Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

Intrest rates artificially low? My credit union said our underwriters are willing to loan you such an ammount and they would like this interest in return. The cause of the bubble was banks selling a product as opposed to doing their due diligence and checking to make sure their clients could handle adjustable rate mortgages. Or the fact that investors drove the prices so high that the only way people could afford homes was with creative financing. The bank selling their product would give the advice of "don't worry, your home is only going to go up in value, and you will refinance in five years anyway." I came very near buying a one bedroom that costed twice what I payed for my three bedroom, but I did not feel comfortable with the loans they were selling at the time. I knew it was a bubble then. Everyone would get upset when I would say it was one. When the median income of an area cannot afford to get a median priced home with a twenty year fixed loan, you know there is a bubble. Now, people will maintain that we are in a recession, but the reality is that we are at normal levels. We were in a recession. Everyone's credit dried up, and they could no longer cover their credit card debt with a home equity loan. People cut back on their spending as a result. Goods wern't moving. Hotels were empty. I was talking with a customer of mine, he took a road trip to San Francisco. He could not fond a room in San Francisco, Oakland, or Alameda. He was buying a new autopilot for his boat. A lot of people have been buying autopilots. And radars. And luxury yacht tenders. Our store is having a good year. Is it as good as 2005? Not quite, we have adjusted for that. But it is pretty darn close. The difference is how people are paying for it. People are saving up for their things now. There are jobs out there, even with all of the regulations. Your guy in India will have no problem finding a better job than the asbestos mines. Most people who lost their crummy factory jobs find better jobs with better wages and much better quality of work life. Will he have a rough patch in between? Sure, I've been there. Then life moves onward and upward. The asbestos mine closing is really a blessing in disguise for him. The mine owners probibly kept him indebted to them so as to keep him working there, and fed him lies that there were no other jobs out there. Now it is real easy to say that regulations inhibit growth. But just as no raindrop believes it is the cause of the flood, if those regulations were not there there would be a flood of problems, just as there were in early industrial cities.

Going back to the Shell Oil debacle. The government in question was put in place by Shell, a company. The puppet government that was in place at the time had ALL of it's strings pulled by Shell. I'm not saying there is no corruption in government, again Amnesty International cured me of that delusion. What I am saying, is thataticipation in government is an important way to cure that, and not supporting companies that induce the corruption. I think Jeff Foxworthy said politicians should be like NASCAR drivers, and have their sponsors logos all over their suits. It would be troubling when both candidates have a Monsanto logo across their back... Anyways, governments are far from perfect, but it sure beats the alternative.

Well I am claiming I am not. So it is up to you to prove that I am, otherwise it can be assumed it is just a baseless claim. I could go back and point out the many detailed explainations that I have made with no response on your part, and claim you too were cherry picking.


You stated "fact" and "figures" from one article, that I am claiming was wrong (The premise at least is wrong) . So it will be up to me to provide evidence of why I believe it is wrong.
"Trying libertarian style" ? That sounds like a "position". The world is not so black and white you know.

Is it? Please read below and then tell me that China has not been moving towards being significantly more capitalist over the last few decades..



Doesn't communism forbid private ownership of the means of production ?
And yet right now I could set up a business in China. I have in fact directly dealt with many privately owned companies in China myself. This is NOT communist.
Maybe you should have mentioned North Korea or Cuba... although they are not really economic powerhouses are they ? They don't have millions of people comming out of poverty with a rapidly growing middle class.
The middle class doesn't even exist under communism.
Privately owned companies that sell goods for profit certainly do not. It is these privately owned companies that produce the goods to sell all over the world that make China the economic powerhouse it is today.

If your wack job fantasy become main stream I'm starting the revolution,I'm sure the starving asbestos workers and the guys with one kidney have got nothing to lose.
First people strung up are the Libertarian t shirt factory owners and asbestos mine owners.
We then get their money and redistribute it and increase taxation and the majority have a better life.

Thank you for your valuable contribution to the thread Snags.
If there is something in particular you don't understand feel free to let me know and I can explain it.

None of this is my idea you realise. The libertarian idea has been in the forefront of political debate for many years. (You won't know this if you get all your news from TV though)
The US constitution is based on libertarian principles (even though it wasnt called that) Do you understand the economic and political climate at the time the constitution was drafted ?

Your picture simply illustrates how Reagan was NOT a free maket advocate.
His speeches suggested he supported the free market, his actions however did not.

Sorry... SV... but the US was founded on puritan principles... and there's never been a free market... anymore than "libertarian" ideas have been at the forefront of political debate...

