[Wiley]

Love my Iphone!

It is amazing. I would say it the funnest toy I think I’ve ever received. I had a Blackberry previous to this and it just blows it away in every way. Like all Apple products its fun, intuitive, and perfect in every way. I told my wife I don’t need her anymore. She agreed since she got one too.

[Wiley]

Love my Iphone!

It is amazing. I would say it the funnest toy I think I’ve ever received. I had a Blackberry previous to this and it just blows it away in every way. Like all Apple products its fun, intuitive, and perfect in every way. I told my wife I don’t need her anymore. She agreed since she got one too.

[Wiley]

My phylosophy is you live at a certain level that you see yourself at. Period. If you get ill gotten gains they will soon be given back. So I’m sure there is probably a legal way to game the system here but in the end it won’t change the level your going to be at anyway.

[Wiley]

My phylosophy is you live at a certain level that you see yourself at. Period. If you get ill gotten gains they will soon be given back. So I’m sure there is probably a legal way to game the system here but in the end it won’t change the level your going to be at anyway.

[Wiley]

Drunkie,
Not sure where to even start. So you advocate regulating society as well as regulating what they trade? Yes lets let a small group of men decide whats best for us. I think your advocating…actually not sure what your saying.

What you guys are missing is that every time the gov’t does something FOR someone, it does something TO someone else. I’m guessing you will argue this too.

No where did I say no regulations. I’m just in favor of say what our founding fathers envisioned. A VERY limited role of government and increased power at the lower levels, ie states, counties, etc but still limited. They understood the ramifications of big gov’t. I believe law is critical to freedom especially as it pertains to limitations of the gov’t to interfere with it.

4runner, to answer your question about free societies I’ll refer to Ludwig Von Mises…

Since time immemorial in the realm of Western civilization, liberty has been considered as the most precious good. What gave to the West its eminence was precisely its concern about liberty, a social ideal foreign to the oriental peoples. The social philosophy of the Occident is essentially a philosophy of freedom. The main content of the history of Europe and the communities founded by European emigrants and their descendants in other parts of the world was the struggle for liberty. “Rugged” individualism is the signature of our civilization. No open attack upon the freedom of the individual had any prospect of success.

We lock up citizens at rates as high as eight times the rest of the industrialized world. Is it because we have more crime? No. What do you get for all this increased spending on enforcing the increased regulations? More tyranny voted upon yourselves.

Ask yourself where your belief system comes from? It’s not from our founding fathers I assure you.

[Wiley]

Drunkie,
Not sure where to even start. So you advocate regulating society as well as regulating what they trade? Yes lets let a small group of men decide whats best for us. I think your advocating…actually not sure what your saying.

What you guys are missing is that every time the gov’t does something FOR someone, it does something TO someone else. I’m guessing you will argue this too.

No where did I say no regulations. I’m just in favor of say what our founding fathers envisioned. A VERY limited role of government and increased power at the lower levels, ie states, counties, etc but still limited. They understood the ramifications of big gov’t. I believe law is critical to freedom especially as it pertains to limitations of the gov’t to interfere with it.

4runner, to answer your question about free societies I’ll refer to Ludwig Von Mises…

Since time immemorial in the realm of Western civilization, liberty has been considered as the most precious good. What gave to the West its eminence was precisely its concern about liberty, a social ideal foreign to the oriental peoples. The social philosophy of the Occident is essentially a philosophy of freedom. The main content of the history of Europe and the communities founded by European emigrants and their descendants in other parts of the world was the struggle for liberty. “Rugged” individualism is the signature of our civilization. No open attack upon the freedom of the individual had any prospect of success.

We lock up citizens at rates as high as eight times the rest of the industrialized world. Is it because we have more crime? No. What do you get for all this increased spending on enforcing the increased regulations? More tyranny voted upon yourselves.

Ask yourself where your belief system comes from? It’s not from our founding fathers I assure you.

