back is almost irrelevant to the topic as well considering the topic is about what banks do with that money, not people's intentions. But yes I accept that security is a factor, but that is just part of their costs that need to covered, like rental space or power bill.

Quote:I agree that a state government is always evil

Oh yea, this is why I hated you (past tense). You never explained why.
You kept saying this but never explained why. No, I know what it was, taxes. You said taxes were evil.
Are you finally going to explain why?

Quote:I honestly think we would disagree on far fewer things than we disagree on if we were to sit down and talk.

I can shout louder then both of you, so I'd win.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2013, 06:58 AM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2013 07:14 AM by Dark Light.)
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
(27-04-2013 03:49 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(27-04-2013 12:12 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  I'm going to disregard rentals since that isn't what I responded to at all. That's more like a reverse pawn.

Your second paragraph is correct, but incomplete. There is no company that supplies the bank with money, it's a series of people with no connection at all aside form the fact that they choose the same bank, and coincidental connections. Generally speaking people don't put money into banks to make money, they do so to have their money protected. There are obvious and multiple exceptions such as buying CD's and the like. Private banks (as opposed to Federal Banks or Credit Unions) do invest via various loans, they do this to make a profit, but also so they have the ability to afford the security to protect the investment that others have made to remain viable (in addition to self-preservation).

I could go on, but I think it's obvious that a bank loaning money is not the same thing as selling a coke. It's much more complicated. Whether or not you agree it is a stupid thing to argue as it has no bearing (that I can see) on this topic. Eh, whatever.


Of course it's much more complex. My point is that the basic principles are the same.
The fact that people have absolutely no connection to someone else who uses that bank is completely irrelevant.
A grocery store for example stocks many many different types of goods as well as many many different brands of goods. Sealord (sea food company here) has no connection to coke for example.

The idea that there is a suppler and a buyer and the bank acts as a middleman just as a grocery store acts as a middleman. Yes it is more complicated, as you mentioned, protection of money etc.. and the amounts of money are far far greater. But the principle is the same.

Bringing it back to the original point that interest on loans is somehow "evil" (which I know you're not saying, I'm not saying you're saying that, this is mostly directed at bemore), I am saying that it is no more "evil" then a grocery store, or a corner store or whoever, adding on 50c or however much, to a bottle of coke as to cover their expenses and make a profit.

Also, the reason why people put money into a back is almost irrelevant to the topic as well considering the topic is about what banks do with that money, not people's intentions. But yes I accept that security is a factor, but that is just part of their costs that need to covered, like rental space or power bill.

Quote:I agree that a state government is always evil

Oh yea, this is why I hated you (past tense). You never explained why.
You kept saying this but never explained why. No, I know what it was, taxes. You said taxes were evil.
Are you finally going to explain why?

Quote:I honestly think we would disagree on far fewer things than we disagree on if we were to sit down and talk.

I can shout louder then both of you, so I'd win.

No, governments are evil because they are coercive. They force people to do things against their will and prevent them from doing things that harm no one. You are the one hung up on the tax issue. You never could understand why I considered direct taxes wrong. I can only lead a horse to water. Even if I shove his fat fucking stupid horse head in the water, if he don't wanna' drink, I can't make 'em. In case you missed it, in this analogy, you are the horse Beat_stick. Shout all you want, don't make you right.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
27-04-2013, 08:33 AM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
(27-04-2013 02:28 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Dude, what the hell are you blathering about? What 'system'? Do you mean government, a la "FUCK THE SYSTEM!"? I ain't trying to be an asshole, I'm just honestly unsure of that's what you mean; my guess is based on the context of our back and forth. Your second an forth sentences sound like something I might say if I were drunk or high. Kind of out of left field. Your third paragraph is just pointing out the obvious. I feel like this is one of those conversations that would best be said face to face....er, at least voice to voice. This is one of those things that are frustrating to type...whatever.

I honestly think we would disagree on far fewer things than we disagree on if we were to sit down and talk.

Also, fuck the Chinese proverb. Language is a living organism, and words are relative. That is all.

LOL.... Yep.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2013, 08:48 PM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
(27-04-2013 06:58 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(27-04-2013 03:49 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Of course it's much more complex. My point is that the basic principles are the same.
The fact that people have absolutely no connection to someone else who uses that bank is completely irrelevant.
A grocery store for example stocks many many different types of goods as well as many many different brands of goods. Sealord (sea food company here) has no connection to coke for example.

The idea that there is a suppler and a buyer and the bank acts as a middleman just as a grocery store acts as a middleman. Yes it is more complicated, as you mentioned, protection of money etc.. and the amounts of money are far far greater. But the principle is the same.

Bringing it back to the original point that interest on loans is somehow "evil" (which I know you're not saying, I'm not saying you're saying that, this is mostly directed at bemore), I am saying that it is no more "evil" then a grocery store, or a corner store or whoever, adding on 50c or however much, to a bottle of coke as to cover their expenses and make a profit.

Also, the reason why people put money into a back is almost irrelevant to the topic as well considering the topic is about what banks do with that money, not people's intentions. But yes I accept that security is a factor, but that is just part of their costs that need to covered, like rental space or power bill.


Oh yea, this is why I hated you (past tense). You never explained why.
You kept saying this but never explained why. No, I know what it was, taxes. You said taxes were evil.
Are you finally going to explain why?


I can shout louder then both of you, so I'd win.

No, governments are evil because they are coercive. They force people to do things against their will and prevent them from doing things that harm no one. You are the one hung up on the tax issue. You never could understand why I considered direct taxes wrong. I can only lead a horse to water. Even if I shove his fat fucking stupid horse head in the water, if he don't wanna' drink, I can't make 'em. In case you missed it, in this analogy, you are the horse Beat_stick. Shout all you want, don't make you right.

Actually, I was right and am right about direct taxes.
You were/are just too stupid too see it and understand why, even when other people tell you you're wrong besides myself.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2013, 10:36 PM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
(27-04-2013 08:48 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Actually, I was right and am right about direct taxes.
You were/are just too stupid too see it and understand why, even when other people tell you you're wrong besides myself.

Muffs, do you believe the state should allow gay couples to marry? If yes, would you mind explaining to me the principles upon which you base that conclusion? And lastly, would you explain why it is wrong for the state to force gay couples into cohabiting without all of the benefits it affords married heterosexual couples?

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2013, 10:42 PM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
(27-04-2013 10:36 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(27-04-2013 08:48 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Actually, I was right and am right about direct taxes.
You were/are just too stupid too see it and understand why, even when other people tell you you're wrong besides myself.

Muffs, do you believe the state should allow gay couples to marry? If yes, would you mind explaining to me the principles upon which you base that conclusion? And lastly, would you explain why it is wrong for the state to force gay couples into cohabiting without all of the benefits it affords married heterosexual couples?

Equality is the reason why DL is wrong so don't bother.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: