Though it's hard to argue with Gene's logic of turning the government over to private business, I can't help but feel uneasy about the idea. Private business has a bottom line of dollars and cents while the government's bottom line should (in theory) be the people.
Gene is forever the cheerleader for capitalism, you have to give him props for that. He knows what he believes in and he can articulate it quite intelligently.
Not really a great balance of opinions on that panel....but it is worthy of discussion...I am of the opinion that pure capitalism, or socialism, or any -ism does not work in practice. It works only intellectually or in a classroom, or in a vacuum.
I am all for discussing ways to curtail power of the Federal Reserve...but again, not within the frame of socialism vs. capitalism. Just because I want my government to have some oversight over capitalism doesn't mean I'm a socialist.
What Gene Simmons sez is right: We have to decide what we want..of course he loses me when he makes the decision be capitalism vs. socialism. The discussion should be about the balance of regulation vs. totally free market.
The problem, for me, with the discussion, is that the people who stand to benefit the most from unregulated markets already know what they want and will do anything to keep things the way they are or with less regulation...whether we as a people want more regulation or not.
I'm always willing to have the discussion, but it would be nice if people left their egos and their "this is what the founding fathers intended" lines at the door.
democlez: A lot of the problem is judge's are not upholding or interpreting the law properly. Common law should be enough, what's happening is the need for regulation is artificially being created that affects smaller businesses that big corporation are exempt from.
@CodyB: Well a big problem is we don't have a pure version of those two systems. That's not to say there won't be any problems. This hybrid version is causing nothing but problems. Bussinesses should be allowed to fail, not be held up artificially with bailouts. Free Market would, or should allow for that. This is an area where the fed gov should limit their power.
It seems to me that we have collectively said no to a completely free market already..I mean, I don't think this country would stand for a free market airline industry...I don't think people trust or can wait for free market corrections to problems like safety..for instance.
We haven't had a free market system here in the U.S. in a long time. I think it's people in cities that mainly do not trust a free market system. People in rural America seem to think diffidently. Not unless you a farmer collecting subsidizes. I've talked to people in small towns who think we should seperate ourselves from D.C. & start over.
I'm a big believer in States Rights over a big bloated Government machine. This serves one major purpose - it gives people the option to live in an area of the country - where there are laws more in line with their own way of thinking.
Listen Cody States were setup to like little countries with the Fed Gov with limited power. We really don't have a free market, we have social corporate welfare system that wall street is a part of. Them saying they're alright with the principles of free market is just semantics. If we really had a free market then GM would have gone under, & allowed newer innovated companies to pop up. They're out there. The Fed laws are pretty much limited to making money, & defending our borders with they're not doing. States should be allowed to make their own decisions. I think people in cities are overworked & bombarded. Maybe some states should have a more socialistic system IDK. Daves hit it right on the nose.
All this is fine and good, but I still don't see what makes state government somehow better than federal government. State government can be bloated as well.
And I still don't agree with your free market statement about city vs. country...there is more trade going on in New York City in one day than the amount of trade that goes on in North and South Dakota in a month.
The two sentences you give to the responsibilities of the Fed government seem like your dream of what a Fed government should do.
I understand you'd like to change the balance between fed and state government..fine.
My question is why?
Wouldn't it be better if we all lived in the same country under the same laws?
What is so great about states?
Why shouldn't state government be smaller and federal bigger?
I don't know the answers, but in order to move forward, if you really want things to change, it's something we need to examine.
I mean, in a classroom folks will debate strong central vs. decentralizied goverment...the founders debated it. So when you favor states rights, I understand some of that (I can live where the law suits me), but I don't necessairly see why states should have different rights.
Finally, I didn't say we had a free market...I just said people on Wall Street believe in free markets. I know folks who work there..they believe.
You've kind of answered your own question, by making distinction about cities & rural area's. I've lived in both, & they both have to be treated in diffrent ways. I do quetions if there should even be a wall street in the first place. It's more of what the framers intended in regards to how the Fed Gov should run. So it's not really my idea, & nothing new.
"I understand you'd like to change the balance between fed and state government..fine. My question is why?"
Because it's not working out, & infringes on people's freedom. The Fed Gov has proved that they handle money properly. Plus they blanket problems over all he states. Each state knows what it needs, & yes you could have problems with states, but I think it could be handled better at a state level.
"Wouldn't it be better if we all lived in the same country under the same laws?"
Depends what you mean. For example gun bans are not a good idea where I live, beacause of wildlife predators. Thougn in cities some may think it's deterent toward crime. That should be left up to the state.
