discussion comment
16 years ago
I don't agree with Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman on every issue.
Ayn Rand believed strongly in hard currency. She might be right, however, I think the better system is an expanding fiat currency system. Milton Friedman stated that money has value because we think it has value. Reading his belief for the first time made me very disappointed. He is a highly intelligent and erudite man, imo, and yet he comes out with the sugar pill that money has value because we think it has value??? True, there is a large cattle class in the U.S. and world for that matter, but the simple simon view he spouts is destructive and anti-intellectual, imo. Money has value because the government demands dollars (which it already has in endless supply) from wage slaves and is more than willing to use terror to enforce its will. If I don't give the government the dollars it demands, then it will steal my home and may even put me in prison. The government has endless means to create demand for its dollars mainly involving violence, threats of violence, loss of "privileges," theft, and on and on. I knew a young man who attempted to survive never touching a Federal Reserve Note i.e. a U.S. Dollar. It was amazing the lengths he went to use only gold or silver. Of course, he was jailed numerous times. The government has fangs as well as molars and ain't bashful about using 'em.
Yes, I advised him that he was a nut for attempting to avoid any and all contact with U.S. Dollars. :)
Yet, these same investors weren't in line to invest in companies that had all these "assets" that could be pledged as collateral? :) Yeah, right. Take a closer look at the "assets" and a knowledgeable investor probably would run for the hills to bury his money in a safe hole-----that is why the government needed to ride to the rescue with hundreds of billions or is it thousands of billions . . . I listen to this nit wit government left and right and center and for the most part it is total sleaze.
discussion comment
16 years ago
I was talking with a fairly amazing gentleman yesterday. He understood the mind boggling value of the government's creation of new dollars (via private bankers i.e. the Federal Reserve). More importantly he understood that not only can the new money lead to inflation, but it can also cause some products to become more affordable!
Yes sir ee, the government's endless money creation can reduce prices by creating economies of scale and by redirecting demand to higher ticket substitutes and by ?. It is all about the flow of the money and the incentives or disincentives that follow therefrom.
He loved my little stat (hopefully correct) about the $4 billion federal government budget that was not too long ago. Where did all this current money come from? Well if you believe the government's media (freedom of speech---lol) the money came from the foreign countries like China or Japan. Those Asians are just so clever creating trillions of U.S. dollars to lend to dumber than dumb Americans. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
I'm supposed to believe the government? lol . . .
Look, if it was a good deal then investors from around the world would be lined up to participate in the orgy of profits. The Feds, first and foremost are frauds.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"'If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill.
The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The
difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the
money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%.
Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays
nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say
our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises
to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People.'"
by:
Thomas A. Edison
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Thomas.Edison.Quote.6991
discussion comment
16 years ago
Correction: And, even in the cases of truly voluntary insurance, the insurance offers perverse incentives (murder, stage auto accidents, arson, etc.) as well as misdirecting and wasting resources when used honestly.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Insurance is all about the collectivization of risk. You hate insurance? :) I sure as heck do when the government make it mandatory directly or indirectly. And, even in that case insurance offers perverse incentives as well as misdirecting/wasting resources.
Anyway, the "free" (non-insurance) collectivization of risk might actually improve the system greatly------the real problem seems to be more the collectivization of reward . . .
discussion comment
16 years ago
BTW, the problem of "investing" Social Security taxes for the benefit of future recipients was well understood when the program was initially started. If the government did attempt to invest the money in the stock market or other areas that are profit driven in fairly short order the government would be owning everything. I believe it was a very old New York Times article (that I read) that really explained the monumental problems of actually attempting to invest such huge amounts of money. The better solution is for the government to create money----that is a valuable service if done properly. To make the sound money cry babies happy? Create a "Trust Fund" so it appears to the very slow that Social Security is sitting on a sound stockpile of "investments." Err government debt---that will either mostly require taxes or creating money. You know what is silly? The government taxed the employer and employee and yet to redeem the alleged "investments" taxes or new money will be required! :) What a wonderful "investment" that requires taxes or money created out of thin air to get the money back.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hi arbeeguy,
I wouldn't be so trusting when it comes to terms like LOANS or EQUITY INVESTMENTS. A beautiful example is the Social Security Trust Fund's "investments." What is this wonderful "investment"? Government IOUs. That's is correct the "investment" is a claim on government dollars. These dollars can either be obtained via taxes or much more likely printing money i.e. creating new money. See most people will blindly accept words as used and the clever dishonest people have no qualms about abusing the language for the own advantage.
