The failure of the Monitary system

**Kirkendall 1st MRB** · September 7, 2010

Anyhow, the 'dollar' used to actually 'hold value', because the 'federal reserve' (which is about as 'federal' as federal express - it's a privately owned company that our government pays interest to for all money printed, despite the fact our government could print it's own cash but chooses not to - intelligent right?) had to be held accountable for every dollar printed, and report it to the American public. This gave people (and countries) a good idea on how much currency was in circulation at any given moment, how much was being printed, thus adding a more statistically relevant 'value' to our money. Bush signed into effect some bills and they no longer have to do that - which lends itself to making the stability of the 'dollar' very unstable.
They can print as much as they want, without having to report how much was printed. So how much is in circulation? Well, some people probably know, but it no longer has to be 'public record' or reported or what have you. This lends itself to much more 'speculation' relating to our currencies 'worth'.

Hey, wrong! Take a look at the Bretton Woods System which is basically stating that we had to be able to exchange those dollars for gold when prompted. However, this was taken out of office by the jolly old President Nixon, during an economic downturn and scare. This also leads in that The Federal Reserve does not print our money! Shenanigans! The money we use is printed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, more specifically, The United States Mint and The United States Bureau of Engraving and Printing. After the "Nixon Shock" the Federal Reserve opted into the job of regulating the U.S. Dollar. The Fed down there does not produce the money, they distribute and regulate it. We are always aware of how many of those dollars are flowing, it's the government who decides it! What the Federal Reserve did was decide that "The Phillips Curve" (Basically, whenever unemployment is low, inflation tends to be high) is a truth we should all recognize. Meaning they decided because of this evidence that inflation is really a benign force. Because they misunderstood the destruction caused by inflation, the Dollar took a huge hit. Between the mid 60s and the early 80s, the Dollar lost roughly two-thirds its value! Fun stuff? Anyways, all of what you said doesn't make much sense. Especially because the Federal Reserve is a government regulated and owned establishment. As stipulated in the Banking Act of 1936, the President appoints the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, as well as the 6 other persons on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Currently the Big Fed man is Ben Bernanke, appointed by President Bush, and nominated for another go by President Obama. See the United States Code! And go look at some other economic law books! My favorite part of those dusty tomes? The part where they must report to Congress twice a year on their decisions! Accountabillabuddies!

I've got blisters on me fingers!

Edited September 7, 2010 by Kirkendall 1st MRB

**Goodwin 1st MRB** · September 7, 2010

Hey, wrong! Take a look at the Bretton Woods System which is basically stating that we had to be able to exchange those dollars for gold when prompted. However, this was taken out of office by the jolly old President Nixon, during an economic downturn and scare. This also leads in that The Federal Reserve does not print our money! Shenanigans! The money we use is printed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, more specifically, The United States Mint and The United States Bureau of Engraving and Printing. After the "Nixon Shock" the Federal Reserve opted into the job of regulating the U.S. Dollar. The Fed down there does not produce the money, they distribute and regulate it. We are always aware of how many of those dollars are flowing, it's the government who decides it! What the Federal Reserve did was decide that "The Phillips Curve" (Basically, whenever unemployment is low, inflation tends to be high) is a truth we should all recognize. Meaning they decided because of this evidence that inflation is really a benign force. Because they misunderstood the destruction caused by inflation, the Dollar took a huge hit. Between the mid 60s and the early 80s, the Dollar lost roughly two-thirds its value! Fun stuff? Anyways, all of what you said doesn't make much sense. Especially because the Federal Reserve is a government regulated and owned establishment. As stipulated in the Banking Act of 1936, the President appoints the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, as well as the 6 other persons on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Currently the Big Fed man is Ben Bernanke, appointed by President Bush, and nominated for another go by President Obama. See the United States Code! And go look at some other economic law books! My favorite part of those dusty tomes? The part where they must report to Congress twice a year on their decisions! Accountabillabuddies!
I've got blisters on me fingers!

- Sure - it's a trailer so it's edited to show some interesting stuff, but the whole video is quite good as well.

