oh yes, the regulations drove u.s banking system to it´s knees, not wrong decisions their management made. oh yes

Stop flogging the Reagan deregulation horse...it's dead dude.
It's a stinking, maggot laden corpse lying in the gutter.

People gathered around gazing at the corpse asking what killed it.
The guy who thought he had all the answers seemed somewhat dazed by the events.
Having no answers, he did the only thing left to do...Atlas shrugged.

Reagan Hah Were talking Bush wake up and smell the national debt

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

the last 8 years the Markets have been more free than they've ever been.

Which is, of course, utterly, completely and entirely wrong. At a very minimum Sarbanes-Oxley took effect in 2002, which was an enormous addition to the standing regulations, and regulation has continued ever higher.

Seems when markets go free cheaters come out of the woodwork.

Ummmm, "cheaters" (whatever that means) exist in actual laissez-faire markets. In massively regulated markets, and everywhere in between. Cheaters exist in ANY market, no matter how regulated. That's just called fraud and it's always been illegal.

So freemarkets are an impossiblility due to the fact that the overwhelming urge to steal and take from others that comes along with handling large sums of money and having nobody looking over their shoulder.

Which is of course, again, dead wrong. There are always people looking over your shoulder. Your shareholders. Your investors. Other participants. That doesn't stop fraud anymore than gov't regulation does. People commit fraud, they always have.

Must you go on about how great the Libertarians are or should we review what I posted on the other thread after you extolled their virtues. Please stop you are embarrassing yourself

Oh man is this a hoot!! Hee hee! A few of you here regularly embarrass yourselves, hell you did it with this post. But fear not, I will set the record straight.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

So in fairy land we have to trust the person running the show to not cheat us because he's beholden to his shareholders? Are you serious? Fannie Mae Ring a bell, Citicorp, WAMU, AIG the list goes on. People trusted them and they found ways around the regulations. I'd like to meet the people that would care for my money so thoughtfully because he's responsible to the shareholders. THe only way that works is if their is the threat of death for screwing people over. Heck, I'd love to have the board of directors of major multinationals that screwed people over. Line them up with the Barry Madoffs(sp?) Financial Cheats are threatened with minor penalties(5-10 years of prison) while a guy that uses a gun to rob a bank for a few bucks gets 20+ years. Who should be locked away forever thus preventing him from ever touching my finances again. or the schmuck that wanted a few grand to pimp his ride or feed his drug habit. The last I checked the guy with the gun only affects a few people around him. An banker, financier, stock swindler, insurance fraud affects everyone in their company, all their shareholders and every person that invested in their enterprise. ... I digress.

I still am waiting for a rebuttal to all what I wrote about the grand plans of the libertarians. Rush, I haven't failed to notice that you skim over the entire argument and just ignore the important idea that with no money and no rules basically you have no country.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Hey, tell us again about compound interest and the time value of money--that one went over smashingly.

You'll have to remind me because I have no memory of writing on the topic of compound interest.


While you're at it, try answering the gun in the face question I possed in the idiotic libertarian policy toward victim's rights.

Hey, tell us again about compound interest and the time value of money--that one went over smashingly.

You'll have to remind me because I have no memory of writing on the topic of compound interest.


While you're at it, try answering the gun in the face question I possed in the idiotic libertarian policy toward victim's rights.

Here here It's sad when people get their feet held the fire and are so very wrong that they insist on continuing arguing but with "no it isn't" and "That's idiotic" when in fact they have no real argument opposing you. I say the fish is fried on this one

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

So in fairy land we have to trust the person running the show to not cheat us because he's beholden to his shareholders? Are you serious? Fannie Mae Ring a bell, Citicorp, WAMU, AIG the list goes on. People trusted them and they found ways around the regulations. I'd like to meet the people that would care for my money so thoughtfully because he's responsible to the shareholders. THe only way that works is if their is the threat of death for screwing people over.

I don't know of this "fairy land," is that the place where you just make things up and post them?

