It's been better in terms of consistency, sure, but worse in overall performance.
As the article points out, you can get a gallon of gas for a quarter, and get change back, provided it's a pre-65 silver quarter. If you could speak on the phone with someone from 1965 who was about to bury a time capsule in your backyard, which would YOU rather him bury, $1000 in 1965 dollar bills, or $500 in 1965 silver quarters? The dollars would be worth the same, the quarters would be worth over $12000. And remember, Silver is actually trading well UNDER it's historic ratio when compared to gold.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
And the reason gold would be off by so much is actually pretty simple. Gold is an investment in future inflation. When we had double digit inflation under Carter and at the beginning of the Reagan administration, gold went way up because people were anticipating continued 10%+ a year inflation. When inflation fell down to the 3%/year level during the Reagan administration, gold lost 90% of its value in nominal dollars because the massive future inflation that was in the gold prices did not materialize.
So you should see the gold price now as the market's mostly as the market's belief/speculation on future inflation, not what has already happened.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
So you should see the gold price now as the market's mostly as the market's belief/speculation on future inflation, not what has already happened.
Well surely SOME of it should be based on what has already happened, or is your position that the proper value of silver today should be the same as it was in 1965? PM prices should account for inflation that has already happened just the same as the price of ANY good will, the difference being that PMs, as a store of value and medium of exchange, will also attempt to anticipate future price moves.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Well surely SOME of it should be based on what has already happened, or is your position that the proper value of silver today should be the same as it was in 1965? PM prices should account for inflation that has already happened just the same as the price of ANY good will, the difference being that PMs, as a store of value and medium of exchange, will also attempt to anticipate future price moves.
Of course it accounts for what has already happened, the problem is that the possible future stuff is vastly bigger than what has already happened. You see the same with stocks. See price/earnings ratios. There are more years in the future to work with.
Look at gold in the 80s. We had massive inflation in the 70s, yet gold still fell 90%+ after the double-digit inflation stopped. We didn't get deflation either, just small single digit inflation. Why? Because the market was looking at the possibility of, say, 30 more years of 10% inflation (approx. 20x overall) , and pricing that into the price of gold.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
As the article points out, you can get a gallon of gas for a quarter, and get change back, provided it's a pre-65 silver quarter. If you could speak on the phone with someone from 1965 who was about to bury a time capsule in your backyard, which would YOU rather him bury, $1000 in 1965 dollar bills, or $500 in 1965 silver quarters? The dollars would be worth the same, the quarters would be worth over $12000. And remember, Silver is actually trading well UNDER it's historic ratio when compared to gold.
They didn't have index funds in 1965, but if I was looking for something safe I'd tell him to buy shares of a blue chip company and bury the stock certificates. If we got lucky, I'd end up with something like IBM or Coca-Cola, if unlucky something like GM. If it's between the bills and the silver, definitely the silver. Burying dollars is absolutely silly, and everyone should know it. Inflation isn't a new thing, and anyone who buries dollars in the ground for 50 years deserves to lose most of the value.
But that isn't relevant. It's much more important for a medium of exchange to be consistent on a short time interval like 5 or 10 years than a long time interval like 50 years. It's horrible to have a currency that loses 93% of its value in 5-ish years, or that gains 500% in 5-ish years.
And yes, the value of gold (in terms of its purchasing power towards items we want) would not fluctuate like that if our primary medium of exchange was gold instead of the dollar. This is not a criticism of the gold standard. But if we are measuring inflation, it is silly to measure it based on gold. Unless you want to say we had 1400% inflation under Reagan.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
Here's an interesting article I read today. It is striking how long long term bear markets last. 40 years out of 100. What gives the market its overall uptrend is the massive massive gains over periods lasting generally less than 20 years in long term bull markets.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
Man, it was so worth listening to 16 minutes of the other 3 candidates talking their BS for Ron Paul to come out and in ONE SENTENCE completely ****ing EVISCERATE Santorum.