And, YES it is still a bailout, imo, even if the business ultimately goes belly up. Too often the purpose of the bailout or program isn't as advertised. A beautiful example is the government's programs to supposedly save the family farms---its true purpose is to destroy the family farms. Any most family farmers bought the government BS hook, line, and sinker.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Correction: That "pocket change" ($4 billion) probably won't even pay a month's interest on the government's debt. (I was originally thinking a year's interest and erroneously typed day's interest. Let's see, I think the total debt federal government debt is alleged to be around $11 trillion. 10% annual interest would be $1.1 trillion per year, but the interest to the banksters is only 3% annual interest (what a steal! err bargain!). Thus, roughly a mere $350 billion in dollars need to be created per year just for interest!
Don't worry it is a fraud that is actually largely good for the American people and world, imho.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Here is a short video for those of you who might be interested in the government's money printing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPwZ-wQFFu8&NR=1
I do NOT agree with this gentleman, but it is a good start as far as thinking about the endless supply of dollars that U.S. government creates. Again, I do NOT agree with his conclusions and truly he needs to think some more about the subject. Or, maybe he has and has just resorted to foundation of Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS).
discussion comment
16 years ago
Clubber,
Coffey sounds familiar, but I don't remember the name of prosecutor in the Pussycat case and that case received attention from The Miami Herald.
"BTW, the government has NO money other than what they take from some citizens."
***That is NOT true.*** Here in U.S. the government has been running a fiat currency for many years. You remember the saying that it ain't worth a Continental? The Continental currency became absolutely worthless because the people figured out that the government was just printing money----sorta like the government just prints money today and in the last few decades.
The current Constitution was *supposed* to fix the problem of the government just printing money to pay its bills. A 5-4 decision from the U.S. Supreme Court effectively eliminated that protection (what's new). Just think for a moment. The total federal budget in the WWII years was something like $4 billion dollars. That "pocket change" ($4 billion) probably won't even pay a day's interest on the government's debt.
PLEASE repeat after me: The government MUST create NEW money for a modern economy to survive. It MUST. I mean there really isn't any choice unless you want the same amount of money in circulation in 1940 as in 2009. And, that frankly is insane. Do really want the amount of money to remain fixed? Do you have any idea where all this newly created money comes from? Hint: Foreign nations generally do NOT have stockpiles of U.S. currency in storage waiting to give it to the U.S. government! (Yes, I'm aware of the propaganda that foreign governments are lending the U.S. government endless quantities of dollars to finance government spending; lol.)
It is a pretty open scam, but the normal Joe will never figure it out. And, even if Joe Citizen finally figures it out who the hell cares? LOL! :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
It seems like one of the engines of wealth creation was and is the government creating money basically out of thin air. How to distribute this "free" money naturally (and properly) seems to lead to a sense of entitlement.
Feel free to spend your government money on endless wars like the war on terror; I prefer to see my government money spent on homes, education, health care, food, and subsidizing stripclubs-- especially the price of lap dances. Universal Lap Stamps is the ticket to happier and saner society. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
All other things being equal it seems reasonable and proper. And, to some extent creating new money actually creates more wealth (not just inflation) so let the bailouts boom!
discussion comment
15 years ago
"I must have missed the picture and story. Did it get deleted?"
I put it up very briefly. Didn't realize Clubber would react so strongly. It was a picture from the cover of Tranny Whacker 5----the he-she TS Dream is on the cover and unfortunately, imo, he-she is big----11 inches big.
Not much of a story behind it. I saw some clips of TS Dream and he-she appeared more girly than the cover pic of Tranny Whacker 5 would indicate. The personality as shown on these clips is exactly how I'd like a real girl to talk and behave----they could take lessons from TS Dream, imo.
You really didn't miss anything shadowcat. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hi Clubber,
No, this was Club Pink Pussycat. And, the dancer who made all the money was also that kind of girl (her claim was that because she was married she had strict rule; lol). The situation was that the prosecutor was recognized and she was instructed to teach the "good Christian" a lesson. If he had any brains, then he would have taken his financial beating like a man and left peacefully. He lost sinecure which I believe was paying him around a $150,000 a year plus bennies----a true bargain to brain taxpayers.
Thumbs way up for Club Pink Pussycat, however, some other lowlife or lowlifes were probably promoted or newly hired to fill his space. Well, it is the government's money.
discussion comment
16 years ago
That holier-than-thou prosecutor was setup big time. I think he paid around 2 thousand dollars only to learn "she's not that kind of girl."
