Email: 'Time to kill the wealthy'

Originally posted by Aim64C

Americans have better things to do than make bowls, spoons, folding chairs, etc. Sure - there is room for such businesses, here - but there is a reason many businesses had their eyes on space stations, highly-advanced cars, and other technologically and industrially advanced applications that would require massive supporting industry capable of such complex and precise manufacturing. Why didn't it happen? Reality was a little more rigid than we'd like, and we've been destroying the value of our dollar with deficit spending while engaging in class warfare.

China makes all kinds of things, from simple bowls and spoons to laptop and mainframe computers. Labor is cheap in china, at least relative to europe and north america, so companies flock like geese to take advantage and thus increase their bottom line. Also there are fewer enviromental regulations and the ex-communist government is hungry for bribes.

America has become a nation of zippos, opel cars, tabacco and big pharma. Opel is the international brand of General Motors. We also export guns and tech know-how due to our massive military industrial complex. Can you think of anything else we export that someone can't call a chineese middleman and get it at a 50% discount?

Originally posted by Aim64C

How is it selfish to live within one's own means and to reduce the net cost of operating, producing, and selling a product? It's like if I were to set up a hydroponic greenhouse and quadruple production from a yard-garden and halve my prices and being called selfish.

Would you, instead, like to rationalize how it is not selfish to look at another person's belongings and declare that you (and others) have a right to it? It is inherent, in liberal perspectives, to focus on the difference between another and one's self.

Because government should take account of many variables before making decisions. I DO support wall street to a degree, but if we continue down the path of free trade between nations, I guarantee you unemployment will eventually sky rocket and martial law will have to be declared from all the unemployed helpless chaps protesting/rioting/vandalising.

Originally posted by Aim64C

I find your comments quite humorous, though, considering how I am of a lower income than yourself, more than likely.

PEOPLE NEED TO EXIST AS WELL, not just corporations. I am considering making this my new signature to piss off conservatives with their one dimensional mind.

reply to post by silent thunder


Well, this didn't target "liberal" lawmakers and expose thousands of unionized postal workers to anthrax, so i'm sure it'll get the full investigation it deserves.

I don't get it. How are these Wall Street protestors who can't even defend themselves against police batons and pepper spray supposed to be able to mount "attacks upon the rich"? I hazard to guess the majority of them could'nt fight thier way out of a wet paper bag, nevermind taking up "arms" against those "evil rich people" They've alligned themselves with the likes of Mikey Moore who's completely anti-gun and I would imagine the majority of these protestors are as well. What are they going to be using, pointy sticks and coarse language?

As a Canadian tax payer who falls into a 43% income tax bracket, I am fed up with paying for the lazy and the entitlement culture that seems to think people like myself should support them. I went to school, I made something out of my life. At 36 I own my own lakefornt property north of Toronto, I own a Cessna 206 Amphibian aircraft which I worked very long and very hard hours to obtain and my stock portfolio is doing quite well. Between the ages of 23 and 32 I worked long hard hours, sometimes 75 hour work weeks to get where I am. Am I supposed to just hand my hard work over to some pathetic loser who can't be bothered to seek out a good life for themselves? No, I don' think so, go to hell. You want something in life you have to work for it and I did it with no support from my parents in terms of tuition costs, I simply applied for a student loan which anyone in Canada can get, especially if you are a minority.

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
I don't get it. How are these Wall Street protestors who can't even defend themselves against police batons and pepper spray supposed to be able to mount "attacks upon the rich"? I hazard to guess the majority of them could'nt fight thier way out of a wet paper bag, nevermind taking up "arms" against those "evil rich people"

They've alligned themselves with the likes of Mikey Moore who's completely anti-gun and I would imagine the majority of these protestors are as well. What are they going to be using, pointy sticks and coarse language?

