patrick.net

"In order to have winners, free markets must have losers", is that what you said?

A free market is simply cooperative free choice. Willing buyer - willing seller. The supermarket is selling apples for $1.50 per pound. Someone agrees to pay $1.50 for a pound of apples. Thats a willing buyer and a willing seller. Thats cooperative free choice. Thats the essence of freedom.

Please point out the "loser" in this transaction.

How is the worker, who is making at least minimum wage, now has health care benefits, possibly subsidized housing and maybe even food stamps the loser?

Seriously, no jobs in this country are MANDITORY are they? Someone chose to pick apples. They made a FREE CHOICE that the pay they got was worth the time it took. It was a win-win decision, made with free choice by both parties. That in itself is freedom. Freedom is good - its the absence of coercion, the absence of force.

Only the element of FORCE creates a loser in an otherwise mutually agreeable, win-win transaction. A simple example is the difference of love vs. rape. The same act with different outcome. One involves a mutually agreeable, loving, win-win, free choice meeting. The other is a win-lose meeting, without free choice and the element of force. You get it, right?

bob2356 says

AdHominem says

Enter Gold and silver (or other similar forms of money which by nature of their scarcity lend themselves as a medium of stable exchange). Money changes everything. Money IS influence, and only influence can bring another person to do your will rather than their own. Money enables the hoarder to pay people to protect and increase his hoard. The ancients called the love of money the root of all evil and is this not true? Money enables one man to influence/dictate the rules and lives of other men and women.

No one ever influenced/dictated the rules and lives of other men and women before coinage was invented? That’s not the way I read history.

Never said money was the only way to influence people. It is just one of the big three, the other two being threat of violence or force and religion. But money can buy you religion and force so yes, money is the greater danger. This is why it is so terrible to give control of our "money" to people who are shrouded in secrecy, serving their own interests, and are essentially unaccountable to the people. Audit the FED.

Nomograph says

The intrinsic value will ALWAYS be in goods and services,

Then Nomo, why did Nixon close the gold window? Why did he want to keep our gold? Why does gold have ANY value?

I agree to a point that real value is the goods and services, but more important is the means of production. You must address the fact that by issuing and controlling our currency the central banks and the corporations that grow up around them are able to purchase and hoard the means of production for themselves. They have first access to newly created money and are able to buy up these assets before prices rise. The boom-bust cycle they create also enables them to grow their own wealth, power and influence.

Gold and silver as money limit the PtB influence. Consequently they want to keep their gold and their influence too. They want to keep their money and spend it too! That is why they pushed for the FED, and fiat money. You don't like inflation any more than I do. You just like to argue because my point of view doesn't fit with your ideals. I suppose you would rather we all just go back to work in your orchard? What is your point of view, that the FED is an asset to America and its working people?

Are you a capitalist/corporatist in sheep's clothing?

http://www.wri.org/publication/content/7977

Bangladesh (Chittagong) 1 Dozen Eggs
Kenya 8 Cups of Milk
Ghana 2 1/3 Bottles of Palm Oil
Ghana 4 1/3 Bottles of Coke
Philippines 4/5 of a Big Mac
USA 1/3 of a Starbucks Tall Latte
Uganda 1/46 of a Bicycle
Bangladesh 1/3 of a Sari
Ghana 1 1/2 Pairs Rubber Sandals
Bangladesh 7 Bars of Soap
Ghana 87 Tablets of Penicillin
India (Andhra Pradesh) 1/2 Unit of Blood for a Transfusion
USA 1/150 of the Average Daily Cost of Nursing Home Care
Tanzania (Nzanza) 1/3 of a Liter of Pesticide
Ghana 4 1/3 Rolls of Toilet Paper
Ecuador (Quito) 1/500 of a Washing Machine
India (Andhra Pradesh) 2-3 Pieces Bamboo for Building
Uganda (Mbale) 1/1500 of the Cost of Building a New Home
India (Mumbai) 1/3 of a Regular Price Evening Movie Ticket

There, we've established what a dollar can buy. Can we move on now?

