[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[PMZ]

[Monopolies are illegal. (ok)
The Federal Reserve is a Monopoly.
Therefore the Fed Res is illegal

I stand by my earlier statement that monopolies come into existance with the support of governemnt, not in a capitalist society.

Thank you for proving my point for me

Under Maryland’s Declaration of Rights we are informed:

“that monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government and the principles of commerce, and ought not to be suffered.”

Let us now review some history to establish how health insurance costs have become so high and who the actors are behind this problem.

During the 1890s there were a number of “trusts” which engaged in price fixing, monopolization, restraint of trade among the states and various other acts stifling our free market system. The Sherman Antitrust Act, of 1890, was passed by Congress allegedly to deal with this problem, but in all likelihood was passed to calm the people down who were suffering under the heavy hand of trusts.

But in the mid 1940’s a criminal indictment was handed down charging 27 individuals with violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Some of the specific allegations were conspiracy, price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. The defendants in the case claimed they were not required to conform to the standards of business conduct established by the Sherman Act because “the business of fire insurance is not commerce.'“ But the Supreme Court asserted that insurance business is in fact commerce and subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and Congress’s regulations. See SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N, Decided June 5, 1944

Less than a year after the Supreme Court decision was handed down, Congress conspires with big business and passes the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 providing that the “ business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.” In other words Congress decides to relinquish its constitutionally assigned duty to regulate commerce among the States to insure free trade among the States, but only with regard to the insurance industry. However, by neglecting its constitutionally assigned duty it allows the various State Legislatures to engage in the very practices which the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (and Clayton Acts) were designed to prohibit, and allows the various State Legislatures to stifle competition from out-of-state companies (restraint of interstate trade and commerce).

The power of a State Legislature to impose discriminatory law upon out of state business entities doing business within their state is immediately tested in PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. vs. BENJAMIN (1946). A South Carolina law is upheld by the Supreme Court. The law imposed an annual tax of 3 percent of the premiums of out of state business entities conducted in South Carolina which is not imposed on instate business entities. In fact, the Court in handing down its decision ignored the very intentions for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the states, which was to embrace and enforce free trade among the States.

Now, keep in mind that the defendants in the SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N case were charged with conspiracy in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. Well, with Congress’s behind-the-scene deal making in 1945, the McCarran-Ferguson Act was passed and paved the way for the various Sate Legislatures to “legally” engage in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing the insurance industry within their borders, which are indictable offenses under SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N .

And who is the victim in all this? The American people are because competition among the states has been stifled and instate insurance monopolies have been created.

Bottom line is, if Obama really cared about the American People and high insurance rates he would demand Congress to immediately repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act and allow competition across state lines in the insurance industry. But Obama, who is nothing more than an inner city hustler who manipulates the poor to get their vote and has raked in millions upon millions in campaign dollars from the insurance industry, has decided to create a federal government insurance monopoly, engage in health insurance price fixing, restraint of trade among the states, and various other acts stifling our free market system and competition which the Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to prohibit.

The only other federal monopoly I know of which is bigger than the Obamacare monopoly is the Federal Reserve Monopoly which manipulates interest rates on the lending of its Federal Reserve Notes [worthless script] in a manner which steals the real material wealth created by America’s labor, businesses and investors.


P.S. I suggest you do not refer to our system as being a “capitalist” system. The term “capitalism” was popularized by Marx to attack the phrases "free trade", “free enterprise” and “free market” which our founders often used, but never used the term capitalism, which does not appear during our founders era.

JWK

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.__ Thomas Jefferson

Thank you for providing evidence in support of "free markets." I agree that the current system is not capitalism. No where in any of my posts in this blog will you find that I have call the current economic system in America capitalist. I call it fascist.

Fascism is not an economic system. Capitalism is.

 

[johnwk]

[Monopolies are illegal. (ok)
The Federal Reserve is a Monopoly.
Therefore the Fed Res is illegal

I stand by my earlier statement that monopolies come into existance with the support of governemnt, not in a capitalist society.

