US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[ATM]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!

No...NO...JUST NO!


Benito Mussolini was a FASCIST!
He wrote the doctrine of fascism.
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffma.../mussolini.htm

Karl Marx and Frederich Engles developed what they called "Scientific"-socialism, more commonly known today as Marxism.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...ific-socialism

Communism and socialism existed as an idea prior to Marx and Engles.

Charles Fourier being among the most famous of the "Utopian" Socialists who postulated that if everyone lived in communes (he called Phalanxes) with no private property there would be world peace and...get ready for this...the oceans would magically transform into lemonaid.
Needless to say, Fourier was a nutjob, but then again so was Marx!!!

Oops yeah Benito was the facist. But Marx was the first one to talk about the great revolution and the comunist manifesto.

[ATM]

Marx seems a bit screwy in these day and age, but don't forget what ppl of that time where going through I mean In russia ppl used news papers as shoes while the czars lived with such luxuries that it was immoral.

Thats why I think communism flourished there.

By the way I think that The second great china wall was communism, because they suffered a regression economically and socially that I compare it to the first china wall.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Kaiba

Erm, why?

Marxism was a reaction against Owenism, which had already been tried ( and failed badly as it suffered many of the exact same problems that the Soviet Union did). It was posited to be more realistic as it actually with politics, economic, history, and other stuff - while Owen's was ultimately acknowledged to be the "Oh, let's have everyone get along!"

No, Marxism was not a reaction to Owenism.
Marx and Engles formulated Scientific-Socialism as a reaction to the Industrial Revolution which was supposedly depriving laborers of their "share" of the profits of the businesses that hired them.

Owenism also attacked that practice by actually sharing the profits equally among the workers.
Marx and Robert Owens were in agreement, not in contradiction.

Really, people who don't understand Communism, when they make their arguments against it, are really arguing against Owenism. While Marxism is severely flawed, there's a couple Marxist ideals ( especially in history) that I respect. Owenism is just garbage.

Oh, so you like the corporate structure of a top tier ruling over the laborers?
Nice to know you're a corporatist.

And really, I don't understand your definition of capitalism. While I'm going to attack it, I would ask where you came up with it. Because Burke, Locke, and Friedman, all of whom can be defined as classical liberals, would never argue that society should pursue egalitarianism.

Burke, and Locke were classical liberals, but Friedman was certainly NOT a classical liberal.
Had you said Von Hayek or Von Mises, then I would agree.
What part of John Locke's statement about "all men are created equal" do you not understand?
That is an egalitarian ideal.
Unless of course you're thinking of the socialist idea of "egalitarianism."

Alexis de Tocqueville described the difference quite well:

Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

Oh God.
I'll go ahead and ask what's the point of a bank if you don't have fractional reserve, and a capitalist system is absolutely not capable of surviving without banks. Secondly, the United States lived in a reign where there was no fiat money - between Jackson's destruction of the bank and Lincoln's establishment of the greenback. And that era was arguably the lowest point in American history. Honestly, if you want to know what money looks like without government backing - Google Bitcoin. Which is massively inferior to the dollar explicitly because it's not government backed.

You don't understand money.
Specie money and fiat money are both backed by the government.
The difference between them is that fiat money has no value in and of itself.
Specie money has actual value without needing the backing of the government, like gold, silver, platinum, etc.

When you say "capitalism" I think you mean that a corporatist system cannot survive without central banking, and it can't.

Capitalism doesn't require central banking at all.

You do, however, acknowledge that businesses can exist. What's the difference? Especially since the ACLU, NRA, Sierra Club, and other political groups? Those are all corporations. Would you shut them down?

The fact that you don't know shows you didn't follow the link and read the definition of a corporation, or you have no idea what you're talking about.

So called non-profit corporations shouldn't exist in a capitalist system, meaning the NRA, ACLU, etc. should be able to form their groups without government approval/license in the form of a 501C corporation.
A corporation is a public-private partnership in which government gives permission to form a business.
Whereas, a business can exist with or without government permission in and of itself.

I won't talk about how a flat tax is such a ridiculous idea, but TARIFFS? In a capitalist system? The idea capitalist system is one where the free market is supreme, and tariffs are pretty much the ultimate chains on that. And how many tariffs, how much, and what if the people ( since you're in a republic), don't want tariffs?

