I really only had two points to what I said. The first point was that @Monderegal was incapable of even framing a position on so-called "economics". He's like trying to pin down the precise location of an electron at any given point in time - like a nebulous cloud of truncated possibilities which goes nowhere.Cannonpointer » 12 Mar 2024, 12:19 pm » wrote: ↑ Careful, son. You've gone to a lot of trouble establishing yourself as a neocon cold warrior fox fed fool who can be counted on by the war machine to make the right ape sounds at the right moment and side with the MIC reliably.
You start talking like a populist and you'll find yourself kicking through the walls of tautologies and dichotomies that bring comfort to the lazy-minded...
You'll have to build a new house - a whole new ideasphere!!!
Well, if we can agree that the vast majority of regulations are sponsored by wall street to hurt free enterprise and enforce capitalism, we might just find ourselves in agreement - and I will have a hat to consume. Glad it's leather - at least it's made of critter.Skans » 12 Mar 2024, 12:31 pm » wrote: ↑ I really only had two points to what I said. The first point was that @Monderegal was incapable of even framing a position on so-called "economics". He's like trying to pin down the precise location of an electron at any given point in time - like a nebulous cloud of truncated possibilities which goes nowhere.
My second point was the Economy of 2024 is a nearly impossible one in which most young Americans can thrive. A few lucky sperms will thrive. Many will just tread water their entire lives. Others can only tread water for a short period of time, until they realize they are penniless and then drown. And, still others are forever debt-ridden servants moving in and out of homelessness and despair, never to surface from the great pool of suffocation.
Socialism and handouts will not fix this. We have to jump back to genuine prosperity. Less government. Less Regulation. A place were most people feel invested in their own lives and in America. Yes, more dirt, grime, grease, grit and C02.
I do not disagree with any of your above statements. I HATE drug-pushers for what they have done.Cannonpointer » 12 Mar 2024, 12:31 pm » wrote: ↑ We did that. We build scores of prisons - to do that.
So we ARE in agreement.
You are NOT with the drug pushers - at least, not wittingly.
That is a start.
Right now, criminals control who buys drugs, where and when and under what conditions. And I don't know whether you're aware of this, but criminals actually give out free samples. Criminals are not in the business of SATISFYING the market; they are in the business of CREATING the market.
Oh, you want to go there with booze, let's go there. I call "****" on your theory. The theory that legitimate, legal competition eradicated addiction caused by "illegal gangs". A-B, Coors, Miller, Pabst, Yuengling, Stitzel, Frankfort Distilleries, Glenore, Old Forester, Schenley and many other booze-makers survived and thrived during prohibition, only to come out as the dominant players in Beer and Whisky markets. Furthermore, the southern corn-liquor makers simply legitimized their operations adding to the huge bourbon and whisky powerhouses of America.If we had one generation of children who were NOT approached by criminals, we would be back to the 1950s. .....Just look at booze.
I have 2 mason jars of "home-made" liquor, that a friend gave me. Around here, it ain't all that uncommon.How many people do you know who have even TASTED bootleg liquor
LOL - "voluntary treatment for addiction"!!! How long will that last when the Mega-Drug makers are pouring huge donations of cash and cocaine into every Congressman, President, Governor and state legislatures? Who the F- will want to treat addiction when they can make farm more money feeding addiction.....AND CONTROLLING THE ADDICTED?Black markets do not exist in any statistically meaningful way, when a legitimate market is available. With all of the real money going to state-regulated drug stores, the black market for drugs would become statistically meaningless. And the taxes collected from drug sales - and the monies saved on prisons - would more than pay for voluntary treatment for addiction.
You mean like they do to Big Pharma? Big Tech? Social Media? How has that worked out for us? Is your legislator doing a good job of regulating these industries? Will your legislator do a good job of regulating Cocaine Inc., when she is receiving mega campaign donations and all the cocaine she can ingest? Boy, you have a real kindhearted trust and awe for your Legislators, don't you!Mind you, I said legalize, tax, AND regulate.
Keep telling yourself that. Once the Legislators are flush with cash and high as crack-*** on a Saturday night, I can see them working tirelessly for "tight regulation" on Meth, Fentanyl, or whatever the most addictive drug of the day will be. You have such confidence in our government and our deep-state "regulators". Freaking laughable.Clearly, the more dangerous drugs like meth would be more tightly regulated.
While I do not believe regulators are "sponsored" by Wall Street, I do believe that K Street and Wall Street have a bit of a revolving door going on.Cannonpointer » 12 Mar 2024, 12:37 pm » wrote: ↑ Well, if we can agree that the vast majority of regulations are sponsored by wall street to hurt free enterprise and enforce capitalism, we might just find ourselves in agreement - and I will have a hat to consume. Glad it's leather - at least it's made of critter.
How much do you and BCF need to feel worthy?Mrkelly » 11 Mar 2024, 5:32 pm » wrote: ↑ and neither side has done a damn this about it
just crumbs and lip service
I got mine
The sad thing isn't really the income levels. It's the fact Americans are sold on spending all their income. Even more with credit cards.Skans » 12 Mar 2024, 12:31 pm » wrote: ↑ I really only had two points to what I said. The first point was that @Monderegal was incapable of even framing a position on so-called "economics". He's like trying to pin down the precise location of an electron at any given point in time - like a nebulous cloud of truncated possibilities which goes nowhere.
My second point was the Economy of 2024 is a nearly impossible one in which most young Americans can thrive. A few lucky sperms will thrive. Many will just tread water their entire lives. Others can only tread water for a short period of time, until they realize they are penniless and then drown. And, still others are forever debt-ridden servants moving in and out of homelessness and despair, never to surface from the great pool of suffocation.
Socialism and handouts will not fix this. We have to jump back to genuine prosperity. Less government. Less Regulation. A place were most people feel invested in their own lives and in America. Yes, more dirt, grime, grease, grit and C02.
There are lots of "sad things". One is the economy. An economy that fails to foster individual success. Culturally, yes Americans spend too much of what income they do make. They fail to start saving and investing at an early age. In fact, Parents should be setting up investment accounts for their children as soon as they are born. Teach them how to manage it and eventually how to contribute to it on their own. How to WANT to contribute to it.Monderegal » 12 Mar 2024, 1:32 pm » wrote: ↑ The sad thing isn't really the income levels. It's the fact Americans are sold on spending all their income. Even more with credit cards.
The Heisenberg thing was generated by AI. I think that what you were referring to.Skans » 12 Mar 2024, 1:36 pm » wrote: ↑ There are lots of "sad things". One is the economy. An economy that fails to foster individual success. Culturally, yes Americans spend too much of what income they do make. They fail to start saving and investing at an early age. In fact, Parents should be setting up investment accounts for their children as soon as they are born. Teach them how to manage it and eventually how to contribute to it on their own. How to WANT to contribute to it.
It used to be a $100k household income and a million net worth, that doesn't cut it anymore.