Thank you for proving my point for me

Under Maryland’s Declaration of Rights we are informed:

“that monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government and the principles of commerce, and ought not to be suffered.”

Let us now review some history to establish how health insurance costs have become so high and who the actors are behind this problem.

During the 1890s there were a number of “trusts” which engaged in price fixing, monopolization, restraint of trade among the states and various other acts stifling our free market system. The Sherman Antitrust Act, of 1890, was passed by Congress allegedly to deal with this problem, but in all likelihood was passed to calm the people down who were suffering under the heavy hand of trusts.

But in the mid 1940’s a criminal indictment was handed down charging 27 individuals with violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Some of the specific allegations were conspiracy, price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. The defendants in the case claimed they were not required to conform to the standards of business conduct established by the Sherman Act because “the business of fire insurance is not commerce.'“ But the Supreme Court asserted that insurance business is in fact commerce and subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and Congress’s regulations. See SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N, Decided June 5, 1944

Less than a year after the Supreme Court decision was handed down, Congress conspires with big business and passes the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 providing that the “ business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.” In other words Congress decides to relinquish its constitutionally assigned duty to regulate commerce among the States to insure free trade among the States, but only with regard to the insurance industry. However, by neglecting its constitutionally assigned duty it allows the various State Legislatures to engage in the very practices which the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (and Clayton Acts) were designed to prohibit, and allows the various State Legislatures to stifle competition from out-of-state companies (restraint of interstate trade and commerce).

The power of a State Legislature to impose discriminatory law upon out of state business entities doing business within their state is immediately tested in PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. vs. BENJAMIN (1946). A South Carolina law is upheld by the Supreme Court. The law imposed an annual tax of 3 percent of the premiums of out of state business entities conducted in South Carolina which is not imposed on instate business entities. In fact, the Court in handing down its decision ignored the very intentions for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the states, which was to embrace and enforce free trade among the States.

Now, keep in mind that the defendants in the SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N case were charged with conspiracy in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. Well, with Congress’s behind-the-scene deal making in 1945, the McCarran-Ferguson Act was passed and paved the way for the various Sate Legislatures to “legally” engage in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing the insurance industry within their borders, which are indictable offenses under SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N .

And who is the victim in all this? The American people are because competition among the states has been stifled and instate insurance monopolies have been created.

Bottom line is, if Obama really cared about the American People and high insurance rates he would demand Congress to immediately repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act and allow competition across state lines in the insurance industry. But Obama, who is nothing more than an inner city hustler who manipulates the poor to get their vote and has raked in millions upon millions in campaign dollars from the insurance industry, has decided to create a federal government insurance monopoly, engage in health insurance price fixing, restraint of trade among the states, and various other acts stifling our free market system and competition which the Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to prohibit.

The only other federal monopoly I know of which is bigger than the Obamacare monopoly is the Federal Reserve Monopoly which manipulates interest rates on the lending of its Federal Reserve Notes [worthless script] in a manner which steals the real material wealth created by America’s labor, businesses and investors.


P.S. I suggest you do not refer to our system as being a “capitalist” system. The term “capitalism” was popularized by Marx to attack the phrases "free trade", “free enterprise” and “free market” which our founders often used, but never used the term capitalism, which does not appear during our founders era.

JWK

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.__ Thomas Jefferson

Thank you for providing evidence in support of "free markets." I agree that the current system is not capitalism. No where in any of my posts in this blog will you find that I have call the current economic system in America capitalist. I call it fascist.

We agree on the term "fascist"! I was just cautioning against using the phrase "capitalism" to describe what our founder sought to protect with a written constitution. Many "conservative" media personalities, including Rush Limbaugh, use the word "capitalism" to describe our system and by doing so they remove the inference of a system based upon freedom: free enterprise, free market, and free trade which are self-explanatory! Our domestic enemies hate a system where the people are free to conduct their own business!


JWK


“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

 

[originalthought]

Under Maryland’s Declaration of Rights we are informed:

“that monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government and the principles of commerce, and ought not to be suffered.”