I'll say it's a better, not a perfect way. I don't think the alternatives are very good like a centralized Gov. We are such a diverse people here in America I think keeping things at a state level works better. For instance, what if we were to make Christianity the official & required religion? Is that OK, or do you think it’s up to the individual? I think a landmass of people with a collective idea is better than forcing people to believe. You’re having that now with things like marijuana. Fed Law supersedes state laws like CA’s where medical MJ is legal, but patients can be prosecuted under Fed law. Then you have places in the south that want to outlaw MJ. It’s both their rights to choose what they want. It’s a matter of freedom. AZ has every right to protect their citizens by protecting their borders. BTW it’s a states right to make illegal to move into their state. I don’t know about a barter system, but we need to stabilize the dollar. Then again I’d say leave it up to the states. I hear they’re states starting to use their own type of currency.
"Don't we already have a check against a state religion? The Constitution."
Yes, but you do have states that have people with collective mindset like Utah with the Mormons. They’re free to do that,
"Ok, but when do states rights end? At what point does a state go so far as to be out of line with American law?."
I don’t know what kind of answer your looking for, but they don’t in relationship to the Fed Gov. I’ll ad as long as they’re not violating common law, but at the same time states have the right to leave the union which was what the civil was about. The Fed Gov could have bought all the slaves & freed them like they did in Europe if they were really sincere about. It being about freeing the slaves was a smoke screen.
"You have to draw the line somewhere"
True, but what I think what your having is the direct opposite of that with Fed Gov. You have to draw the line on the Fed Gov also. Keep in mind the settlers wanted not only freedom of religion, but freedom from a king. That meaning less power to a central Gov.
"What's the perfect way? Why don't we do that?"
There is no perfect way. Get rid of sin nature & we may have the perfect way. One way is allowing people with a collective mindset live in a state. People would overall gravitate toward that. I’d say following the constitution is the best, or near perfect way to. Part of it being a smaller Fed Gov.
I think if any state made a state religion they should be kicked straight out of the union.
I think these discussions are fine and good, but they are mostly on the hypothetical tip.
What I am for is a discussion about what government should do, and then holding that entity accountable to do it the best, most effecient,most cost effective way possible.
I don't think there's any one answer; local,city,county,state, or federal that works for every item on the government agenda. That's why I don't like the idea of aligning with any one doctrine. I'm looking for what works.
Ultimately, at a baseline, I'm looking for full participation in voting. That way we could get a better handle on what "we the people" want. Until we have that, all this is hypothetical.
In 1980..an electoral landslide for Regan..he received 26% of the votes based on the potential voting age population of the United States. Pitiful.
"I think if any state made a state religion they should be kicked straight out of the union."
I’m sure some states wouldn’t mind the way they see our Countries going. States do have the right to leave also.
"I think these discussions are fine and good, but they are mostly on the hypothetical tip."
True, but in reality people are seriously talking about some states joining up with Canada, & reestablishing the constitution. Some Canadians are tired of socialism.
"What I am for is a discussion about what government should do, and then holding that entity accountable to do it the best, most effecient,most cost effective way possible. Well then there needs to be consequences for their actions."
Some have committed treason, & murder (referring to war) which the consequences of that is imprisonment or death. Start prosecuting those responsible properly, & maybe I’d be more open to other things concerning the Fed Gov.
"I don't think there's any one answer; local,city,county,state, or federal that works for every item on the government agenda. That's why I don't like the idea of aligning with any one doctrine. I'm looking for what works. Well more power to a central Gov isn’t working so far. Ultimately, at a baseline, I'm looking for full participation in voting. That way we could get a better handle on what "we the people" want. Until we have that, all this is hypothetical."
Yea I hear you, but we are a Republic, not a democracy.
"In 1980..an electoral landslide for Regan..he received 26% of the votes based on the potential voting age population of the United States. Pitiful."
I’d have to look at that again. I think I was 13 at the time lol! He did take us out of a recession, but he lowered taxes, & increased spending. He used tariff taxes to pay for things though. It was a pissing contest between the USSR, & U.S. at the time.
"I find it difficult to get serious on Facebook..."
We’ll you get more diehards on there. Why do you find it difficult to get serious on FB?
BTW there's the whole Anarcho schools of thought out there that I'm starting to hear about. I'm not saying I'm for against it, but keeping an open mind. Although some of them can be a bit too extreme for my taste.
Locating MOG account...
Comments (24)
This ia kind of a funny article on Bernanke's speech. An Unofficial Translation of Bernanke's Jackson Hole Speech
Though it's hard to argue with Gene's logic of turning the government over to private business, I can't help but feel uneasy about the idea. Private business has a bottom line of dollars and cents while the government's bottom line should (in theory) be the people.
Gene is forever the cheerleader for capitalism, you have to give him props for that. He knows what he believes in and he can articulate it quite intelligently.
Not really a great balance of opinions on that panel....but it is worthy of discussion...I am of the opinion that pure capitalism, or socialism, or any -ism does not work in practice. It works only intellectually or in a classroom, or in a vacuum.