As a Canadian tax payer who falls into a 43% income tax bracket, I am fed up with paying for the lazy and the entitlement culture that seems to think people like myself should support them. I went to school, I made something out of my life. At 36 I own my own lakefornt property north of Toronto, I own a Cessna 206 Amphibian aircraft which I worked very long and very hard hours to obtain and my stock portfolio is doing quite well. Between the ages of 23 and 32 I worked long hard hours, sometimes 75 hour work weeks to get where I am. Am I supposed to just hand my hard work over to some pathetic loser who can't be bothered to seek out a good life for themselves? No, I don' think so, go to hell. You want something in life you have to work for it and I did it with no support from my parents in terms of tuition costs, I simply applied for a student loan which anyone in Canada can get, especially if you are a minority.

Who said the threat was from one of the OWS protestors?

If there is one thing I learned in my ~20 years in the Army it's this. The guy pounding his fists and puffing his chest out and screaming how tough he is is not the guy to fear, the quiet guy in the corner who rarely speaks is the one you need to be wary of.

This guy may be mad at the same people for the same reasons, but you'll never see him walking a line with a sign. When he acts it will be swift and violent, and he won't try to claim credit afterwards, he'll just find new targets.

And when I say "this guy", I don't mean the chest puffer who sent the E-mail, but I'd be watching the obits for executive deaths, because there are lots of people out there who think like him, but are more prone to act on it.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Only according to a libertarian. I understand what you are saying and I am not stupid. The problem with this approach is that if government is not above everyone else, then it cannot pass judgement on anyone nor can it moderate disputes. The latter is done by the judiciary branch.

The government has limited authority. That is what the Bill of Rights is about. I'm not going to bother explaining this to someone who thinks in terms of party lines and claims to not be stupid.

No. Unlike capitalism and communism which are rather rigid, there are various forms of socialism. Above all I believe in free markets, that is supply and demand setting the price. Goverment sets the basic regulations and enforces them.

Please explain how that is different than what we have in America, presently.

It isn't. You want -more- government control over the business sector to prevent further abuses of poorly written and developed government policy and less freedom in the market place. The free market is merely a visad when government is setting the price of labor and applying micro-tariffs to "level the playing field." (These are things like "sin taxes" and other special taxes applied to products and services with the direct intent of squeezing them out of the market).

Again your confusing communism with socialism and further you don't know the difference between public and private central banking.

You are apparently quite the ignoramus. The Federal Reserve serves to undermine the entire concept of private banking. It's not even central banking; the Federal Reserve is capable of issuing new tender - something that no private bank can do with a third party currency.

Actually NO ONE should make "donations" to government. The campaign money should be raised from current taxation or an additional campaign tax to pay for the campaign process of candidates. Unions, corporations and individuals all contributing their share. Addditionally the proceeds should be EQUALLY SPLIT among all registered political parties therefore GUARANTEEING equal advertising coverage throughout the media.

This... has so many holes I don't really know where to begin.

For starters - this doesn't stop a company from buying their own advertising space and placing, in it, an ad promoting a candidate with an endorsement stamp by the candidate. Have you never heard the: "Paid for by Missourians for yadda-yadda" at the end of advertisements (obviously, adjusted for your locale)? That is a private interest group going out of their way to say: "This is the guy we think should win" (or, more likely, "This is why we think this guy sucks ass and you need to vote for the other guy" - but whatever).

How do you address that?

"Well, Aim, that is very simple. All you need to do is not allow anyone to advertise for candidates."

Well, that sounds like an awesome trampling of the First Amendment. When do I get arrested for holding an "improperly funded" public meeting to speak out against a piece of legislation?

Your idea also doesn't really address the issue of political parties. If I register to form a political party (I would, actually, have to look and see if the government actually recognizes political parties in any official capacity - at the National level) - I get campaign money equal to that of all the other candidates?

What if I want to run as an independent? Or do I have to be part of a party, first?

In either case... what prevents me from registering a political party (locally) with a hundred co-conspirators. We advertise for our political campaign - but mostly take photo-ops in our designer clothing brand that we've cooked up and plaster them all over creation with what amounts to 'free' advertising money with, perhaps, the unintended consequence of landing a seat.

"Well, Aim, we'd simply make that illegal and prosecute people for it afterward."