Let us now review some history to establish how health insurance costs have become so high and who the actors are behind this problem.

During the 1890s there were a number of “trusts” which engaged in price fixing, monopolization, restraint of trade among the states and various other acts stifling our free market system. The Sherman Antitrust Act, of 1890, was passed by Congress allegedly to deal with this problem, but in all likelihood was passed to calm the people down who were suffering under the heavy hand of trusts.

But in the mid 1940’s a criminal indictment was handed down charging 27 individuals with violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Some of the specific allegations were conspiracy, price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. The defendants in the case claimed they were not required to conform to the standards of business conduct established by the Sherman Act because “the business of fire insurance is not commerce.'“ But the Supreme Court asserted that insurance business is in fact commerce and subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and Congress’s regulations. See SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N, Decided June 5, 1944

Less than a year after the Supreme Court decision was handed down, Congress conspires with big business and passes the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 providing that the “ business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.” In other words Congress decides to relinquish its constitutionally assigned duty to regulate commerce among the States to insure free trade among the States, but only with regard to the insurance industry. However, by neglecting its constitutionally assigned duty it allows the various State Legislatures to engage in the very practices which the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (and Clayton Acts) were designed to prohibit, and allows the various State Legislatures to stifle competition from out-of-state companies (restraint of interstate trade and commerce).

The power of a State Legislature to impose discriminatory law upon out of state business entities doing business within their state is immediately tested in PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. vs. BENJAMIN (1946). A South Carolina law is upheld by the Supreme Court. The law imposed an annual tax of 3 percent of the premiums of out of state business entities conducted in South Carolina which is not imposed on instate business entities. In fact, the Court in handing down its decision ignored the very intentions for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the states, which was to embrace and enforce free trade among the States.

Now, keep in mind that the defendants in the SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N case were charged with conspiracy in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. Well, with Congress’s behind-the-scene deal making in 1945, the McCarran-Ferguson Act was passed and paved the way for the various Sate Legislatures to “legally” engage in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing the insurance industry within their borders, which are indictable offenses under SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N .

And who is the victim in all this? The American people are because competition among the states has been stifled and instate insurance monopolies have been created.

Bottom line is, if Obama really cared about the American People and high insurance rates he would demand Congress to immediately repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act and allow competition across state lines in the insurance industry. But Obama, who is nothing more than an inner city hustler who manipulates the poor to get their vote and has raked in millions upon millions in campaign dollars from the insurance industry, has decided to create a federal government insurance monopoly, engage in health insurance price fixing, restraint of trade among the states, and various other acts stifling our free market system and competition which the Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to prohibit.

The only other federal monopoly I know of which is bigger than the Obamacare monopoly is the Federal Reserve Monopoly which manipulates interest rates on the lending of its Federal Reserve Notes [worthless script] in a manner which steals the real material wealth created by America’s labor, businesses and investors.


P.S. I suggest you do not refer to our system as being a “capitalist” system. The term “capitalism” was popularized by Marx to attack the phrases "free trade", “free enterprise” and “free market” which our founders often used, but never used the term capitalism, which does not appear during our founders era.

JWK

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.__ Thomas Jefferson

Thank you for providing evidence in support of "free markets." I agree that the current system is not capitalism. No where in any of my posts in this blog will you find that I have call the current economic system in America capitalist. I call it fascist.

Fascism is not an economic system. Capitalism is.

I have already shown you to be a moron many times in my short time here in this community. Capitalism is more than an economic system. The fact that you cannot understand that shows the Pitiful Moronic Zombie that you are. And fascisim is an economic system, along with a political and social system.


As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism...(Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty)

 

[johnwk]

Fascism is not an economic system. Capitalism is.

Your personal opinion, regardless of how irrelevant it is, is noted.

JWK

“He has erected a multitude of new offices (Washington‘s existing political plum job Empire) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

 

[johnwk]

You tried to redefine "republic".

Substantiate that claim. Quote my words. Additionally, the question remains if you object to the rule of apportionment requiring Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, and may be summarized by the following fair share formulas?



