Stocks plummet again, by over 450 points. Federal Reserve's promise of low interest rates has failed - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31663503]With a gun? If I'm being held at gunpoint I'll vote Palin if they want me to, that's a silly thing to say. If you mean "gun to your head" as an expression to pick a Republican, then yes I'd probably pick Ron Paul as well.[/QUOTE] thats exactly what i meant i dont seriously foresee someone putting a gun to my head over my voting choice

[QUOTE=yawmwen;31663521]thats exactly what i meant i dont seriously foresee someone putting a gun to my head over my voting choice[/QUOTE] I wouldn't have thought so. Admittedly I was a bit too literal.

A good thing to realize is that Ron Paul isn't really a Republican, he is a Libertarian. In a lot of interviews he's said the only reason he's running as a Republican is because it is impossible to get on the ballots as a third party candidate. It's really hard to talk about ideas when it comes to Republicans and Democrats because they are not parties of ideals, so it is much more difficult to contrast Libertarian views against current Republican and Democratic views. But if you were, Democrats are typically for individual freedom and want to restrain economic freedom, while Republicans are the opposite. It's very hard to make that statement because there are so many contradictions. Libertarians typically are for both individual and economic freedom and they make the argument that they are both the same. I would easily vote for Ron Paul because he is completely predictable and he wouldn't at all go beyond his presidential power. Most of all, he would end the wars and withdraw our troops from all these random places. In addition he would try to end the drug war and he's said he would pardon all non-violent drug offenders (which the president can do). I probably like Ron Paul because I lean most towards Libertarian ideals, though I wouldn't call myself a Libertarian.

[QUOTE=Pepin;31669398]A good thing to realize is that Ron Paul isn't really a Republican, he is a Libertarian. In a lot of interviews he's said the only reason he's running as a Republican is because it is impossible to get on the ballots as a third party candidate. It's really hard to talk about ideas when it comes to Republicans and Democrats because they are not parties of ideals, so it is much more difficult to contrast Libertarian views against current Republican and Democratic views. But if you were, Democrats are typically for individual freedom and want to restrain economic freedom, while Republicans are the opposite. It's very hard to make that statement because there are so many contradictions. Libertarians typically are for both individual and economic freedom and they make the argument that they are both the same. I would easily vote for Ron Paul because he is completely predictable and he wouldn't at all go beyond his presidential power. Most of all, he would end the wars and withdraw our troops from all these random places. In addition he would try to end the drug war and he's said he would pardon all non-violent drug offenders (which the president can do). I probably like Ron Paul because I lean most towards Libertarian ideals, though I wouldn't call myself a Libertarian.[/QUOTE] I'd really like to see the Libertarian party rise in power. The current two party system means that a large variety of people have to "ally" with each other, even though they may disagree on many things. I agree much more strongly with the Libertarian Party than I do with the GOP, but sadly third parties never get elected.

Guys its back up today I hate the stock market [editline]11th August 2011[/editline] Also I agree with Libertarians on most social issues (ie drugs, marriage, etc) but I think they can be pretty crazy sometimes. They don't ever really think about the human element in economics and how the current situation came to be.

A good thing to realize about the treasury market is that the main people propping it up right now are people who have high stakes in the dollar. The Japanese bought a whole ton of treasuries recently and I believe the Chinese did as well. If the dollar fails, then all of these dollars that they have are worth nothing which will affect their economy in a very negative way. If the dollar doesn't make a comeback, these people are going to stop beating a dead horse and the treasure market will likely sink. [QUOTE=thrawn2787;31669591]Also I agree with Libertarians on most social issues (ie drugs, marriage, etc) but I think they can be pretty crazy sometimes. They don't ever really think about the human element in economics and how the current situation came to be.[/QUOTE] They certainly take the human element into consideration as far as economics go and they have a much different story as to how situation occur which usually involves government failure. The most common type of failure is corporatism which both parties fall prey to. The biggest thing to realize is that corporatism is never displayed in plain light, and the intentions always sound good. Take the taxi licencing legislation. It's good to make sure that the people driving are qualified, right? If we ignore that they are already tested for qualification and look at a lot of the proposed legislation, it ends up that some private company gets a limited number of licences and they lend them out to the taxi drivers at a hefty price. It's basically forcing a monopoly. With the price of renting the licence (I think it's actually called a medallion), the driver has to charge a lot more to maintain the same level of income. Also take into account that many people get put out of work because there is a limit to how many licences exist, which is never enough to satisfy the demand for them. That is of course done on purpose because the company would not be able to charge such high prices for the licences if there was vast availability. [QUOTE=Boba_Fett;31669550]I'd really like to see the Libertarian party rise in power. The current two party system means that a large variety of people have to "ally" with each other, even though they may disagree on many things. I agree much more strongly with the Libertarian Party than I do with the GOP, but sadly third parties never get elected.[/QUOTE] Both parties have enacted laws to prevent a third party. Nobody doubts this. The laws are always made out to restrict big candidates, but big candidates always get away with not following them, and they are instead forced heavily on third party and smaller candidates. During the last presidential election both McCain and Obama broke rules, yet nothing happened to them. Then you hear stories about people trying to get elected on a more local level and being shut out for really obscure reasons, the main being that the laws are practically unreadable to anyone who isn't a lawyer.

