• Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-22-2017, 10:47 PM
    It isn't to say that Trump isn't an economic illiterate but his statement is clearly true. Higher stock prices = higher capital gains revenue. That settles that. A better opening sentence would be "The media's statements have also raised questions about their understanding of the national debt."
    8 replies | 233 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-22-2017, 03:52 PM
    No thanks. I don't want to be making those decisions and I sure as hell don't want you making them. Right. But having clearly defined rules and means of enforcement increases the number of people you can trust and trade with and thus increases prosperity. Anarchy would create a very small, tribal world. Think about why everyone wants to trade and park money in the United States. People know there is a strong rule of law here. Nobody is stealing your money. Whereas people don't want to readily trade with businesses in banana republics because they have weaker rule of law. Having basic rules of corporate governance has made the US much more prosperous, because it has decreased the risk of investing in US business. That's absolutely correct. I do support having the state have a monopoly on force. I don't want people self-seceding and doing whatever they think is best. I don't want nut jobs like Adam Kokesh making up the rules in their head and rationalizing whatever violence they might use.
    723 replies | 9577 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-21-2017, 01:02 PM
    Force and violence are part of humanity. The only question is who will control force. Are you going to have force under objective control with clearly defined laws? Or is force going to be exercised at whim? When force is exercised at whim people will justify almost any act of violence. For example, people who bomb abortion clinics twist it in their minds why it is okay. We can see what works. The United States prospered on a grand scale with very limited government for much of its history. Hong Kong works. Singapore works. There is no instance of anarchy working. It is far more likely anarchy will look like narco states where people like Pablo Escobar rise up before the next gangster assassinates him and takes his place.
    723 replies | 9577 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-21-2017, 12:41 PM
    First of all, you have a picture of Martin Luther King in your avatar, who was a despicable socialist. That aside, there is nothing left wing about supporting government. It is necessary for markets to operate. In order for trade to take place on a grand scale, there has to be predictable rules and ways to settle disputes that are generally accepted. Otherwise trade will only take place on a small scale, tribal level where high trust exists.
    723 replies | 9577 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-21-2017, 11:46 AM
    Exactly. Here is an image of prosperous free trade zone in Somalia. No government interference around. Anyone gets out of line, shoot 'em. Here is the heavy hand of minarchy in Hong Kong ruining the lives of all but the well connected few.
    723 replies | 9577 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-20-2017, 07:40 PM
    Yes I did say that and it is true.
    723 replies | 9577 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-20-2017, 07:33 PM
    Cannons and guns don't pose unlimited risk. Nuclear weapons pose unlimited risk. Who decides? Governments decide. Anytime you have asymmetric risk that is so great that the consequences affect the entire population in some way, governments preemptively stepping in to contain potential damage is legitimate. You are going to have situations where markets break down because the disincentives of bad behavior aren't great enough to prevent people from doing wrong therefore a government should step in and change the playing field. That's why environmental regulations are necessary. It is why banking regulations make sense. And it is why allowing people the power to destroy the world has to be curbed.
    723 replies | 9577 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-20-2017, 07:12 PM
    A pretty good rule of thumb is any time risk is open ended, where people won't be able to be justly punished, preemptively using government to restrict the amount of damage a state or individual can inflict is justified. That applies to nuclear weapons and it applies to the leverage banks can use. Banks that sell options are taking on open ended risk which could affect everyone if they sell options in excess. Being able to destroy the world or the financial system is too great of a risk so you don't have to wait for things to go wrong. Who will determine? Elected leaders. I trust elected leaders infinitely more than Jihadi John to do the right thing.
    723 replies | 9577 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-20-2017, 06:58 PM
    Most people who lead a country are not crazy. If you allow any one of billions of people to own nuclear weapons chances go up dramatically that weapons will end up into the hands of a very crazy person. If a crazy person uses a nuclear weapon and kills 100,000 people, how are you going to give a just punishment that person in anarchotopia? The death penalty certainly isn't much of a punishment which a lot of anarchists don't even believe in? Are you going to have the guy who killed 100,000 people do chores to work his debt off? You don't have to wait for nukes to be used. Individuals should be prevented from owning nukes and states that embrace crazy ideologies (North Korea, Cuba, USSR, Iran, etc) should be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons. The correct thing to do is prevent people who might have a proclivity to use nuclear weapons offensively from getting them in the first place. Are you for letting ISIS have nukes in anarchotopia? They would use nukes from now until the end of time if they obtained them.