$60 billion in annual medicare paid to fraudulent claims stands as a testament to the effectiveness of "just chase them down and prosecute them later." Funding for law enforcement task forces to do nothing but track down those committing health care fraud has gone through the roof over the past several years with no impact on the increasing amount known to have been paid to fraudulent claims.

Why is this? Because the system is set up to be raped and abused, quite simply. Claims must be paid within a month of receipt - hardly enough time for proper auditing procedures. A 'business' will operate on fraud for a few months, collect tens of thousands to millions in payments, and disappear before administrators catch on and send police to find an empty building.

"See! We need to regulate businesses and make sure they are legit."

Or... you know... we could just keep government out of healthcare.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Then why are 99% of the regulations made in favor of BIG BUSINESS?

I believe that was already explained. While I have issue with the figures you pulled out of your ass; the answer doesn't really change. Large businesses can afford to be the exception in government regulation.

I think if you go back and read my posts - you will see that this has already been quite soundly addressed.

"My friend" this is called STATE CAPITALISM, where the governemnt intervenes in favor of big business all the time. People like you want "small government" only because it is easier TO BUY AND MAINTAIN in relation to "big government".

I'm not surprised: you make no sense.

Small government doesn't have the power to enact powerful regulatory standards on businesses. This removes the ability for large business to use the government to further strengthen its own position in the market.

Businesses have no reason to "buy and maintain" a government that doesn't get involved in regulating business affairs.

The people are hardely represented at all because corporations are more powerful, because they have more money in a free for all no holds bar "donation" raiser. Thus a perpetuating cycle of corporate dominance.

This... is priceless.

Weren't you just saying, in your previous post, that the government needed to have power over the people? To enforce its regulations?

... And you want government to control businesses to try and remove the ability of businesses to "purchase a candidate."

... All of your solutions are predicated on the ability to find an absolutely incorruptible, near-omnipotent staff to operate and drive our government.

Meanwhile... in the real world...

Minimum healthcare coverage by the employer should be mandatory in all cases.

Why?

Cost of living goes up due to many factors, but business will use any excuse under the sun to justify raising prices. Remember all companies need to show an ANNUAL GROWTH IN PROFITS to make their stock attractable for investors/speculators.

This is horribly, horribly selective understanding. The average profit margin (profit versus cost to produce the product) for the Fortune 500 rests between 3 and 5%. That means, for every dollar you spend on a product, 95-97% of it is simply paying for the cost to make that product.

Stock value is based more on market share. When AMD released the Athlon 64 (The K-8) to compete with Intel's Pentium 4 - they took the market by storm. Not only did their CPU leave Intel's in the dust in dynamic processing environments (games and simulations) - it was also the first native x86/x64 processor. Then, they blew Intel away with the first dual-core CPU (a monolithic on-die approach, no less). AMD gained market share hand-over-fist - which meant more and more computers were selling with AMD processors in them.

Their stock value increased - yes - because of the increase in profits. No, it did not come from an increased profit margin - it came from being able to out-perform a competitor.

Intel threw money at the problem and came out with the "core" architecture in 2007-ish - which stood to reclaim much of the market share lost in the Netburst generation.

Smart investors look for "splashes" like that. Solid performing stocks are also akin to things like precious metals - you invest in them for stability against inflation (something that has increased exponentially with the adoption of fiat currency and migration away from backed standards) and other reasons - smart investors also seek to invest in those, depending upon what their goals are in the market.

A secondary reason for increase in cost of living is inflation brought on by banks making credit too easily available. This creates boom-bust cycles where you buy cheap and sell expensive. Wall street takes full advantage of these cycles!

We've been over this. This is enabled by the Federal Reserve and FDIC. Real banks don't do this, as the "bust" comes out of their own ass.

With a smaller government presence in the banking industry, most of those banks wouldn't have been issuing sub-prime loans - those that did would not be bailed out by the government as it wouldn't have the power or authority to do so.

