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

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

79 replies, posted
In This Thread

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31683522]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][/QUOTE] Bernie Sanders is wrong. Someone saying the same thing you are doesn't mean you're right. Obama and FDR said it as well, they would have at least been a more credible example. I was expecting something in the article about how it could be considered a right, yet that the only statement in there was just affirming that it was a right and the rest of it was about healthcare problems. If you're under the impression that proving the health care system is bad has anything to do with it being a right, you're mistaken. A right is a right regardless of condition. Freedom of speech does not stop being a right when all but vulgarities are said. Healthcare doesn't come a right when the conditions are bad. At the end it tries to equate it with civil rights, which doesn't make sense at all. My basic claim is that you don't have a right to someone's service. This is a well founded concept. You have no right to assume are entitled to a massage at a spa. Forcing someone to provide you with a service is wrong. Is there a system in which force is not needed for this? You are forced to pay in, the doctors are forced to treat you, you are forced to spend other people's money. Currently there is mostly a voluntary system. You voluntarily pay money into an insurance company. The doctors provide their service, for money.

[QUOTE=Nikota;31661773]I'm just saying. It's generally a good idea to keep people over 65 out of the presidency.[/QUOTE] OLD PEOPLE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING /caps

[QUOTE=Pepin;31683273]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 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] Food stamps I don't think you can hold it in for days. You'd just end up soiling yourself. Go in the damn woods. If a helicopter is all that can save you and someone has contacted authorities, believe it or not they will try to get a helicopter, they won't just let you die. How much the health care covers can certainly be of some debate. Is there any health care that covers [B]everything[/B], private or public? It was a perfectly valid response. It was an example to show that public healthcare can save lives (duh) and that societies should put well being above little green pieces of paper. Or better yet 1s and 0s representing little green pieces of paper. [quote]My basic claim is that you don't have a right to someone's service. This is a well founded concept. You have no right to assume are entitled to a massage at a spa. Forcing someone to provide you with a service is wrong. Is there a system in which force is not needed for this? You are forced to pay in, the doctors are forced to treat you, you are forced to spend other people's money.[/quote] Ok then we'll just get rid of the police because I don't pay them personally. Doctors are overpaid as fuck here anyways, and it's not like government healthcare wouldn't compensate them. Boohoo if it come from tax payers, chances are everyone who pays taxes will end up using it.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;31681206]Or pass laws that essentially allow a federal takeover of the federal reserve and run it properly[/QUOTE] Um, that is essentially ending the federal reserve, just so you know. Giving power to the treasury over the issuing of money is basically what that would do. Beside, it'll be proven over time that the only thing the Fed [i]does[/i] do that the government would not be able to do, which is shove down interest rates is largely damaging to the economy. [QUOTE=Megafanx13;31683248]Whether or not healthcare is a right is something that you can agree or disagree with.[/QUOTE] Once again I don't understand the declaration of what is or isn't a right from people who think only the state grants them. [editline]e[/editline] [QUOTE=thrawn2787;31690405]Ok then we'll just get rid of the police because I don't pay them personally.[/QUOTE] The police are also provided as a service by the government, it doesn't make it a right.

Just quickly looked up google finance. Stocks are still going up... [editline]12th August 2011[/editline] Just quickly looked up google finance. Stocks are still going up... Edit: [url]http://www.schaeffersresearch.com/commentary/content/market+update+djia+jumps+triple+digits+on+solid+retail+sales+data+vix+down+11/trading_floor_blog.aspx?blogid=107553[/url]

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31683248]Whether or not healthcare is a right is something that you can agree or disagree with.[/QUOTE] Right, because you can reject treating someone who is terminally ill because they can't afford the treatment? What happened to the "Right to life" that is enshrined in the bill of human rights? Denying healthcare denies that right.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;31691428]Right, because you can reject treating someone who is terminally ill because they can't afford the treatment? What happened to the "Right to life" that is enshrined in the bill of human rights? Denying healthcare denies that right.[/QUOTE] As a thought experiment, let's say you can save a human life by performing an operation which will cost the entire GDP of the United States. Would you do it? This is what separates a right from a service. In having a right, there is no imposition on another person to perform that action. Right to be gay, right to do drugs, right to speech and so on.