Also, the Federal Reserve is a private corporation. Why are we allowing a private corporation (who's goal is to benefit it's owners) to regulate our dollar? Just tell me why.

Also Federal Reserve notes - which are backed by assets, are LARGELY backed by the power of congress to lay tax. Income tax? That thing that there is no real 'law' to? Awesome.

The fact that there's a private institution holding such a huge amount of power - and I'm supposed to believe that this private corporation is solely concerned about the citizens of this country and not about their own wallet? Come on.

Also, you never addressed the fact that Bush wrote into law that the Federal Reserve NO LONGER (forget the dusty tomes) has to report to Congress twice a year. That is no longer. There was a lot of uproar about that at the time, but it slipped under quite a few radars. Can't have the people realizing what's going down you know. Yes, he got rid of that 'accountabillabuddies'.

**Costa 1st MRB** · September 7, 2010

- Sure - it's a trailer so it's edited to show some interesting stuff, but the whole video is quite good as well.
Also, the Federal Reserve is a private corporation. Why are we allowing a private corporation (who's goal is to benefit it's owners) to regulate our dollar? Just tell me why.
Also Federal Reserve notes - which are backed by assets, are LARGELY backed by the power of congress to lay tax. Income tax? That thing that there is no real 'law' to? Awesome.
The fact that there's a private institution holding such a huge amount of power - and I'm supposed to believe that this private corporation is solely concerned about the citizens of this country and not about their own wallet? Come on.
Also, you never addressed the fact that Bush wrote into law that the Federal Reserve NO LONGER (forget the dusty tomes) has to report to Congress twice a year. That is no longer. There was a lot of uproar about that at the time, but it slipped under quite a few radars. Can't have the people realizing what's going down you know. Yes, he got rid of that 'accountabillabuddies'.

Please, give us reputable links to back your claims. And no, conspiracy theory videos do not count.

**Kirkendall 1st MRB** · September 7, 2010

- Sure - it's a trailer so it's edited to show some interesting stuff, but the whole video is quite good as well.
Also, the Federal Reserve is a private corporation. Why are we allowing a private corporation (who's goal is to benefit it's owners) to regulate our dollar? Just tell me why.
Also Federal Reserve notes - which are backed by assets, are LARGELY backed by the power of congress to lay tax. Income tax? That thing that there is no real 'law' to? Awesome.
The fact that there's a private institution holding such a huge amount of power - and I'm supposed to believe that this private corporation is solely concerned about the citizens of this country and not about their own wallet? Come on.
Also, you never addressed the fact that Bush wrote into law that the Federal Reserve NO LONGER (forget the dusty tomes) has to report to Congress twice a year. That is no longer. There was a lot of uproar about that at the time, but it slipped under quite a few radars. Can't have the people realizing what's going down you know. Yes, he got rid of that 'accountabillabuddies'.

*Cough cough*

"The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects." (As just about every section of the government has!)

"Under the Federal Banking Agency Audit Act (enacted in 1978 as Public Law 95-320), which authorizes the Comptroller General of the United States to audit the Federal Reserve System, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has conducted numerous reviews of Federal Reserve activities."

Harrumph.

Linky!

Wait a minute here.

Income tax? That thing that there is no real 'law' to?

This is a very confusing statement/question. Because I'm lazy, Wikipedia! Ratified in 1913! Or, if you want to go back further Wiki Provides! The DeLorean takes us back to 1861!

As Costa has aptly pointed out, I've linked my information, link yours. Please no more videos taking police training and take-downs out of context to evoke fear of an overly powerful government. Granted, my second latest linky was directly to the Fed's website. And in their Evil ways they have twisted all of this to make themselves seem like a partially public, partially private division of the government. Like every other division of the government. Stop thread-jacking, this was initially about abolishing the monetary system, and you're spouting conspiracies not linked to the initial argument.