Nomograph says

The smart money has always been ownership equity.

As a part owner of the means of production, you are set. Congratulations. It is everyone else who suffers under the Fed and its fiat regime (you know the ones who don't have the assets or income and can't afford the ever inflating prices?)

Nomograph says

The Fed has nothing to do with this.

So it is to whose benefit that we do not have a sound currency but rather one manipulated by the very owners of the majority of true wealth (the means of production)? Senator Nelson Aldrich, his personal secretary Arthur Shelton, former Harvard University professor of economics Dr. A. Piatt Andrew, J.P. Morgan & Co. partner Henry P. Davison, National City Bank president Frank A. Vanderlip and Kuhn, Loeb, and Co. partner Paul M. Warburg got together in secret meetings to craft the draft proposal for the Federal Reserve system in 1910 at Jekyll Island because they were primarily concerned with making sure that all Americans could control the fruits of their labor right? They would never design a system that makes it impossible to pay off debt? They would never design a system that allows them preferred status and bailouts when needed at the expense of the working class would they?

No, clearly the Federal Reserve has nothing to do with it.

Nomograph says

The loser is the low-wage worker who picked the apples (i.e. you) and the winner is the owner of the orchard (i.e. me).

this is BS the worker who works for an agreed upon wage is not a loser. However if he is paid is debasable fiat "dollars" the FED/PtB can force him to lose.

AdHominem says

You assume two fallacies.
RE: Employment-

The natural state of men and women is to work, if nothing else to provide for themselves. In fact a working person can produce much more than they will consume. It takes interference from other men or women to change this natural state. Which is precisely why governments are instituted among consenting men and women, to insure that this natural state of affairs may remain in place. To attempt to restrain men from exerting influence over others. To protect the liberty to do the work that you desire and reap the fruits of that labor as a just reward for said labor. To outlaw slavery.
Let’s say money did not exist, not even gold or silver. Do you still think we would have “unemployment?” In this cashless society it would be rather difficult to get into deep debt. Who would loan to a slothful man? In this society only usable commodities would have any value. Even that value would be limited. It would do a man no good to own tons of land (On second thought maybe land would still be worth owning if you somehow get other people to work it for you but chances are they would just kill you and work it for themselves), piles of grain, or barrels of oil because what worth would they be to him? And who would help him acquire more let alone protect what he has? Wouldn’t workers instead choose to work to acquire for themselves? The wealthy man would be seen as a hoarder and a detriment to everyone else. Of course this cashless society could not progress past a subsistence level (and maybe that isn’t such a bad thing, especially if you have Native American or similar ancestry).
Enter Gold and silver (or other similar forms of money which by nature of their scarcity lend themselves as a medium of stable exchange). Money changes everything. Money IS influence, and only influence can bring another person to do your will rather than their own. Money enables the hoarder to pay people to protect and increase his hoard. The ancients called the love of money the root of all evil and is this not true? Money enables one man to influence/dictate the rules and lives of other men and women.
Gold and silver as money limit the influence of the rich, by nature of their limited supply.
The FED on the other hand gives the PtB complete control over money and therefore COMPLETE and UNLIMITED INFLUENCE over the affairs of the people under its dominion. In the game of Monopoly the end result is always the same. But most people don’t realize there are two winners. The person who bankrupts everyone else AND THE BANK! The bank ALWAYS WINS. And one of the reasons the bank can never lose is that it cannot run out of money/influence. The rules of the game say that if the bank runs out of money it can just print more. In the United States the situation is the same. The FED can never run out of money and, just like in the game of monopoly the large corporations (monopolies) are the ones that benefit from the unlimited supply of money. The small companies and individuals will eventually be entirely owned by the bank and the corporations that grow up around it. We soon won’t be able to buy or sell without their permission. In fact we are all slaves to these corporations whether we admit it or not. The FED made America a giant version of Monopoly. The funny part is that while they are taking control of more and more assets (notice the rich getting richer and the middle class shrinking?) you think you are winning. The PtB want you to think so. They are happy for you. Oh sure it is still better to be an American than a Haitain for now. And as long as the powers that be can make you believe it is in your best interest to serve them, you will. Why do you think the Chinese submit to their slave masters? Our slavery is just less extreme (right now) than theirs.
In order to limit their influence we must take back control of our money-currency.
RE: spending/debt
The FED makes this extreme load of debt possible. The FED can’t regulate or prevent moral hazard, THE FED IS MORAL HAZARD! It allows politicians to offer bribes for votes without raising taxes. It allows corporations to do the same offering guaranteed profits to investors while socializing losses. Nixon had to close the gold window because foreign investors knew that servicing our our debt would be impossible without devaluing the dollar (and Nixon knew our gold was more valuable than our dollar, this is not rocket science for you either is it Kevin? For some reason Nixon wanted to keep our worthless gold and spend our valuable “dollars”?). As lender of last resort the Fed allowed Nixon to continue to run up the debt with little consequence to American corporate interests. The wealthy have first access to newly created money and therefore are able to spend it (buying up even more assets) before the effects of inflation are fully realized. In essence the wealthy get to spend their money and keep their gold. Eventually this Federal Reserve monetary regime will end of course, but in the meantime look for the rich to continue getting richer, using the FED as their source of influence of last resort.
The only way we can end the reckless spending and get out of debt is to end the FED.