[quote]NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--U.S. stocks leapt to a huge gain Thursday, as investors seized on favorable corporate and economic reports to grab back some of the ground they lost in the recent stock-market swoon. The blue-chip Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 470 points, or 4.4%, to 11188 shortly before 3:15 p.m. Eastern time, setting fresh highs in late trading. If the measure were to close at late afternoon levels, it would be the ninth biggest advance in its history. The Dow had slumped 520 points on Wednesday, the ninth-largest point drop ever, amid mounting worries about the health of Europe's banks and the chances of a global economic recession. Wednesday's action added to a market swoon that has sent major stock indexes into correction territory. The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index jumped 56 points, or 5%, to 1177, led by battered financial stocks. The Nasdaq Composite surged 116 points, or 4.9%, to 2497. Weekly jobless-claims data released before the open showed that the number of people claiming new jobless benefits in the U.S. fell slightly last week, a small bright spot in a persistently weak U.S. labor market. Cisco Systems also helped set the positive tone. The networking-equipment maker was by far the best-performing blue-chip stock, surging 17% after posting better-than-expected revenues. Chief executive John Chambers said the company was making "solid progress" on its turnaround effort. Meanwhile, downward pressures from Europe eased following reports that the Continent's markets may ban so-called naked short selling, which could relieve some of the immediate stress on stocks there. In a "naked" short, investors sell a financial instrument without first borrowing it. Europe stocks finished sharply higher. Major indexes were still creaking under the weight of the recent market downdraft. The blue-chip Dow fell nearly 12% for the month as of Wednesday's close, while the S&P 500 shed 13% and the Nasdaq lost nearly 14% heading into Thursday's session. "It's great to have these up days, but I think that we are going to continue to be in a choppy period with these big swings," said Margaret Patel, senior portfolio manager at Wells Capital Management. Markets were likely to remain volatile "until we can see that the U.S. economy has at least stabilized and might be moving modestly higher in growth, and secondly until we feel more confident that Europe has managed to avoid a severe financial crisis." Trading action has been volatile of late as investors sift rumor from fact on European banks and weigh the chances of a global economic recession. The volatility has been accompanied by unusually high volume. As the Dow has swung more than 400 points for three consecutive days, daily volume has been more than twice the 2011 average over recent sessions. Thursday's volume eased off recent levels, though it was still high versus this year's average, with more than 5 billion shares changing hands in New York Stock Exchange composite volume shortly after 3 p.m. ET. In corporate news, AOL gained 15% after announcing a $250 million stock-repurchase program, while Advance Auto Parts climbed 9.5% after besting earnings estimates and upping its share repurchase authorization. News Corp. surged 18%. The company reported a smaller fiscal fourth-quarter profit but raised its semiannual dividend 27% on Wednesday, as executives seek to assure investors that the phone-hacking scandal shaking its U.K. properties has had little to no effect on the overall business. News Corp. owns Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal and this newswire. Sara Lee dropped 1.2% after its fiscal 2012 outlook fell short of estimates. Exxon Mobil shares were briefly halted Thursday morning, but the stock still staged a 5.3% advance. Casual-dining company Brinker International jumped 14%. Brinker's fiscal fourth-quarter results beat expectations and the company gave a positive outlook for the new fiscal year. Separate economic data released Thursday morning showed a surprise widening in June of the U.S. trade deficit, which reached its highest level in more than 2 1/2 years. "A lot of these moves are human emotion," said Channing Smith, co-portfolio manager at Capital Advisors Growth Fund. "It's hard to predict where human emotion is going. With 2008 still in people's memories, a lot of investors would rather just get out of the way until there's more certainty. Right now the ultimate uncertainty is Europe." -By Brendan Conway, Dow Jones Newswires; (212) 416-2670; [email]brendan.conway@dowjones.com[/email] [/quote] [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110811-716801.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;31669550]I'd really like to see the Libertarian party rise in power.[/QUOTE] The Libertarian party will never succeed in this country because they as a party lack a guiding philosophy. It's hard to defend your views as a libertarian when you still account for greed as a vice and judge your policies based on how much they do for the "greater good".

[QUOTE=Strider*;31677908]The Libertarian party will never succeed in this country because they as a party lack a guiding philosophy. It's hard to defend your views as a libertarian when you still account for greed as a vice and judge your policies based on how much they do for the "greater good".[/QUOTE] The guiding philosophy of Libertarianism is that the government should serve to protect Liberty. That means the government should simply protect our rights and freedom, and stay the fuck out of everything else. At least, that's the way I see it, and that's what I believe.

[QUOTE=Tim Henson;31680066]The guiding philosophy of Libertarianism is that the government should serve to protect Liberty. That means the government should simply protect our rights and freedom, and stay the fuck out of everything else. At least, that's the way I see it, and that's what I believe.[/QUOTE] And I believe that healthcare is a right that the government should provide and fight to defend. Most if not all Libertarians do not believe this, at least not American Libertarians.

Dow went up 423 points closing today :buddy:

[QUOTE=Tim Henson;31680066]The guiding philosophy of Libertarianism is that the government should serve to protect Liberty. That means the government should simply protect our rights and freedom, and stay the fuck out of everything else. At least, that's the way I see it, and that's what I believe.[/QUOTE] From what I understand they're mostly for a tiny tiny government. IE Police, protection, and something else... [quote]Dow went up 423 points closing today :buddy: [/quote] It will go down 500 tomorrow, up 400 when it opens again, 500 down again, etc

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;31680532]It will go down 500 tomorrow, up 400 when it opens again, 500 down again, etc[/QUOTE] But then you still end up with a net loss of like 300 points.

[QUOTE=Mr.Goodcat;31660317]Lets go all or nothing on this. Because honestly, atleast he is [b]TRYING[/b] to do something different.[/QUOTE]I'll be honest, I didn't actually finish the book because, it's just really really boring. BUT I'm watching him on the Republican debate right now and he is ROCKING that shit, they are scrambling, they have no idea how to respond to him on foreign policy and the crowd is going wild.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;31659787][IMG]http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/001-0917145001-End-the-Fed-Book-Cover.jpg[/IMG] :v:[/QUOTE] Or pass laws that essentially allow a federal takeover of the federal reserve and run it properly

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;31681169]I'll be honest, I didn't actually finish the book because, it's just really really boring. BUT I'm watching him on the Republican debate right now and he is ROCKING that shit, they are scrambling, they have no idea how to respond to him on foreign policy and the crowd is going wild.[/QUOTE] LINK! LINK! That sounds awesome. Goddamnit C-Span doesn't have it.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;31681206]Or pass laws that essentially allow a federal takeover of the federal reserve and run it properly[/QUOTE] I'd be good with that. [editline]11th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;31681169]I'll be honest, I didn't actually finish the book because, it's just really really boring. BUT I'm watching him on the Republican debate right now and he is ROCKING that shit, they are scrambling, they have no idea how to respond to him on foreign policy and the crowd is going wild.[/QUOTE] I'm watching the debate right now, and they're just bullshitting about gay marriage and abortion.

[QUOTE=Billiam;31681211]LINK! LINK! That sounds awesome. Goddamnit C-Span doesn't have it.[/QUOTE]It was on Fox, CSpan doesn't allow coverage of bullshit. [editline]11th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;31681213] I'm watching the debate right now, and they're just bullshitting about gay marriage and abortion.[/QUOTE]Yeah the juicy bit was in foreign policy.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;31681627]It was on Fox, CSpan doesn't allow coverage of bullshit.[/QUOTE] Only coverage of reality, where it manages to be very boring while still somehow impacting your life.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31682007]Only coverage of reality, where it manages to be very boring while still somehow impacting your life.[/QUOTE] Boring? Dude do you watch Cspan? Senators yelling at each other is awesome. And what a shame about Byrd. Most badass guy who ever lived [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V95eGgZbrU[/media]

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;31682620]Boring? Dude do you watch Cspan? Senators yelling at each other is awesome. And what a shame about Byrd. Most badass guy who ever lived [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V95eGgZbrU[/media][/QUOTE] I do watch C-SPAN, I was just playing on the general perception that it's boring.