Edited September 7, 2010 by Kirkendall 1st MRB

**Dillon 1st MRB** · September 7, 2010

What the OP is looking at is creating some sort of a system of worth that gives value to items without any sort of wealth. However, there isn't a practical way in which to do this aside from an international agreement (dare I say one-world government?). That does not mean that some sort of Utopia cannot be desired. It just isn't attainable. The issue here is that humans tend to be ambitious (greedy).

Here are the hurdles to overcome:

1. Compensation for work - How can this be done?

2. Education - With unequal education, what is the incentive for furthering education? We could end up with a world of janitors. It would sure be a clean world, though. How would the compensation for a head janitor differ from someone who just started? If it is the same, why be a head janitor?

3. What about people who choose to do no work? Let them die?

4. Or what about people who cannot work? Off with their heads.

5. What happens to current personal debt?

6. Or national debt? Lord help us.

Unfortunately, there has to be some sort of representation of worth. Your own examples show what you value. But what if someone who (while important) does not value a house or a car? What then? Is the choice of their compensation to be removed from them? It just cannot be done.

As for a removal of paper money, it just won't work. Ancient Japan based their money system on koku's of rice - 1 koku would feed one family for a year. So were an exchange to be made of 3 koku for a car, would all 990 pounds of rice need to be delivered? Or would 3 banknotes suffice?

That isn't to say there aren't problems with the current monetary system/policy. Thanks to the The problem with the current monetary system has some flaws:

1. US currency was built upon the gold standard. The prior standard was silver. There are a couple of problems here. These metals aren't terribly as rare as was once thought.

2. Governments now print more paper money than there is precious metals to support.

3. There are no repercussions to governments who print more money than they have in reserve.

What is needed is a currency revaluation. Scrapping the whole system would ruin the worlds' economies.

**Goodwin 1st MRB** · September 7, 2010

*Cough cough*
"The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects." (As just about every section of the government has!)
"Under the Federal Banking Agency Audit Act (enacted in 1978 as Public Law 95-320), which authorizes the Comptroller General of the United States to audit the Federal Reserve System, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has conducted numerous reviews of Federal Reserve activities."
Harrumph.
Linky!

Why would they be honest about what they really are?

Also, the Federal Reserve has the power given to it to coin money, and set it's value. Why? There are plenty of reasons why they should NOT have that power (listed towards the end of the article)

Wait a minute here.
This is a very confusing statement/question. Because I'm lazy, Wikipedia! Ratified in 1913! Or, if you want to go back further Wiki Provides! The DeLorean takes us back to 1861!
As Costa has aptly pointed out, I've linked my information, link yours. Please no more videos taking police training and take-downs out of context to evoke fear of an overly powerful government. Granted, my second latest linky was directly to the Fed's website. And in their Evil ways they have twisted all of this to make themselves seem like a partially public, partially private division of the government. Like every other division of the government. Stop thread-jacking, this was initially about abolishing the monetary system, and you're spouting conspiracies not linked to the initial argument.

If you just saw the 'fear evoking' stuff in the video - you didn't listen to some of the facts listed therein. The director (Aaron Russo) has made a couple documentaries on various aspects of the government, and is pretty well known for doing his research and approaching these things in a well documented manner. I'm sorry that because the video says things you don't like you refuse to have the open mindedness to entertain the ideas therein. America: Freedom to Facism, is not some 'conspiracy video', it's a legitimate documentary that asks a lot of questions - and is worth a watch (with an open mind). It directly deals with the Sixteenth amendment, the IRS, and the Federal Reserve. He did far more research than I'd be willing to do for a simple forum post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Russo

Regardless, I guess you're right - this would be best left for another thread entirely.

**Costa 1st MRB** · September 7, 2010

Why would they be honest about what they really are?
Also, the Federal Reserve has the power given to it to coin money, and set it's value. Why? There are plenty of reasons why they should NOT have that power (listed towards the end of the article)

Not to derail this thread for too much longer but that article proves nothing.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

Seeing as how she didn't cite anything, this whole thing could have been her twisting small facts into a blown out story. Hell the site itself says they are not responsible for any made up shit that is posted. So this is not a reputable source.