Do you not see this is corporate plutocracy? "Ok sam, I see your point but you can invest your hard earned money in these firms and become wealthy too...just like the millionares and billionares do." And I say WITH WHAT??? My meager $7.25/hour where I can barely afford to have a trailer and piece of # car??

Are you incapable of finding something you are capable of doing that can provide a higher standard of living?

You don't need to invest in the stock market to be wealthy. But that's another discussion.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

China makes all kinds of things, from simple bowls and spoons to laptop and mainframe computers. Labor is cheap in china, at least relative to europe and north america, so companies flock like geese to take advantage and thus increase their bottom line. Also there are fewer enviromental regulations and the ex-communist government is hungry for bribes.

China cannot compete with the U.S. when it comes to the more sophisticated industries. The cost of labor up there rapidly matches our own when you begin getting into the more technical fields. The automation is -required- to produce parts of enough precision to be of any use in their respective industries, and the quality control requires frequent (and expensive) sampling and measuring systems carried out by automated machines or very well trained and people with work ethic that is hard to find (you need the perfectionist nit-picker).

Of course - what you get from cheaper labor is the same (at least in function) thing for a lower cost. That reduces your cost of living. That means you spend less money merely existing and can save/spend money that would otherwise be tied up in more expensive products.

"But jobs are lost!"

Are they? You are now paying less money for things that you need - and have more money to spend on, say, a TV - with highly sophisticated parts made in the U.S. - a company that is now growing and hiring on additional help. Further - those people in China are getting paid money that they never had before, and begin buying American products (or... would - if their government allowed foreign products to be sold) - which also bolsters our own economy.

"But... there is only so much money..."

Presuming you don't have the Federal Reserve constantly issuing money out of thin air, what this type of system does is actually deflate the currency. A dollar gains value over time, rather than loses it.

Because government should take account of many variables before making decisions. I DO support wall street to a degree, but if we continue down the path of free trade between nations, I guarantee you unemployment will eventually sky rocket and martial law will have to be declared from all the unemployed helpless chaps protesting/rioting/vandalising.

I'm an enterprising individual. Pests require extermination, and it's a service I am willing to provide - for a fee, of course.

On a more level note: the economy is simply too vast of a system for any single entity to hold singular authority and control over it.

PEOPLE NEED TO EXIST AS WELL, not just corporations. I am considering making this my new signature to piss off conservatives with their one dimensional mind.

I, actually, have no idea what this has to do with anything I posted.

People do not need to exist. This is merely a delusion brought about by your incomprehensible hatred of death. You do not have a right to live any more than you have a right to wake up to a meal hovering over your head (obviously provided because the universe recognizes how important it is that you live).

You are the only person who can determine what is best for you. You are the only person who is responsible for your own well being. I will not be your daddy - nor will anyone else (or your mommy). If you can't figure out what kinds of lifestyle you can afford to live and/or what kind of job you require to continue/improve your lifestyle... it's not anyone's fault but your own.

Even myself - I choose to work an hourly wage and rely upon it. I could easily be doing a number of side projects for nominal fees (the IRS may not like that - but it's not like I'll be evading hundreds of dollars in taxes; much less the thousands and millions that they should be chasing after).

Hence - I don't complain to people about "poor me, I am mistreated by the system."

I have not always made the best decisions in life - and I, generally, do not apply myself to anything approaching my capabilities.

I'll simply leave you with this:

The Free Market is all that really can exist. It is born out of the free will and ambitions of individuals and groups of individuals and it facilitates the mutual growth and expansion of lifestyle advances. Cell phones were "toys for rich people" not ten years ago. Hell - the only reason my parents had them was because my father worked on the other side of the state for a time (my parents would talk forever on those old StarTac phones).

Now you have to pry them out of your six year old's hands before they will pay attention to you.

That is the free market. That wasn't governments. That wasn't planned economies or socialism. That was the free market - and it was a capitalist venture.

Originally posted by Aim64

The government has limited authority. That is what the Bill of Rights is about. I'm not going to bother explaining this to someone who thinks in terms of party lines and claims to not be stupid.