    723 replies | 9577 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-20-2017, 02:57 PM
    I don't understand the purpose of the article at all. A very small town in rural Georgia with five officers voted eliminate a government service they deemed inefficient in favor of using county officers. Is that supposed to be viewed as a vote for anarchy or something.?
    723 replies | 9577 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-20-2017, 02:52 PM
    I don't agree that communism is sound philosophically and definitely not theoretically. But I do very much agree with the second sentence. If an idea isn't robust where where it works in a variety of circumstances, it isn't worth pursuing. The predictable end result of communism and anarchism will be rule by the strong where individuals don't have their rights protected.
    723 replies | 9577 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-18-2017, 08:57 PM
    Foreign policy is important for a lot of reasons. But Cuba has good foreign policy. It doesn't matter at all unless you have things taken care of domestically. It is nice that Gabbard has good views on Syria, but frankly that doesn't affect my life and most people in the US nearly as much as numerous other issues. The issues I care about in order of importance. 1. Government spending 2. The drug war 3. Cutting taxes 4. Monetary policy 5. Health care policy 6. Regulations 7. Civil liberties 8. Foreign Policy
    44 replies | 834 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-18-2017, 08:13 PM
    Actually she is better than exactly zero Republicans. Peter King is better. Anyone with R next to their name is better than Tulsi Gabbard. Susan Collins will accidentally vote correctly more often than Tulsi Gabbard. She is a Bernie Sanders Communist.
    44 replies | 834 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-18-2017, 10:09 AM
    I also remember him saying multiple times that there was nothing wrong with Obama playing golf. I remember when Boehner played with Obama and Trump said people should lighten up about it. He said golf was an ideal game to cut deals. I noticed that doesn't show up on Google in the compilations of Trump's golf quotes. I also remember watching him do an interview on Golf Channel saying he would play lots of golf if elected. He contradicts himself all the time.
    36 replies | 355 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-15-2017, 12:44 PM
    It was tongue in cheek. Though I do hate soccer and the riots and do find it unwatchable and am completely indifferent if the US does well in it.
    13 replies | 422 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-14-2017, 07:46 PM
    74 dead and 250 injured because fans don't like the outcome is normal. I think I see Phil Mickelson rioting... no wait.. soccer again.
    13 replies | 422 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-14-2017, 06:16 PM
    Soccer is a third world sport that symbolizes a lack of progress. Soccer is just an excuse for people to riot while they are watching a 0-0 game in overtime. The US dominates every sport that matters: basketball, golf, baseball, and football. Soccer is the only thing I root against the US in. Doing poorly in soccer will hopefully encourage US kids to play real sports.
    13 replies | 422 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-13-2017, 04:11 PM
    That's exactly right. That would be my ideal. That is what would happen in a free society. The problem is that will never happen. So I am for forcing people like in Singapore and Switzerland to get insurance and forcing people to save. It isn't a good way to do things but it is more free market than the current system of Obamacare, the VA hospital Medicare, Medicaid and letting people stiff the emergency room when they don't have insurance and can't pay. And it is a much better alternative to French and Canadian style socialized medicine.
    93 replies | 1548 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-13-2017, 03:07 PM
    Every liberal publication even admits premiums are much higher specifically as a result of Obamacare. ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, and Washington Post all have articles explaining this with a simple Google search. Here is the first thing that shows up on Google from ABC in an article titled Why Health Care Premiums Are Rising Under Obamacare . "HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell cautioned that insurers are “continuing to adapt” to a market that looks very different from before “Obamacare,” one in which they are trying to compete for costumers “based on price and quality” and not necessarily by “finding the healthiest customers.” http://abcnews.go.com/Health/health-care-premiums-rising-obamacare/story?id=43047190
    93 replies | 1548 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-13-2017, 02:53 PM
    No. People on Obamacare do not get group purchasing discounts. That is just factually wrong. Obamacare is much more expensive than if a person got an individual plan prior to Obamacare. In Obamacare healthy people are subsidizing unhealthy people.
    93 replies | 1548 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-13-2017, 02:46 PM
    I'll just repost what I said. And the second part of what you said would seem to confirm that the two time periods are very similar. I can't tell if you are purposely trolling.
    17 replies | 562 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-13-2017, 02:35 PM
    Well... I would say in almost every way they are alike. The stock market crashed in 1929. The market made a couple hundred percent move off the lows. Interest rates went to zero and stayed very low along with quantitative easing. The Fed started tightening and you had a depression in 1937 8 years after the initial crash. The market crashed in 2008. The market made a couple hundred percent move off the lows. Interest rates went to zero and stayed very low along with quantitative easing. The Fed has (gradually) started tightening. And we will see what happens 9 years later. It seems like they are pretty close analogs. You also have similarities in the wealth gap. Things haven't gotten better for a significant part of the country. People are embracing populism in elections like in the 1930's. Not to mention taxes did go up. Obama raised taxes in 2013. The top rate went up. Payroll taxes went up. And you had the Obamacare taxes. You had a dramatic increase in regulations under Obama. Regulations are tax. That is beside the point though. You probably won't see a tax hike with Trump.