And for Aaron Russo's article, that doesn't make him look any more credible when he is well known for producing films and TV shows.

**Goodwin 1st MRB** · September 7, 2010

Not to derail this thread for too much longer but that article proves nothing.
Seeing as how she didn't cite anything, this whole thing could have been her twisting small facts into a blown out story. Hell the site itself says they are not responsible for any made up shit that is posted. So this is not a reputable source.
And for Aaron Russo's article, that doesn't make him look any more credible when he is well known for producing films and TV shows.

Well, one could go on to say that websites themselves are for the most part entirely lacking credibility - as a lot of shit can get posted pretty much anywhere.

Wiki itself doesn't claim responsibility for any made up shit that is posted - yet you claim them as a reputable source. Pot, calling all kettles...

IF there were documented citations, listing numerous books - would you take the time to hit the library to look it up? Most likely not, so what's the difference?

Regardless, you can go elsewhere on the great interwebs and find other information (from much more credible sources I would assume - possibly up to your standards) that say the same things I won't post them now because A) I fear further derailment of thread, and I'm at work. Of course, my guess is that if they say those things - you'll refute their credibility on that merit alone.

Also re: Russo, what does what he's produced in the past have to do with the factual merit of a documentary? Nothing actually - so the fact that you're questioning his credibility only on the fact that he's 'produced films and tv shows' proves what? That he's an established director who understands what it is to work behind a camera and direct scenes? How does that have ANY effect on the factual merit of the CONTENT of what was produced? It has NO effect. The logic behind that statement is completely unfounded, and proves that as I said originally, you simply don't like what he has to say and the facts he presents.

Regardless... back to the original idea.

**Kirkendall 1st MRB** · September 7, 2010

Wiki itself doesn't claim responsibility for any made up shit that is posted - yet you claim them as a reputable source.

No one has claimed them as a reputable source. I expected someone arguing about this to know the Constitution. I used Wikipedia because it was easier then finding a .gov or .edu to post. But here, since you apparently cannot recognize the Constitution: Cornell Institute, National Archives

You didn't even address how the 16th Amendment isn't law you just rode it off as I haven't watched his obscure video. Apparently the Constitution isn't the law of the land when it suits you? All of the 'facts' in his preview were overridden by the fact that the 16th Amendment exists. They show snips of interviews saying there is no legal precedent for income tax, the 16th Amendment isn't precedent? You watch that preview and tell me it's not looking to appeal to emotions over the facts and I know you're lying. The video shows injuries that look to be caused by police brutality, people being shoved around by the government. Police officers training on a shooting range. Images intended to put into your head that these people want to hurt you.

You show me Ellen Brown, some person I don't know talking about something I don't know why I should listen to her. So I show you Scott Moore, a guy who is talking about Russo in the same way Brown talks about this issue. Out his/her ass. Meaning that Scott Moore has about as much appeal to me as Michael Moore. And I hate Michael Moore. Ellen Brown has shown me nothing other than another ignoring the 16th Amendment.

Edited September 7, 2010 by Kirkendall 1st MRB

**Goodwin 1st MRB** · September 7, 2010

No one has claimed them as a reputable source. I expected someone arguing about this to know the Constitution. I used Wikipedia because it was easier then finding a .gov or .edu to post. But here, since you apparently cannot recognize the Constitution: Cornell Institute, National Archives
You didn't even address how the 16th Amendment isn't law you just rode it off as I haven't watched his obscure video. Apparently the Constitution isn't the law of the land when it suits you? All of the 'facts' in his preview were overridden by the fact that the 16th Amendment exists. They show snips of interviews saying there is no legal precedent for income tax, the 16th Amendment isn't precedent? You watch that preview and tell me it's not looking to appeal to emotions over the facts and I know you're lying. The video shows injuries that look to be caused by police brutality, people being shoved around by the government. Police officers training on a shooting range. Images intended to put into your head that these people want to hurt you.
You show me Ellen Brown, some person I don't know talking about something I don't know why I should listen to her. So I show you Scott Moore, a guy who is talking about Russo in the same way Brown talks about this issue. Out his/her ass. Meaning that Scott Moore has about as much appeal to me as Michael Moore. And I hate Michael Moore. Ellen Brown has shown me nothing other than another ignoring the 16th Amendment.