[Wiley]

4runner,

Agree with both of your last two paragraphs. I don’t see how gov’t regs have or will solve either one. You don’t think there are people still building crappy wood houses too close together with people driving uninsured jalopy’s too fast down the street in front of it? With or without regs there will be a certain element who will hurt people (however you want to define it).

So let me ask you, how far do we take this. My buddy is a matress manufacturer. They just passed ANOTHER regulation regarding the way in which he manufactures. He now has to use a fire “safe” thread on the trim. The cost to do this is very significant and gets passed on to us of course.

In this case you might be persauded to say ya thats a good thing because studies say it will save x number of people. I say what your missing is the negative affect of taking efficient capital out of efficient market and giving it to the gov’t to provide inneficient service which is a drag on that society. Multiply it too many times and you end up with socialism. The more power you give the gov’t the less they need to ask for more (they just take it). Free market capitlism always does the most good for the most people. You can argue that all you want but history suggests strongly your wrong.

Shoot if the gov’t is so smart and helpful why don’t we have them regulate who plants what and where as we could probably feed more people and save more lives? I think china even did it once. Oh wait their gov’t killed millions with that one. But ours is smarter. Please.

I know challenging your own belief system can be hard but try it. I certainly do.

If you insist on labelling me I guess “Libertarian” isn’t so bad.

I hate to break this to you but the only gov’t is good at is collecting taxes.

[Wiley]

4runner,

Agree with both of your last two paragraphs. I don’t see how gov’t regs have or will solve either one. You don’t think there are people still building crappy wood houses too close together with people driving uninsured jalopy’s too fast down the street in front of it? With or without regs there will be a certain element who will hurt people (however you want to define it).

So let me ask you, how far do we take this. My buddy is a matress manufacturer. They just passed ANOTHER regulation regarding the way in which he manufactures. He now has to use a fire “safe” thread on the trim. The cost to do this is very significant and gets passed on to us of course.

In this case you might be persauded to say ya thats a good thing because studies say it will save x number of people. I say what your missing is the negative affect of taking efficient capital out of efficient market and giving it to the gov’t to provide inneficient service which is a drag on that society. Multiply it too many times and you end up with socialism. The more power you give the gov’t the less they need to ask for more (they just take it). Free market capitlism always does the most good for the most people. You can argue that all you want but history suggests strongly your wrong.

Shoot if the gov’t is so smart and helpful why don’t we have them regulate who plants what and where as we could probably feed more people and save more lives? I think china even did it once. Oh wait their gov’t killed millions with that one. But ours is smarter. Please.

I know challenging your own belief system can be hard but try it. I certainly do.

If you insist on labelling me I guess “Libertarian” isn’t so bad.

I hate to break this to you but the only gov’t is good at is collecting taxes.

[Wiley]

4runner,

Throughout history people have survived without the government being involved in every aspect of their lives. The “market” ie. the buyers, lenders, users, etc make demands and uses or buys the product if it meets them. In your S.F. fire example I’m certain the lenders and buyers would have demanded changes before investing, lending, etc. With or without govt. intervention we all accept certain risks.

Cars could be made safer. The market doesn’t want them and we all know thousands of lives could be saved. The gov’t does step in here also but I would argue

Lets use your homebuilding example. Actually lets use manufactured homes since thats the business I’m in. When the gov’t first started regulating the building of them in 1976 they were already being built to a certain standard the customer demanded. When HUD stepped in the factories were puzzled because they were already building them better then the regulations provided. Now evey last detail in that home has some regulation pertaining to it. Even with that we get homes that come out with crossed wiring and other hazards. The regulations don’t save us a bit. What motivates the producer here is the knoweldge we’ll buy from a different manufacturer as well as civil liability.

The point I’m not sure I’m articulating very well is the government is the most inneficient way to regulate a society and in the end the market would have done it anyway to whatever standards that society demanded.

