LIBOR scandal set to rock U.S. as experts warn it could be 'the biggest consumer fraud in history'

Quote from Danman114 : Sorry, but if its between governments (who view my consumption simply as taking up resources) and business owners (who fight eachother tooth and nail to provide me with what I wish to consume), I'll side with the business owner having the moral upper hand.

It's not like they don't have a vested interest in *making as much money as possible* though

Quote from TRNT : You are doing a polemical dance. When politicians are for sale, only the rich will be able to buy them off. Recall that free market that liberts are so proud of?

You're an idiot if you think the free market involves buying political favors. But I don't think you do believe that.

But what makes you think, if all the rich died tomorrow, that politicians wouldn't be for sale to the next highest bidder?

Quote from TRNT : Btw, There is no redistribution of wealth. We do however propose redistribution of the tax burdon and changing our "society model" to a fairer one.

Of course there is, if you give money to anyone, there is a redistribution of wealth. Do you really think the government doesn't give money to some companies, unions, buerocrats, and others?

Quote from vivahate : It's not like they don't have a vested interest in *making as much money as possible* though

If one businessman has that vested interest, they all do. And if one craft businessman is making a lot of profit, other businessmen flock to that sector and get a piece. Kind of like sea gulls at the beach. And the only legitimate way for them to all make those profits? Serving customers.

Quote from Danman114 : You're an idiot if you think the free market involves buying political favors. But I don't think you do believe that.

You are an idiot if you think free market discourages corruption. But I don't think you do believe that. (come on dan, i know you can do better than this.) In free market people with more money get the best. Since political corruption is a limited fixed commodity, only the rich will be able to afford it.

Quote from Danman114 : But what makes you think, if all the rich died tomorrow, that politicians wouldn't be for sale to the next highest bidder?

I do not think at all. In fact I agree with your thesis.

Quote from Danman114 : Of course there is, if you give money to anyone, there is a redistribution of wealth. Do you really think the government doesn't give money to some companies, unions, buerocrats, and others?

Who are these imaginary people that you think i propse to be giving money to?

One more time: it is a redistribution of tax burden in order to make it a fairer syste. It is to change the "society model" in order to make it a fairer system.

Quote from Danman114 : And the only legitimate way for them to all make those profits? Serving customers.

And you trust them not to collude and fix prices where they think they can get away with it?

Quote from vivahate : And you trust them not to collude and fix prices where they think they can get away with it?

The only way to fix price fixing is to fix those who engage in price fixing.....perhaps even their supporters.

HarHarHar

Quote from TRNT : You are an idiot if you think free market discourages corruption. But I don't think you do believe that. (come on dan, i know you can do better than this.) In free market people with more money get the best. Since political corruption is a limited fixed commodity, only the rich will be able to afford it.

The free market (absent of political intervention) would certainly weed out political corruption, simply by definition. There would be other crime still, of course, but if you get the politics out of the market, political corruption would decrease dramatically.

Quote from TRNT : I do not think at all. In fact I agree with your thesis.

So then, it's the price of political favors that's your problem? Because we both agree political corruption is not going to disappear, and you refuse to limit the government so that political corruption wouldn't be profitable to private individuals, so it seems the primary concern you have is that the rich price the poor out of the market for political favors?

Quote from TRNT : Who are these imaginary people that you think i propse to be giving money to? One more time: it is a redistribution of tax burden in order to make it a fairer syste. It is to change the "society model" in order to make it a fairer system.

Every single recepient of the $3.7 Trillion dollars spend by the federal government.

And your taking it from every single person who contributes to the $2.4 trillion in government revenues, borrowing the difference from future generations.

Quote from vivahate : And you trust them not to collude and fix prices where they think they can get away with it?

No, I trust some will attempt such actions, and I trust further businessmen would be inspired to enter that sector until existing competitors have to lower prices to increase their sales to profitable levels.

Quote from Danman114 : Yes TRNT you have read recently that people are being foreclosed on for as little as $400 [cnn.com], only it's not the evil super-rich or even the evil banks doing something this sinister, it's none other than state & local governments.

Quote from TRNT : Btw, There is no redistribution of wealth. We do however propose redistribution of the tax burdon and changing our "society model" to a fairer one.

hahaha.

Next I'll be told lefties aren't for a death tax. Oh, but even if they are, that's not wealth redistribution either "cause it's just changing the tax burden."

Quote from TRNT : When politicians are for sale, only the rich will be able to buy them off. ---- Since political corruption is a limited fixed commodity, only the rich will be able to afford it. ----- Btw, There is no redistribution of wealth. We do however propose redistribution of the tax burdon and changing our "society model" to a fairer one.

It's sounding like the logic here is since politicians are for sale, and since rich people can buy politicians that are for sale, then we need to redistribute money so there aren't any rich people.

Quote from Danman114 : The free market (absent of political intervention) would certainly weed out political corruption, simply by definition. There would be other crime still, of course, but if you get the politics out of the market, political corruption would decrease dramatically.

Are you serious? Did you per chance mean "by implication" or "by extension" or "as a result"?

I looked it up and the "definition" does ot say that at all.

Quote from Danman114 : So then, it's the price of political favors that's your problem? Because we both agree political corruption is not going to disappear, and you refuse to limit the government so that political corruption wouldn't be profitable to private individuals, so it seems the primary concern you have is that the rich price the poor out of the market for political favors?

Why not take money out of politics altogether? Let make campaign contributions either illegal or severely limiting them? And there are many other things we can do. We can make lobbying by for profit organizations illegal. Etc etc etc.

But yes....let fix the price and allow access by lottery. that way the poorer people have equal chance at corrupting politicians.