[QUOTE=s0beit;31691236]Um, that is essentially ending the federal reserve, just so you know. Giving power to the treasury over the issuing of money is basically what that would do. Beside, it'll be proven over time that the only thing the Fed [i]does[/i] do that the government would not be able to do, which is shove down interest rates is largely damaging to the economy. Once again I don't understand the declaration of what is or isn't a right from people who think only the state grants them. [editline]e[/editline] The police are also provided as a service by the government, it doesn't make it a right.[/QUOTE] And why can't healthcare be a service provided by the government? What do you think Liberals think, that we can just not pay anyone? We're not communist. I don't speak for Megafanx but I don't think he thinks we just wouldn't pay anyone and expect free healthcare.

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;31690405]It was a perfectly valid response. It was an example to show that public healthcare can save lives (duh) and that societies should put well being above little green pieces of paper. Or better yet 1s and 0s representing little green pieces of paper. Ok then we'll just get rid of the police because I don't pay them personally. Doctors are overpaid as fuck here anyways, and it's not like government healthcare wouldn't compensate them. Boohoo if it come from tax payers, chances are everyone who pays taxes will end up using it.[/QUOTE] It wasn't at all a valid response in context to what you were replying to. The second part of your argument assumes that money wasn't invested in. What about the 40 or more hours of work a week? Individuals work for money to raise their standard of living, and forcing them to give money to someone else lowers their standard of living. In the context of universal healthcare, it would be like social security in that everyone pays it. If you want to get into law enforcement then you need to get into the theory of what government is meant for. Law enforcement is a proper role and many philosophers have explained why, but it is no right. Again, the pay doesn't at all play a factor into whether something is a right. You don't have a right to healthcare when you think doctors are getting paid too much, just as you don't have a right to other people's money because you think they are making too much. [QUOTE=Craigewan;31691428]Right, because you can reject treating someone who is terminally ill because they can't afford the treatment? What happened to the "Right to life" that is enshrined in the bill of human rights? Denying healthcare denies that right.[/QUOTE] s0biet pretty much said it, but anyway, to ask that kind of question you have to assume that there is a cost that would be acceptable to reject at. This is because the main factor here is that they can't afford it. Money is the issue, which is the fundamental problem with your claim. And no, right to life does not mean a right to forcing people to perform medical procedures. It means you have a right to your life and what you do with it, and that other people cannot on your natural rights. To say otherwise you mean that other people have a right to your life.

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;31691636]And why can't healthcare be a service provided by the government? What do you think Liberals think, that we can just not pay anyone? We're not communist. I don't speak for Megafanx but I don't think he thinks we just wouldn't pay anyone and expect free healthcare.[/QUOTE] I think you want to provide healthcare to the most people you possibly can, which are good goals but the results are what matter. Healthcare in the United States is so expensive right now because of the current government intervention in the marketplace, I don't really know why people even attempt to debate this. It's painfully obvious just looking at the statistics between government spending and per capita healthcare costs and share of costs out of pocket. I don't think more government involvement is the answer, I think less is. That's me. However you also have to understand the relationship between price and consumer to understand why medical costs are so high right now. You also have to understand that as technology progresses, innovation progresses and a worker's salary can buy more, healthcare will be more easily affordable. Just saying "let's switch to single payer anyway, what can go wrong?" portrays a general lack of understanding in economics and a naive appreciation of the scandinavian socialist system. Most of the single payer healthcare systems out there are stable and efficient like medicare was stable and efficient. It's not a system that can last over a long period of time. They can delay it, as they have, by liberalizing trade and giving their citizens a relatively freer market than most so they can use the funds from those citizens to pay for healthcare (and i mean freer than the United States, in many cases) but over time it's no more stable. Time will have to be the judge of that one, you can disagree but that's the way I see it.

[QUOTE=s0beit;31692643]Just saying "let's switch to single payer anyway, what can go wrong?" portrays a general lack of understanding in economics and a naive appreciation of the scandinavian socialist system. Most of the single payer healthcare systems out there are stable and efficient like medicare was stable and efficient. It's not a system that can last over a long period of time. They can delay it, as they have, by liberalizing trade and giving their citizens a relatively freer market than most so they can use the funds from those citizens to pay for healthcare (and i mean freer than the United States, in many cases) but over time it's no more stable.[/QUOTE] Really, so you're saying they'll eventually have to get rid of it because it just doesn't work? That's bollocks.