-- _foolmo_ 'You are obviously intelligent and insightful' - Sir Chris about me
Also, why is only 1 Republican candidate Protestant, and he is not the favorite of the religious right? Seriously, people, your candidates are two Catholics and a Mormon. I know the moral majority believes strongly that the end justifies the means, but something is wrong with your thinking here.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
From: red sox 777 | #213 Also, why is only 1 Republican candidate Protestant, and he is not the favorite of the religious right? Seriously, people, your candidates are two Catholics and a Mormon. I know the moral majority believes strongly that the end justifies the means, but something is wrong with your thinking here.
I'd like to point out with this that I feel you're really just buying into the false stereotypes propagated by leftists of Republicans as stupid, bigoted, idiots who will only vote for someone who is exactly like them in every conceivable way. The "battle lines" have been redrawn since the 1960s. The Culture War in America is no longer fought between Catholics and Protestants, it's fought between the Religious and the Religion-haters. Catholics and Mormons and Protestants have MUCH more in common with each other than they do with the militant atheists of the world.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
--
From his looks Magus is Macho Man Randy Savage as an anime zombie. The black wind howls, and one of you will snap into a Slim Jim ooh yeeeah! -sonicblastpunch
I'd like to point out with this that I feel you're really just buying into the false stereotypes propagated by leftists of Republicans as stupid, bigoted, idiots who will only vote for someone who is exactly like them in every conceivable way. The "battle lines" have been redrawn since the 1960s. The Culture War in America is no longer fought between Catholics and Protestants, it's fought between the Religious and the Religion-haters. Catholics and Mormons and Protestants have MUCH more in common with each other than they do with the militant atheists of the world.
Well, I'm basing this more on my own experiences as a Protestant, and specifically, with evangelicals. Religion ought to be more important given the rhetoric used by people. If your main idea is to vote for the most godly candidate, how could it be possible to have the 3 leading Republican contenders all not be Protestant?
At least for me personally, the candidate's religion matters at least somewhat, and I was under the impression that it mattered a lot to others. It's no good to say that they have the same positions on moral issues, because I don't think the government should legislate morality anyway, and besides true religion is not about morality but about God (this is my belief).
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
And the primary reason I want a president who is Protestant is that the President is also head of state in addition to head of government, and must fulfill the duties of a head of state, namely to represent the country as its leader. This is the function of the Queen in the UK, for example.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
Obama vs. Romney, Romney wins: Stock market goes up substantially the next day. Obama vs. Romney, Obama wins: Stock market goes up a little the next day. Obama vs. Santorum, Obama wins: Stock market goes up substantially the next day. Obama vs. Santorum, Santorum wins: Stock market goes down the next day. Obama vs. Gingrich, Obama wins: Stock market goes up substantially the next day. Obama vs. Gingrich, Gingrich wins: Stock market goes down the next day. Obama vs. Paul, Obama wins: Stock market goes up the next day. Obama vs. Paul, Paul wins: The stock market has a fit and we get one of the biggest one-day declines in history the next day. Meanwhile the price of gold skyrockets.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
I don't really care about the religion of the president; I just don't want it to override their best judgment, and I don't want them to push their beliefs on the rest of the country.
-- No I'm not a damn furry. Looney Tunes are different. - Guiga I wanted Sonic/Shadow romance at that time, not sex. - MWE
it's fought between the Religious and the Religion-haters. Catholics and Mormons and Protestants have MUCH more in common with each other than they do with the militant atheists of the world.
if a war was fought between religion and religion-haters, it would be over before it started. atheists are such a small % of the country that they have no real power. this is true everywhere outside of internet message boards.
If your main idea is to vote for the most godly candidate, how could it be possible to have the 3 leading Republican contenders all not be Protestant?
You should listen to Dennis Prager sometime. He's a conservative talk-show host who is an orthodox Jew and is supporting Mitt Romney, but he's been talking for YEARS about the significant differences between values and theology. Among actively religious people, there really aren't any significant differences in opinions on the issues between Catholics, Mormons, and Protestants. The differences are all theological, which have no practical implications towards ability to execute the office of President.