State`s Pop.
__________ X House size (435) = State`s No. of Reps
Pop. of U.S.



State`s Pop.
__________ X SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
U.S. Pop.


JWK




“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 __ George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution

I think that your tax issue is with someone else.

Have you read the title of the thread? And where have I tried to redefine "republic" as you have charged?

JWK

 

[PMZ]

Under Maryland’s Declaration of Rights we are informed:

“that monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government and the principles of commerce, and ought not to be suffered.”

Let us now review some history to establish how health insurance costs have become so high and who the actors are behind this problem.

During the 1890s there were a number of “trusts” which engaged in price fixing, monopolization, restraint of trade among the states and various other acts stifling our free market system. The Sherman Antitrust Act, of 1890, was passed by Congress allegedly to deal with this problem, but in all likelihood was passed to calm the people down who were suffering under the heavy hand of trusts.

But in the mid 1940’s a criminal indictment was handed down charging 27 individuals with violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Some of the specific allegations were conspiracy, price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. The defendants in the case claimed they were not required to conform to the standards of business conduct established by the Sherman Act because “the business of fire insurance is not commerce.'“ But the Supreme Court asserted that insurance business is in fact commerce and subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and Congress’s regulations. See SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N, Decided June 5, 1944

Less than a year after the Supreme Court decision was handed down, Congress conspires with big business and passes the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 providing that the “ business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.” In other words Congress decides to relinquish its constitutionally assigned duty to regulate commerce among the States to insure free trade among the States, but only with regard to the insurance industry. However, by neglecting its constitutionally assigned duty it allows the various State Legislatures to engage in the very practices which the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (and Clayton Acts) were designed to prohibit, and allows the various State Legislatures to stifle competition from out-of-state companies (restraint of interstate trade and commerce).

The power of a State Legislature to impose discriminatory law upon out of state business entities doing business within their state is immediately tested in PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. vs. BENJAMIN (1946). A South Carolina law is upheld by the Supreme Court. The law imposed an annual tax of 3 percent of the premiums of out of state business entities conducted in South Carolina which is not imposed on instate business entities. In fact, the Court in handing down its decision ignored the very intentions for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the states, which was to embrace and enforce free trade among the States.

Now, keep in mind that the defendants in the SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N case were charged with conspiracy in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. Well, with Congress’s behind-the-scene deal making in 1945, the McCarran-Ferguson Act was passed and paved the way for the various Sate Legislatures to “legally” engage in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing the insurance industry within their borders, which are indictable offenses under SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N .

And who is the victim in all this? The American people are because competition among the states has been stifled and instate insurance monopolies have been created.

Bottom line is, if Obama really cared about the American People and high insurance rates he would demand Congress to immediately repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act and allow competition across state lines in the insurance industry. But Obama, who is nothing more than an inner city hustler who manipulates the poor to get their vote and has raked in millions upon millions in campaign dollars from the insurance industry, has decided to create a federal government insurance monopoly, engage in health insurance price fixing, restraint of trade among the states, and various other acts stifling our free market system and competition which the Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to prohibit.

The only other federal monopoly I know of which is bigger than the Obamacare monopoly is the Federal Reserve Monopoly which manipulates interest rates on the lending of its Federal Reserve Notes [worthless script] in a manner which steals the real material wealth created by America’s labor, businesses and investors.


P.S. I suggest you do not refer to our system as being a “capitalist” system. The term “capitalism” was popularized by Marx to attack the phrases "free trade", “free enterprise” and “free market” which our founders often used, but never used the term capitalism, which does not appear during our founders era.

JWK

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.__ Thomas Jefferson

Thank you for providing evidence in support of "free markets." I agree that the current system is not capitalism. No where in any of my posts in this blog will you find that I have call the current economic system in America capitalist. I call it fascist.

We agree on the term "fascist"! I was just cautioning against using the phrase "capitalism" to describe what our founder sought to protect with a written constitution. Many "conservative" media personalities, including Rush Limbaugh, use the word "capitalism" to describe our system and by doing so they remove the inference of a system based upon freedom: free enterprise, free market, and free trade which are self-explanatory! Our domestic enemies hate a system where the people are free to conduct their own business!