That was an incredibly verbose way to say that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Kevin says

That was an incredibly verbose way to say that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

...and Kevin's got a nice way of saying that Adhom's got a severe case of Rectal-Cranial Inversion. IMHO, of course.

Kevin says

AdHominem says

You assume two fallacies.

RE: Employment-
The natural state of men and women is to work, if nothing else to provide for themselves. In fact a working person can produce much more than they will consume. It takes interference from other men or women to change this natural state. Which is precisely why governments are instituted among consenting men and women, to insure that this natural state of affairs may remain in place. To attempt to restrain men from exerting influence over others. To protect the liberty to do the work that you desire and reap the fruits of that labor as a just reward for said labor. To outlaw slavery.

Let’s say money did not exist, not even gold or silver. Do you still think we would have “unemployment?” In this cashless society it would be rather difficult to get into deep debt. Who would loan to a slothful man? In this society only usable commodities would have any value. Even that value would be limited. It would do a man no good to own tons of land (On second thought maybe land would still be worth owning if you somehow get other people to work it for you but chances are they would just kill you and work it for themselves), piles of grain, or barrels of oil because what worth would they be to him? And who would help him acquire more let alone protect what he has? Wouldn’t workers instead choose to work to acquire for themselves? The wealthy man would be seen as a hoarder and a detriment to everyone else. Of course this cashless society could not progress past a subsistence level (and maybe that isn’t such a bad thing, especially if you have Native American or similar ancestry).

Enter Gold and silver (or other similar forms of money which by nature of their scarcity lend themselves as a medium of stable exchange). Money changes everything. Money IS influence, and only influence can bring another person to do your will rather than their own. Money enables the hoarder to pay people to protect and increase his hoard. The ancients called the love of money the root of all evil and is this not true? Money enables one man to influence/dictate the rules and lives of other men and women.

Gold and silver as money limit the influence of the rich, by nature of their limited supply.

The FED on the other hand gives the PtB complete control over money and therefore COMPLETE and UNLIMITED INFLUENCE over the affairs of the people under its dominion. In the game of Monopoly the end result is always the same. But most people don’t realize there are two winners. The person who bankrupts everyone else AND THE BANK! The bank ALWAYS WINS. And one of the reasons the bank can never lose is that it cannot run out of money/influence. The rules of the game say that if the bank runs out of money it can just print more. In the United States the situation is the same. The FED can never run out of money and, just like in the game of monopoly the large corporations (monopolies) are the ones that benefit from the unlimited supply of money. The small companies and individuals will eventually be entirely owned by the bank and the corporations that grow up around it. We soon won’t be able to buy or sell without their permission. In fact we are all slaves to these corporations whether we admit it or not. The FED made America a giant version of Monopoly. The funny part is that while they are taking control of more and more assets (notice the rich getting richer and the middle class shrinking?) you think you are winning. The PtB want you to think so. They are happy for you. Oh sure it is still better to be an American than a Haitain for now. And as long as the powers that be can make you believe it is in your best interest to serve them, you will. Why do you think the Chinese submit to their slave masters? Our slavery is just less extreme (right now) than theirs.