I'ts fantasy... a nice fantasy.... in the same kind of vein as marxist utopia....

Are you saying Thomas Jefferson was a Puritan ?
Do you know what was famous for ?

The market then was much more free than today with minimal taxes and regulations.
In the western world the markets are the most "free" which is part of what makes "western"

Jefferson understood all to well the evil in unrestricted government

Federalist papers are very important part of our Constitution. Individuality is the key here. Different people have different talents and different drives, so the outcomes will benefit not only themselves but also many others. And yes, when the rich people buy yats, airplains, and everything else that they buy, it will benefit many people who build the stuff. That is the trickled down economy mean!


Unfortunatly, the Association of Bank Owners with it's head being the Rothschilds family of bankers who owns most of the free world news agencies have done such a great job of brain washing minds of people all over the free world [ what free world? oh well you know what I mean. ].

Most Americans are not informed about Rothschild families and their banking practices, and how they have been controlling the Association of Bank Owners which includes the FEDs.
They have used divide and conquer methodology to keep us separate as Democrats, Republicans, Black, White, Hispanics and etc in this country, and the same methods have been applied in Europe to keep masses of people uninformed about what they have done to all of us.
The representative that G. Edward Griffin mentioned; got all the Banker's agents invited to Jekyll Island and united them to create the FEDs, was agent of Rothschild family.

Here is another very educational youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJy4gSG8Q3w

Nope... and the "constitution" wasn't drawn by the puritans... but many of the founding values of the US were... and the thread still runs through even modern thought


It may well have been... before "business" and government were essentially formed... and got into bed with one another...


Bullocks.... "western" markets have never been free... indeed history shows that not only was there a distinct inter-twining, to lesser or greater extent... between church, state, and financiers...

But the whole "western" world dominance... in terms of colonisation, empircal, and economic dominance... was a direct result of the unholy trinity of the above....

And that hasn't changed... except perhaps for the shift in relative power ebtween the three forces through periods of history....

And the last century sure as hell hasn't seen a single instance of a "free" market.... it's baloney....

Ok, I don't know much about that.
I was referring to how the constitution is clearly anti big government (and central banking, which is govt controlled) and for very good reason.


The reason why people like Jefferson wanted to restrict the Federal govt from ever doing more than protecting the life and liberty of the individual


I didn't say free, I said "most free" which they are.

The western world is rich because of capitalism, hard work and entrepreneurial skill.
As far as colonisation and imperialism goes, I completely agree.
Then of course is the US dollar as the world currency thing, also greatly giving the US economic power over the world.


Do you agree Rupe that individuals in countries with greater economic freedom are better off than in those that have lesser ?

Well perhaps the illusion of being free and better off is more embraced in countries with greater "economic freedom".... but is it really anything more than an illusion??... often a tailored illusion... whereas in countries with "less" freedom.... the illusion is less, and the tailoring greater???

I mean to say... what are you defining when you say "greater economic freedom"... compared to what???.... and better off.. in terms of what???

If you believe your own postulation... then your argument has less merit than you expouse... because they're be less need for what you argue....

The Western world is richer -because- of regulations, not despite them, IMO.

Might as well go all the way back, I was watching a Michael Wood documentary this weekend about Mesopotamia, and there was a line about the strong oppressing the weak that reminded me of this thread.

Inequality (and desire/need for regulation of it) goes way back:


http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Iraq.html

I suppose Libertarian means pre-Hammurabi.

I think today this might be true to some degree but there is certainly vast differences around the world.
So you don't think Australians are better off or more free than those under extremely oppresive governments?


I don't think economic freedom is subjective, maybe just poorly defined
along the lines of:
ease of starting a business
ease of trade with other countries
lack of government regulations
most importantly:
enforcement of private property
enforcement of contracts

Bettery off in terms of:
quality of life (the "poor" in western countries have TVs, in africa they are starving. The poor are on welfare, which is funded by the working class)
freedom
life expectancy (perhaps)
literacy
lower infant mortality

Hence the reason why I say this just keeps going around and around in circles.... Now you are trying to argue that China is not a communist country?

China is communist, check any references and they will tell you this..

Doesn't bode well with your economic theories that businesses can't run well under controls. China has some of the strictest controls in the world as many communist countries do, yet they are about to become the largest economy in the world......

EB what constitutes a communist country ?
You didn't read my post at all.

Private ownership of the means of production is NOT communist.
The ability to start your own business and sell stuff for profit is NOT communist.
These are fundamental requirements for capitalism.

Following your logic if a country were to change from communism to capitalism it would have to happen overnight. No transition or middle ground exists...

I'm not sure if I can be any clearer.