I'll concede the point regarding the constitution and income tax.

However - I still stand behind my information regarding the Federal Reserve. However, I feel debating that whole subject is a little like debating Area 51, or the JFK assassination. Just asking to open a can of worms that's not intended for this thread (nor is it a can of worms any of us can truly answer with any certainty or 'facts')

And yes, our government was in on JFK!

**Kirkendall 1st MRB** · September 7, 2010

I'll concede the point regarding the constitution and income tax.
However - I still stand behind my information regarding the Federal Reserve. However, I feel debating that whole subject is a little like debating Area 51, or the JFK assassination. Just asking to open a can of worms that's not intended for this thread (nor is it a can of worms any of us can truly answer with any certainty or 'facts')
And yes, our government was in on JFK!

I admit I went a little overboard after I was reading on Russo and I found he's one of the 9/11 conspiracy types. That doesn't sit well with me in any situation. :blink:

(I wouldn't dare debate the JFK assassination, it's far from what I consider a forte )

Edited September 7, 2010 by Kirkendall 1st MRB

**Ford 1st MRB** · September 7, 2010

I concur with all previous statements.

Just call me Switzerland.

**Goodwin 1st MRB** · September 7, 2010

I admit I went a little overboard after I was reading on Russo and I found he's one of the 9/11 conspiracy types. That doesn't sit well with me in any situation.
(I wouldn't dare debate the JFK assassination, it's far from what I consider a forte )

Often I find myself playing devil's advocate just because I enjoy some debate

Re: JFK, I did take an entire semesters worth of a class which focused about 90% of it's study on the JFK assassination specifically.

The class was called "The History of Assassinations of American Presidents" - it was pretty darn amazing in all respects.

**Lamey** · September 8, 2010

Our current monetary system is failing terribly - and it started when money became just 'a piece of paper', and we stopped requiring there to be some sort of value tied to it.
We've dug our own hole with this, and it's a damned terrible shame. Not like having to bail out our own banks wasn't a big huge red blinking "YOU FAIL" sign to American banks, but oh well.
That said - others have pointed out the shortcomings of this communist 'twist', so I won't get into it.
But no one can say we're really 'better off' than anyone else with our current system, at least people have the mind to put forth thoughts on these things and not be so 'in the box' as the majority of citizens who rely on banks (who are giant failures mind you) for 99% of their everyday life.
Where else do you find people who have options, but continue to put their trust in companies who are in the business of money, and can't even keep their own finances in order?

Yes, This statement is just merely how I'm thinking. I threw out an opinion with a twist and saw the error's in it and now can agree that it probably wouldn't work.

But at the same time I don't agree with the system we are in, it doesn't work it has truly failed and I'm just seeking maybe an alternative option to life without twisting things around TOO much

as the common person can't handle a great deal of change rapidly.

**Morton** · September 8, 2010

The reason we have the monetary system is.... wait for it.... wait for it... is because it WORKS. and it's been working since at least 1750 BC. Back before money they had to barter. Which is ineffective because it depends on what the buyer and seller wants, and leads to a discrepancy in the cost. With money, you know EXACTLY how much something will cost you. And if you look at it from a new perspective, your idea just replaced paper money, with "work owed." This would allow someone who say owns a lot of land to sell it in exchange for labor. So instead of x dollars for a house its now x labor owed for a house. Same system, different name.

So lamey, if your car works would you trade it in for a horse? If your PC runs, are you going to trade it in for a slide rule? Your idea was taking a concept that worked for THOUSANDS of years, and replacing it with something that is highly inefficient. Sure it could be better, but we need to reform it, fix it, not throw it out.

And why is that when leftist people get in a debate and people say, "no that's a dumb idea" then proceed to give good reasons, you then go and insult the people with, "well i guess man is too dumb to change rapidly." or "only idiots fail to see how right I am" It is almost like you assume an elitist view while at the same time the left says they are the champion of the people and calls the right the elitist...