Over at the old Baby Dolls (a five dollar club) a couple of drug dealers spent around 10 thousand dollars on a couple of dancers. Those dancer were special. In fact, one of the drug dealers jumped in front of me just as I was going to ask one of the special dancers for a dance. I'm glad he did so because the dancer made a ton more money.
discussion comment
15 years ago
I was a little caught of guard that she took it seriously. My plan B was to play it as humor and that a little rub-a-dub is good for the soul. :)
She does have a very positive side despite the hard time she was giving me and I needed to remind myself constantly that she was going thru a very rough time. The positive side being that years ago she brought over an adorable latina who only charged (and was grateful) $25 if I wanted FS----this girl probably took $10 as her pimp fee. :)
discussion comment
15 years ago
"some strippers I know did not even go to high school, and some only a year or two..."
Ah, the fortunate ones . . . who consequently may receive eupsychics; I'm assuming home schooled sans religion or autodidact.
discussion comment
15 years ago
"Anyone here with pictures of dicks and has even looked at 'Tranny Whacker," well, makes one wonder!"
Really, I'm straight. 100% straight. :) It is my Boy Scouts training. You know always be prepared and all that jazz.
discussion comment
15 years ago
The Penthouse letters that I've perused have a certain je ne sais quoi and environment protection even of the salacious nature it's not. Not even the jail story of my stripper buddy touches that sweet spot especially the introduction where the poor stripper on her first jail experience is scared shitless and there ain't no sex. Oops, there was a mention of rape . . . without graphic details might as well have been a news story.
The only published "letter" that I have to my credit is in the Southern Reporter 2d----the appellate judges with copious redaction (they deleted all my sesquipedalians) made me seem very insightful and intelligent and sexless. My "letter" is still cited as precedent----amazing how many times the exact same legal battle need be fought in the same courts. I guess the trial judges feel "let 'em waste money on appeal."
discussion comment
16 years ago
Mr. Don Landry proudly served, I believe as a fighter pilot, in the U.S. Air Force. One these America is the greatest guys. Anyway, he was very successful financially and was highly educated and extremely intelligent. He was telling me about his family court case and I told him that as much as I hate the government there was no way it could be as bad as he was describing. He invited me to attend a hearing at any time.
Maybe a month later I go to a hearing. Sure enough the judge brings up that fact that he is a dead beat dad and yet has *spent over $600,000 in attorneys' fees. Mr. Landry had told me that he spent over $500,000 and I just thought he was confused and how could anyone spend that type of money on a family case. It turns out it is easy with corrupt courts. I'm supposed to love this filth? I'll start feeling a little more love when one of these government supporters gets raped and they still feel proud. It is possible----I have a buddy who survived a major criminal proceeding and survived by the skin of his teeth and he still waves the flag despite his ordeal. But, he also has a hell of a lot of sympathy for those who don't share his love of government.
If the government attacked me like that, then there is no way I'd ever forgive or forget----sorry, I don't have that type of strength.
discussion comment
16 years ago
One of Gambling dancer's friends has a child out-of-wed-lock and the father has been voluntarily paying her money every month to support their child (for almost a decade). The father lost his job and told her that she was going to have to tighten up on the spending even the absolutely necessary spending because his income was so reduced. Her immediate thought was to use the government to attack the father and of course the government supporters love that because it means money for judges, jailers, attorneys, etc. If the father ever did want to pay again, then well not too likely the way judges award "reasonable" attorneys' fees. IOWs, he better be stealing someone's identity. Can't get any protection from the Bankruptcy Court for the "child support" OR attorneys' fees. Government loves to spread and enforce misery.
Anyway, Gambling dancer talked her out of it explaining that the father was very supportive financially when he had money coming in and he also helped physically take care of the child. She said do you really want to make an enemy out of him? Especially with all the good he's done in the past.
BTW, there was court case in the Third DCA where a financially broke mom was being terrorized by the government. The father who had a good job basically got one hell of a good judgement against her. She can't even take care of herself, but yet the government is demanding money as if she were a top earner. Government---more often than not truly disgusting. Oh, I believe the Third DCA did screw the mom under the reasoning that fathers are routinely screwed. I'm supposed to love or even like this shit? NO THANKS.
discussion comment
15 years ago
Oh yes, and the appellate court with a single footnote (actually there were multiple footnotes), but only one fucked me in the ass repeatedly. Essentially the offending footnote states that I don't have a right to a written opinion as matter of due process.
I had argued basic due process required written findings of fact and conclusions of law. :) Even went to federal court; district judge said there is no such right; appellate panel said wrong move baby---you shouldn't have answered the question.
discussion comment
15 years ago
"Paying is cheaper in the long run. You don't have to spend money those x many times you failed to get laid. You don't have to spend the money for special clothes for dates. You don't have to spend money for 1 year anniversy, etc. So, it is cheaper."
Yes, and it is much cheaper than being a loser boyfriend. However, it is important to discern that cheaper ain't necessarily better or worse.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Correction: Surely, that shouldn't be a big deal that would make the government go nutty?