In order to limit their influence we must take back control of our money-currency.

RE: spending/debt

The FED makes this extreme load of debt possible. The FED can’t regulate or prevent moral hazard, THE FED IS MORAL HAZARD! It allows politicians to offer bribes for votes without raising taxes. It allows corporations to do the same offering guaranteed profits to investors while socializing losses. Nixon had to close the gold window because foreign investors knew that servicing our our debt would be impossible without devaluing the dollar (and Nixon knew our gold was more valuable than our dollar, this is not rocket science for you either is it Kevin? For some reason Nixon wanted to keep our worthless gold and spend our valuable “dollars”?). As lender of last resort the Fed allowed Nixon to continue to run up the debt with little consequence to American corporate interests. The wealthy have first access to newly created money and therefore are able to spend it (buying up even more assets) before the effects of inflation are fully realized. In essence the wealthy get to spend their money and keep their gold. Eventually this Federal Reserve monetary regime will end of course, but in the meantime look for the rich to continue getting richer, using the FED as their source of influence of last resort.

The only way we can end the reckless spending and get out of debt is to end the FED.

That was an incredibly verbose way to say that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

That was an incredibly obvious way of saying you cannot even begin to refute it.

But don't look at me, only you can help you! Because you're good enough, and smart enough and doggonnit people like you.

I can't help but state the obvious: I've noticed liberals love to make personal attacks. Conservatives love to point out the unintended consequences of big government intervention. Liberals believe more govenment intervention and throwing money around is the solution to every problem, many which they create themselves. Conservatives believe in limited Constitutional government. Liberals want to control everyone and everything. Conservatives believe in freedom and liberty.

Yea, it's pretty clear which side I want to be on.

Honest Abe says

throwing money around is the solution to every problem, many which they create themselves. Conservatives believe in limited Constitutional government.

mmmmm! conservative believe fire is good! Liberal believe fire bad!

I realize that you are trying, really trying, to educate the rest of us as to why the black & white belief systems that you've assigned to each of us actually applies. But I can't help but state the obvious: you're dead wrong when you do so.

Honest Abe says

I can’t help but state the obvious: I’ve noticed liberals love to make personal attacks. Conservatives love to point out the unintended consequences of big government intervention. Liberals believe more govenment intervention and throwing money around is the solution to every problem, many which they create themselves. Conservatives believe in limited Constitutional government. Liberals want to control everyone and everything. Conservatives believe in freedom and liberty

Conservatives like to mischaracterize what liberals believe in. Independent thinkers like to poke fun at the black and white crowd

tatupu70 says

Conservatives like to mischaracterize what liberals believe in. Independent thinkers like to poke fun at the black and white crowd

I agree with you 100%, unequivocally, with no doubt whatsoever. :)

GOD DAMN IT, everyone knows that there are only "Liberals" and "Conservatives", and everyone cleanly falls into one of these camps and dogmatically believes whatever arbitrary thing Abe has decided that they believe.

Could there be any possibility that a person who cleaned toilets, went on to start a janitorial company and become a millionaire? Or a person who flipped burgers went on to become wealthy as a fast food franchise owner. Or a person who made cookies started a national brand?

What liberals can't stand is that freedom provides equal opportunity - but not equal results. Liberals seem to want equal results, you know utopia - hahaha.

Nomograph says

free markets always have winners and losers (i.e. unequal results).

Sorry but unequal results is NOT the same as your winners and losers fallacy. In fact if we examine marxism or its fruits such as communism (a government designed to give "equal results") I think we realize that "equal results" means *EVERYBODY LOSES.