The bill of rights is only ONE ASPECT of the constitution. Get an education!

Please explain how that is different than what we have in America, presently.

It isn't. You want -more- government control over the business sector to prevent further abuses of poorly written and developed government policy and less freedom in the market place. The free market is merely a visad when government is setting the price of labor and applying micro-tariffs to "level the playing field." (These are things like "sin taxes" and other special taxes applied to products and services with the direct intent of squeezing them out of the market).

The government does not control business, BUSINESS CONTROLS GOVERNMENT!

You are apparently quite the ignoramus. The Federal Reserve serves to undermine the entire concept of private banking. It's not even central banking; the Federal Reserve is capable of issuing new tender - something that no private bank can do with a third party currency.

A private monopoly on the issuing of new tender is EXACTLY PRIVATE CENTRAL BANKING!

I believe that was already explained. While I have issue with the figures you pulled out of your ass; the answer doesn't really change. Large businesses can afford to be the exception in government regulation. I think if you go back and read my posts - you will see that this has already been quite soundly addressed.

Is Time magazine pulling figures out of their ass as well? You failed to explain anything. Just lots of ranting!

I'm not surprised: you make no sense.

Small government doesn't have the power to enact powerful regulatory standards on businesses. This removes the ability for large business to use the government to further strengthen its own position in the market.

Businesses have no reason to "buy and maintain" a government that doesn't get involved in regulating business affairs.

Why shouldn't government get involved in regulating business? Government regulates everything else including your right to post nonsense on an alternative site called ATS.

This... is priceless.

Weren't you just saying, in your previous post, that the government needed to have power over the people? To enforce its regulations?

... And you want government to control businesses to try and remove the ability of businesses to "purchase a candidate."

... All of your solutions are predicated on the ability to find an absolutely incorruptible, near-omnipotent staff to operate and drive our government.

Meanwhile... in the real world...

Typical COP-OUT!!! Government is corrupt, therefore it can't regulate anything, therefore business CAN DO ANYTHING IT WANTS!

Lets just say when your car breaks down on the highway, you call for a tow truck and have it towed to a garage for repairs. You don't abandon it and walk home.

Are you capable of seeing the analogy here? Governemnt IS CORRUPT therefore IT NEEDS FIXING! Government became corrupt because of people like you giving both government and business A BLANK CHEQUE to write the amount THEY WANT AT YOUR EXPENSE. Laisez Fair attitude.

Business knows best my ass. You are full of hypocrisy covered in BS!

Minimum healthcare coverage by the employer should be mandatory in all cases.


Why?

Because the courts get filled up by STIFFS who fail to make their monthly installment payments to the HMOs that provided treatment for them. There is no such thing as free healthcare and the people who perpetuate this myth are absolute morons. If you don't have insurance when you request treatment you will get billed later. I know because it happened to me and others I know.

Originally posted by Aim64C

I'm not surprised: you make no sense.

Small government doesn't have the power to enact powerful regulatory standards on businesses. This removes the ability for large business to use the government to further strengthen its own position in the market.

Businesses have no reason to "buy and maintain" a government that doesn't get involved in regulating business affairs.

But IT SHOULD get involved in regulating business affairs just like it regulates everything else.

This is horribly, horribly selective understanding. The average profit margin (profit versus cost to produce the product) for the Fortune 500 rests between 3 and 5%. That means, for every dollar you spend on a product, 95-97% of it is simply paying for the cost to make that product.

And I am Homer Simpson!!!!

"But jobs are lost!"

Are they? You are now paying less money for things that you need - and have more money to spend on, say, a TV - with highly sophisticated parts made in the U.S. - a company that is now growing and hiring on additional help. Further - those people in China are getting paid money that they never had before, and begin buying American products (or... would - if their government allowed foreign products to be sold) - which also bolsters our own economy.

Do you keep up with the news? The official unemployment rate is 9% and the unnofficial is around 20% because it does NOT take into account people working part time or people who have given up searching for a job because THERE ARE NO JOBS! Even karl rove, whom I despise, said america CANNOT RELLY ON A SERVICE INDUSTRY to sustain itself in the long run. IT NEEDS MANUFACTURING as well!!!!

"But... there is only so much money..."

Presuming you don't have the Federal Reserve constantly issuing money out of thin air, what this type of system does is actually deflate the currency. A dollar gains value over time, rather than loses it.

There are not enough precious metals to account for all the money in circulation. The problem is not "out of thin air" rather the bubbles that are being created by wall street and artificial supply versus demand pressures. There is no way in hell you will ever comprehend this because for you day is night and night is day.

I, actually, have no idea what this has to do with anything I posted.

People do not need to exist. This is merely a delusion brought about by your incomprehensible hatred of death. You do not have a right to live any more than you have a right to wake up to a meal hovering over your head (obviously provided because the universe recognizes how important it is that you live).

If you had not claimed to be a mercenary, I would have certainly called you a hollywood actor specialising in THEATER OF THE ABSURD!

You sir represent EVERYTHING that is WRONG with this country yet you don't even consider yourself to be "an elite" and even claimed I was somehow more wealthy than you in a previous post. Are you sure you are mentally stable enough to excercise your second amendment rights? I truely fear people like you walking around with guns.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

The bill of rights is only ONE ASPECT of the constitution. Get an education!

And what is the rest of the Constitution about? It provides for the election of government officials and expressly defines the powers of the National Government. The Tenth Amendment expressly states that all powers not expressly given to the National Government are reserved to the states.

Would you like to find where the Constitution allows for Social Security? The EPA? Or where the Constitution specifically grants that power to the National Government?

The government does not control business, BUSINESS CONTROLS GOVERNMENT!

"Business controlling government is only ONE ASPECT of the relationship between the two. Use your brain."

Let me put it to you in a way that you might be able to grasp:

If businesses are allowed to make money, and representatives are able to make laws that govern how businesses are allowed to make money... how is there ever going to be a time where business is not attempting to buy a politician to make it easier for the business to make money?

A private monopoly on the issuing of new tender is EXACTLY PRIVATE CENTRAL BANKING!

Except the Federal Reserve is owned and operated by the National Government.

Which... makes it what? Private? Socialized? ... Privately socialized? Unified?

The effect is the same. The Federal Reserve was established as a means to centralize banking in an attempt to stabilize the market. It has done nothing but, and has only served to undermine the concepts of free banking.

Is Time magazine pulling figures out of their ass as well? You failed to explain anything. Just lots of ranting!

Yes, they are. Regulations on business rarely impair one business without benefiting another. EPA regulations, for example, have made the Aluminum industry a booming one due to the increased demand for aluminum in motor-vehicle construction (it's also caused the price of your cars to go through the roof to remain in compliance with gas mileage standards - aluminum processing and manufacturing is much more expensive than steel).

Typical COP-OUT!!! Government is corrupt, therefore it can't regulate anything, therefore business CAN DO ANYTHING IT WANTS!

This is not, at all, what I said.

Business cannot survive where people do not want to work for it or purchase what it makes. Further, local laws and regulations can do anything from mandate a business paint itself to look like a candy-cane to just requiring standardized business contract forms.

Where the government gets involved is when a contract that is recognized as official by the government has its terms broken or violated. This would include employment contracts and any agreement between two consenting parties. Lawyers make money off of litigation and would be more than happy to find infractions and give legal advice to those drafting and/or signing contracts.

Government became corrupt because of people like you giving both government and business A BLANK CHEQUE to write the amount THEY WANT AT YOUR EXPENSE. Laisez Fair attitude.

What are you talking about? I specifically stated that government should operate within its budget limitations. If absolutely necessary, it can take out debt - but only for a limited time/amount before requiring direct public consent to continue to do so.

With that - businesses and the contracts they can be awarded also come to within a budgetary limitation. The government cannot prop up failed businesses, stocks, etc with copious deficit spending. Representatives will not be allowed to simply say: "eh, let's just agree to raise the debt limit and spend on everything that everyone wants." - They will have to be more picky and choosy about who/what they spend money on as they will not be allowed to run wild with the printing press.