    17 replies | 562 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-13-2017, 02:26 PM
    That, of course, has nothing to do with promoting associations. The issue is for self-employed people and 1099 workers who don't get group insurance through a business.
    93 replies | 1548 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-13-2017, 02:07 PM
    Yes it does. It wouldn't make sense otherwise. I don't agree with the first part. But I do think allowing people to buy insurance across state lines is very overrated. Good on Rand for getting a GOP talking point into law. But it really doesn't do much because of how hard it is to set up an insurance network.
    93 replies | 1548 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-13-2017, 01:50 PM
    You could make an argument that there are a lot of similarities between 1937-38 and right now. You had a large triple digit stock market recovery. There is a lot of complacently. Everyone seems to think things are back to normal. The Fed has started tightening and talk is getting interest rates back to "normal". If Trump appoints the wrong person to the Fed, the risk from tightening too aggressively is asymmetric to the downside. At some point the market is going to drop but how much and how much it bleeds over to employment will be determined by the Fed. The unemployment rate went to 19% in 1938. It won't go that high now but it could definitely double if the Fed does something stupid.
    17 replies | 562 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-11-2017, 10:36 PM
    Here's Levitt's rebuttal to Lott. http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/
    5 replies | 220 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-11-2017, 10:05 PM
    Interesting short video from a University of Chicago economist. He makes a persuasive case that legalized abortion caused a substantial decrease in crime. Roe V Wade went into law in 1973. Crime started to drop in 1991 as there were fewer unwanted children turning 18. The states that legalized abortion a few years before 1973 saw a reduction in crime starting in the late 80's. Also states with the greatest ease of abortion experienced the greatest drops in crime. Romania banned abortion in the 60's and crime doubled over the next 25 years as the rate of child birth increased.
    5 replies | 220 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-09-2017, 02:19 PM
    I have this book but haven't finished it yet. https://www.amazon.com/Fish-That-Ate-Whale-Americas/dp/1250033314/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1507579926&sr=8-1&keywords=banana+king I did read the part where the guy, who later became the head of United Fruit, raised his own private army of guerillas when Honduras put a tariff on bananas and then overthrew the government and installed his own general. He actually fought himself which and got shot which was even more amazing. Very interesting story that I had never heard. Here is from the Amazon description "The fascinating, untold tale of Samuel Zemurray, the self-made banana mogul who went from penniless roadside banana peddler to kingmaker and capitalist revolutionary. From hustling on the docks of New Orleans to overthrowing Central American governments and precipitating the bloody thirty-six-year Guatemalan civil war, the Banana Man lived a monumental and sometimes dastardly life. "
    61 replies | 1041 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-08-2017, 06:35 PM
    Well. You are wrong and isn't debatable. Communist governments killed 100 million of their own people in the 20th Century. Capitalism has helped cut world poverty in half over the last 30 years. Capitalism is the only moral system. I don't believe taxation is slavery. I do believe not being able to own any of your labor or property and not being able to leave a country is slavery. Having the government seize your business and land without compensation is slavery. That isn't cartoonish. That is true. Here is from just this weeks New York Times using the word slave to describe doctors there. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/world/americas/brazil-cuban-doctors-revolt.html
    106 replies | 1583 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    10-08-2017, 03:58 PM
    Che fought for Communism, the most evil system in human history. And what imperialism in South America was the United States engaged in? Funding the rebels against the Communist Sandinstas and fighting Allende in Chile? So you mean fighting slavery? Cuba did not invade other countries. That is true. Though Castro did point nuclear weapons at the US and urge the USSR to use them. Castro and Che made every single person in Cuba a slave. Hugo Chavez prattled about fighting imperialism as well. Venezuela has hyperinflation and the people are starving. It turns out non-interventionist foreign policy is pointless if you combine it with Marxism. For some reason I would rather live in Bill Kristol and Lindsey Graham's America than a country ruled by Che or Castro. But that's just me.
    106 replies | 1583 view(s)
More Activity
About Krugminator2

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1,835
Posts Per Day
1.56
General Information
Last Activity
10-22-2017 10:48 PM
Join Date
08-01-2014
Referrals
0

06-10-2017


No results to display...
Page 1 of 39 12311 ... LastLast

10-23-2017


10-22-2017


10-21-2017


10-20-2017


10-19-2017


10-18-2017


10-17-2017


10-16-2017



Page 1 of 39 12311 ... LastLast