«

[chumloofah]

It's not so much the two party system as parties in general that suck ever so much.
It's worse with just two, of course.
The concept behind democracy, in it's pure form, is that the people vote for individuals they feel will represent their interests in assembly/senate/whatever.
By assembling into parties as is the trend, a few ambitious boys and girls gain control over the majority of elected representatives.
An individual can't compete with an organised, unified group so is forced to engage in party politics himself if he wants to have any chance of exerting any influence.
As a result of this, his influence is added to the pool of influence that pushes forward the party agenda, losing everything of it's original purpose except by dumb luck or coincidence.
Party politics means compromising your ideals and beliefs in the hope that you might be able to hang on to them.
That Washington cat (as much as I distrust the american slant on american history that says the guy's a hero :bleh: ) had his finger on the pulse when it came down it.

[Morrin]

Democracy is just an illusion made by those who are in power in order to make people think they are safe or that they could somehow affect their lives and situation. If voting worked, someone at the top of the pyramid would have stopped it already.

They laugh at my opinion just to make me look childish anarchist, to bulk their stauts at the society and show how responsible and reasonable people they are.

Anarchy and total individualism is the real freedom, but many - like me - rather get opressed because it's much more comfortable. It still doesn't mean I hate "them".

Just like some dude at ancient world said, "People don't really want freedom, but a good master". Btw, if someone knows this quote exactly and who said it, please note to me, thanks.

- Morrin, the sleeping anarchist

[Tervez]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Morrin @ Oct 19 2007, 07:23 AM) [snapback]316679[/snapback]</div>

"People don't really want freedom, but a good master".[/b]

Agreed on that one, but in an anarchy, chances are that someone might harm you "just for the kicks" are higher due to no police, you might not get help for your disease and so on. I'm more comfortable in the fact that at least we have some protection, and I sure wouldn't trade it just for some more freedom that wouldn't ultimately help people.

I'm not saying that people should give up freedom for security, but, as already said, "Democracy ain't perfect, but so far it's the best one we've got."

[Morrin]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tervez @ Oct 19 2007, 08:39 AM) [snapback]316695[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Morrin @ Oct 19 2007, 07:23 AM) [snapback]316679[/snapback]

"People don't really want freedom, but a good master".[/b]

Agreed on that one, but in an anarchy, chances are that someone might harm you "just for the kicks" are higher due to no police, you might not get help for your disease and so on. I'm more comfortable in the fact that at least we have some protection, and I sure wouldn't trade it just for some more freedom that wouldn't ultimately help people.

I'm not saying that people should give up freedom for security, but, as already said, "Democracy ain't perfect, but so far it's the best one we've got."
[/b][/quote]

Exactly! As I said, living in controlled society is much more comfortable.

[chumloofah]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Tervez")</div>

I'm not saying that people should give up freedom for security, but, as already said, "Democracy ain't perfect, but so far it's the best one we've got."[/b]

Remember that the definition of democracy has been subtly evolving for quite some time.
A purist might argue that that would make it something different, but believing that would upset people.

[12turtle12]

Not to be gross in any way, but in an "anarchist" society, there would be no police detective work, so if I slipped into your house at night, slit your throat, and raped your wife and daughter, as long as nobody saw me do it, nobody would come after me, and there's be no one to perform forensics, so I would probably get away with it.
I vote no on anarchy. It's a system that doesn't work, much like the libertarian party here in the States - good idea, but not practical or logical if you think it through.

[rlbell]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Japofran @ Oct 18 2007, 01:22 PM) [snapback]316617[/snapback]</div>

The Fed's solution for this they chose to call "crisis" is the same solution as ever, the only they know, namely printing notes and calling them money. Then they lend that devalued money to the banks in need (not to the good banks but to the bad ones who need it to survive, and who knows if they'll go bankrupt all the same eventually, or need more money after a while). With more supply of money into the system its value goes down (relative to money evething else's value goes up, hence inflation or price rise).

So let's recapitulate. The only ones benefitting from the Fed's action are the banks. Not just any banks however, only the inept banks that ought to disappear. Competition is impeded. A message is sent that every time some big business get in trouble the Fed will come to the rescue printing notes, even if that harms the whole economy and specially the most humble people. Prices rise and that's bad for everyone but the ones who will suffer it most dearly will be the humble people who will be further strained to purchase the basics.

[/b]

Close, but not exact. The Central banks can do three things: 1) increase the amount of money in the system by lending money, 2) decrease the amount of money in the system by selling treasury bills, 3) adjust the interest rate, which will provide incentives for either (1) or (2). Thanks to the marvels of ledger books and computers, most money never actually get printed as notes.

The business of a chartered bank is lending money. The assets of a chartered bank are not the savings deposited by all of its customers, those are liabilities. Their assets are the debts owed to them. Banks generate profit by enticing depositors to give them money and then lending that money to someone who has a use for money, but not the cash. The profit is the difference between the savings rate and the loan rate. One of the nastiest things that can happen to a bank is for too many depositors to demand the return of their money, before the borrowers have paid it back (If a bank is perceived as financially troubled, a stampede of worried depositors will kill even the healthiest bank, dead).

The subprime mortgage crisis in the US is the result of the real estate bubble bursting. Speculators were snapping up houses for no money down, insanely low initial mortgage rate, but the rate accelerated to insanely high. As long as none of these speculators had to hold onto any property for long, everybody made out like bandits. The problem came when people stopped buying the homes the speculators were selling, at the prices the speculators hoped to get. The first speculators to feel the squeeze and start to unload properties for what they can start a downward spiral in prices. The banks come into the picture when the speculators cannot fully repay their loans (it may be possible that if the speculator cannot discharge the mortgage, he cannot sell the property).

The banks end up with the hobbes choice of dealing with someone who cannot service their debt, or foreclose on a property that they cannot sell to cover the debt. The one thing the bank cannot do during the turmoil is lend money it does not have to even a credit-worthy borrower.

The purpose of the central bank lowering interest rates at these times is to allow troubled banks to borrow money at a low rate, that they can lend at a higher rate, to keep operating. That is The Important Thing ™-- that the banks keep operating. That is the whole point of central banks. So long as people continue to use banks, the economy works. Money "in" banks circulates from bank to bank from employer accounts to employee accounts to merchant accounts to other employee accounts, and so on. The Great Depression yields a multitude of examples of what happens when mattresses replace banks as the preferred place to deposit money.

The consequences of a loss of confidence in the banks is too horrible to think about.

[Blood-Pigggy]

The best thing to do is fill an island up with small animals and airdrop fruits and vegetables so that they can overpopulate and then they all die and we can pull the island of small dead animals towards the shore and make a big rug that's nice and warm and everyone's happy.

[dosraider]

Now, Blood-Pigggy, That's exactly what aliens have done with our Earth.
They are in the 'wait so that they can overpopulate and then they all die' phase.
When we have exterminated eachother they will come back.

[Eva02Soul]

We have just solved the mystery of LOST. Feel proud?