So you don't believe in any taxes period huh?
What do you call this fantasy land you live in?

Tariffs in lieu of a progressive graduated income tax is a preferable system.
Your "what if" question is moot since Solace and I weren't talking about "what ifs."
I answered her question about what I considered a capitalist system.

So, you would argue that Apple should be destroyed right now? If so, what happens to all of Apple's stuff?

What are you talking about?
No one said anything about Apple being destroyed right now.
Nice strawman, but it's useless in this conversation.

Honestly, Austrian is woo. It's unfalsifiable, and is not deserving of respect. The fact that people conflate Friedman with Hayek and his goons is despicable, really?

That sentence is nonsensical.

[ATM]

Hey GundamFan0083 What do you think about Ron Paul?

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by ATM

Hey GundamFan0083 What do you think about Ron Paul?

If the candidates were a bowl of fruit (and I include Obama in this), then all the fruit would be rotten.

Therefore the choice before us is which of the candidates is the least rotten/corrupt?

For better or worse that candidate is Ron Paul.

Put another way, I dislike many of his stances, but I like more than I oppose.
Whereas I cannot stand Perry, have come to not trust Cain, and Romney, and just as I was starting to like Huntsman, realized he has no chance.

Obama has proven he is a shill for the big banks and Wall Street (they give him the most campaign contributions), and Romney is a Republican version of Obama.

Gingrich helped get us into the financial mess we're in by helping to repeal the Glass Stegall act and deregulate the banks (which Clinton didn't stop).

Ron Paul, for all his faults (and he has many, from the so called "racist newsletters", to his stance on abortion, to Kent Snyder's death), hasn't done the damage these other candidates have.
He votes against the "wars for profit," he understands sound money, and he sticks to what he believes in without wavering very much (he still does waver).

Hope that answers your question ATM.

[Ithekro]

What are you talking about?
No one said anything about Apple being destroyed right now.
Nice strawman, but it's useless in this conversation.

Actually I'm going to call you on this one.

You said "Business must be allowed to follow the same life cycle as their creators and thus should be born, live, and die accordingly." I believe Kaiba interpreted that literally, meaning the business should die with its creator.

I image you meant that a business should be allowed to die if it faulters, instead of being propped up by the government when it goes bankrupt (like say most of the US Automotive industry, minus Ford that didn't take the deal from Congress and made it back without government aid).

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Actually I'm going to call you on this one.

You said "Business must be allowed to follow the same life cycle as their creators and thus should be born, live, and die accordingly." I believe Kaiba interpreted that literally, meaning the business should die with its creator.

I image you meant that a business should be allowed to die if it falters, instead of being propped up by the government when it goes bankrupt (like say most of the US Automotive industry, minus Ford that didn't take the deal from Congress and made it back without government aid).

My apologies if I was not clear about that.

Yes Ithekro, I mean that a business should "sink or swim" based on how it performs in the marketplace, not die with the person that started it.
In other words, when a company like GM goes bankrupt, it should have to "die" and start over or get replaced by a new company that fills the void.
Of course, that would require a much stronger currency than we have now for cooperatives to afford to create a new automotive business.

[ATM]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

If the candidates were a bowl of fruit (and I include Obama in this), then all the fruit would be rotten.

Therefore the choice before us is which of the candidates is the least rotten/corrupt?

For better or worse that candidate is Ron Paul.

Put another way, I dislike many of his stances, but I like more than I oppose.
Whereas I cannot stand Perry, have come to not trust Cain, and Romney, and just as I was starting to like Huntsman, realized he has no chance.

Obama has proven he is a shill for the big banks and Wall Street (they give him the most campaign contributions), and Romney is a Republican version of Obama.

Gingrich helped get us into the financial mess we're in by helping to repeal the Glass Stegall act and deregulate the banks (which Clinton didn't stop).

Ron Paul, for all his faults (and he has many, from the so called "racist newsletters", to his stance on abortion, to Kent Snyder's death), hasn't done the damage these other candidates have.
He votes against the "wars for profit," he understands sound money, and he sticks to what he believes in without wavering very much (he still does waver).

Hope that answers your question ATM.

It doers thanks a bunch, though Im colombian I like know about wolds politics, because they totally affect the world no matter where you are, I think it happened after world war two, where they decided to link all economies for mutual assured development, there is where they started thinking about free trade agreements and such...

anyways back to the subject, yeah I agree with Perry, too bad hes not a good debater, he was crush during his presentations by Romney and Pawlenty. I liked the fact that Gene Simons "The Oracle" endorsed him hehehe.

Yeah Ron paul very much dislikes the current wars, but It will be very hard to educate ppl about it. Remember how everyone was agains Irak when Bush was president. Now that the anoited one is in power everyone just forgot to protest about those wars heheeeh, the Irony. Only code pink is still protesting the wars but the are dismissed as a bunch of loons.

[ATM]

Yeah no corporation should ever be too big to fail! And goverment should keep away from the private sector, I mean not to compete with it.

Yeah the letters I think are fake, but they have his signature on the bottom, I mean who knows, even if they are true, he doesnot come across as a racist and a lot of black people support him, so what I see is what I believe, so I dont think he is racist.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

You don't understand money.
Specie money and fiat money are both backed by the government.
The difference between them is that fiat money has no value in and of itself.
Specie money has actual value without needing the backing of the government, like gold, silver, platinum, etc.

How does gold, silver and platinum have value?

Tariffs in lieu of a progressive graduated income tax is a preferable system.
Your "what if" question is moot since Solace and I weren't talking about "what ifs."

The only benefit of tariffs is that they are very easy to collect (compared to normal taxes, they're nigh impossible to dodge), however they're extremely anti competitive, really restrict the market, and prevent most international trade. For instance, if Europe has far superior apples to American apples, with tariffs in place you can't buy them, and have to make do with inferior american apples, becuase the European apple is priced out of the market. Meanwhile in Europe, we can't buy the superior american oranges (for the same reasons), so we have to make do with inferior European oranges. End result: with tariffs europeans have good apples but bad oranges, and americans vice versa. Without tariffs Americans and Europeans both have good apples and oranges, and the European bad orange growers switch to good european apples, and the american bad apple growers grow good American oranges instead.

That's it on a simple scale. Free trade, when properly regulated, benefits everyone. It produces greater competition in all markets, and leads to improved and cheaper goods and services for all. And tariffs can really hard hit certain products that are impossible to produce without foreign good inputs.

For instance let's say you make a car engine with all american steel, and it's a decent engine, but the shell isn't strong enough to support a more then 5 horsepower. If you instead make the shell with Indonesian chrome steel, your engine would be powerful enough to go at 10 horsepower. However, with tariffs the price of your new product will be 3 times that of the all-american one, while without tariffs it would only be 1.2 times the price of the all american model. End result is that your superior product can't compete, and the consumer ends out with a worse engine in their car.

[Kaiba]

No, Marxism was not a reaction to Owenism.
Marx and Engles formulated Scientific-Socialism as a reaction to the Industrial Revolution which was supposedly depriving laborers of their "share" of the profits of the businesses that hired them.

Owenism also attacked that practice by actually sharing the profits equally among the workers.
Marx and Robert Owens were in agreement, not in contradiction.

Isn't this statement a contradiction of your earlier statement that Marx screwed up socialism and that if it had gone the Owenist route, things would have been different? After all, the two were in agreement.

Secondly, I'll get back to the earlier one. Why would going the Owenist route have changed anything? It was tried. It failed. Badly. As you pointed out with Fourier ( and was also true with Owen, as he talked about domesticating elephants and whales), they had just utterly ludicrous dreams. I mean, Owen's stuff is called "Utopain socialism" for a reason.

The fact that you don't know shows you didn't follow the link and read the definition of a corporation, or you have no idea what you're talking about.

So called non-profit corporations shouldn't exist in a capitalist system, meaning the NRA, ACLU, etc. should be able to form their groups without government approval/license in the form of a 501C corporation.
A corporation is a public-private partnership in which government gives permission to form a business.
Whereas, a business can exist with or without government permission in and of itself.

Except at what point does a "good" business become a "bad" corporation, then? To continue using the Apple example, Apple is a corporation today. But it wasn't a corporation when it was just Jobs and Wozniak sitting in a garage. Therefore, the business was formed without the permission of the government, and Jobs had no problem selling Apple products then. And Apple is perfectly capable of surviving today in and on its own.
After all, my understanding is weak, if Apple lost its corporation status tomorrow, what then? Does Apple just die? I doubt that.

Oh, so you like the corporate structure of a top tier ruling over the laborers?
Nice to know you're a corporatist.

I'll admit I actually don't particularly mind the label, but I have no idea how I got it from saying that Owen was a fool and his stuff was no better than Naruto a five year old saying we all need to hold hands and get along.

You don't understand money.
Specie money and fiat money are both backed by the government.
The difference between them is that fiat money has no value in and of itself.
Specie money has actual value without needing the backing of the government, like gold, silver, platinum, etc.

When you say "capitalism" I think you mean that a corporatist system cannot survive without central banking, and it can't.

Capitalism doesn't require central banking at all.

Historical examples of this capitalist system that managed to work fine without central banking.
And without fractional reserve? You won't have banks, period - at that point, there's not a huge difference between putting it in a bank or your mattress. And there is no way a capitalist system could survive if there were no banks, no lending, etc.
Gold possesses no value in and of itself either. After all, the only thing the government can really decree is "$1=$1". It is the people, the general economic system who figure out how many dollars gets a loaf of bread. Just like gold.
The government can't do that without price controls and other drastic measures which would set off a riot if enacted under the current political climate.

So you don't believe in any taxes period huh?
What do you call this fantasy land you live in?

It's called the United States. It has a progressive income tax. Not a flat tax (9999999999999), not tons of tariffs ( well, we do to some degree, but that should be fixed.)


Also, I saw this mentioned earlier, but it really is one that is bugging me.
We had Bush. He was proud of sticking to his guns and not being concerned about public opinions. We all know how great that turned out.
We have the Tea Party, a radical conservative ideology that is determined to fight with Obama to the end in the name of their ideals.

Why is shifting with the political winds viewed as such an evil these days, and sticking to ideals no matter what so important? These guys are representatives. They are supposed to represent us, and what we believe. So if we can change our views, why can't they? Why do we freak out when they do?
Part of it is an attack on Ron Paul, I'll admit. The fact that you held the same view for 30 years doesn't change the fact that your views is completely nuts, Paul. I don't see why I'm supposed to be impressed that you held it for so long.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

How does gold, silver and platinum have value?

Extrinsic value. Platinum has both high intrinsic and extrinsic value, since not only does it look pretty, it can be used in catalytic converters and super-corrosion resistant electrodes for lab experiments, hence it is really worth its money.

Silver and gold both have past intrinsic value as equipment material, but not as much as it is replaced by meta-materials and newly researched alloys. However, due to their place in history as a symbol of wealth, it continues to have high extrinsic value.

Whoever wants to try another Silver Thursday has got to be the next witless fool like the Hunt Brothers; there isn't much intrinsic value for gold and silver anymore.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Kaiba

Isn't this statement a contradiction of your earlier statement that Marx screwed up socialism and that if it had gone the Owenist route, things would have been different? After all, the two were in agreement.

No.
I said, Marx screwed up socialism by going after the Bourgeoisie.
Owens didn't.

Secondly, I'll get back to the earlier one. Why would going the Owenist route have changed anything? It was tried. It failed. Badly. As you pointed out with Fourier ( and was also true with Owen, as he talked about domesticating elephants and whales), they had just utterly ludicrous dreams. I mean, Owen's stuff is called "Utopain socialism" for a reason.

Owens and Rouvroy were closer to each other than Fourier was to either of them.
It was Engles that labeled them Utopian because they wanted to co-exist with the current order and improve it rather than completely tear it down and attempt to start over.

Except at what point does a "good" business become a "bad" corporation, then? To continue using the Apple example, Apple is a corporation today. But it wasn't a corporation when it was just Jobs and Wozniak sitting in a garage. Therefore, the business was formed without the permission of the government, and Jobs had no problem selling Apple products then. And Apple is perfectly capable of surviving today in and on its own.
After all, my understanding is weak, if Apple lost its corporation status tomorrow, what then? Does Apple just die? I doubt that.

You clearly don't understand.
If people/consumers no longer want the product that Apple produces then Apple dies because there is no government bailout in capitalism, nor should there be.

I'll admit I actually don't particularly mind the label, but I have no idea how I got it from saying that Owen was a fool and his stuff was no better than Naruto a five year old saying we all need to hold hands and get along.

I applied that label to you because Owens despised the way corporations were structured with a "ruling elite" at the top and workers at the bottom.
Thus you are defending the corporate structure by attacking Owens without defining your own beliefs.

Historical examples of this capitalist system that managed to work fine without central banking.
And without fractional reserve? You won't have banks, period - at that point, there's not a huge difference between putting it in a bank or your mattress. And there is no way a capitalist system could survive if there were no banks, no lending, etc.

It's called Interest-Free Banking and it works.

Gold possesses no value in and of itself either. After all, the only thing the government can really decree is "$1=$1". It is the people, the general economic system who figure out how many dollars gets a loaf of bread. Just like gold.
The government can't do that without price controls and other drastic measures which would set off a riot if enacted under the current political climate.

So in your mind, 5000+ years of use as a valuable item constitutes no value?
Put another way.
If the fiat dollar collapses, will you still be able to trade in gold and silver?
Answer, yes.

It's called the United States. It has a progressive income tax. Not a flat tax (9999999999999), not tons of tariffs ( well, we do to some degree, but that should be fixed.)

Ah yes Title 26, a system where corporations are able to use it to pay little or NO taxes.Like GE for example:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gener...ry?id=13224558

Progressive income taxes are a joke.
We seem them applied in practice all over the world and they don't work.

Also, I saw this mentioned earlier, but it really is one that is bugging me.
We had Bush. He was proud of sticking to his guns and not being concerned about public opinions. We all know how great that turned out.
We have the Tea Party, a radical conservative ideology that is determined to fight with Obama to the end in the name of their ideals.

Why is shifting with the political winds viewed as such an evil these days, and sticking to ideals no matter what so important? These guys are representatives. They are supposed to represent us, and what we believe. So if we can change our views, why can't they? Why do we freak out when they do?

Considering most Americans did not, and still don't want, the version of the Health Care law Obama shoved down our throats I'd say your argument holds no water.
Obama is not representing the interests of the majority in this country which is why his approval numbers are hovering in the low 40s.
So yes, we need a change alright, in 2012 we need to kick Obama out and elect someone who understands freedom.
Otherwise, things are only going to get worse for us.

Part of it is an attack on Ron Paul, I'll admit. The fact that you held the same view for 30 years doesn't change the fact that your views is completely nuts, Paul. I don't see why I'm supposed to be impressed that you held it for so long.

I haven't held the same view for 30 years, and there is nothing "nuts" about being a constitutionalist.
If you have a problem with the constitution and the bill of rights kindly pack your belongings and GTFO of the United States.
Insanity is never learning from one's mistakes, and since Obama is simply an extension of the same policies of Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, etc all the way back to Woodrow Wilson, I'd say we need a serious reset back to the original constitutional principles.

[Xagzan]

I'm a bit late in replying but,

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Facts don't enter into your thinking do they.

The WFP was created by labour unions, ACORN, and other community organizations.
Bertha Lewis was co-chair of the WFP in 2009 until the ACORN scandal broke.
They were intimately related to each other and had the exact same address for their headquarters in New York City.
To think that ACORN "doesn't exist anymore"--yet the same people are part of and operating the WFP--is ludicrous.

No, ACORN doesn't exist anymore. Yes, its former members do. I'm not sure why that would be an issue you'd argue though. I'm not. But it's not unusual that people who know each other and share values and skills from their jobs, which they then lose, would go find new jobs that also emphasized those values and mindsets, whether its Organize Now, SEIU, or the WFP. If you think that's evidence of some hidden evil conspiracy, I have a tinfoil hat to give you. Although I'm not even sure what this conspiracy is supposed to be.

But even so, it's amazing to me how you've twice now managed to take issue with what I'd say were the least significant points of my posts. First whether or not Soros had donated to a cause, now about the status of ACORN's current existence, which pales in importance next to the fact there was never any evidence of wrongdoing on ACORN's part.

[Kaiba]

Just a few smaller points, due to lack of time.

Owens and Rouvroy were closer to each other than Fourier was to either of them.
It was Engles that labeled them Utopian because they wanted to co-exist with the current order and improve it rather than completely tear it down and attempt to start over.

Incorrect. That's Fabian Socialism, which is still very strong today.

Owen's plan was more or less this:
1. Create commune ( ie. New Harmony)
2. Have everyone realize how awesome these communes are.
3. Everyone joins, and we have kittens and butterflies, and the old capitalist dog eat dog society goes down the drain.