Edited September 8, 2010 by Morton 1st MRB

nick.cameo · September 8, 2010

COMMUNISM!

SOCIALISM!

Ya'll are saying that this is such a terrible idea. You are saying we have to have money because its been around so long. The government handing you rewards for labor isn't such a crazy idea.

I'd say everyone here supports the military. The military is a program that you pay for through your labor (the taxes). Everyone in this country enjoys the benefit of feeling protected by the best military in the world. Where am I going with this, you may be asking? The federal government can run national defense effectively. I don't think anyone here would be comfortable with a capitalist corporation taking care of our national defense needs. Sure, private security can be helpful and more efficient in terms of cost than our own military but their loyalty lies with the money.

There are many federal programs (infrastucture, communications, utilities, emergency services) that we take for granted. These programs work. They might not be the most efficient monetarily, but we know they have our best interests at heart.

Not to be offensive, but let's assume that Dr. Kirkendall is a practicing physician in the United States. He seems to be a happy capitalist. Where is he going to work? He gets an offer in Houston Texas to work at a clinic that deals with a lot of poor and possibly illegal immigrants. The pay isn't very good, but the demand for a physician is high. He also gets an offer to be a partner in a florida retirement community. The pay is substantially more, but that community has a high percentage of doctors. He will choose Florida (ignoring family, friends, climate preference etc.) because he's a capitalist. Most of you are probably thinking the same thing.

But what if that better offer is in Germany or France? We lose a valuable resource overseas.

If the respectable doctor knew that doing similar work in Houston or Florida would give him similar recompense, he wouldn't really have a preference. Ideally, our citizens would use their talents to the best of their abilities where they would do the most good. Kinda sound like the military doesn't it?

You won't see a genius doing grunt work in the military for long. He'll be promoted and moved to where command thinks he does the best work. And he'll do it, under the penalty of court martial.

Sure there are problems with the military, but if you move the focus from the amount of money you get for a task to the benefit to society, you become a compassionate patriot.

GMoney BAR · September 8, 2010

COMMUNISM!
SOCIALISM!
Ya'll are saying that this is such a terrible idea. You are saying we have to have money because its been around so long. The government handing you rewards for labor isn't such a crazy idea.
I'd say everyone here supports the military. The military is a program that you pay for through your labor (the taxes). Everyone in this country enjoys the benefit of feeling protected by the best military in the world. Where am I going with this, you may be asking? The federal government can run national defense effectively. I don't think anyone here would be comfortable with a capitalist corporation taking care of our national defense needs. Sure, private security can be helpful and more efficient in terms of cost than our own military but their loyalty lies with the money.
There are many federal programs (infrastucture, communications, utilities, emergency services) that we take for granted. These programs work. They might not be the most efficient monetarily, but we know they have our best interests at heart.
Not to be offensive, but let's assume that Dr. Kirkendall is a practicing physician in the United States. He seems to be a happy capitalist. Where is he going to work? He gets an offer in Houston Texas to work at a clinic that deals with a lot of poor and possibly illegal immigrants. The pay isn't very good, but the demand for a physician is high. He also gets an offer to be a partner in a florida retirement community. The pay is substantially more, but that community has a high percentage of doctors. He will choose Florida (ignoring family, friends, climate preference etc.) because he's a capitalist. Most of you are probably thinking the same thing.
But what if that better offer is in Germany or France? We lose a valuable resource overseas.
If the respectable doctor knew that doing similar work in Houston or Florida would give him similar recompense, he wouldn't really have a preference. Ideally, our citizens would use their talents to the best of their abilities where they would do the most good. Kinda sound like the military doesn't it?
You won't see a genius doing grunt work in the military for long. He'll be promoted and moved to where command thinks he does the best work. And he'll do it, under the penalty of court martial.
Sure there are problems with the military, but if you move the focus from the amount of money you get for a task to the benefit to society, you become a compassionate patriot.

