Purpose of Banks After Wealth Is Leveled
Bret Cahill
enemy of progress.
I don't believe the proper way to level wealth is by attacking Wall
Street or banks.
The purpose of banks, however, will change after wealth is leveled by
free speech.
Bankers will serve primarily as accountants.
Bret Cahill
turtoni
Define what you mean by "bank".
HTH.
SolomonW
@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, BretC...@aol.com says...
No banks would be required in such a world to help keep it level!
At work there is a guy who loves to gamble. His salary is almost totally
lost every week at the bookies. You would need to keep supplying him
with money at rate that he can spend it.
Fred Weiss
> The purpose of banks, however, will change after wealth is leveled by
> free speech.
Every once in a while Brat lets down his guard and lets us know what
he means by "free speech".
> Bankers will serve primarily as accountants.
After you've finished guillotining the rich - also presumably by "free
speech" and to the cheers of those exercising it - what else would
banks be able to do?
Fred Weiss
Patriot Games
news:72b78ad3-eca8-4158...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Unlike a lot of populists I don't see financial institutions as an
> enemy of progress.
> I don't believe the proper way to level wealth is by attacking Wall
> Street or banks.
> The purpose of banks, however, will change after wealth is leveled by
> free speech.
Wealth will be leveled after we leave an take it with us.
> Bankers will serve primarily as accountants.
No, when that happens bankers will become extinct, so will banks.
Your little paychecks will be apportioned for you.
thinker
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:72b78ad3-eca8-4158...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Whose going to lend money? No banks, no wealth for anyone.
Shrikeback
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:72b78ad3-eca8-4158...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> enemy of progress.
I guess that makes the international bankers
a little more comfortable. They don't have
to worry about hordes of "populist" rioters
threatening to level their shiny corporate buildings.
> I don't believe the proper way to level wealth is by attacking Wall
> Street or banks.
What about WTC? If there were one anymore.
> The purpose of banks, however, will change after wealth is leveled by
> free speech.
Whenever KKKahill says "level wealth" I think of
Hiroshima or that Federal Building in Oklahoma.
That's what you call LEVELING wealth.
I have to guess he's got quite a case of halitosis
if he figures he'll level anything with his speech.
> Bankers will serve primarily as accountants.
Until the bankers finally whither away like the
State, and the ashes of Utopia settle on the
masses of populist levelers chewing their cuds
in the organic grassfields of tomorrowland.
Bret Cahill
> > enemy of progress.
>
> > I don't believe the proper way to level wealth is by attacking Wall
> > Street or banks.
>
> > The purpose of banks, however, will change after wealth is leveled by
> > free speech.
>
> > Bankers will serve primarily as accountants.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> No banks would be required in such a world to help keep it level!
>
> At work there is a guy who loves to gamble. His salary is almost totally
> lost every week at the bookies. You would need to keep supplying him
> with money at rate that he can spend it.
That would be kind of trivial or meaningless.
In fact the urge to gamble would die.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > free speech.
>
> Every once in a while Brat lets down his guard and lets us know what
> he means by "free speech".
>
> > Bankers will serve primarily as accountants.
>
> After you've finished guillotining the rich
Now now now. No one said a single word about chopping heads off.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > enemy of progress.
>
> > I don't believe the proper way to level wealth is by attacking Wall
> > Street or banks.
>
> > The purpose of banks, however, will change after wealth is leveled by
> > free speech.
>
> > Bankers will serve primarily as accountants.
>
> Whose going to lend money? No banks, no wealth for anyone.
Money has only been arond since 700 BC. Is there any reason to
believe it will always be around?
I'm not necessarily predicting a better or worse society, just one
that may seem very different than the one today.
Bret Cahill
lora...@cs.com
So then... one would trade Castro and Stalin trading cards for
substandard bread?
lora...@cs.com
> In article <72b78ad3-eca8-4158-b561-d9a74711e819
>
>
>
>
>
> > Unlike a lot of populists I don't see financial institutions as an
> > enemy of progress.
>
> > I don't believe the proper way to level wealth is by attacking Wall
> > Street or banks.
>
> > The purpose of banks, however, will change after wealth is leveled by
> > free speech.
>
> > Bankers will serve primarily as accountants.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> No banks would be required in such a world to help keep it level!