[QUOTE=Pepin;31692172]It wasn't at all a valid response in context to what you were replying to. The second part of your argument assumes that money wasn't invested in. What about the 40 or more hours of work a week? Individuals work for money to raise their standard of living, and forcing them to give money to someone else lowers their standard of living. In the context of universal healthcare, it would be like social security in that everyone pays it. If you want to get into law enforcement then you need to get into the theory of what government is meant for. Law enforcement is a proper role and many philosophers have explained why, but it is no right. Again, the pay doesn't at all play a factor into whether something is a right. You don't have a right to healthcare when you think doctors are getting paid too much, just as you don't have a right to other people's money because you think they are making too much. s0biet pretty much said it, but anyway, to ask that kind of question you have to assume that there is a cost that would be acceptable to reject at. This is because the main factor here is that they can't afford it. Money is the issue, which is the fundamental problem with your claim. And no, right to life does not mean a right to forcing people to perform medical procedures. It means you have a right to your life and what you do with it, and that other people cannot on your natural rights. To say otherwise you mean that other people have a right to your life.[/QUOTE] And? Don't tell me police don't spend more time with the lower classes. So by your argument we should get rid of the police because everyone pays their salary but they don't do as much protecting of the higher classes and we should just privatize the security industry completely. Your argument isn't making much sense to me. You argue we shouldn't provide healthcare because that would cost money which we would take from everyone, and yet you're fine with having a police force that is funded by money from everyone. Both are services. Both save lives. I daresay medical care can save more lives than arresting people for pot usage. Anyways I think we should try to get healthcare to everyone. Libertarians seem to have good intentions like everyone but I just see it going back to the ways of the industrial revolution. 1% of the population controlling 90% of the wealth, no workers rights, no environmental concerns, etc. There is a problem with free markets and privatizing everything, and the problem is us. I do think we have a right to spread the wealth just a little fucking bit, and I don't mean give the lower classes money from the higher classes just for the sake of money. I mean tax everyone so everyone can live. Is it really that much of a burden on everyone? Oh look people are starving and dying? Well let's not give them just a little bit of food they need to survive because that would cost tax payer's money. That's ridiculous. Who could we possibly take that money from? Certainly not the people with 5 houses and 10 Lamborghinis. Fucking ridiculous. And there are people who do try to cheat the systems yes and are lazy fucks. But why should we punish those who aren't and simply are down on their luck or whatever the situation may be. So we have a right to life but not to live? Why does that make sense. Its like Republicans. They'll fight to the death for your fucking rights so long as you're in the womb, but as soon and you pop out you're on your fucking own. I assume that Libertarians don't support this position as banning abortion (or anything for that matter) doesn't really seem like something you guys don't agree with. Similar positions though. End of discussion. I'm not saying the United States way of handling public health care is the right way of doing it. We clearly have different points of view, neither of us is going to change the other's in this thread. Besides this thread was about the stock market and how it went down a few days ago. Enough is enough.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31693546]Really, so you're saying they'll eventually have to get rid of it because it just doesn't work? That's bollocks.[/QUOTE] There's a great many of them that were having issues before the economic downturn occurred. You also have other problems not just related to tax income and population growth, but the prices under such a system. Tell me, what role does a price serve in an economy? How are prices calculated? How could arbitrary calculation of a price be a problem? Theses questions and more were answered about 60 years ago. The single payer system is flawed at a fundamental level, hell, the flaw is right in the name. There is one purchaser, there is no way to gauge the value of any service or good under that system. That is why nations do in fact ration (and it does happen, I wish people on these boards wouldn't pretend it doesn't). Rationing the good is another way of saying that there is underproduction of a particular good or service, I could say it's another way of saying that the government is having money troubles but they are directly linked with one another being that they're the only purchaser and ultimate provider, ignoring consumer demand. Healthcare would best be treated as a good in the market, free of zealots treating it differently than any other industry so it could make healthcare affordable to everyone. This is not the system America has now, whereas we don't have a single payer system almost every inch of American medicine is regulated to an obscene degree. That causes it's own set of problems as evidenced by our insane price system. Further, you could say that clothing, housing and food industries could be nationalized to save lives as well. I don't know where the line is drawn, perhaps you could elaborate on that for me.