*except maybe for the PtB

In a truly free market everyone makes their choices and pursues happiness in their own way, free of coercion. Some may fail to achieve happiness, but they are not losers as long as they are free to pursue it. However when you force them to work to support freeloaders or debase their currency so their wages are constantly losing value then you have made their pursuit essentially in vain. We no longer have free markets here in the US. The corporatists, with the help of the FED have rigged the system so that you cannot out compete them. With over $12.6 trillion in national debt and $16.5 trillion in private debt, our nation is full of indentured servants with no hope of paying off their debts.

Thanks Federal Reserve!

In Monopoly, the game ends when one player has all the money and everyone else is bankrupt. This is usually the point in Western societies where economic breakdown & civil unrest trigger a sudden populist interest in socialist policies. Failing to recognize the flaws of unbridled capitalism is the downfall of it's fervent adherents. They always say "well we didn't do it purely enough, let's try again!"

Honest Abe says

What liberals can’t stand is that freedom provides equal opportunity - but not equal results. Liberals seem to want equal results, you know utopia - hahaha.

"Equal opportunity" my ass. You can't possibly claim that someone born in a trailer park to an unwed mother has an equal opportunity as the guy who's the son of a billionaire.

AdHominem says

Sorry but unequal results is NOT the same as your winners and losers fallacy. In fact if we examine marxism or its fruits such as communism (a government designed to give “equal results”) I think we realize that “equal results” means *EVERYBODY LOSES.

Uh, sorry, but unequal results does mean that there are winners and losers.

Communism isn't intended to give "equal results" -- it's simply another theoretical (and never implemented, so you can't draw any conclusions about it) economic model, which (like all economic models) has the goal of doing "what's best".

AdHominem says

We no longer have free markets here in the US.

There has *NEVER* been a truly free market anywhere in the world, because a true free market can only exist in a place with complete honesty and transparency (i.e. a place where human beings don't exist). If you believe otherwise, please tell me the time period that you believe so-called free markets existed. The primary reason that you can't have a truly free market is that the only way to prevent monopolist forces (the antithesis of the free market) is by having a strong authority (i.e. government) to check it. Wealth of Nations was written long before the real innovations of the industrial revolution that allowed for monopolies to come into existence, and when we attempted to apply Smith's theories in the 1800s we wound up with Standard Oil and US Steel. Living under the oppressive thumb of the rockerfellers and carnegies of the world is no better than living under the oppressive thumb of the monarchy.

All that matters in economics is outcome. If system A produces an outcome that is better as a whole than system B (where "better" is admittedly somewhat arbitrary, though generally defined as "quality of life"), then system A is the better system. If a pure free market produces the best outcome, great. If a pure central planned economy produces the best outcome, also great. So far, history has shown time and time again that mixed markets yield the best results.

Kevin says

Uh, sorry, but unequal results does mean that there are winners and losers.

Wrong. Does your repeating it make it true or just show that you are incapable of reason? Being less successful than your competition does NOT make you a loser (and in fact by the very nature of your competition you have added value to the market and pursued your own happiness, a win win situation!). That is why the corporate powers that be hate free markets, they do not want you to take ANY profits away from them or force them to provide BETTER service/value.

Kevin says

the only way to prevent monopolist forces (the antithesis of the free market) is by having a strong authority (i.e. government) to check it.

Wrong again. Big government is the TOOL of the corporatists that enables them to maintain and expand their monopolies/oligopolies. The corporations lobby to create rules that set barriers to competition, you know all the red tape and expensive compliance measures required to enter the marketplace? Then to insure their own profits they set up the FED and other bailouts that are available to the "too big to fail" but not to the too small to matter. The too small to matter are the ones who don't contribute enough to the election of the "representatives" in federal government. Corporations LOVE big government, it makes it EASIER to force their will on the public.

For example, lets say that Indiana passed a law that only Silver coins (and bank debit accounts based on silver) would be legal tender in the state. In order to reach that market, companies would have to price their products accordingly, and people would know the true rate of inflation. The powers that be don't want this of course so the must force ALL Americans to use a fiat standard enforced by a strong (bought and paid for by special interests) Federal Government.