[Wiley]

4runner,

Throughout history people have survived without the government being involved in every aspect of their lives. The “market” ie. the buyers, lenders, users, etc make demands and uses or buys the product if it meets them. In your S.F. fire example I’m certain the lenders and buyers would have demanded changes before investing, lending, etc. With or without govt. intervention we all accept certain risks.

Cars could be made safer. The market doesn’t want them and we all know thousands of lives could be saved. The gov’t does step in here also but I would argue

Lets use your homebuilding example. Actually lets use manufactured homes since thats the business I’m in. When the gov’t first started regulating the building of them in 1976 they were already being built to a certain standard the customer demanded. When HUD stepped in the factories were puzzled because they were already building them better then the regulations provided. Now evey last detail in that home has some regulation pertaining to it. Even with that we get homes that come out with crossed wiring and other hazards. The regulations don’t save us a bit. What motivates the producer here is the knoweldge we’ll buy from a different manufacturer as well as civil liability.

The point I’m not sure I’m articulating very well is the government is the most inneficient way to regulate a society and in the end the market would have done it anyway to whatever standards that society demanded.

[Wiley]

The private market can and always will regulate better then the govt. Do you think there was always regulations for building bridges, houses, etc. No the market dictated the quality.

Social Security. Please. Thats one “regulation” arguement that is completely empty. There is no social security to give to the people even if we wanted to let them invest privately. Yes lets put our trust in the govt. to regulate. So drugs, crime, fraudulent behavior is all regulated and has been for some time. Does that stop it? Arguing for most any type of regulation is just asking for a larger govt. and less personal responsibility.

I believe in the 1800’s Brittain didn’t even have governemt police. They were all private contractors. The thought of that now is absurd to most.

[Wiley]

The private market can and always will regulate better then the govt. Do you think there was always regulations for building bridges, houses, etc. No the market dictated the quality.

Social Security. Please. Thats one “regulation” arguement that is completely empty. There is no social security to give to the people even if we wanted to let them invest privately. Yes lets put our trust in the govt. to regulate. So drugs, crime, fraudulent behavior is all regulated and has been for some time. Does that stop it? Arguing for most any type of regulation is just asking for a larger govt. and less personal responsibility.

I believe in the 1800’s Brittain didn’t even have governemt police. They were all private contractors. The thought of that now is absurd to most.

[Wiley]

I would say inflation concerns are the fundamental basis that drives my investment decisions. Inflation is the driver of this housing bubble, thus I chose not to invest in housing right now. To clarify I’m talking about the extreme increase in money/credit supply fueling these asset bubbles. All one has to do is take a look back through history and see how similar periods of drastic increases in money supply end.

You don’t have to be a seer and try to predict another 1929 but you can sure be open to periods where the financial fundaments look really shakey and hedge yourself appropriately.

To me its really not that complicated. We (and I mean the people and govt) are spending far more then we earn and doing so only with the assistance of foreigners. That will end and its not very different then what some of these families are facing right now with their investment decision to buy a bigger house.

[Wiley]

I would say inflation concerns are the fundamental basis that drives my investment decisions. Inflation is the driver of this housing bubble, thus I chose not to invest in housing right now. To clarify I’m talking about the extreme increase in money/credit supply fueling these asset bubbles. All one has to do is take a look back through history and see how similar periods of drastic increases in money supply end.

You don’t have to be a seer and try to predict another 1929 but you can sure be open to periods where the financial fundaments look really shakey and hedge yourself appropriately.

To me its really not that complicated. We (and I mean the people and govt) are spending far more then we earn and doing so only with the assistance of foreigners. That will end and its not very different then what some of these families are facing right now with their investment decision to buy a bigger house.

[Wiley]

I remember Cramer and the Street.com was bearish on gold back in 2004. They were wrong then too. It’s telling they don’t mention the inflation adjusted average price of gold.

[Author]

Posts