Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
underdose
ParticipantI suspect urbanrealtor wasn’t endorsing economic management, merely acknowledging that most policy-makers, people who run for government posts, really want that power. It takes a rare breed to want to be in government so he can say, “I don’t want any power.”
So Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin. I hadn’t heard of him, so I looked him up. Hmm, constitutionalist… and Baptist preacher. What a combo!
Can someone answer this for me? It has puzzled me for years. Most athiests denounce faith in a supernatural being, stand for civil liberties, equal rights and protection under the law for gay people, minorities and women; but are usually socialists, endorsing faith in a state-run economy and willing to abdicate monetary freedoms. Most libertarians denounce faith in an all powerful government, stand for economic freedoms for all; but are usually religious zealots, endorsing faith in a human heirarchy that claims to speak for the will of a fictitious being and willing to abdicate their sense of right from wrong to the whims of this heirarchy. How come you almost never hear of a prominent constitution-defending athiest? Shouldn’t libertarians like the first amendment as much as the rest of the constitution? Shouldn’t the type of analytical reasoning that convinces athiests that a god is implausible also convince them that a competent, non-corrupt economic overlord is also implausible? Does anyone know why this disconnect is so common?
ParticipantI suspect urbanrealtor wasn’t endorsing economic management, merely acknowledging that most policy-makers, people who run for government posts, really want that power. It takes a rare breed to want to be in government so he can say, “I don’t want any power.”
So Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin. I hadn’t heard of him, so I looked him up. Hmm, constitutionalist… and Baptist preacher. What a combo!
Can someone answer this for me? It has puzzled me for years. Most athiests denounce faith in a supernatural being, stand for civil liberties, equal rights and protection under the law for gay people, minorities and women; but are usually socialists, endorsing faith in a state-run economy and willing to abdicate monetary freedoms. Most libertarians denounce faith in an all powerful government, stand for economic freedoms for all; but are usually religious zealots, endorsing faith in a human heirarchy that claims to speak for the will of a fictitious being and willing to abdicate their sense of right from wrong to the whims of this heirarchy. How come you almost never hear of a prominent constitution-defending athiest? Shouldn’t libertarians like the first amendment as much as the rest of the constitution? Shouldn’t the type of analytical reasoning that convinces athiests that a god is implausible also convince them that a competent, non-corrupt economic overlord is also implausible? Does anyone know why this disconnect is so common?
ParticipantI suspect urbanrealtor wasn’t endorsing economic management, merely acknowledging that most policy-makers, people who run for government posts, really want that power. It takes a rare breed to want to be in government so he can say, “I don’t want any power.”
So Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin. I hadn’t heard of him, so I looked him up. Hmm, constitutionalist… and Baptist preacher. What a combo!
Can someone answer this for me? It has puzzled me for years. Most athiests denounce faith in a supernatural being, stand for civil liberties, equal rights and protection under the law for gay people, minorities and women; but are usually socialists, endorsing faith in a state-run economy and willing to abdicate monetary freedoms. Most libertarians denounce faith in an all powerful government, stand for economic freedoms for all; but are usually religious zealots, endorsing faith in a human heirarchy that claims to speak for the will of a fictitious being and willing to abdicate their sense of right from wrong to the whims of this heirarchy. How come you almost never hear of a prominent constitution-defending athiest? Shouldn’t libertarians like the first amendment as much as the rest of the constitution? Shouldn’t the type of analytical reasoning that convinces athiests that a god is implausible also convince them that a competent, non-corrupt economic overlord is also implausible? Does anyone know why this disconnect is so common?
ParticipantI suspect urbanrealtor wasn’t endorsing economic management, merely acknowledging that most policy-makers, people who run for government posts, really want that power. It takes a rare breed to want to be in government so he can say, “I don’t want any power.”
So Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin. I hadn’t heard of him, so I looked him up. Hmm, constitutionalist… and Baptist preacher. What a combo!
Can someone answer this for me? It has puzzled me for years. Most athiests denounce faith in a supernatural being, stand for civil liberties, equal rights and protection under the law for gay people, minorities and women; but are usually socialists, endorsing faith in a state-run economy and willing to abdicate monetary freedoms. Most libertarians denounce faith in an all powerful government, stand for economic freedoms for all; but are usually religious zealots, endorsing faith in a human heirarchy that claims to speak for the will of a fictitious being and willing to abdicate their sense of right from wrong to the whims of this heirarchy. How come you almost never hear of a prominent constitution-defending athiest? Shouldn’t libertarians like the first amendment as much as the rest of the constitution? Shouldn’t the type of analytical reasoning that convinces athiests that a god is implausible also convince them that a competent, non-corrupt economic overlord is also implausible? Does anyone know why this disconnect is so common?
ParticipantWell, stockstradr, you sure have chutzpa. Or, to use a somewhat more vulgar term, huevos muchos grandes.
I think there are two ways to approach it. Try to ride the short term, high frequency volatility, or try to bet on the long term returns based on fundamentals (and try to hold firm when the volatility goes irrationally against the fundamentals). Both require some nerve, but the former involves trying to time the market and guess which cliff the lemmings will jump off of next. If you guess wrong, or try to get out late, it can really bite you. But if you guess right and get out in time before the fundamentals slap people back to reality, you can really do well. I think that’s how Soros amassed his billions. Good luck to you! I’m holding the longterm positions, just generally bearish on fiat currency, bearish on real estate and equities in real terms but unsure in nominal terms so staying mostly away. Not very exciting. Maybe I can live vicariously through your daring adventures! Keep us posted…
ParticipantWell, stockstradr, you sure have chutzpa. Or, to use a somewhat more vulgar term, huevos muchos grandes.