I don't know what to tell you about fraud. It's a part of the human condition, period. People do it. People have always done it. Regulation has not, and cannot stop it, though it can make some people feel safe when they are not. Not one regulation stopped any person who ever defrauded someone else because that person is intent on committing fraud, regardless of what anyone else may think.

The libertarians don't have any magical answer to fraud, anymore than the communists or the superregulationists or anyone else.

Heck, I'd love to have the board of directors of major multinationals that screwed people over. Line them up with the Barry Madoffs(sp?) Financial Cheats are threatened with minor penalties(5-10 years of prison) while a guy that uses a gun to rob a bank for a few bucks gets 20+ years. Who should be locked away forever thus preventing him from ever touching my finances again. or the schmuck that wanted a few grand to pimp his ride or feed his drug habit. The last I checked the guy with the gun only affects a few people around him. An banker, financier, stock swindler, insurance fraud affects everyone in their company, all their shareholders and every person that invested in their enterprise. ... I digress.

You do.

I still am waiting for a rebuttal to all what I wrote about the grand plans of the libertarians. Rush, I haven't failed to notice that you skim over the entire argument and just ignore the important idea that with no money and no rules basically you have no country.

I don't ignore it. I have told you repeatedly that this is not a libertarian position. I have not stated it. The Libertarian Party has not stated it. Libertarians in general have not stated it. In short, NO ONE (maybe some anarchists) has taken the position that "with no money and no rules basically you have no country," but you keep saying that over and and over and over and over and over.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Hey, tell us again about compound interest and the time value of money--that one went over smashingly.

You'll have to remind me because I have no memory of writing on the topic of compound interest.

"WOW
"There's some serious math involved in this one to retire with $100,000 per "year based on an annual income of $31,695.
Of course, you'd have to place the entire yearly income into the fund for over 31 years to reach one million dollars.
"Under the libertarian new order, without minimum wage protections, I believe that the median income would very quickly drop far below this $31,695, so this too is deceiving and dishonest.
"Seems the libertarians and their members such as Whiplash Willy aren't above telling flat out lies in their quest to recruit the masses to further their selfish desires.

"Never underestimate the idle rich. They have the time and money to back their quest for more of your hard earned cash.
And they never spilled a drop of sweat to aquire theirs.

"More later, it's getting very late and I don't want to put too much on Whiplash Willy's plate at one time."

There. Remember now?

You know, because you really wouldn't have to "place the entire yearly income into the fund for over 31 years to reach one million dollars."

While you're at it, try answering the gun in the face question I possed in the idiotic libertarian policy toward victim's rights.

What question had you "possed?" All I saw was that you really had no idea what the libertarians mean.

I mean, is it your position that if someone steals your brother's Harley, that your brother isn't entitled to restitution or to getting it back?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I still am waiting for a rebuttal to all what I wrote about the grand plans of the libertarians. Rush, I haven't failed to notice that you skim over the entire argument and just ignore the important idea that with no money and no rules basically you have no country.

A quick glance at the web site: "A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society." - Libertarian Party Platform, Section 2.0 (adopted: May 2008)

You see, the idea of rules is contained in the sentence, "The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected."

How you get from such quotes to the idea that there will be no money and no rules and therefore no country is beyond me.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

now that you've parroted the website, would you be so kind as to have a point of view. What I get from your quote is that freemarkets will do aw ay from gov't and establish their own rules without a gov't therby making defacto corporate states. Ever read Neil Stephenson's Snow Crash this is a nifty story that eerily is similar to the what is described in your quote.

And to be honest this is what your argument seems like. Sadly did too and did not isnt much of a stimulating argument no matter how much fluff you put to it.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

now that you've parroted the website, would you be so kind as to have a point of view.

Of course I parroted the web site. I quoted it to note your continuing errors with your statements concerning positions that neither libertarians nor the Libertarian Party have ever taken.

I do have a point of view. I can explain the libertarian position in detail on any number of things. I can certainly do better than Robert's hand wringing above. I can actually explain how easy it would be to retire with good money, and that's not even a libertarian position--it's just compound interest and the time value of money, simple mathematics.