JWK


“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

" Our domestic enemies hate a system where the people are free to conduct their own business!"

Classic propaganda. Speak for the scapegoats that any propaganda needs to create.

I go through every day doing exactly what I want. I virtually never am prevented from doing that by the law.

But apparently conservatives have a great deal of pent up criminality. They whine constantly they what is legal is not enough. In order to be free, they must break the law or eliminate it.

My experience is when laws are broken someone's imposing on others what's good for the imposer on those that are imposed upon.

This is the Republican Dream for America. More people imposing on us, what's good for them.

 

[PMZ]

Under Maryland’s Declaration of Rights we are informed:

“that monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government and the principles of commerce, and ought not to be suffered.”

Let us now review some history to establish how health insurance costs have become so high and who the actors are behind this problem.

During the 1890s there were a number of “trusts” which engaged in price fixing, monopolization, restraint of trade among the states and various other acts stifling our free market system. The Sherman Antitrust Act, of 1890, was passed by Congress allegedly to deal with this problem, but in all likelihood was passed to calm the people down who were suffering under the heavy hand of trusts.

But in the mid 1940’s a criminal indictment was handed down charging 27 individuals with violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Some of the specific allegations were conspiracy, price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. The defendants in the case claimed they were not required to conform to the standards of business conduct established by the Sherman Act because “the business of fire insurance is not commerce.'“ But the Supreme Court asserted that insurance business is in fact commerce and subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and Congress’s regulations. See SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N, Decided June 5, 1944

Less than a year after the Supreme Court decision was handed down, Congress conspires with big business and passes the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 providing that the “ business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.” In other words Congress decides to relinquish its constitutionally assigned duty to regulate commerce among the States to insure free trade among the States, but only with regard to the insurance industry. However, by neglecting its constitutionally assigned duty it allows the various State Legislatures to engage in the very practices which the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (and Clayton Acts) were designed to prohibit, and allows the various State Legislatures to stifle competition from out-of-state companies (restraint of interstate trade and commerce).

The power of a State Legislature to impose discriminatory law upon out of state business entities doing business within their state is immediately tested in PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. vs. BENJAMIN (1946). A South Carolina law is upheld by the Supreme Court. The law imposed an annual tax of 3 percent of the premiums of out of state business entities conducted in South Carolina which is not imposed on instate business entities. In fact, the Court in handing down its decision ignored the very intentions for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the states, which was to embrace and enforce free trade among the States.

Now, keep in mind that the defendants in the SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N case were charged with conspiracy in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. Well, with Congress’s behind-the-scene deal making in 1945, the McCarran-Ferguson Act was passed and paved the way for the various Sate Legislatures to “legally” engage in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing the insurance industry within their borders, which are indictable offenses under SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N .

And who is the victim in all this? The American people are because competition among the states has been stifled and instate insurance monopolies have been created.

Bottom line is, if Obama really cared about the American People and high insurance rates he would demand Congress to immediately repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act and allow competition across state lines in the insurance industry. But Obama, who is nothing more than an inner city hustler who manipulates the poor to get their vote and has raked in millions upon millions in campaign dollars from the insurance industry, has decided to create a federal government insurance monopoly, engage in health insurance price fixing, restraint of trade among the states, and various other acts stifling our free market system and competition which the Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to prohibit.

The only other federal monopoly I know of which is bigger than the Obamacare monopoly is the Federal Reserve Monopoly which manipulates interest rates on the lending of its Federal Reserve Notes [worthless script] in a manner which steals the real material wealth created by America’s labor, businesses and investors.


P.S. I suggest you do not refer to our system as being a “capitalist” system. The term “capitalism” was popularized by Marx to attack the phrases "free trade", “free enterprise” and “free market” which our founders often used, but never used the term capitalism, which does not appear during our founders era.

JWK

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.__ Thomas Jefferson

Thank you for providing evidence in support of "free markets." I agree that the current system is not capitalism. No where in any of my posts in this blog will you find that I have call the current economic system in America capitalist. I call it fascist.