So I'm confused. You have made good points towards a conservative point of view but your line of communism, socialism you make this sound like a bad idea throws me off. If you believe what you typed then you're most likely a conservative; however if you're all for equal shares then you can't agree with what you typed. Am I missing something because I'm three kinds of confused on where you're coming from here. The "rewards" you mentioned here aren't rewards really. They are more necessities that an industrial nation has to have to survive: military, a good infrastructure, communications, etc. I'm just really confused with the point you're trying to get across.

xnugZz · September 8, 2010

sugar coated shit ...is still shit...

**Dillon 1st MRB** · September 8, 2010

Not to be offensive, but let's assume that Dr. Kirkendall is a practicing physician in the United States. He seems to be a happy capitalist. Where is he going to work? He gets an offer in Houston Texas to work at a clinic that deals with a lot of poor and possibly illegal immigrants. The pay isn't very good, but the demand for a physician is high. He also gets an offer to be a partner in a florida retirement community. The pay is substantially more, but that community has a high percentage of doctors. He will choose Florida (ignoring family, friends, climate preference etc.) because he's a capitalist. Most of you are probably thinking the same thing.
<snip>
If the respectable doctor knew that doing similar work in Houston or Florida would give him similar recompense, he wouldn't really have a preference. Ideally, our citizens would use their talents to the best of their abilities where they would do the most good. Kinda sound like the military doesn't it?

The greatest feature of capitalism is the freedom to choose your own path. It does not mean that greed will be man's over-arching drive. Some will always choose a situation for lesser money to ensure their stability. The man the works across from me chose to not go to Washington, D.C. for a $400,000/yr job so his kids could finish high school. He now makes $30,000.

You are ignoringing the fact that people don't choose where they live solely for the pay. Were that true, everyone would live on the North Slope of Alaska where teachers make $100,000 a year. There are more doctors in Florida because Florida is a better place to live than Houston to a large percentage of Americans. Do you think people live in Southern California for the money? This is partly true, but it is also much more expensive to live there than other places. People live there because of climate, standard of living, infrastructure, schools, safety, etc.

Supply and demand are factors everywhere. It also relates to power. I'm pretty moderate in my politics, but one area that needs to always have high spending is the military. From time immemorial, the primary role of the government is the physical protection of its citizens. If a nation fails in this regard, it has failed in its ultimate purpose. The military is the way that this is accomplished.

**Morton** · September 8, 2010

I don't care if your socialist. Its cool with me. Higher education is paid for my the gov. which is a socialist thing. Same with minimum wage. What I don't like is taking an idea, dressing it up in pretty colors and glitter and trying to sell a lemon. The system has proven it DOES NOT WORK. And Capitalism Does. Thats all, otherwise we would be calling each other Comrade and waiting in line for bread. Even the Chinese are not socialists any more.

**Goodwin 1st MRB** · September 8, 2010

I don't care if your socialist. Its cool with me. Higher education is paid for my the gov. which is a socialist thing. Same with minimum wage. What I don't like is taking an idea, dressing it up in pretty colors and glitter and trying to sell a lemon. The system has proven it DOES NOT WORK. And Capitalism Does. Thats all, otherwise we would be calling each other Comrade and waiting in line for bread. Even the Chinese are not socialists any more.

'does work' is a broad comment, a blanket statement if you will and ultimately incorrect I feel.

There are plenty for whom capitalism doesn't work, just as there are plenty for whom it does work. It has it's place, it has it's pro's, but it also has con's. To think it a system without con's and failings/shortcomings? Well sir... that's just not right.

It works 'okay', but can there be better ideas? Of course. Don't tow the line just because it's always been that way.

At one point everyone thought the world was flat, and according to your logic we should've went with that because "IT WORKS!" - everyone believed it and we used that theory for hundreds of years.

Guess what? Someone came up with something better.