I am all for discussing ways to curtail power of the Federal Reserve...but again, not within the frame of socialism vs. capitalism. Just because I want my government to have some oversight over capitalism doesn't mean I'm a socialist.
What Gene Simmons sez is right: We have to decide what we want..of course he loses me when he makes the decision be capitalism vs. socialism. The discussion should be about the balance of regulation vs. totally free market.
The problem, for me, with the discussion, is that the people who stand to benefit the most from unregulated markets already know what they want and will do anything to keep things the way they are or with less regulation...whether we as a people want more regulation or not.
I'm always willing to have the discussion, but it would be nice if people left their egos and their "this is what the founding fathers intended" lines at the door.
democlez: A lot of the problem is judge's are not upholding or interpreting the law properly. Common law should be enough, what's happening is the need for regulation is artificially being created that affects smaller businesses that big corporation are exempt from.
@CodyB: Well a big problem is we don't have a pure version of those two systems. That's not to say there won't be any problems. This hybrid version is causing nothing but problems. Bussinesses should be allowed to fail, not be held up artificially with bailouts. Free Market would, or should allow for that. This is an area where the fed gov should limit their power.
It seems to me that we have collectively said no to a completely free market already..I mean, I don't think this country would stand for a free market airline industry...I don't think people trust or can wait for free market corrections to problems like safety..for instance.
We haven't had a free market system here in the U.S. in a long time. I think it's people in cities that mainly do not trust a free market system. People in rural America seem to think diffidently. Not unless you a farmer collecting subsidizes. I've talked to people in small towns who think we should seperate ourselves from D.C. & start over.
I'm a big believer in States Rights over a big bloated Government machine. This serves one major purpose - it gives people the option to live in an area of the country - where there are laws more in line with their own way of thinking.
That's true "freedom"
Dave I agree with you %110! Well said!
Where do you draw the line on States rights? How different should state laws be compared to federal law?
"I think it's people in cities that mainly do not trust a free market system."
Wall Street, down here in Lower Manhattan, seems to be pretty cool with free market principles.
Listen Cody States were setup to like little countries with the Fed Gov with limited power. We really don't have a free market, we have social corporate welfare system that wall street is a part of. Them saying they're alright with the principles of free market is just semantics. If we really had a free market then GM would have gone under, & allowed newer innovated companies to pop up. They're out there. The Fed laws are pretty much limited to making money, & defending our borders with they're not doing. States should be allowed to make their own decisions. I think people in cities are overworked & bombarded. Maybe some states should have a more socialistic system IDK. Daves hit it right on the nose.
All this is fine and good, but I still don't see what makes state government somehow better than federal government. State government can be bloated as well.
And I still don't agree with your free market statement about city vs. country...there is more trade going on in New York City in one day than the amount of trade that goes on in North and South Dakota in a month.
The two sentences you give to the responsibilities of the Fed government seem like your dream of what a Fed government should do.
I understand you'd like to change the balance between fed and state government..fine.
My question is why?
Wouldn't it be better if we all lived in the same country under the same laws?
What is so great about states?
Why shouldn't state government be smaller and federal bigger?
I don't know the answers, but in order to move forward, if you really want things to change, it's something we need to examine.
I mean, in a classroom folks will debate strong central vs. decentralizied goverment...the founders debated it. So when you favor states rights, I understand some of that (I can live where the law suits me), but I don't necessairly see why states should have different rights.
Finally, I didn't say we had a free market...I just said people on Wall Street believe in free markets. I know folks who work there..they believe.
You've kind of answered your own question, by making distinction about cities & rural area's. I've lived in both, & they both have to be treated in diffrent ways. I do quetions if there should even be a wall street in the first place. It's more of what the framers intended in regards to how the Fed Gov should run. So it's not really my idea, & nothing new.
"I understand you'd like to change the balance between fed and state government..fine. My question is why?"
Because it's not working out, & infringes on people's freedom. The Fed Gov has proved that they handle money properly. Plus they blanket problems over all he states. Each state knows what it needs, & yes you could have problems with states, but I think it could be handled better at a state level.
"Wouldn't it be better if we all lived in the same country under the same laws?"
Depends what you mean. For example gun bans are not a good idea where I live, beacause of wildlife predators. Thougn in cities some may think it's deterent toward crime. That should be left up to the state.
But why is a state such a good way to do things? Shouldn't it actually be done by population?
A lot of the framers were farmers, so it would make sense that they would want things a certain way..
The city vs. country thing is at the heart of this debate...and at the heart of a lot of politics since the beginning. How do we get around it?
I mean, I'd love for us all to be barter economy gentleman/woman farmers, but it seems a little far fetched at this point.