>
> At work there is a guy who loves to gamble. His salary is almost totally
> lost every week at the bookies. You would need to keep supplying him
> with money at rate that he can spend it.
Why didn't you say he was a derivatives trader to begin with?
Shrikeback
> > > Unlike a lot of populists I don't see financial institutions as an
> > > enemy of progress.
>
> > > I don't believe the proper way to level wealth is by attacking Wall
> > > Street or banks.
>
> > > The purpose of banks, however, will change after wealth is leveled by
> > > free speech.
>
> > > Bankers will serve primarily as accountants.
>
> > Whose going to lend money? No banks, no wealth for anyone.
> Money has only been arond since 700 BC. Is there any reason to
> believe it will always be around?
No, like any technology, it can be lost. Or it could
be replaced by electronics.
> I'm not necessarily predicting a better or worse society, just one
> that may seem very different than the one today.
Yes. Your stone-age utopia sounds different from today.
lora...@cs.com
> "Bret Cahill" <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote in message
Credit unions, co-ops, and *fer real* national banks.
Oh.. and pawn shops too.
SolomonW
3175a0...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, BretC...@aol.com says...
The urge to gamble will never die.
Fred Weiss
"< You assume that wages will rise adequately to save the system.
A pretty good assumption after we guillotine all those who have a
problem with leveling income to something above $45/hr.
Bret Cahill "
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/msg/1558bea4795cdaf8
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> > > > free speech.
> > > Every once in a while Brat lets down his guard and lets us know what
> > > he means by "free speech".
>
> > > > Bankers will serve primarily as accountants.
>
> > > After you've finished guillotining the rich
>
> > Now now now. No one said a single word about chopping heads off.
>
> "< You assume that wages will rise adequately to save the system.
>
> A pretty good assumption after we guillotine all those who have a
> problem with leveling income to something above $45/hr.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/msg/1558bea4795...
The thing is, very few if any will object.
Bret Cahill
" . . . and finally Louis XV and all his court descended into the
dust . . ."
-- DeTocqueville
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> > > > enemy of progress.
> > > > I don't believe the proper way to level wealth is by attacking Wall
> > > > Street or banks.
> > > > The purpose of banks, however, will change after wealth is leveled by
> > > > free speech.
> > > > Bankers will serve primarily as accountants.
> > > Whose going to lend money? No banks, no wealth for anyone.
> > Money has only been arond since 700 BC. Is there any reason to
> > believe it will always be around?
> No, like any technology, it can be lost.
Technology generally becomes obsolete. Occasionally a story will
appear where experts are baffled at how the ancients made a certain
kind of steel or mummies but very little technology is lost.
> Or it could
> be replaced by electronics.
Quantum computers would level wealth simply because encryption would
become impossible.
> > I'm not necessarily predicting a better or worse society, just one
> > that may seem very different than the one today.
> Yes. Your stone-age utopia sounds different from today.
It wouldn't be stone age because it isn't necessary to have quantun
computers for technology to level wealth. (Just think of the ammo you
could buy if you made the ave. mean income of $60/hour! You could buy
all kinds of guns with stoppin' power! You could shoot hearth
invaders all night long!)
But like all changes, it wouldn't all be good or all bad. Just better
in some ways and worse in others.
Bret Cahill
And it's uncertain
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> > enemy of progress.
>
> I guess that makes the international bankers
> a little more comfortable.
They'll be helping it out.
. . . .
> > I don't believe the proper way to level wealth is by attacking Wall
> > Street or banks.
. . .
> > The purpose of banks, however, will change after wealth is leveled by
> > free speech.
. . .
> I have to guess he's got quite a case of halitosis
> if he figures he'll level anything with his speech.
My speech is even more effective than NRA president Hollywood actor
Charlton Hestion hissing "out of my warm live hands!"
See me on YouTube knocking the windows out of my trailer before I
shoot a home invader.
www.youtube.com/trailergunnuttertrash/video
You'll see me hiss, "if I git pushed too far . . ."
Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss
> The thing is, very few if any will object.
I guess that makes it ok.
How many Germans objected to the Holocaust?
In any case, I just wanted to make sure it was on record what you mean
by "free speech".
Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
At least not in public.
> I guess that makes it ok.