The blanket statements of "IT WORKS!" is a little over ambitious IMO.

nick.cameo · September 8, 2010

The greatest feature of capitalism is the freedom to choose your own path. It does not mean that greed will be man's over-arching drive. Some will always choose a situation for lesser money to ensure their stability. The man the works across from me chose to not go to Washington, D.C. for a $400,000/yr job so his kids could finish high school. He now makes $30,000.
You are ignoringing the fact that people don't choose where they live solely for the pay. Were that true, everyone would live on the North Slope of Alaska where teachers make $100,000 a year. There are more doctors in Florida because Florida is a better place to live than Houston to a large percentage of Americans. Do you think people live in Southern California for the money? This is partly true, but it is also much more expensive to live there than other places. People live there because of climate, standard of living, infrastructure, schools, safety, etc.
Supply and demand are factors everywhere. It also relates to power. I'm pretty moderate in my politics, but one area that needs to always have high spending is the military. From time immemorial, the primary role of the government is the physical protection of its citizens. If a nation fails in this regard, it has failed in its ultimate purpose. The military is the way that this is accomplished.

I wasn't ignoring that fact. I barred it from a purely hypothetical point: a pure capitalist would go where the money is the best. And that is either ignoring other factors (like it's a great place to raise kids) or including them as their monetary value (I'm sure even your friend would take the DC job if they paid him enough).

My point is that capitalism(basically the desire to make money) disassociates citizens from acting in their particular country's best interests.

Your last point is probably more convoluted than you intended. The primary role of government is the protection of its citizens. I'm gonna go ahead and ignore the implications that the word protection can mean more than the physical safety from other nations (which the military is here for). A capitalist society could pay a security firm to protect its country. If we offered that security firm trillions of dollars a year to do that, I'd bet they'd do it more efficiently than our current military. Security corporations are made to make money, they would put their dollars to good use. Why don't we do that?

The whole idea of conservatism is to limit the federal government. Abolishing the defense department would do that. However, I'm fairly certain that no conservative here would advocate that. Why?

It isn't about protection. We could pay a company or several different ones to do the same job more efficiently.

It's about nationalism. Not many would put the militaristic defense of their nation in any hand but their nation's.

Nor their roads, their education, their emergency services, their infrastructure... the list can go on. Strict conservatism would advocate letting the private sector take care of all of these industries. The postal service is already on the chopping block.

The point of this thread was basically that money is bad. Money as currency can't really be called bad. If it wasn't money it'd be something else, I think everyone jumped on that point right away. But money as a political movement.... more specifically the desire to make money... (do I have to say capitalism at this point?) that kind of money will turn our citizens against each other (when its profitable) and leave our country in shambles.

**Morton** · September 8, 2010

I never said it was perfect. I said it works. Big difference. Works better than any other economical system. "The proof," as my grand ma said, "is in the pudding." That pudding is the fact that there is still a capitalist society and that communists are going capitalist.

nick.cameo · September 8, 2010

I never said it was perfect. I said it works. Big difference. Works better than any other economical system. "The proof," as my grand ma said, "is in the pudding." That pudding is the fact that there is still a capitalist society and that communists are going capitalist.

Aw, you sound like Palin going all folksy on us. I'd advise keeping your grandma out of politics

No one has said anything is perfect; political discussion fosters thoughts on improving what works.

Could you elaborate "works better than any other economical system"?

What do you think a capitalist society is?

And what communists are going capitalist and by how much?

The fastest growing economy in the world is china. still a communist country. China has expanded its private sector, but it is by no means a free market society.

and if the US passes universal healthcare (and maybe take over a few more manufacturers), doesn't the government end up owning over half the industry in the US? Is that still capitalist?

Edited September 8, 2010 by nick.cameo

**Kirkendall 1st MRB** · September 8, 2010

Not to be offensive, but let's assume that Dr. Kirkendall is a practicing physician in the United States.

Now I'm not offended, but I have to wonder... Why did you use my name as the example name? Sure, I like Capitalism. But if L.A. offers me a job on their police force, I'm sure as hell not going no matter the pay. I like my quiet town, with its lack of real crime and organized gangs!

Or did you pick me out for hating on Communism the most? :lol: