Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

sharpe

Members
  • Posts

    1,101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sharpe

  1. the actual amount of work we all do to pay dole is pretty low.

    the work we do to keep scum like the royal family in a life of opulence is enormous. this is nothing more than a sad effort to distort from the real parasites - the idle rich.

    guilotine the lot of them - spread the land and assets to the rest of the country

    in the Philippines even very poor farmers have "a few hectares" due to the land distributions (or should I say land returns - after years of successive thefts)

  2. Japan is a creditor nation and the people there save trillions, unlike most of the west

    so the demand for japanese yen is basically high (or higher than the rate of printing it).

    that is why they are in deflation.

    is a delicate balancing act, based on consumer expectations. if everyone expects inflation they all go and spend and there is an inflationary spiral. as they are expecting deflation it is self fullfilling.

    it took a long time in germany in the 1920s for the sentiment to move from deflation expectations to inflationary ones. once they moved - wow

  3. deflation would also hurt the government which is heavily in debt.

    given they control the printing press it ain't going to happen. (they can take interest rates to 0%, then reduce tax to 0 and print money to pay for as many services as they like)

    they are creating (or trying to) deflationary expectations - to keep the demand for money high - so when they print more, prices will take longer to sky rocket.

  4. I have defined it - it's the ability of those who take a raw material (or trade for a semi finished/finished good) to keep what they made or traded for.

    Thats about it, really.

    please note that this is a factual, evidence based solution to a long running philosophical problem. it does not require a state, only the recognistion that everyone can trade and make things. like free speech and the ability to roam around the earth it is an ability that all possess to some degree or other.

    i am saying the definition given is insufficient. common things we have property laws for now are land - what if you grow vegetables on land, plough it, grow it - can anyone take it - why cannot they just use the land for something else; or if you plant a tree is that yours etc... if you cannot own land - who would do the work on it? would people have to defer to you or some state body to answer every one of these questions.

  5. Bannatyne's advice on Dragons den was:

    - find an idea you believe in

    - borrow as much money as you can and invest it all in the idea

    fair enough he got rich that way - probably one of thousands of idiots doing the same thing - he got lucky

    would not be surprised to see Bannatyne bankrupt in the next 10 years

  6. Fraid not.

    A case by case basis is probabl the only way it can be done. However, those things which are invalid are pretty easy to discern - involuntary relationships, taking without trade or permission, fraud, imagining reality is divided up into small chunks that you have the sole right ot control.

    The philosophy of it is pretty easy. Doing it practically is much, much harder because the short term benefits of acting badly are always apparent and the long term gains that are foregone by this sort of action aren't as easy to see.

    To a 5th century king supressing everyone else to become very, very slightly more wealthy makes sense. unless you've been to the modern world and realise what denying everyone elses rights has really cost him in material terms.

    sounds a bit like Proudhon. but you need to be able to define what you mean by property rights as it is fundamental to any idea of capitalism - and pretty difficult to discuss otherwise.

  7. A right is something you are able to do. it can onl;y be interfered with or limited by others actions. We all have the right to free speech - that is each and evry single one of us is capable of saying anything we like. We all have the right to wander around the earth - we have these abilities out of the box. We all have the ability to use stuff in the real world, to use and own property.

    The question isn't whether we have these rights or not, it's a question of where and how they are limited.

    Ok let's stick to property rights definition as this seems to be the crux of the issue.

    You defining rights but not specifically property rights. Can you be more specific? Why can I not just take your car and drive it off? what is the thing that interfers and limits my right to do this? Or just live in your house? Can we have a clear definition of what makes that car or house or land yours and why anyone should accept that?

  8. Never said they did. You seem to think that priveledges are rights for some reason.

    so property is not a right - but a priveledge? can you define what you mean by property "rights" as that might make it clearer

    Wrong. I se no evidence for this statement at all. Do you have any?

    We already went through this - cheating on expenses being almost universal and worse the senior you get. respected doctors, lawyers, dare i say politicians etc... regularly cheat with amounts they can get away with. Stationary theft is basically endemic in pretty much every office the world over. After Hurricane Katrina, was there an orderly calm and restoration by the public? - no it was all out theft as soon as the police left until the army returned. Insurance fraud is pretty much systematic - people just lie to insurance companies about what they had in their bag that went missing etc... This is all overwhelming evidence of a generalised lack of respect for property rights in the absence of real punishment.

  9. I'll quote you Chomsky, since his (tirelessly researched & scrupulously referenced & sourced) work is constantly scrutinized for inaccuracies with a fine tooth comb by many, yet he never seems to be charged successfully with fabrication or falsification;

    I charge him with at least one inaccuracy and/or falsification. in "The Fateful Triangle" there is some comment about Israel agreeing a cease fire and then invading and taking Eilat the next day.

    Eilat was occupied by one of other of Jordan or Egypt not in the ceasefire - so Israel did not break that ceasefire in that case. Small point - but it was an accusation at the Israeli army that was wrong in this case. I wrote to Chomsky and he bascially conceded the point. Probably plenty of other examples - but who has time to look

  10. Of course they are inherent. next you'll be telling me that Ican't wander anywhere on earth as an out of the box right, or that I don't have the right tofree speech at all times and places, just like all other humans do.

    property rights do not appear in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    it is some external concept that is not at all natural to human understanding - which is demonstrated by their near universal disrespect when there is no punishment for breaking them

    i take exception the the idea that property rights are natural in any way. they are fundamentally unnatural and can only be maintained by force in any meaningful way.

    take new orleans after the hurricane - did people fear lack of job prospects in the absence of the police enouogh to deter theft? no they ran riot and stole everything killing anyone who stood up to them unable to defend themself

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.