I'll say it's a better, not a perfect way. I don't think the alternatives are very good like a centralized Gov. We are such a diverse people here in America I think keeping things at a state level works better. For instance, what if we were to make Christianity the official & required religion? Is that OK, or do you think it’s up to the individual? I think a landmass of people with a collective idea is better than forcing people to believe. You’re having that now with things like marijuana. Fed Law supersedes state laws like CA’s where medical MJ is legal, but patients can be prosecuted under Fed law. Then you have places in the south that want to outlaw MJ. It’s both their rights to choose what they want. It’s a matter of freedom. AZ has every right to protect their citizens by protecting their borders. BTW it’s a states right to make illegal to move into their state. I don’t know about a barter system, but we need to stabilize the dollar. Then again I’d say leave it up to the states. I hear they’re states starting to use their own type of currency.
Don't we already have a check against a state religion? The Constitution.
Ok, but when do states rights end? At what point does a state go so far as to be out of line with American law? You have to draw the line somewhere.
What's the perfect way? Why don't we do that?
On another note..where's Ghost In You?
the key word this time might be "Ghost". been awhile, eh?
"Don't we already have a check against a state religion? The Constitution."
Yes, but you do have states that have people with collective mindset like Utah with the Mormons. They’re free to do that,
"Ok, but when do states rights end? At what point does a state go so far as to be out of line with American law?."
I don’t know what kind of answer your looking for, but they don’t in relationship to the Fed Gov. I’ll ad as long as they’re not violating common law, but at the same time states have the right to leave the union which was what the civil was about. The Fed Gov could have bought all the slaves & freed them like they did in Europe if they were really sincere about. It being about freeing the slaves was a smoke screen.
"You have to draw the line somewhere"
True, but what I think what your having is the direct opposite of that with Fed Gov. You have to draw the line on the Fed Gov also. Keep in mind the settlers wanted not only freedom of religion, but freedom from a king. That meaning less power to a central Gov.
"What's the perfect way? Why don't we do that?"
There is no perfect way. Get rid of sin nature & we may have the perfect way. One way is allowing people with a collective mindset live in a state. People would overall gravitate toward that. I’d say following the constitution is the best, or near perfect way to. Part of it being a smaller Fed Gov.
Also the perfect way maybe subjective. Look at whole religion vs atheism debate.
BTW Cody I'm surprised your not commenting on some of my FB post.
& where's DMDM?
I think if any state made a state religion they should be kicked straight out of the union.
I think these discussions are fine and good, but they are mostly on the hypothetical tip.
What I am for is a discussion about what government should do, and then holding that entity accountable to do it the best, most effecient,most cost effective way possible.
I don't think there's any one answer; local,city,county,state, or federal that works for every item on the government agenda. That's why I don't like the idea of aligning with any one doctrine. I'm looking for what works.
Ultimately, at a baseline, I'm looking for full participation in voting. That way we could get a better handle on what "we the people" want. Until we have that, all this is hypothetical.
In 1980..an electoral landslide for Regan..he received 26% of the votes based on the potential voting age population of the United States. Pitiful.
I find it difficult to get serious on Facebook...
"I think if any state made a state religion they should be kicked straight out of the union."
I’m sure some states wouldn’t mind the way they see our Countries going. States do have the right to leave also.
"I think these discussions are fine and good, but they are mostly on the hypothetical tip."
True, but in reality people are seriously talking about some states joining up with Canada, & reestablishing the constitution. Some Canadians are tired of socialism.
"What I am for is a discussion about what government should do, and then holding that entity accountable to do it the best, most effecient,most cost effective way possible. Well then there needs to be consequences for their actions."
Some have committed treason, & murder (referring to war) which the consequences of that is imprisonment or death. Start prosecuting those responsible properly, & maybe I’d be more open to other things concerning the Fed Gov.
"I don't think there's any one answer; local,city,county,state, or federal that works for every item on the government agenda. That's why I don't like the idea of aligning with any one doctrine. I'm looking for what works. Well more power to a central Gov isn’t working so far. Ultimately, at a baseline, I'm looking for full participation in voting. That way we could get a better handle on what "we the people" want. Until we have that, all this is hypothetical."
Yea I hear you, but we are a Republic, not a democracy.
"In 1980..an electoral landslide for Regan..he received 26% of the votes based on the potential voting age population of the United States. Pitiful."
I’d have to look at that again. I think I was 13 at the time lol! He did take us out of a recession, but he lowered taxes, & increased spending. He used tariff taxes to pay for things though. It was a pissing contest between the USSR, & U.S. at the time.
"I find it difficult to get serious on Facebook..."
We’ll you get more diehards on there. Why do you find it difficult to get serious on FB?
BTW there's the whole Anarcho schools of thought out there that I'm starting to hear about. I'm not saying I'm for against it, but keeping an open mind. Although some of them can be a bit too extreme for my taste.
Anarcho-capitalism
Anarcho-syndicalism
Anarchist schools of thought