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;31693776]And? Don't tell me police don't spend more time with the lower classes. So by your argument we should get rid of the police because everyone pays their salary but they don't do as much protecting of the higher classes and we should just privatize the security industry completely. Your argument isn't making much sense to me. You argue we shouldn't provide healthcare because that would cost money which we would take from everyone, and yet you're fine with having a police force that is funded by money from everyone. Both are services. Both save lives. I daresay medical care can save more lives than arresting people for pot usage. Anyways I think we should try to get healthcare to everyone. Libertarians seem to have good intentions like everyone but I just see it going back to the ways of the industrial revolution. 1% of the population controlling 90% of the wealth, no workers rights, no environmental concerns, etc. There is a problem with free markets and privatizing everything, and the problem is us. I do think we have a right to spread the wealth just a little fucking bit, and I don't mean give the lower classes money from the higher classes just for the sake of money. I mean tax everyone so everyone can live. Is it really that much of a burden on everyone? Oh look people are starving and dying? Well let's not give them just a little bit of food they need to survive because that would cost tax payer's money. That's ridiculous. Who could we possibly take that money from? Certainly not the people with 5 houses and 10 Lamborghinis. Fucking ridiculous. And there are people who do try to cheat the systems yes and are lazy fucks. But why should we punish those who aren't and simply are down on their luck or whatever the situation may be. So we have a right to life but not to live? Why does that make sense. Its like Republicans. They'll fight to the death for your fucking rights so long as you're in the womb, but as soon and you pop out you're on your fucking own. I assume that Libertarians don't support this position as banning abortion (or anything for that matter) doesn't really seem like something you guys don't agree with. Similar positions though. End of discussion. I'm not saying the United States way of handling public health care is the right way of doing it. We clearly have different points of view, neither of us is going to change the other's in this thread. Besides this thread was about the stock market and how it went down a few days ago. Enough is enough.[/QUOTE] Uh, do I really have to reply to this. First statement doesn't make sense at all. Not sure what you are doing, but there are you've certainly put together a straw man. You're also basing your argument on a syllogism that doesn't hold up. Any service or product that has the capacity to save lives should not be a function of government. There is quite a lot of philosophy as to why law enforcement is a valid function of government, the primary reason to provide an entity that protects your natural rights. Paragraph that is completely misinformed about the industrial revolution, not really much to rebut that would require a history lesson. It's interesting that you say Libertarians have good intentions as their intentions are usually shown in a negative light. To spread the wealth you have to assert that you are entitled to someone else's property, and then take it by force. The system you propose is where everyone lives off each other, which isn't feasible. If you feel compelled to give your money to the people who need it then do it, donating is very healthy. But to force others to donate for a cause that they don't feel compelled to give money to is theft. Why would you prefer a system of force as opposed to a system of volunteerism. Not really sure what you're saying here, but I find both positions on abortion to be reasonable. From what I've heard this is more of a split issue amongst Libertarians. My own opinion is that I am quite against abortion, but recognize that it needs to be legal because the alternative is much worse. I find it similar to people who hate drugs and don't think people should use them, but who also argue that drugs need to be legalized because having them illegal brings about worse condition. I'm always willing to change my mind, but the other sides needs to give good arguments, and it'll usually take about a month of thinking.

[QUOTE=s0beit;31694153]Further, you could say that clothing, housing and food industries could be nationalized to save lives as well. I don't know where the line is drawn, perhaps you could elaborate on that for me.[/QUOTE] Well perhaps I'm not the right Leftist to ask, as I would be for nationalizing those industries, as well as all major energy sources.

