Tweedles stand up to be counted.

[W|M]

If the US stops using paper money, the economy will collapse pretty much immediately (as would other countries' economies which peg their currencies to the US Dollar) and it would be forced to either use barter (I for one would not like having to bring chickens every time I want to buy something) or use a foreign currency such as the Ruble. Accepting currency isn't just a simple matter of wanting to use it, it's a matter of how it's used and what people will tend to start using as currency - There aren't universal ''Free Market'' laws which govern everything in the economy, it's much more complex than that. A good understanding of how the economy works requires at least a basic understanding of mass psychology, which you seem to lack.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't think anyone should be forced to take any kind of currency, and IIRC you only have to accept state-printed currency for debts, but I think its good to have a "Standard" currency that most people wouldn't disagree to using anyway.

The two dollar bill exists, but some people choose not to take it.

 

[Abegweit]

There aren't universal ''Free Market'' laws which govern everything in the economy

Oh, there are indeed universals. Do you not believe in science?

it's much more complex than that. A good understanding of how the economy works requires at least a basic understanding of mass psychology, which you seem to lack.

I submit that I have a far better understanding of "mass" psychology (what a sick term, BTW) than you. Far more importantly, I understand that economics has nothing to do with psychology. You seriously need to learn how the universe works.

 

[W|M]

So you think that Positivism is true? Economics isn't entirely governed by scientific principles, it relies on many, many factors including mass psychology - Economics is entirely dominated by Mass Psychology though, as demonstrated by Mass Panics such as those in 1907 and 1929 which destroyed the American economy and had effects than reverberated throughout the world. Economies are also stimulated by the encouragement of commerce, so that money flows through the economy and helps it to grow.

 

[Abegweit]

Economies are also stimulated by the encouragement of commerce.

This is true. Awesome, isn't it?

 

[W|M]

Yes, but you should remember that it shouldn't be unregulated - Economies require heavy regulation, or they tend to collapse rather badly, such as in 1929.

 

[Abegweit]

Yes, but you should remember that it shouldn't be unregulated - Economies require heavy regulation, or they tend to collapse rather badly, such as in 1929.

I have no clue why people claim to be communists. Every one of them worships the state. Where did this "withering away" thing wither off to?

 

[W|M]

There are various differing Communist theories, which is why you might see many contradictions between Communists about the role of the state. I personally think that the state should be trusted with all the services to provide a measure to keep everything accountable through elections - due to not being held accountable, corporations tend to become single-minded about profit and not care about the well-being of anyone, including their own workers and customers.

 

[Abegweit]

There are various differing Communist theories, which is why you might see many contradictions between Communists about the role of the state. I personally think that the state should be trusted with all the services to provide a measure to keep everything accountable through elections - due to not being held accountable, corporations tend to become single-minded about profit and not care about the well-being of anyone, including their own workers and customers.

Communism violates economic law, no matter what the variant. As for your opinion that thieving scum should entrusted with anything, the less said the better.

 

[W|M]

What the hell is economic law?

I'd say that corporations are the thieving scum, not the government (taxes are not stolen from you, they pay for your services and everything that you use - Would you really like having to pay for your own private healthcare, education, transport, roads, bridges, etc.?)

 

[Abegweit]

What the hell is economic law?

You seriously need to learn something about how the world works. Supply and demand.

I'd say that corporations are the thieving scum, not the government

Corporations are creatures of the state. And, BTW, it is really lame to listen to people conflating government with thieves.

Would you really like having to pay for your own private healthcare, education, transport, roads, bridges, etc.?)

Oh yes. I would love to be allowed to. In other news, do you honestly think that the state pays for all this stuff out of thin air?

 

[W|M]

Communism doesn't contradict laws of Supply and Demand, though, it just places control of supply into state control. Corporations really are not creatures of the state, and are nowhere near regulated enough to have responsibility or accountability for their actions.

Oh yes. I would love to be allowed to. In other news, do you honestly think that the state pays for all this stuff out of thin air?