It's all well and good to say "If all other things were equal, I'd prefer a candidate who shares my own religion," but the problem with that is, all other things AREN'T equal. Not even close.
It's basically the same as the whole "Ron Paul can't be President because he doesn't believe in evolution" argument.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
if a war was fought between religion and religion-haters, it would be over before it started. atheists are such a small % of the country that they have no real power. this is true everywhere outside of internet message boards.
Well, numbers =/ influence. The anti-religion crowd basically controls the media. Then you've got Soros and his ilk. Also, there are plenty of anti-religion people who don't self-identify as atheist. People who might not necessarily hate religion, but whose dedication to leftist causes is such that they're willing to throw religion under the bus if it advances their ends.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
I think American religious people have a victim complex
they imagine hordes of bad people (atheists, agnostics, other religions) persecuting them constantly when it is either non-existent or exactly the opposite
if you are some sub-division of Christian in America you really cannot complain about anything, you are the supermajority and your views are well represented in every area of public life
I think American religious people have a victim complex
they imagine hordes of bad people (atheists, agnostics, other religions) persecuting them constantly when it is either non-existent or exactly the opposite
This also goes for B8, actually. Some Christians complain they're in the minority here, but non-believers only have a slight majority. There may even be a 50/50 split.
on topic, I watched RP highlights from the recent debate
I think politicians are so messed up about this - they talk about what their views on birth control are, or what is at the root of the immorality of the country, etc. why not commit yourself to Democracy instead? is there any candidate like that? RP certainly didn't seem like he was, and of course the other Repubs were not either.
I'd love for a candidate to say "whether we use public funds for planned parenthood should follow the will of the people. we'll put it up to a vote or look at public polls and make a decision based on that. because what the public actually wants to spend it's money on matters. they're paying the taxes."
I don't care whether the government funds certain stuff, or has power over certain stuff, or whatever. I do care that it is accountable to the people and actually follows the public will. the public is clearly not conservative on several important issues - they don't want war, they support workers rights, they support planned parenthood and want it funded, they want a universal healthcare plan that makes sense, they don't want to bail out big business or hand out corporate welfare. any candidate who campaigns on being against those things is flying in the face of the public will and has no business being president.
SmartMuffin posted... Also, there are plenty of anti-religion people who don't self-identify as atheist. People who might not necessarily hate religion, but whose dedication to leftist causes is such that they're willing to throw religion under the bus if it advances their ends.
Whoa, whoa, stop! Religion is not right wing or left wing. Get your politics out of my religion!
I went to church every day living in Georgia...attending what could be loosely described as a lesbian church (although we allowed men as well, and straight people, and people of all races). Needless to say this church supports some "leftist" issues, like gay marriage. But it went further than that--our own (white) minister was downtown protesting immigrant rights on a regular basis, encouraging us to join her, with lines like "just because the government isn't stomping on your rights, and doing injustices to you, doesn't mean you shouldn't stand up and make your voice heard when you see injustice."
Let's talk about the environment. My church back in Canada ran a rather interesting and provocative ad campagin with posters saying stuff like "Is it a sin to drive an SUV?" Well...is it? The Bible is a bit ambiguous on the issue, as there weren't SUVs around 2000 years ago.
Next, probably someone on B8 has already linked you to this Bill Maher rant about how Christians aren't allowed to celebrate the death of Bin Laden:
(Warning: he swears at one point)
Now, Bill Maher is a complete dick, but let's ignore that part.
My church actually did things "the right way", at least by this interpretation; here's an email that my church sent several weeks earlier:
What I want to share with you today are my reflections on my "spying!" This week's news of the location of and killing of Osama bin Laden has evoked strong emotions and reactions of many sorts: horror, glee, relief. I was particularly troubled by those who saw this as an occasion for celebration. Several things troubled me: Simply rejoicing in death is troubling and seems - well... wrong. Secondly, as has been said by many in a variety of ways: killing the perpetrator doesn't just fix things; in fact, violence often just escalates violence. But mostly, I am disturbed any time we see things - whether personal or political - with the assumption that our perspective is the only valid way of seeing or that we can comprehend what's right or wrong only from our own moral vantage point. This, of course, is arrogance. It's also disrespectful of difference.