What I get from your quote is that freemarkets will do aw ay from gov't and establish their own rules without a gov't therby making defacto corporate states. Ever read Neil Stephenson's Snow Crash this is a nifty story that eerily is similar to the what is described in your quote.

I have no idea. What you get from my quote is wrong. Free markets cannot "do away from gov't" and they already have their own rules which are very very very simple. Anyone can choose to play or not, and no one can use force or fraud. Since some humans are always prone to use force or fraud, the libertarian gov't uses the rule of law, the police, and the power to punish such individuals to try to minimize such things.

And to be honest this is what your argument seems like. Sadly did too and did not isnt much of a stimulating argument no matter how much fluff you put to it.

Monty Python aside, I don't know what to say to you. You stated a bunch of positions that neither libertarians nor the Libertarian Party has taken. There are no statements on their web site that suggest utter eradication of gov't, that there would be no laws, that there would be no rules, that there would be no taxes, or any of the other erroneous positions you have attributed to them.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

.........
And to be honest this is what your argument seems like....

Now that was funny :D

No It isn't ;)

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

You got me sheriff.
My vast skills in economics and compound interest are no match for yours.

All I did was divide the million by the 31,000 dollars to come up with 31 years of contributing every penny of earnings.

How silly of me to have questioned the idiotic libertarian platform policy that allows everyone making a crappy $30,000 per year a life of luxury with a pension of $100,000.

It all makes so much sense to me now. By the way, what colour is the sky in libertarian world?

Is a libertarian government going to enforce it's rules with a gun in the face or a sternly worded letter?

Here's the question again Rush.
You have spouted off at great length about government enforcement of the laws of the land as being a "gun in the face" but have offered no acceptable alternatives.

How would a libertarian government enforce it's own rules?

You got me sheriff.
My vast skills in economics and compound interest are no match for yours.

Right. Of course. That's patently obvious.

All I did was divide the million by the 31,000 dollars to come up with 31 years of contributing every penny of earnings.

Oh, it was clear what you did. Which is why I noted your glaring errors with compound interest and the time value of money.

How silly of me to have questioned the idiotic libertarian platform policy that allows everyone making a crappy $30,000 per year a life of luxury with a pension of $100,000.

Heh. Since you didn't understand it, what you should have done is asked how it was possible. Something simple: "How can they make this claim? How is this possible?" What you did you was sneer, demonstrate that you have no idea how compound interest or the time value of money works, and then actually posted such garbage. It seems that if you can't possibly fathom how something works, then it's not possible.

We'll use the Moneychimp Compound Interest Calculator.

So, the libertarians claim that every year the gov't takes "12.4% of your income to prop up their failed Social Security system - a system that is heading toward bankruptcy.

"If you are an American earning the median income of $31,695 per year, and were given the option of investing that same amount of money in a stock mutual fund, you would retire a millionaire - without winning the lottery or a TV game show.

"That million dollars would provide you with a retirement income of over $100,000 per year...."

So, 12.5% of $31695 is $3961.00. We'll round DOWN to make it easier, $3900. We'll assume that you will NEVER EVER make more than the $32K, and so therefore you only invest the $3900 dollars each year.

So plug them into the calculator. Set it to the worst settings, compounding only once per year and at the end. Let's assume an 8 percent return. If you work from 20 - 65 that's 45 years. 45 years of investing gives you $1,631,861.66, if from then on, you never put in another dime, and you just take the 8 percent return each year, 8 percent of $1,631,861.66 is $130,548.93, so you would have an annual income of, like the libertarians say "over $100,000 per year."

Play with the numbers. If you only take 6% to live on, instead of the 8%, leaving the other 2% to grow, you would have $97,911.70. Close enough to $100K.

Say the return drops to 6% and you have work another 10 years, you have $1,633,407.16. Plenty to earn a return, and live on.

Say the return moves up to 10% and you only work the 45 years. Now you have $3,088,001.75 in the bank. Now taking 4% to live on, and leaving 6% to grow gives you $123,520.07 a year.