The fact that New Harmony was an epic fail kind of screwed this plan over, and Marx made a more realistic version, one that actually looked at the present system. If you disagree, you have to remember that really no one outside of academics has any clue who the heck Robert Owen is. He has had no influence on socialism as it has existed since the death of Marx.

You clearly don't understand.
If people/consumers no longer want the product that Apple produces then Apple dies because there is no government bailout in capitalism, nor should there be.

Why is Apple prevented from asking for a bailout if it becomes a business as opposed to a corporation?
I still don't see the huge difference between corporations and businesses, and why the former is bad and the latter is good. You stated that corporations are bad because they require government approval. I pointed out that Apple is a corporation, but they didn't need government approval to form, and I don't believe that if Apple was a corporation instead of a business, things would be very different for it.

I applied that label to you because Owens despised the way corporations were structured with a "ruling elite" at the top and workers at the bottom.
Thus you are defending the corporate structure by attacking Owens without defining your own beliefs.

I don't remember this specifically about Owen from past research, but it's not unreasonable. That said, what you define as a corporate structure is just hierarchy, and that's something that will never, ever go away. It's part of all societies, even if you include non-human ones.

It's called Interest-Free Banking and it works.

Originally Posted by from your link

The first point is generally dealt with in the banking system by having a reasonably large number of savers and making sure that enough money is set aside to cope with those who, on any given day, want some of their money back. While individuals might withdraw their savings in a random manner, a large group of savers will tend to be stable and predictable.

It is JAK's policy to keep a minimum of 20% of pre-savings available in either a bank account or in government bonds, either of which can be made available almost immediately. Too much liquidity means that money is lying idle rather than being lent out to members, so it is not seen as desirable to have much more than 20% on reserve. Post-savings do not need to have a component on reserve since these can only be withdrawn at specified times.

This is still fractional-reserve banking. Fractional reserve banking is when that percentage is any number less than 100%.

If the fiat dollar collapses, will you still be able to trade in gold and silver?
Answer, yes.

Well, sure. I'll also be able to trade with guns, and cows, and tanks of gasoline. That doesn't make those currency. If anything, it'll be easier to trade with the above, as if the fiat currency collapses, you'll be more interested in getting something to eat as opposed to stockpiling gold.
Furthermore, how do you regulate it? What's going to stop me in that society from just selling fool's gold, or lesser quality gold?

[Demongod86]

Well, forced myself to watch last night's debate:

Bachmann: Twit.
Herman Cain: My solution to everything is 999. The accusations are false. Did I mention my solution is 999? And the answer to any question is for me to stay on my talking points about 999. My god, this guy is so dumb that he's a standing justification for so many racists. Good thing he's not a democrat!
Romney: solid performance IMO.
Ron Paul: not enough talking time. Nowhere near enough.
Rick Perry: Wants to cut education. What happens when you do? Presenting exhibit A. Honestly? Stick a fork in him, he's done.
Gingrich: one good idea about colleges providing students /w work experience in the summer. Other than that, nah.
Huntsman: I like him, but he's someone who believes in science in the Republican party. He's screwed more than anyone else.

[Kyuu]

Mike Tyson impersonation of Herman Cain. XD

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...n-impression/1

Funniest line:

"The Tea Party like crazy more than they hate black." (or something like that) XD

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

Rick Perry: Wants to cut education. What happens when you do? Presenting exhibit A. Honestly? Stick a fork in him, he's done.

For those who want a laugh about it:

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

No.

It's called Interest-Free Banking and it works.

Originally Posted by Kaiba

This is still fractional-reserve banking. Fractional reserve banking is when that percentage is any number less than 100%.

I like Jak quite a bit too, but Kaiba is quite right, the JAK bank is still fractional reserve banking (as is every building society, mutual and credit union in the world). Putting your money in a non fractional reserve bank is basically the same as putting it under your matress, it does nothing.

Maybe your beef is with Interest.

I'm all for favouring other forms of banking (particularly those that are owned by it's members, and non-profit), but you can't really get away from fractional reserve. It's the entire point, you give money to the bank/building society/etc. so that it can lend it to people who need it, either to start a new business, build a house etc.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by GDB

For those who want a laugh about it:

i wish perry would win the rep nominee