Anytime our nation or others are involved in political situations, we do things for a variety of reasons, sometimes serving our own interests above that of others. We are never the unblemished heroes of the world who are beyond asking ourselves the difficult moral questions. And my "spying" showed me that you know that! Your responses to this complex event were filled with understanding, reflection, and prayer. They were devoid of easy answers, arrogance, and unexamined nationalism. In your Facebook posts and emails, I saw and heard a depth of concern that takes seriously your commitment to following Jesus and his ways of peace, compassion, and non-violence. And I'm proud of you! And so pleased to be your pastor.
Point is, you don't get to call us anti-religious. (And we in turn don't get to call you anti-religious). Religion is much bigger and deeper than petty squabbles about politics.
--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision
Needless to say this church supports some "leftist" issues, like gay marriage.
I'm not sure why gay marriage is a leftist issue. Ron Paul is right-wing, but he's not anti-gay marriage. He just believes the government should not be involved in marriage, gay or otherwise.
Mr Lasastryke posted... I'm not sure why gay marriage is a leftist issue. Ron Paul is right-wing, but he's not anti-gay marriage. He just believes the government should not be involved in marriage, gay or otherwise.
Ron Paul is also the only candidate who believes in peace and bringing all the troops home, which is also something that would normally be labelled "leftist".
Ron Paul just doesn't fit that well in the American "right-left" spectrum, in that he actually goes by his beliefs instead of following the party line.
--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision
yeah he's still better than the other republican candidates but that doesn't mean much. when your position is "we should completely defund planned parenthood because that money could be used for abortions" even though the American public is overwhelmingly in favor of PP and of funding it, that's just disastrous.
From: metroid composite | #233 Ron Paul just doesn't fit that well in the American "right-left" spectrum, in that he actually goes by his beliefs instead of following the party line.
I dunno, I feel like he's the ONLY one who fits in the spectrum. He is clearly conservative in every aspect of government. There is really no ambiguity.
It's all the other politicians who identify as "left" or "right" but really just subscribe to the same homogenous ideals that will get them money and re-election.
From: OmarsComin | #234 even though the American public is overwhelmingly in favor of PP and of funding it
Then let them fund it, at the state level. That's all RP is asking for. If the public is overwhelmingly in favor of it, then that's the perfect thing to leave to the states. The federal government only needs to get involved when dealing with something that is overwhelmingly unpopular, sometimes.
The key thing to remember is something that the last few presidential administrations have worked very hard, and successfully, to make the American public forget, that the states actually have the power to fix most problems. When you're dumping all these minute, insignificant issues on the federal government, it's REALLY easy to blow them out of proportion and important things like bad foreign and economic policy and attacks on personal rights go by unnoticed. It's so easy for corporations to just lobby all the congressmen in DC, who are far removed from their actual constituents in their home states, to get what they want.
Just look at SOPA and PIPA. Hollywood literally had several congressmen in their pockets, and they were just gonna pass the bills on quietly while the rest of the country cried about federal laws about exactly how many weeks it takes for a fetus to become a person, or exactly how many condoms everyone is entitled to, or whatever dumb crap. It took like 2 weeks of the core internet community constantly screaming "HEY LOOK AT THIS ****" and wikipedia/google/etc. helping out before people actually realized what was going on. And that was just one bill, there are still so many others that go through unopposed (NDAA) and unnoticed.
If you want transparency and you want accountability and you want actual democracy, you have to support the power of the states above the federal.
-- _foolmo_ 'he says listen to my story this maybe are last chance' - ertyu quoting Tidus
From: LOLContests | #237 Why would states be more transparent? If anything it would be easier to buy off state representatives, since the cost is lower.