[QUOTE=Pepin;31694549]Uh, do I really have to reply to this. First statement doesn't make sense at all. Not sure what you are doing, but there are you've certainly put together a straw man. You're also basing your argument on a syllogism that doesn't hold up. Any service or product that has the capacity to save lives should not be a function of government. There is quite a lot of philosophy as to why law enforcement is a valid function of government, the primary reason to provide an entity that protects your natural rights. Paragraph that is completely misinformed about the industrial revolution, not really much to rebut that would require a history lesson. It's interesting that you say Libertarians have good intentions as their intentions are usually shown in a negative light. To spread the wealth you have to assert that you are entitled to someone else's property, and then take it by force. The system you propose is where everyone lives off each other, which isn't feasible. If you feel compelled to give your money to the people who need it then do it, donating is very healthy. But to force others to donate for a cause that they don't feel compelled to give money to is theft. Why would you prefer a system of force as opposed to a system of volunteerism. Not really sure what you're saying here, but I find both positions on abortion to be reasonable. From what I've heard this is more of a split issue amongst Libertarians. My own opinion is that I am quite against abortion, but recognize that it needs to be legal because the alternative is much worse. I find it similar to people who hate drugs and don't think people should use them, but who also argue that drugs need to be legalized because having them illegal brings about worse condition. I'm always willing to change my mind, but the other sides needs to give good arguments, and it'll usually take about a month of thinking.[/QUOTE] Policing and protection is a service, so is medical care. Law enforcement has the capacity to save lives. Thus it shouldn't be a function of government? Libertarians, like anyone, I assume, are just trying to have things be the best for everyone. Now what is best for everyone and the ways of achieving this differ from person to person, political group to political group. I see in the Libertarian world that these fuckers come back. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_%28industrialist%29[/url] I don't mind having an argument / debate but if you want to start insulting me then this is over, with me on the morale high ground merely because I didn't resort to petty insults. History lesson my ass. Carnegie still donated a great amount of his wealth, but that doesn't mean that life didn't suck for the general public working in factories. This was a new experience for the world and governments alike. Monopolies happened and were allowed in the United States, but that changed. The world changes, why is global healthcare so wrong now that we think differently? How is abortion a split issue among Libertarians. I thought you guys were all for people doing whatever they wanted and that nothing should be banned. If I want to become an elephant through surgery why shouldn't I have that right? If (if I was a woman) did not want to have a baby why don't I have the right to abort it? I can see the moral dilemma of when does it (the fetus) have rights and becomes aware, but from what I understand no Libertarians should be completely against it. But what this argument (or debate or what have you) boils down to is that my favorite color is puce and yours is blue. We can sit here and argue for pages and pages and we won't ever get anywhere.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31694867]Well perhaps I'm not the right Leftist to ask, as I would be for nationalizing those industries, as well as all major energy sources.[/QUOTE] You should read about the economic calculation problem. Prices are not just arbitrary numbers that serve to enrich the bourgeoisie, they organize resources in an economy. I know most leftists don't agree with how the Soviet Union operated, but, under and overproduction was characteristic of the USSR for a reason. [QUOTE=thrawn2787;31694907] I see in the Libertarian world that these fuckers come back. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_%28industrialist%29[/url] [/QUOTE] While you may disagree that a company holding a major share of the market is a good thing, many of those people caused the price of many products to drop substantially. If you could bring up some specific complaints I'd be glad to debate them.