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;31682620]Boring? Dude do you watch Cspan? Senators yelling at each other is awesome. And what a shame about Byrd. Most badass guy who ever lived [/QUOTE] People laugh at Reagan for having Alzheimers, but Jesus Christ. The thought processes in his mind are just BARBARIC

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31680150]And I believe that healthcare is a right that the government should provide and fight to defend. Most if not all Libertarians do not believe this, at least not American Libertarians.[/QUOTE] Health care is a service, something you purchase. You don't have a right to a service. What it comes to is not being in favor of good intentions.

[QUOTE=Pepin;31683134]Health care is a service, something you purchase. You don't have a right to a service. What it comes to is not being in favor of good intentions.[/QUOTE] My leg is broken and the bone is coming out the skin but I can't afford the bills so I'll just get an infection and die [quote]People laugh at Reagan for having Alzheimers, but Jesus Christ. The thought processes in his mind are just BARBARIC [/quote] At the time he was the most senior member, and thus had enough seniority to go up and filibuster for forever. He would talk about his wife and stuff too all the time [quote]But then you still end up with a net loss of like 300 points. [/quote] Which is my point. People say yay the market went back up! But it's going to crash tomorrow, and it will be 100 points down from how much it went up. [quote]The Dow Jones industrial average soared 423 points. It had already fallen 634 points Monday, risen 429 Tuesday and fallen 519 Wednesday. Never before has the Dow had four 400-point swings in a row.[/quote]

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;31682620]Boring? Dude do you watch Cspan? Senators yelling at each other is awesome. And what a shame about Byrd. Most badass guy who ever lived [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V95eGgZbrU[/media][/QUOTE] Whenever I tune in they are out at recess. Most of the stuff I hear on there is pretty dumb, especially when they got three girls making the argument that the Paul Ryan plan was sexist because it would cut social security and this would affect women because they live longer then men. They were going to talk about that for 30 minutes I believe. Using that same rational I might as well make the statement that men deserve more social security benefits because they die earlier. Their female counterparts enjoy more money than them, therefore they are entitled to the same amount of money that the woman gets on average. Or you could do what the fox news anchor did and say that Obama is sexist because he cut social security for the present. The entire argument was just dumb, and they spent so much time on it. The first time I ever watched it, they had a bunch of people who had no clue what they were saying, and then finally the voice of reason comes in and makes light of the discussion. Did that make a difference? No, the next guy went back to the same exact talking points. It is best to watch when you know something is going on, like the Patriot act.

[QUOTE=Pepin;31683134]Health care is a service, something you purchase. You don't have a right to a service. What it comes to is not being in favor of good intentions.[/QUOTE] Whether or not healthcare is a right is something that you can agree or disagree with.

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;31683180]My leg is broken and the bone is coming out the skin but I can't afford the bills so I'll just get an infection and die[/QUOTE] How is that a reply to what I said. The only way it could be is I have sustained an injury I can't afford treatment Treatment is a right X happens Can't afford X Fix for X is a right Does death need to be added in there somewhere? If I don't eat enough food I will die I don't have enough money for food Food is a right I need to use the bathroom and if I hold it in for days I will die A bathroom would help out with this Bathrooms are a right I am hanging off a ledge and if I fall I die A helicopter would get me out of this bind Helicopters are a right. I need brain surgery and if I don't get it I will die I don't have the money I have a right to force other people to pay for my surgery [QUOTE=Megafanx13;31683248]Whether or not healthcare is a right is something that you can agree or disagree with.[/QUOTE] You can't prove that you have a right to a service, therefore you can't prove you have a right to healthcare. You can't argue for health care on the basis of what it is not.

[QUOTE=Pepin;31683273]You can't prove that you have a right to a service, therefore you can't prove you have a right to healthcare. You can't argue for health care on the basis of what it is not.[/QUOTE] I disagree.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31683419]I disagree.[/QUOTE] Then you could go about explaining how it meets the criteria of a right and how it doesn't conflict with any other rights. I'm not making the statement that you can't argue for healthcare, but I am saying you can't argue for it on the missumption that it is a right. I wish missumption was a word.

[QUOTE=Pepin;31683449]Then you could go about explaining how it meets the criteria of a right and how it doesn't conflict with any other rights. I'm not making the statement that you can't argue for healthcare, but I am saying you can't argue for it on the missumption that it is a right. I wish missumption was a word.[/QUOTE] Here's Bernie Sanders talking about why healthcare should be a right in the US: [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/health-care-is-a-right-no_b_212770.html[/url]