You need to look at it from the perspective of the corporations and the representatives, as well as that of the citizen.
If you are a tobacco company and you want to keep weed illegal right now, what do you do? You send lobbyists and money to one place, Washington. That's it. You can kill multiple birds with one stone, as well, since if Washington has all the power, you don't need to go anywhere else. If the states had the power, you would need to send lobbyists to every single state. This means 50 different congresses that you have to bribe, versus just one big one.
Now, why would the cost of lobbying be less? If there's a legislation in federal Congress that you don't support, what can you do? You can call your representatives, which are at most like 5% of the voters on the bill. If the legislation is being considered at the state level, you can influence literally 100% of the voters on the bill, and not just on the phone, you can literally walk up to their office and yell at them in person. Now, if you're the politician deciding on this bill, would it take more money to betray your constituents who are 1000 miles away talking to you on the phone, or your constituents who are living in your very city and know where you live?
But if the people are ignorant of the laws being passed, it really doesn't matter anyways, right? Well that's why it's important to have legislation at the state level. You must agree that when laws change in your state, you care about them way more, and you feel their effects way closer. That's just common sense. It's REALLY easy to make the public apathetic about a federal bill, but it's a lot more difficult for a more local bill.
Further, when the federal has so much power, there is nothing the citizens can do to deal with laws that they don't like, besides moving to another country. If there was more power in the states, then people would be able to voice their opinion by moving to or away from states. This adds an entire new layer of democracy that actually forces politicians of a state to work together, no matter what their party/beliefs are, to keep their citizens happy. They can't just do whatever they want and tell the public to dealwithit.gif like the federal can.
-- _foolmo_ 'You are obviously intelligent and insightful' - Sir Chris about me
States are less powerful. Concentration of power is the dangerous thing. Just as having banks too big to fail is bad. It's not a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket.
Also, state reps are more directly answerable to their constituents. The great contradiction with Congress is that their approval rating as a whole is something like 10%, but incumbents win reelection something like 80-90% of the time. Why? People blame Congress, but not their own Congressman. That's much harder to pull off in a state. You can't blame the politicians from the rest of the country.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
I think politicians are so messed up about this - they talk about what their views on birth control are, or what is at the root of the immorality of the country, etc. why not commit yourself to Democracy instead? is there any candidate like that? RP certainly didn't seem like he was, and of course the other Repubs were not either.
I'd love for a candidate to say "whether we use public funds for planned parenthood should follow the will of the people. we'll put it up to a vote or look at public polls and make a decision based on that. because what the public actually wants to spend it's money on matters. they're paying the taxes."
That's exactly what candidates are supposed to do and should do. They announce their position, and the voters choose the one they agree with. If you want public funds for Planned Parenthood, vote for Obama. That's democracy.
Also, if you want a candidate who supports whatever is popular, I suggest Mitt Romney. That's what he does!
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
Also, if the American people are in favor of funding Planned Parenthood, they can do it themselves. Nothing stops them from sending them a donation. You can even get a deduction on your taxes. The government should not be in the business of charitable giving.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
From: yoshifan823 | #173 KingButz posted... A federal DMV would equal a federal identification service. f*** that noise
Yes, it would be horrible if we had something (like say, a number) that was in a large database on a federal level (like say, for Social Security), that people could be identified by.
What kind of strange "Social Security" "Number" would result from that mess?
That's funny, last I remember my SSN did not have my photo attached to it and law enforcement officers have not ever asked me to display it.
--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/bokbokbokpngur.png Ok everyone this is Bartz so just remember.
I think politicians are so messed up about this - they talk about what their views on birth control are, or what is at the root of the immorality of the country, etc. why not commit yourself to Democracy instead? is there any candidate like that? RP certainly didn't seem like he was, and of course the other Repubs were not either.