Of course the state doesn't pay for services out of thin air, it collects taxes for this, but it's much easier and more efficient to pay taxes and have everything paid for you than having to worry about paying for everything there is, as well as worrying about a delegation of responsibility of who has to pay for what - Who would pay to keep roads repaired in a large city, for example? Things tend to become much more expensive when they're not covered in taxes as well largely due to the inefficiency of people having to personally pay for everything instead of the government paying for everything. The introduction of the National Health Service in the UK, for example, led to millions being able to be medically treated whereas previously only the richer segments of the population and those covered by the National Insurance could realistically afford to be treated - Most unemployed people, for example, were denied healthcare simply because they could not afford it and weren't covered by existing government programs, even if their unemployment was by no fault of their own.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The whole unemployment thing is really what it comes down to. "Free" Healthcare is a farce. It doesn't exist. Someone pays for it.

The question is really about WHO should pay for it. The individual or the government? I believe the individual should pay for healthcare, but that doesn't necessarily mean that those who don't have money should be denied treatment.

 

[Abegweit]

Communism doesn't contradict laws of Supply and Demand, though, it just places control of supply into state control

You really are amazingly confused. According to Marx, communism would come when the state disappeared. Are you a commie or are you a statist? Fess up.

Corporations really are not creatures of the state.

You really need to learn some history. And some law.

Of course the state doesn't pay for services out of thin air, it collects taxes for this, but it's much easier and more efficient to pay taxes and have everything paid for you than having to worry about paying for everything there is, as well as worrying about a delegation of responsibility of who has to pay for what - Who would pay to keep roads repaired in a large city, for example?

Of course, theft is just so much more efficient than actually paying for what you want. And once the thieves are in charge, there's nothing to worry about. Gotcha.

 

[WindFish]

What? Are you claiming that the late 1960s and early 1970s were a period of hard money? That simply is laughable.

Bretton Woods was ended by Nixon.

 

[Ailedhoo]

You really are amazingly confused. According to Marx, communism would come when the state disappeared. Are you a commie or are you a statist? Fess up.

According to you everyone that shares not your views is a exstream statist and a criminal.

Your debate methods are a demonstration of how sad you are.

 

[W|M]

According to you everyone that shares not your views is an extreme statist and a criminal.

Your debate methods are a demonstration of how sad you are.

QFT.

Of course, theft is just so much more efficient than actually paying for what you want. And once the thieves are in charge, there's nothing to worry about. Gotcha.

What? I'm more worried about the thieves at Wall Street than those in Washington, since the ones in Wall Street are able to be much more irresponsibile and dangerous.

You really need to learn some history. And some law.

While corporations have government regulations restricting them in many areas, they are still largely free to do what they want independent of the government (Unless they are government-owned corporations such as the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation).

 

[peter grimes]

The whole unemployment thing is really what it comes down to. "Free" Healthcare is a farce. It doesn't exist. Someone pays for it.

The question is really about WHO should pay for it. The individual or the government? I believe the individual should pay for healthcare, but that doesn't necessarily mean that those who don't have money should be denied treatment.

So you want the health care system to operate the way it has for the last 25 years? With 40,000,000 people uninsured? When those people get sick (not IF, WHEN) the rest of the people who are paying for health insurance pick up the bill. How is that fair??

The most fair, simple, and cost-effective system is universal coverage payed for by the government (i.e. we taxpayers). Until we get to there, it is inevitable that there will be gross inefficiencies and greater opportunities for waste, fraud, and abuse. You know, that thing republicans claim to hate

 

[holy king]

I've got a wonderfully innovative new idea. Instead of having an election, we should pit the two candidates in a no-holds-barred 2v2 cage match. Last one alive gets the Presidency.

It'd at least be more entertaining.

two men in, one man out.

 

[Borachio]

Cow pats at twenty paces.

"I think Abraham Lincoln said that." Dylan