I think there are two ways to approach it. Try to ride the short term, high frequency volatility, or try to bet on the long term returns based on fundamentals (and try to hold firm when the volatility goes irrationally against the fundamentals). Both require some nerve, but the former involves trying to time the market and guess which cliff the lemmings will jump off of next. If you guess wrong, or try to get out late, it can really bite you. But if you guess right and get out in time before the fundamentals slap people back to reality, you can really do well. I think that’s how Soros amassed his billions. Good luck to you! I’m holding the longterm positions, just generally bearish on fiat currency, bearish on real estate and equities in real terms but unsure in nominal terms so staying mostly away. Not very exciting. Maybe I can live vicariously through your daring adventures! Keep us posted…
ParticipantWell, stockstradr, you sure have chutzpa. Or, to use a somewhat more vulgar term, huevos muchos grandes.
I think there are two ways to approach it. Try to ride the short term, high frequency volatility, or try to bet on the long term returns based on fundamentals (and try to hold firm when the volatility goes irrationally against the fundamentals). Both require some nerve, but the former involves trying to time the market and guess which cliff the lemmings will jump off of next. If you guess wrong, or try to get out late, it can really bite you. But if you guess right and get out in time before the fundamentals slap people back to reality, you can really do well. I think that’s how Soros amassed his billions. Good luck to you! I’m holding the longterm positions, just generally bearish on fiat currency, bearish on real estate and equities in real terms but unsure in nominal terms so staying mostly away. Not very exciting. Maybe I can live vicariously through your daring adventures! Keep us posted…
ParticipantWell, stockstradr, you sure have chutzpa. Or, to use a somewhat more vulgar term, huevos muchos grandes.
I think there are two ways to approach it. Try to ride the short term, high frequency volatility, or try to bet on the long term returns based on fundamentals (and try to hold firm when the volatility goes irrationally against the fundamentals). Both require some nerve, but the former involves trying to time the market and guess which cliff the lemmings will jump off of next. If you guess wrong, or try to get out late, it can really bite you. But if you guess right and get out in time before the fundamentals slap people back to reality, you can really do well. I think that’s how Soros amassed his billions. Good luck to you! I’m holding the longterm positions, just generally bearish on fiat currency, bearish on real estate and equities in real terms but unsure in nominal terms so staying mostly away. Not very exciting. Maybe I can live vicariously through your daring adventures! Keep us posted…
ParticipantWell, stockstradr, you sure have chutzpa. Or, to use a somewhat more vulgar term, huevos muchos grandes.
I think there are two ways to approach it. Try to ride the short term, high frequency volatility, or try to bet on the long term returns based on fundamentals (and try to hold firm when the volatility goes irrationally against the fundamentals). Both require some nerve, but the former involves trying to time the market and guess which cliff the lemmings will jump off of next. If you guess wrong, or try to get out late, it can really bite you. But if you guess right and get out in time before the fundamentals slap people back to reality, you can really do well. I think that’s how Soros amassed his billions. Good luck to you! I’m holding the longterm positions, just generally bearish on fiat currency, bearish on real estate and equities in real terms but unsure in nominal terms so staying mostly away. Not very exciting. Maybe I can live vicariously through your daring adventures! Keep us posted…
Participant4plexowner, thanks for posting that.
tc, not so fast. Bernanke still has a printing press, and if congress won’t allow these guys to raise the money through a treasury bill auction, they will still raise it by some other means. Instead of being taxed on your income directly, you will just have your purchase power stolen through currency debasement. And if, as it looks, all governments are turning the printing press, even if the dollar rises against Euros and such, all that means is it is falling in value at a slightly less fast pace.
Participant4plexowner, thanks for posting that.
tc, not so fast. Bernanke still has a printing press, and if congress won’t allow these guys to raise the money through a treasury bill auction, they will still raise it by some other means. Instead of being taxed on your income directly, you will just have your purchase power stolen through currency debasement. And if, as it looks, all governments are turning the printing press, even if the dollar rises against Euros and such, all that means is it is falling in value at a slightly less fast pace.
Participant4plexowner, thanks for posting that.
tc, not so fast. Bernanke still has a printing press, and if congress won’t allow these guys to raise the money through a treasury bill auction, they will still raise it by some other means. Instead of being taxed on your income directly, you will just have your purchase power stolen through currency debasement. And if, as it looks, all governments are turning the printing press, even if the dollar rises against Euros and such, all that means is it is falling in value at a slightly less fast pace.
Participant4plexowner, thanks for posting that.
tc, not so fast. Bernanke still has a printing press, and if congress won’t allow these guys to raise the money through a treasury bill auction, they will still raise it by some other means. Instead of being taxed on your income directly, you will just have your purchase power stolen through currency debasement. And if, as it looks, all governments are turning the printing press, even if the dollar rises against Euros and such, all that means is it is falling in value at a slightly less fast pace.
Participant4plexowner, thanks for posting that.
tc, not so fast. Bernanke still has a printing press, and if congress won’t allow these guys to raise the money through a treasury bill auction, they will still raise it by some other means. Instead of being taxed on your income directly, you will just have your purchase power stolen through currency debasement. And if, as it looks, all governments are turning the printing press, even if the dollar rises against Euros and such, all that means is it is falling in value at a slightly less fast pace.
-
AuthorPosts