I'd love for a candidate to say "whether we use public funds for planned parenthood should follow the will of the people. we'll put it up to a vote or look at public polls and make a decision based on that. because what the public actually wants to spend it's money on matters. they're paying the taxes."
So... why not follow this to its logical conclusion and allow each person to decide whether or not to fund planned parenthood by not taxing them so much and allowing them to donate their own funds if they so choose. Privatization is the ultimate form of Democracy.
You cite opinion polls, but these polls are irrelevant, because people see the question as "Should someone else pay for planned parenthood?" Well sure, why not! Free health care? Sure, why not! Just keep running the printing presses and lying to us about how it won't possibly cause hyperinflation and collecting 90% of the tax revenue from the Top 5% of taxpayers and who cares, right?
The ONLY way that government can truly follow the "will of the people" is to do NOTHING and let the people make their own decisions.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
It's a fictionalized biography of a really great trader with a very interesting approach to speculation.
Perhaps the most striking thing about the book is that the way it portrays the times (early 1900s), everyone apparently traded on thin margin in the 5-10% range. That's actually a lot more fair than the way it is now, where banks/investment professionals/rich people can still find ways to hyperleverage their money, but the common person cannot. The regulations are trying to protect common people from their own stupidity, when the real danger is not the stupidity of common people, but the concentration of power/risk in a few places.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
Privatization is the antithesis of democracy in every way.
The point of democracy is that everyone gets a voice. You exist in this realm, you get to have a say in how it moves forward. So if people want to tax the people who have the most money more, then use that to pay for abortions or roads, that's fine. Your job now is to convince the people who live in the country with you that they shouldn't want those things. Privatization can never work like that, as by definition it centers power in the hands of monied elite. It doesn't matter whether there's a nanny state or not, the centers of corporate power will be the true rulers. Government at it's best acts as a constraint on private power and as an executor of the public will.
I think it's clear that what I describe is not how America functions at all. Massively scaling back corporate rights and making it illegal for corporations to donate money would go a long way towards fixing that. People latch onto RP because he wants to scale back federal power in favor of state power. In some ways, I think that makes sense. When the government infringes on civil liberties and does so directly against the public will, the natural reaction should be to find a way to stop them from doing it.
But I don't think having one large body of government power is necessarily bad, it just can be. It's clear from president and congress approval ratings that most people don't think the politicians represent them meaningfully. And it's true - the public is far away from where the government is on a lot of stuff. But I'm not convinced that transferring power to the states is better, it just makes the power that is supposed to represent the people weaker. You can not enforce any kind of regulation, corporate power will run amok, and we will eventually live in a tyranny. An absence of state power means an absence of the population's power, and private power will necessarily take it's place.
So yeah, if you look at our current situation people are unhappy. But they're not unhappy that there's a federal government, they're unhappy that the federal government ignores their wishes. So you figure out why it does that, and fix it. If it's the fact that politicians are funded primarily by corporate money, you make that illegal. If it's something else, you fix that too. At the end you have a government that is actually responsive to what the population wants and everyone is happy. To me that makes a lot more sense than "let's pay for nothing, even if the population that pays taxes wants it paid for." That's not better than what we have now.
Why would you be more scared of big corporations than a big government? A big government is far far bigger than even the biggest, baddest, corporation out there. It is also accountable to no one, because it makes and enforces the laws.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
red sox 777 posted... Why would you be more scared of big corporations than a big government? A big government is far far bigger than even the biggest, baddest, corporation out there. It is also accountable to no one, because it makes and enforces the laws.
Excellent post.
Why are liberals so afraid of corporations? Just stop shopping at/supporting them and encourage others to do the same.
--
Genesis does what Nintendon't http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7nsBoqJ6s8
You vote the most important parts of government into office. You will never have a vote in any corporate decision unless you are a shareholder. Even as an employee, as part of the company, you have no voice. A government is only accountable to no one if it doesn't hold free and public elections.
Our problem is that elections are not free. We are presented two candidates for each position who differ only slightly, are mass marketed, and backed by corporate funding. That is the issue that needs addressing.