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;31694907]Policing and protection is a service, so is medical care. Law enforcement has the capacity to save lives. Thus it shouldn't be a function of government? Libertarians, like anyone, I assume, are just trying to have things be the best for everyone. Now what is best for everyone and the ways of achieving this differ from person to person, political group to political group. I see in the Libertarian world that these fuckers come back. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_%28industrialist%29[/url] I don't mind having an argument / debate but if you want to start insulting me then this is over, with me on the morale high ground merely because I didn't resort to petty insults. History lesson my ass. Carnegie still donated a great amount of his wealth, but that doesn't mean that life didn't suck for the general public working in factories. This was a new experience for the world and governments alike. Monopolies happened and were allowed in the United States, but that changed. The world changes, why is global healthcare so wrong now that we think differently? How is abortion a split issue among Libertarians. I thought you guys were all for people doing whatever they wanted and that nothing should be banned. If I want to become an elephant through surgery why shouldn't I have that right? If (if I was a woman) did not want to have a baby why don't I have the right to abort it? I can see the moral dilemma of when does it (the fetus) have rights and becomes aware, but from what I understand no Libertarians should be completely against it. But what this argument (or debate or what have you) boils down to is that my favorite color is puce and yours is blue. We can sit here and argue for pages and pages and we won't ever get anywhere.[/QUOTE] No, that's a bad argument because then you must assert that everything that has the capacity to save lives should be a function of government. You can read some interesting stuff robber barons, and it'll quite contradict your preconceived notions. There were also monopolies prior to the industrial revolution just as there are now. I don't feel enthralled to talk about that period because I would have to type up a lot to make my point, but to make a simple point, why would the most prosperous time in history for an entire country made out to be so bad? It was the largest increase of standard of living for a group of people. What's a bit ironic is that by talking bad about monopolies, you are in favor of a government monopoly (I'm pretty sure this is focused around universal health care). Another straw man. Libertarianism is not anarchism. Some people believe that abortion is an infringement of the fetus's natural rights which makes perfect sense if you accept a fetus is a human. If you want to have these people give their opinion then do it, I was just stating that it's a bit of divided issue. I heard 2/3 were in favor while 1/3 opposed. If you don't feel like you're going anywhere in this argument then you can stop. I'm providing pretty direct responses, and responding to the new arguments that you bring up. I don't think it makes sense to base the quality of a discussion on if someone is changing their mind or not.

[QUOTE=Pepin;31695318]No, that's a bad argument because then you must assert that everything that has the capacity to save lives should be a function of government. You can read some interesting stuff robber barons, and it'll quite contradict your preconceived notions. There were also monopolies prior to the industrial revolution just as there are now. I don't feel enthralled to talk about that period because I would have to type up a lot to make my point, but to make a simple point, why would the most prosperous time in history for an entire country made out to be so bad? It was the largest increase of standard of living for a group of people. What's a bit ironic is that by talking bad about monopolies, you are in favor of a government monopoly (I'm pretty sure this is focused around universal health care). Another straw man. Libertarianism is not anarchism. Some people believe that abortion is an infringement of the fetus's natural rights which makes perfect sense if you accept a fetus is a human. If you want to have these people give their opinion then do it, I was just stating that it's a bit of divided issue. I heard 2/3 were in favor while 1/3 opposed. If you don't feel like you're going anywhere in this argument then you can stop. I'm providing pretty direct responses, and responding to the new arguments that you bring up. I don't think it makes sense to base the quality of a discussion on if someone is changing their mind or not.[/QUOTE] Why is my argument bad when it's the other side of the coin as yours? I'm only claiming that some form of healthcare should be added, you seem to think I want the government to control everything we do in some 1984 way. I never said that. Stop jumping to these conclusions and acting like lines will never be drawn. And if it's such a bad argument for the reason you stated, then by your logic [B]you [/B]must assert that everything that has the capacity to save lives must be removed from government. You're very black and white. If you think that we / I will never draw a line, then you must be the opposite by your logic and basically remove government as a whole. If I'm for government oppressing everything you do an say then you must be an anarchist. There is no inbetween, for anyone. Your logic, not mine. [quote][B]Any [/B]service or product that has the capacity to save lives should not be a function of government. [/quote] Yes there were monopolies prior but many companies before were not as large. If it was the largest increase in the standard of living I'm willing to bet it wasn't because the greedy upperclass, but because of something else. Probably public opinion. Not all "barons" were bad, as I said Carnegie donated quite often and in generous amounts. Others had actual firefights with their workers because the workers said their workings conditions sucked and refused to work. I never said that the government option has to be the only option. You're assuming that. There are no monopolies in the United States that I can think of. We break them up. AT&T had a monopoly but it was broken up. Standard Oil was broken up. Granted the US won't always break up a company due to a monopoly but also unfair business practices (we tried to break up Microsoft once for that). Before the Industrial Revolution none of these laws were in place. We had a much freer market, which Libertarians support. I don't want to go back to those times, it seemed to suck for the large majority of people. This will be the last post I will make in this thread, I will not read your reply. My views differ from yours, I personally don't see the point of have a discussion pointlessly. Amazing isn't it.

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.