AdHominem says

Wrong. Does your repeating it make it true or just show that you are incapable of reason? Being less successful than your competition does NOT make you a loser (and in fact by the very nature of your competition you have added value to the market and pursued your own happiness, a win win situation!). That is why the corporate powers that be hate free markets, they do not want you to take ANY profits away from them or force them to provide BETTER service/value.

Yeah, no, sorry, but you have this weird black and white attitude that losing means that you have nothing and die in a ditch or something. I honestly don't understand it.

AdHominem says

Wrong again. blah blah blah blah blah

Indeed, I forgot that corporations were falling apart left and right back when we took a lasseiz faire attitude towards businesses. There never was such a thing as a company store, virtual slave cities weren't built by industrialists, and monopoly abuses were never committed by US steel or standard oil. Competition was so fierce that nobody had any reason to complain about the situation and consumers enjoyed the benefits of a free market that provided ample choice, just like it always does because my theoretical model claims that it does!

AdHominem says

For example, lets say that Indiana passed a law that only Silver coins (and bank debit accounts based on silver) would be legal tender in the state. In order to reach that market, companies would have to price their products accordingly, and people would know the true rate of inflation. The powers that be don’t want this of course so the must force ALL Americans to use a fiat standard enforced by a strong (bought and paid for by special interests) Federal Government.

"The powers that be" don't want this for the same reason that sane people don't want it -- we'd rather not have to convert our currency every time we cross a state line. Ever travel through Europe before the Euro? It was a godawful mess. Fortunately, lots of places took dollars, which made things a little more bearable.

Not everything is some sinister plot to deprive you of your freedom.

Nomograph says

it goes like this: winner > loser. The guy on the ‘greater than’ side of the inequality symbol is the winner.

You are trying to define winner in an ideological sense, which is why you are having a difficult time with it. It’s fine if you want to give everyone a prize for participating in your ideological system, but the guy who gets the ninth place trophy is the loser.

Talk about black and white thinking! Your equation is the epitome. The guy who gets the ninth place trophy is the loser because you said so right? Your winners and losers statement is a fallacy precisely because it determines a person's worth in terms of what "place" they got or how much fiat money they made. That IS YOUR IDEOLOGICAL FALLACY. That is why you are having difficulty admitting your own blind spot.

You think in black and white terms of winners and losers. You simply can't wrap your ideology around a WIN WIN scenario.

In order to justify your ideology that there are always winners and losers: you MUST arbitrarily define what a winner and a loser is based on income or some other arbitrary measure.

In quantitative terms you can define winners and losers (and remember it is YOU who insists on defining winning and losing in this manner), but it doesn't mean anything, especially if in qualitative terms the "winners and losers" still enjoy freedom to pursue their own happiness.

NOMO, you might as well admit that your ideology has been exposed. Your ideology is no different than the thinking of the people who thought of the American Indians as losers and savages, and then went on the murder and send them to concentration camps.

If you want to talk about inequality try this one:
P+1>P
This inequality insures that (thanks to the FED and its fiat monopoly) America will never be able to pay off its debt and inflation is a certainty if we are to pay even the interest. The only way for America to be free from its growing burden of debt is to End the Fed and its fiat regime.

Nomograph says

The fact that you are forced to talk about indians and concentration camps

Actually I said that just to get a rise out of you. Your black and white way of thinking about winners and losers betrays your prejudice and lack of understanding. There is such a thing as a win win scenario but according to your dogma that just doesn't compute. In fact, society is built upon the win win scenario, the fact that our fabric of society periodically goes through strain and decay is because people like you think in black and white (winners and losers) rather than seeking the win win scenario.

A gold or silver standard is not a government sponsored wealth management program. The federal reserve IS a government sponsored wealth transfer program. That is the problem. A gold standard can be a win win scenario, the FED and its fiat regime is anything but. Do you really think that having a debt that is growing and can never be repaid is in everyone's best interest?

Nomograph says

Wintson?

Actually the name for people who are loyal party members like you is Winston.