Quote from Danman114 : Every single recepient of the $3.7 Trillion dollars spend by the federal government.

I am not proposing those and I am not proposing redistribution of wealth either. I do however want to redistribute the tax burden to make it fairer.

Quote from Deusxmachina :

Cheerleading. The first refuge of....

Quote from Deusxmachina : hahaha. Next I'll be told lefties aren't for a death tax. Oh, but even if they are, that's not wealth redistribution either "cause it's just changing the tax burden."

How cute. You cannot win an argument by merely assuming that you have won. You cannot do question begging either.

When you are dead, you have no wealth any longer.

Quote from Deusxmachina : It's sounding like the logic here is since politicians are for sale, and since rich people can buy politicians that are for sale, then we need to redistribute money so there aren't any rich people.

No. The logic is this: take money out of politics. I do not recall you supporting that. Are you for that or not?

You often gravitate to mischaracteizing your interlocutor'r viewpoints and then mock those. What gives?

Quote from TRNT : Are you serious? Did you per chance mean "by implication" or "by extension" or "as a result"? I looked it up and the "definition" does ot say that at all.

If we properly restricted the federal government from interfering with the market economy, what political corruption would exist?

Quote from TRNT : Why not take money out of politics altogether? Let make campaign contributions either illegal or severely limiting them? And there are many other things we can do. We can make lobbying by for profit organizations illegal. Etc etc etc. But yes....let fix the price and allow access by lottery. that way the poorer people have equal chance at corrupting politicians.

All those other solutions are just bandaids on chainsaw wound. It might make you think your making a difference, but the problem is much, much larger.

It's not humanly possible to take the money out of politics until you take the money out of government.

Quote from TRNT : I am not proposing those and I am not proposing redistribution of wealth either. I do however want to redistribute the tax burden to make it fairer.

Even simply changing the tax burden is a form of redistribution of wealth considering that wealth is more than just dollars in an economy.

If you take an extra $1 billion from a small group of people, that particular group just became less wealthy, and that has to be redistributed somewhere. Even if you took the confiscated money, and burned it, the net result on the rest of the economy would be the increase in the value of the remaining currency.

Quote from TRNT : How cute. You cannot win an argument by merely assuming that you have won. You cannot do question begging either.

I'm not sure there's even an argument. Lefties tend to like a death tax and wealth redistribution, even if they don't call it "wealth redistribution" and instead call it something like "tax burden redistribution."

But, ok, I'll play...

Are you in favor of a death tax (or whatever you prefer to call a thing most people call a death tax)? If so, is it or is it not wealth redistribution?

Quote from TRNT : When you are dead, you have no wealth any longer.

My kids would have my wealth.
A parent works hard to provide for their family, and then government wants to take it away.
Why do lefties love stealing money from kids so much?

Timmy, show me where the bad government touched you...

Quote from TRNT : No. The logic is this: take money out of politics. I do not recall you supporting that. Are you for that or not? You often gravitate to mischaracteizing your interlocutor'r viewpoints and then mock those. What gives?

I wasn't mischaracterizing nor mocking. I said that's what your viewpoint sounded like. If it's all about "taking the money out of politics," that's cool. If you would like to discuss how to take money out of politics, that sounds like it would fill an entire thread on its own.

Quote from Danman114 : If we properly restricted the federal government from interfering with the market economy, what political corruption would exist?

That is a good question, Danman114.

Quote from Danman114 : If we properly restricted the federal government from interfering with the market economy, what political corruption would exist?

Are you serious or are you being dense?

Rich have money and want influence and favorable laws and politicians have power and want money. You do the math.

Quote from Danman114 : All those other solutions are just bandaids on chainsaw wound. It might make you think your making a difference, but the problem is much, much larger. It's not humanly possible to take the money out of politics until you take the money out of government.

I have no idea what this means. If you care, please explain.

Quote from Danman114 : Even simply changing the tax burden is a form of redistribution of wealth considering that wealth is more than just dollars in an economy. If you take an extra $1 billion from a small group of people, that particular group just became less wealthy, and that has to be redistributed somewhere. Even if you took the confiscated money, and burned it, the net result on the rest of the economy would be the increase in the value of the remaining currency.

The other shoe finally dropped. So you think ANY taxation is redistribution of wealth. Fine. Then i hink lower cap gain rates is theft. I consider campaign contributions as treason.

Know any real country without this supposed redistribution of wealth?

Quote from Danman114 : ... and I trust further businessmen would be inspired to enter that sector until existing competitors have to lower prices to increase their sales to profitable levels.

I have to say - you're a better man than me :-)

Quote from Deusxmachina : I'm not sure there's even an argument. Lefties tend to like a death tax and wealth redistribution, even if they don't call it "wealth redistribution" and instead call it something like "tax burden redistribution."

It is not a matter of what it's called. It's a matter of what it is. It redistributes the tax burden.

When an ins co raises rates on a particular segment, they are redistributing risk assessment. But some might erroneously call it redistribution of wealth.

Quote from Deusxmachina : But, ok, I'll play... Are you in favor of a death tax (or whatever you prefer to call a thing most people call a death tax)? If so, is it or is it not wealth redistribution?

I am in favor of a gov that will oversee businesses and manufacturers. Gocvs cost money. I am in favor of income tax. Inheritance is income.

Maybe if we taxed the super rich their fair share we did not have to treat inheritance as income.

Sigh.

Quote from Deusxmachina : My kids would have my wealth. A parent works hard to provide for their family, and then government wants to take it away. Why do lefties love stealing money from kids so much?

I agree that money used to take care of kids after parents are dead should not be subject to further taxation.

Next !