Play with the numbers some more. Remember, we're assuming you NEVER EVER put another dime in beyond the $3900 each year. But what happens if you put in more? Put in $5000 per year and you're at $2,092,130.33. And keep in mind, you're just living off the income of the investment. You could also, as your life winds down, spend the principal. Endow some charities. Pay for your grandchildren's college. It's easy to do with 2 million in the bank.

Either way it's childishly simple to validate the claim that "If you are an American earning the median income of $31,695 per year, and were given the option of investing that same amount of money in a stock mutual fund, you would retire a millionaire - without winning the lottery or a TV game show.

"That million dollars would provide you with a retirement income of over $100,000 per year...."

Or, you can do it way we do now. You will give them that $3900 each year for 45 years. And they will give you back to you. According to the Social Security website, the average retiree gets $1,155.30 a month, * 12 months = $13,863.60.

So which would you prefer? Giving up $3900 a year for 45 years and living on over $100,000 per year? Or, door number two, giving up $3900 a year for 45 years and living on just under $14K per year?

So let's address Robert's "commentary."

WOW
There's some serious math involved in this one to retire with $100,000 per year based on an annual income of $31,695.
Of course, you'd have to place the entire yearly income into the fund for over 31 years to reach one million dollars.

Which, of course, is demonstrably wrong. Using the assumptions that you'll work about 45 years (or more, if you wish) and that you'll NEVER put in any more than the $3900 per year, you don't have to put your entire income into a fund for 31 years. That would be putting it under your mattress. Foolish.

Under the libertarian new order, without minimum wage protections, I believe that the median income would very quickly drop far below this $31,695, so this too is deceiving and dishonest.

At least he notes that "he believes" this, but he's wrong because minimum wage workers just aren't that prevalent in the United States. Overwhelmingly, workers in the U.S. make more than the minimum, there just aren't enough people who work those jobs to drag it down much.

Seems the libertarians and their members such as Whiplash Willy aren't above telling flat out lies in their quest to recruit the masses to further their selfish desires.

Yeah, well, someone is telling lies all right. Oops.

It all makes so much sense to me now. By the way, what colour is the sky in libertarian world?

Really? It makes sense to you? Why does it not surprise me to have to answer ANOTHER insanely easy question?

What color is the sky in a libertarian world? Blue.

Duh.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Is a libertarian government going to enforce it's rules with a gun in the face or a sternly worded letter?

Here's the question again Rush.
You have spouted off at great length about government enforcement of the laws of the land as being a "gun in the face" but have offered no acceptable alternatives.

How would a libertarian government enforce it's own rules?

You rarely, if ever, ask. You just want to proclaim your slogans without ever really considering anything else.

The same way any other gov't does. With police, courts, the legal system, and the rule of law. How else would ANY gov't do it?

Except that there would be principles behind the much fewer laws. Your precious working people would not be forced to pay for War in Iraq, AIG, bailouts, corporate welfare, the CIA, the NSA or any of that crap. If a CEO, CFO, board or whoever, runs it's company so that it goes bankrupt, who takes the loss? THEY DO. Not the taxpayers. Not your precious working people. The people that took the risk lose, and no one else does.

You seemed to have missed the point that the "gun in the face" IS GOV'T FORCE. It's gov't force NO MATTER WHAT TYPE OF GOV'T uses it. But the point is not that ALL gov't force wrong the point is that it's OK for the gov't to use force against you, when you have initiated force or fraud against someone else because you are impinging on their freedom. It is NOT OK for the gov't to do so to make you pay for wars all around the world and corporate welfare.

I don't know where you guys get the idea that some people advocate a "government" that isn't a gov't at all.

"Look look! I found a quote! I found a quote! It doesn't quite say what I think it says, but it's proof that these people want a gov't without rules or laws or taxes or anything!!! They're all anarchists!!"

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

In other words...with a gun in the face.

All I can "clam" is what I read in their policies.

I don't know why you seem to think socialism is such a swear word.
You have many socialist programs working for you at this moment, things such as police departments, fire dept's, schools, insurance plans, water and sewer to name a few.

If you think that I'm going to be offended, you're crazier than Whiplash Willy.

PS: I truly wish Obama were a socialist...but he ain't.