Why are you afraid of sound money Winston? Actually I know you aren't but rather just like to be a pain in the ass. Are you a proctologist?

Winston says

play some video games

What games do you play? Are they approved by the ministry of truth Winston?

BTW I'm not upset, I'm having fun playing with your superiority complex. Your black and white thinking/blindspot is amusing.

Nomograph says

I am the Ministry of Truth, Winston. I control the schools, the health care system, and the financial system. I want to help you, so just sit back, relax, and let me do the thinking.

Wow you're like the wizard of Oz!

Nomograph says

Have a bowl of ice cream.

But I don't like ice cream. Can I have cake instead?

Nomograph says

and to each person I will issue a shiny gold ninth place trophy.

Ah shucks that sounds nice! Giving back some the money you stole through inflation and taxation. You are generous.

Nomograph says

Everyone’s a winner when Big Brother is in charge.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. He is just a black and white thinker who has made it his goal in life to have someone else clean his toilet. Oh and if you clean toilets (even your own) you are a loser in his book of prejudice. He gives you a ninth place trophy like a star of david.

AdHominem says

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. He is just a black and white thinker who has made it his goal in life to have someone else clean his toilet. Oh and if you clean toilets (even your own) you are a loser in his book of prejudice. He gives you a ninth place trophy like a star of david.

Once again, I'm making a huge leap of an assumption here. But I'm guessing that Nomo didn't become a doctor so that someone else could clean his toilet. And, unless I'm missing something here, I doubt he has competitions amongst his 9 servants to see who cleans best so that he can give out ninth place trophies.

Also, I wasn't aware that they award a Star of David to the best toilet cleaners, although anyone is welcome to wear one and respect the meaning behind the symbol. What an offensive comment - but I've come to expect nothing less from you.

So - my kid was about 8 when we had a lovely conversation about why it was so important for him to know how to clean, and that he should practice by cleaning up his room. It wasn't filthy, just had crap spread everywhere with his "treasures" thrown about - and my point was that I shouldn't have to clean it for him (his point was that the room's appearance didn't bother him, so it was my problem - not his). I asked him, what happens when you grow up and there's no mom around to clean up after you? He said, "I'll get a wife."

I can't wait until he gets married and shall spring that tidbit of wisdom upon his lovely (I'm sure) yet unsuspecting bride. Either that, or he can pay me $$$ not to tell her. I'm gonna be rich!

elliemae says

I asked him, what happens when you grow up and there’s no mom around to clean up after you? He said, “I’ll get a wife.”

Shocking statement .... SHOCKING. Sounds very much like you are raising a very sexist kid with an attitude that is dangerous to women. Are you teaching this kid that a woman's role is to "scrub floors, cook meals and do laundry too?" Both of you should be sent to a Feminist Re-education camp at once. I find it amazing that a conservative like me has to point this out to you.

I pay people to clean my house. My wife doesn't work, but raising 3 kids is hard, and I'd rather spend $300 a month for someone to clean the place than to have a dirty home. There's really nothing wrong with paying someone else for their labor.

RayAmerica says

elliemae says

I asked him, what happens when you grow up and there’s no mom around to clean up after you? He said, “I’ll get a wife.”

Shocking statement …. SHOCKING. Sounds very much like you are raising a very sexist kid with an attitude that is dangerous to women. Are you teaching this kid that a woman’s role is to “scrub floors, cook meals and do laundry too?” Both of you should be sent to a Feminist Re-education camp at once. I find it amazing that a conservative like me has to point this out to you.

Yea, rayray, I allowed him to get away with this and hired a housekeeper for him immediately. He's 25 now and I still pay for a housekeeper, female of course, until he can find a subservient twit of a woman with no goals. Trouble is that he continually dates women who are intelligent, vibrant self-thinkers who would never consider their only job to be cleaning up after him. Apparently he values the woman over the services that she would provide to him as a maid.

I thought we raised him better, and his father & I are very disappointed. Damn!

elliemae says

RayAmerica says

elliemae says

I asked him, what happens when you grow up and there’s no mom around to clean up after you? He said, “I’ll get a wife.”