Squeaky wheel gets the grease.
> How many Germans objected to the Holocaust?
Very few. More should have been more outspoken in opposition.
Likewise, you can urge the rich to be more outspoken in opposition to
the impending leveling of wealth by cheap communications.
> In any case, I just wanted to make sure it was on record what you mean
> by "free speech".
You'll never get any constitutional scholar at Pepperdine, Hoover,
Heritage, American Enterprise, the Chicago School, etc. to show his
face in public saying what I'm doing is anything other than "free
speech."
Nor will you get any of them to answer The Question:
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
If they can't answer it it means they must agree with me.
And they must also agree with the impending leveling of wealth.
Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss
> > > The thing is, very few if any will object.
>
> At least not in public.
>
> > I guess that makes it ok.
>
> Squeaky wheel gets the grease.
>
> > How many Germans objected to the Holocaust?
>
> Very few. More should have been more outspoken in opposition.
But more weren't. Precisely my point - which clearly you don't get.
Arguably - and it has been argued - that many, if not most, actually
supported it.
Does that give you any pause?
Fred Weiss
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> > At least not in public.
> > > I guess that makes it ok.
> > Squeaky wheel gets the grease.
> > > How many Germans objected to the Holocaust?
> > Very few. More should have been more outspoken in opposition.
> But more weren't.
Are you trying to make the same mistake?
If not then you need to urge the rich to be more outspoken in
opposition to the impending leveling of wealth by cheap
communications.
But I can tell you right now you'll never get any constitutional
scholar at Pepperdine, Hoover, Heritage, American Enterprise, the
Chicago School, etc. to show his face in public saying what I'm doing
is anything other than "free
speech."
Nor will you get any of them to answer The Question:
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
If they can't answer it it means they must agree with me.
And they must also agree with the impending leveling of wealth.
> Precisely my point
Then try to get them talking.
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:6c4b6977-039a-46dc...@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> But I can tell you right now you'll never get any constitutional
> scholar at Pepperdine, Hoover, Heritage, American Enterprise, the
> Chicago School, etc. to show his face in public saying what I'm doing
> is anything other than "free
> speech."
> Nor will you get any of them to answer The Question:
> "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
> If they can't answer it it means they must agree with me.
> And they must also agree with the impending leveling of wealth.
Fortunately, the above implies that Bret KKKahill
agrees with us on this question, since he can't answer:
"Does free trade precede each and every instance of free
speech?"
Present that one to him, and he'll dig a hole to Beijing to
get away from you. He hasn't been able to come up
with a single counterexample that can't be debunked.
Nor can he really explain why he thinks Americans want
to go back to some high-tax Jimmy Carter economic
stagflation boom, unless it's because the wealth was
levelled back then by wiping it out.
Fred Weiss
> > > > > The thing is, very few if any will object.
> > > At least not in public.
> > > > I guess that makes it ok.
> > > Squeaky wheel gets the grease.
> > > > How many Germans objected to the Holocaust?
> > > Very few. More should have been more outspoken in opposition.
> > But more weren't.
>
> Are you trying to make the same mistake?
Are you?
> If not then you need to urge the rich to be more outspoken...
I agree - and in fact we are very aggressively trying to do just that
(though it is not a question of just "the rich", since their interests
completely coincide with ours).
But you are still missing the point.
Let's try this example.
Did the mere fact that the vast majority of Southerners supported
racial segregation make it right? Did the mere fact that Blacks
weren't sufficiently outspoken justify their treatment?
Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
> > > > At least not in public.
> > > > > I guess that makes it ok.
> > > > Squeaky wheel gets the grease.
> > > > > How many Germans objected to the Holocaust?
> > > > Very few. More should have been more outspoken in opposition.
> > > But more weren't.
>
> > Are you trying to make the same mistake?
> Are you?
_I'm_ the one urging outspoken GOP "market" economists to be more
outspoken, to stop hiding from the issues.
> > If not then you need to urge the rich to be more outspoken...
> I agree -
Then write the "market" economists at Hoover, Heritage, American
Enterprise, the Chicago School, von Mises, and of them $100 for a
hardcopy answer to the question:
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
Email me a copy and I'll send you $200 for the original.
You make $100 for 5 minutes work.
> But you are still missing the point.
> Let's try this example.
> Did the mere fact that the vast majority of Southerners supported
> racial segregation make it right? Did the mere fact that Blacks
> weren't sufficiently outspoken justify their treatment?
Are you suggesting that GOP "market" economists are like chattel
slaves?
Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss
> > Did the mere fact that the vast majority of Southerners supported
> > racial segregation make it right? Did the mere fact that Blacks
> > weren't sufficiently outspoken justify their treatment?
>
> Are you suggesting that...
.I'm suggesting that you answer the question asked, for a change.
> "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
It depends what you mean by "free speech" which I am trying to discern
with my questions but which you refuse to answer.
For example, was it an exercise of "free speech" for Southerners to
impose racial segregation on Blacks in the South? Was it "free trade"
for the Southerners to enforce that system and for Blacks to comply?
Now, according to that other genius, Sean, if that's the system the
Southerners wanted then who were we to question it? They chose it,
didn't they - including the Blacks themselves who went along with it
quietly for nearly 100 years, just as have Castro's Cubans for the
last 50?
Fred Weiss
Shrikeback
> > But you are still missing the point.
> > Let's try this example.
> > Did the mere fact that the vast majority of Southerners supported
> > racial segregation make it right? Did the mere fact that Blacks
> > weren't sufficiently outspoken justify their treatment?
> Are you suggesting that GOP "market" economists are like chattel
> slaves?
Are you suggesting that all leftards can't read?
Are you working for Methusaleh McCain?
BretC...@peoplepc.com
I'm telling you:
Thanks to Dumbya's quagmire, BATF now has some BODACIOUS stoppin'
power.
Take the typical Hollywood movie scenario as promoted by the NRA:
The gun nutter is holed up in his trailer oiling his gun when the IRS
shows up at the door.
The gun nutter loads his "pocket veto" and hisses, "if I git pushed
too far" just like in an excitin' Hollywood movie.
The tax man knocks and the gun nutter breaks the glass out of a window
just like in an excitin' Hollywood western.
The tax man then says, "now put down that gun" and the nutter then
says, just like in an excitin' Hollywood movie:
"Out of my cold dead hands."
The tax man then beats a hasty retreat and the gun nutter yells,
"YeeeeHAAAA! I done told them gummint types to stay off my property
and with my AK-47, I done frightened 'em away! YEEEEHAAAA!"
End of movie, right?
Wrong.
BATF moves in with weapons developed to keep the peace and save U. S.
lives in Iraq. An unmanned vehicle mounted with video, a speaker and
a microwave gun moves up to the gun nut's trailer.
The speaker comes on and says, "Mr. Gun Nutter, we know you are in
there. Now throw down all your weapons and come out with your hands
high over your head."
Again the nutter hisses just like he was taught by Hollywood actor
Charlton Heston:
"Out of by cold dead hands."
The speaker the informs the nutter. "We can take it out of your live
warm hands. This is your last chance to cooperate before you get
microwaved."
The nutter scoffs, "hell, you ain't got no stoppin power. I don't
believe ya got no beam weapons. Come and git me."
The speaker says, "OK Mr. Gun Nutter, do _not_ look toward the vehicle
as it may cause blindness."
The antenna then rotates toward the trailer and gives the nutter a
good blast and the nutter drops his AK-47 screaming in pain.
The speaker then says, "We told you, we could take it out of your live
warm hands but you didn't listen. Do you need another dose? Or do
you want to come out with your hands high above your head?"
A few weeks later the Holly actor president of the NRA calls a press
conference and says:
"We've changed our slogan. From now on it's 'out of my warm live
hands.'"
Bret Cahill
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> > > racial segregation make it right? Did the mere fact that Blacks
> > > weren't sufficiently outspoken justify their treatment?
> > Are you suggesting that...
Are you suggesting that outspoken GOP "market" economists are like
chattel slaves?
Now answer the question and quit cut/snip dodging.
. . .
> > "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
> It depends what you mean by "free speech" which I am trying to discern
> with my questions but which you refuse to answer.
This isn't a police state. You can use any daffynition that you think
will help whatever cause you think you have.
Just don't blame me when your too clever by half word definition dodge
fails to persuade anyone.
. . .
> Now, according to that other genius, Sean, if that's the system the
> Southerners wanted then who were we to question it? They chose it,
> didn't they - including the Blacks themselves who went along with it
> quietly for nearly 100 years, just as have Castro's Cubans for the
> last 50?
Again, are you suggesting that outspoken GOP "market" economists are
like chattel slaves?
You have certainly raised an interesting parallel.
Germans were silent about nazi opression.
White Southerners were silent about slavery.
And outspoken "market" economists are silent about free speech being a
precondition of free markets.
Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss
> Germans were silent about nazi opression.
Au contraire. They actively cheered it on. You've never seen films of
the Nuremberg Rallies?
> White Southerners were silent about slavery.
I wasn't referring to slavery. I was referring to segregation and they
were hardly silent about it. But they were of course hardly silent
about slavery, either. You've heard of the Confederacy and the Civil
War I assume.
The only one silent here is you - silent in directly answering my
question. So once again, when you declare (as you do ad nauseum) that
"free speech proceeds each and every free trade" what do you mean by
"free speech"? If you are using some "daffynition" of your own for
"free speech", don't be shy. Tell us what it is.
Fred Weiss
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> Au contraire. They actively cheered it on. You've never seen films of
> the Nuremberg Rallies?
It that case we are right back to the post above.
I'll repeat it as you seem to have a bad memory:
~~~~~~
> > > > The purpose of banks, however, will change after wealth is leveled by
> > > > free speech.
> > > Every once in a while Brat lets down his guard and lets us know what
> > > he means by "free speech".
> > > > Bankers will serve primarily as accountants.
> > > After you've finished guillotining the rich
> > Now now now. No one said a single word about chopping heads off.
> "< You assume that wages will rise adequately to save the system.
> A pretty good assumption after we guillotine all those who have a
> problem with leveling income to something above $45/hr.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/msg/1558bea4795...
The thing is, very few if any will object.
~~~~~~
Care to explain any parallel?
. . .
> The only one silent here is you - silent in directly answering my
> question.
And what question is that?
> So once again, when you declare (as you do ad nauseum) that
> "free speech proceeds each and every free trade" what do you mean by
> "free speech"?
This isn't a police state. Feel free to use any daffynition you think
will persuade.
Of course, if you use some wacky definition, don't blame me if it
comes back to bite you on your fanny.
Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss
> > > Germans were silent about nazi opression.
> > Au contraire. They actively cheered it on. You've never seen films of
> > the Nuremberg Rallies?
>
> It that case we are right back to the post above.
>
> I'll repeat it as you seem to have a bad memory:
>
> ~~~~~~
>
> > > > > The purpose of banks, however, will change after wealth is leveled by
> > > > > free speech.
> > > > Every once in a while Brat lets down his guard and lets us know what
> > > > he means by "free speech".
> > > > > Bankers will serve primarily as accountants.
> > > > After you've finished guillotining the rich
> > > Now now now. No one said a single word about chopping heads off.
> > "< You assume that wages will rise adequately to save the system.
> > A pretty good assumption after we guillotine all those who have a
> > problem with leveling income to something above $45/hr.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/msg/1558bea4795...
>
> The thing is, very few if any will object.
> Care to explain any parallel?
The parallel being what? That if "very few object" then it's ok?
I've given you several parallels which you refuse to address.
> > The only one silent here is you - silent in directly answering my
> > question.
>
> And what question is that?
>
> > So once again, when you declare (as you do ad nauseum) that
> > "free speech proceeds each and every free trade" what do you mean by
> > "free speech"?
>
> This isn't a police state. Feel free to use any daffynition you think
> will persuade.
>
> Of course, if you use some wacky definition, don't blame me if it
> comes back to bite you on your fanny.
But it's not my definition which is at question here. My understanding
of free speech is pretty conventional. It is yours which is at issue
and which you seem to be equating with something like "majority rule".
All you have to do is explain yourself which it is clear by now you
will not do. It is also clear why you won't. It is because your
definition of free speech will actually supplant real free speech,
squelch it, and replace it with mob rule - and you don't want to
admit that is what you are advocating.
It also of course renders your mantra of "free speech precedes each
and every free trade" so confusing as to be incoherent which also
reveals your offer of $200 to be completely phoney because no one
knows what the fuck you are talking about - and you know it.
Fred Weiss