Re: DOLLAR COLLAPSE NOW IMMINENT

On May 15, 6:00 pm, BobR <re...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 15, 3:36 pm, Stray Dog <straydog2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 3:44 pm, BobR <re...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > Ok, you posed a question earlier now let me pose a question to
you and
> > > > > the rest of the participants.
>

deleted b/c no new material

t would be the result of such a distribution 10 years,
> > > > > 20 years, 40 years later and why?
>
> > > > Without government all the wealth would be in the hands of a few
people
> > > > all over again.
>
> > > Exactly.  Within the 40 years or two generations the distribution of
> > > wealth would be virtually identical to what it is now.
>
> > Well, the counter argument is: look at the Marxist states. Not a nice
> > picture, but Cuba, for example, is actually passable considering that
> > the US essentially has a blockade of the Cuban economy. What if that
> > blockade were not there? Ask yourself that. I remember back in the
> > '50s-'60s, the Soviet Union's economy was expanding at 10-11% per
> > year, at least for a number of years. Look at China: they only got
> > private property about one year ago, and look what they, a
> > totalitarian govt, did in the 10-20 years before. Not much freedom,
> > but a lot of reforms.
>
> Yes, do look at the Communist and Marxist attempts to "redistribute
> the wealth" and how totally they have all failed over the long term.

In recent times, you are mostly right. Failure has to be defined. Some
stories indicate partial success in some areas (Nicaragua, Cuba) but
depend on criteria and I would ask if the USA did not do everything to
inhibit these societies by economic sanctions that they might do
better.

In historical times, the Inca empire (1250-1500 AD) was for 250 years
a successful stable socialist economy and it ended when the
conquistadors came (it was warfare, not peaceful commercial
competition that ended the Inca empire).

There is also a history of a few socialist experiments going back
several thousand years in China but what caused them to end were
natural disasters like floods and earthquakes.

My "take" on all of this is that "robber-baron" processes will, in the
end, lead the domination any civilization regardless of what label you
use to describe it.

> If you measure success by all but the elite leader****p sharing in the
> equal misery as being good, you are more than welcome to it.
>
> > > >The "all at once" redistribution of the wealth in the
> > > > way you describe has never happened before.
>
> > > And I would never propose that it should happen but the concept is
> > > what I was getting at.
>
> > The oldest legit method for redistributing the wealth is plain old
> > taxation. In the last 2-3 decades the burden on the rich has been cut
> > back quite a bit. On their own, the rich have been doing all kinds of
> > tax-dodging and that ain't right. Fix the tax system would be my first
> > simple choice, but they have to get serious about it. Fix this crap
> > where cor****ations can pay zero taxes and ex****t the whole company to
> > Dubai or someplace and beat the tax while making big bucks off of the
> > rest of us. Etc. etc.
>
> We can agree that tax-dodging isn't right but the use of taxes for
> redistributing wealth is total bull****.  Taxation should be for the
> sole purpose of providing protection and infrastructure for the common
> use of all, not for redistribution of wealth.

So, you think we should just let the rich become infinitely rich? and
powerful?

Do you not see that this process is leaving greater pro****tions of the
world's population more impoverished? Most of the new studies are
showing this. The bottom half of India/China's population is no better
off now than 20 years ago and some are worse off.

>>
>>
deleted b/c no new discussion

> > You got too many lawyers and CPAs working the loopholes. And, laws
> > will never be perfect.
>
> >  The pursuit of happiness
>
> > > mentioned in the Constitution is not a guarantee of achiement or an
> > > equality of results, only the op****tunity to try.
>
> > Brilliant observation.
>
> Thank you, I know. <BG>  Unfortunately it is an observation too often
> ignored.

Fine, but the Consititution was written in simpler times and now with
a whole lot of laws and enforcement agencies out there, and more
complicated ways to live (and steal), the Constitution, by itself,
might not be enough.

>
>
> >  If we as
>
> > > individuals fail to take advantage of the op****tunities it is not
the
> > > governments place to see to it that we protected from the
> > > consequences.
>
> > So, it would not bother you if we did not have the FTC, etc., and
> > Standard Oil, for example, could monopolize gasoline and charge
> > whatever it felt like?
>
> Never said that.  There is a substantial difference between your
> failure to take advantage of available op****tunities and having
> someone else take the op****tunity that op****tunity away from you.

See below.

> > Ever hear of Columbia/HCA fraudulent govt billing, Archer-Daniels-
> > Midland and price fixing back in early '90s? Or, how about Enron-
> > Andersen? You wouldn't mind if we had more of that, right?
>
> If there is one thing that really pisses me off it is having some
> moron try to put words into what I write or say that I did not say or
> remotely imply.

All I said was about your "op****tunities" statement. If a guy wants to
take YOUR op****tunity to be a crook, what are you going to do about
it? Oh, excuse me, but there are a lot of guys out there who consider
themselves _free_ to do anything they want and a lot of other guys who
think _freedom_ somehow includes moral, ethical, legal behavior in
there somewhere.