Shocking statement …. SHOCKING. Sounds very much like you are raising a very sexist kid with an attitude that is dangerous to women. Are you teaching this kid that a woman’s role is to “scrub floors, cook meals and do laundry too?” Both of you should be sent to a Feminist Re-education camp at once. I find it amazing that a conservative like me has to point this out to you.

Yea, rayray, I allowed him to get away with this and hired a housekeeper for him immediately. He’s 25 now and I still pay for a housekeeper, female of course, until he can find a subservient twit of a woman with no goals. Trouble is that he continually dates women who are intelligent, vibrant self-thinkers who would never consider their only job to be cleaning up after him. Apparently he values the woman over the services that she would provide to him as a maid.
I thought we raised him better, and his father & I are very disappointed. Damn!

Wait, you only provide him with a maid? At 25 he should have concubines to satisfy all his needs. You're failing in your parental duties. Hire some concubines. What are you teaching him by letting him date such independent, intelligent, vibrant, and self-aware women? Sheesh!

simchaland says

Wait, you only provide him with a maid? At 25 he should have concubines to satisfy all his needs. You’re failing in your parental duties. Hire some concubines. What are you teaching him by letting him date such independent, intelligent, vibrant, and self-aware women? Sheesh!

In his defense, he requires her to wear a French maid's uniform with fishnet stockings and high spiked heals. In my defense, as a parent hoping to instill some values beyond shallow stereotypes, I hired a grandmother in her 50's with plenty of cellulite. His girlfriend(s) seldom feel threatened by her.
It's called a "happy medium."

So - exactly what is a "dollar"?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1I7DMUS_en&defl=en&q=define:dollar&ei=kOe_S_HlGcL38AaQ8LXrCA&sa=X&oi=glossary_
definition&ct=title&ved=0CAYQkAE

"Dollar are a pop vocal duo from the UK, consisting of David Van Day and Thereza Bazar. The duo were successful in the late 1970s and 1980s.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_(band)"

thanks for asking. :)

Nomograph says

Honest Abe says

So - exactly what is a “dollar”?

A dollar is a denomination of the currency we use to exchange goods and services. It’s sole purpose is to enable the exchange of goods and services.
You can buy gold with a keystroke in the free market. Free markets are volatile and have risks. Are you afraid of freedom, Abe?

I'll bet he yells at you & tells you how wrong you are, followed by accusing you of being a liberal elitist snob.

And the downside to defining a dollar as a specific amount of silver (or gold) would be ???

The Wizard of Oceana says

the perils of the free market.

I would love to hear how in your Orwellian false reality the Fed and its monopoly over money and interest rates is "the free market" Please do tell.

Also since you claim a gold standard would be a government run program as opposed to this Fed monopoly on "money", please explain how defining a dollar as a specific amount of gold or silver will cause an increase in the size and scope of government. Please do tell!

In fact how would requiring gold (or gold backed currency/account) for the payment of debts be any different than requiring Federal Reserve notes for the payment of debts? Please do tell!!!
Both the gold currency and Federal Reserve notes require that the government enforce a "standard." Under gold there would be ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGE IN THE SIZE OR SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT (other than the fact that government could not have access to freely printed federal reserve notes and would be forced to limit spending to equal actual revenues rather than monetizing debt. This is a win win scenario, you know the kind of scenario the Wizard of Nomo's ideology rejects and therefore he doesn't understand).

Honest Abe says

And the downside to defining a dollar as a specific amount of silver (or gold) would be ???

The downside is that the corporations and government won't have access to unlimited supplies of "money."

In other words, the "downside" is we would actually have a free market in currency.

Nomograph says

So why not just buy gold?

Owning a private hoard of gold probably won't do you any good if/when the dollar collapses. I would prefer not to see the day it collapses and the civil unrest or worse that will likely come with it. That is why I am calling for reform now, before the crisis fully manifests.

You still have not explained how the FED and its monopoly over money and interest rates is a "free market."