Because the courts get filled up by STIFFS who fail to make their monthly installment payments to the HMOs that provided treatment for them.

This represents a situation where litigation comes into play - not regulation. Regulation is not going to make a business pay for healthcare - on time or otherwise (hell, how many drivers have car insurance like they are supposed to?). However, if their contract says you have healthcare, and they don't pay it... well, that's their ass - not yours.

If you don't have insurance when you request treatment you will get billed later. I know because it happened to me and others I know.

I love these things.

You always need some kind of plan for how you are going to pay for medical treatment. That means with some kind of insurance plan, with savings, whatever works for you.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

But IT SHOULD get involved in regulating business affairs just like it regulates everything else.

No, it shouldn't. It shouldn't be regulating much of what it is, already.

Return to my point in my post that was just above this one, where I explained the relationship between businesses, government, and the regulations imposed.

And I am Homer Simpson!!!!

money.cnn.com...

sudhanshuraheja.com...

1. 50 out of 498 which reported their profit/loss figures were in a loss. That’s about 10.04%

2. Among the profitable ones, the average profit margin was 8.00%

3. 122 out of 498 (one fourth – 24.5%) had a profit margins of less than 2%

Talking about the Fortune 500.

Do you keep up with the news? The official unemployment rate is 9% and the unnofficial is around 20% because it does NOT take into account people working part time or people who have given up searching for a job because THERE ARE NO JOBS! Even karl rove, whom I despise, said america CANNOT RELLY ON A SERVICE INDUSTRY to sustain itself in the long run. IT NEEDS MANUFACTURING as well!!!!

Do you have basic reading comprehension skills?

Re-read my post and see where I addressed manufacturing. We will get bulldozed if we try and compete with the jobs that Chinese labor can sufficiently provide. We need the higher-end of manufacturing and the next generation of manufacturing requiring precision machining and assembly that cannot be done cost-effectively in China and other countries.

There are not enough precious metals to account for all the money in circulation. The problem is not "out of thin air" rather the bubbles that are being created by wall street and artificial supply versus demand pressures. There is no way in hell you will ever comprehend this because for you day is night and night is day.

I already addressed this within the very statement you quoted. For starters - the money in circulation is not backed by a gold/silver standard. It is Fiat currency. It is, literally, no more valuable than the paper it is printed on.

Bubbles can develop because of the extremes of fractional reserve banking that are allowed for under the Federal Reserve. In privatized banking, where a bank has to be able to reasonably meet its liabilities (you actually have to have enough in the vault to cover the account values of people's checking and savings accounts), market bubbles would not be allowed to grow to such extremes. They would never cease to exist, entirely, but they would never get as large, and they would not be able to affect all banks uniformly - as each bank is independently responsible for its assets and liabilities.

If you had not claimed to be a mercenary, I would have certainly called you a hollywood actor specialising in THEATER OF THE ABSURD!

I know how to use and service a weapon and am certainly not opposed to taking out contracts that require such specialization. I'm also quite familiar and trained in infantry tactics and combined operations (not likely to be of much use unless situations decay greatly enough that partisan armies begin popping up drawing off of surplus and national guard armories).

You sir represent EVERYTHING that is WRONG with this country yet you don't even consider yourself to be "an elite" and even claimed I was somehow more wealthy than you in a previous post.

You are, especially if you are drawing social security supplemental, unemployment, and/or food stamps.

Are you sure you are mentally stable enough to excercise your second amendment rights?

I haven't broken any laws or said anything worth bringing me up on civil charges (slander or the like).

Are you suggesting I should not be allowed to speak because I disagree with you and say that I would be willing to contract a number of my skills for a fee?

I truely fear people like you walking around with guns.

The funniest thing is that I don't own one. It's an impractical expense at this time. I have enough in reserve, however, to arm up if necessary. You are, really, far too easy to lead-on. But I am enjoying your emotional outbursts.