We agree on the term "fascist"! I was just cautioning against using the phrase "capitalism" to describe what our founder sought to protect with a written constitution. Many "conservative" media personalities, including Rush Limbaugh, use the word "capitalism" to describe our system and by doing so they remove the inference of a system based upon freedom: free enterprise, free market, and free trade which are self-explanatory! Our domestic enemies hate a system where the people are free to conduct their own business!


JWK


“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

" I was just cautioning against using the phrase "capitalism" to describe what our founder sought to protect with a written constitution."

As many times as I've read the Constitution, I just don't recall the Article on economic systems that said anything about capitalism.

 

[originalthought]

[Monopolies are illegal. (ok)
The Federal Reserve is a Monopoly.
Therefore the Fed Res is illegal

I stand by my earlier statement that monopolies come into existance with the support of governemnt, not in a capitalist society.

Thank you for proving my point for me

P.S. I suggest you do not refer to our system as being a “capitalist” system. The term “capitalism” was popularized by Marx to attack the phrases "free trade", “free enterprise” and “free market” which our founders often used, but never used the term capitalism, which does not appear during our founders era.

JWK

As many times as I've read the Constitution, I just don't recall the Article on economic systems that said anything about capitalism.

Now i am calling your reading skills into question! You can't even read what JWK said correctly. He never said capitalism was in the constituion, he actually said the oppisite. But you can't read in context, which explains your lack of ability to understand the philosophy of capitalism and freedom.

Pitiful Moronic Zombie so sad

 

[itfitzme]

Hyperbole
There is no point in bringing in this point (which is not ture) because it had nothing to do with the question. I asked if you agree or disagree. Then you should pick one and logically explain why you either agree or disagree.




Again-Hyperbole
You act like in the absence of government, there could be no courts, no consumer protections. This is not true.




No, I am questioning government collecting taxes.



Why are you bringing up monopolies? Did I say anything about monopolies? Are you just rambling? Did you lose all ability to think rationally? You are so incoherent i think you maybe drunk.



So are you for or against monopolies, because the Federal Reserve is a monopoly? And do you know who sits on the board and runs the Federal Reserve. The private (fascist) banks. You are one big contradiction.




What exactly did you explain? What were you trying to explain? You strated rambling off about things I never brought up with you. Can you please focus on the conversation at hand?

Here, read about anti trust laws.

United States antitrust law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact that there are government sanctioned monopolies doesn't change the fact that there are anti trust laws and that monopolies are illegal.

That you see some fundamental contradiction in there is simply because you are intentionally stupid.

Monopolies are illegal. (ok)
The Federal Reserve is a Monopoly.
Therefore the Fed Res is illegal

I stand by my earlier statement that monopolies come into existance with the support of governemnt, not in a capitalist society.

Thank you for proving my point for me

Your "logic", if we can call it that, is absurd. What is legal and illegal is by government definition. By govt definition, monopolies are illegal and the history of US economics includes the history of anti trust suits. By definition, by law, the Federal Reserve is not an illegal monopoly. By law, until recently, health insurance companies were exempt from Federal anti trust laws making them not monopoly.

Natural monopolies come about naturally as a result of the free market. Economies of scale is the typical process.

Your refusal to learn just relegates yourself to being an idiot. You haven't "proven" anything.

 

[originalthought]

Here, read about anti trust laws.

United States antitrust law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact that there are government sanctioned monopolies doesn't change the fact that there are anti trust laws and that monopolies are illegal.

That you see some fundamental contradiction in there is simply because you are intentionally stupid.

Monopolies are illegal. (ok)
The Federal Reserve is a Monopoly.
Therefore the Fed Res is illegal

I stand by my earlier statement that monopolies come into existance with the support of governemnt, not in a capitalist society.

Thank you for proving my point for me

Your "logic", if we can call it that, is absurd. What is legal and illegal is by government definition. By govt definition, monopolies are illegal and the history of US economics includes the history of anti trust suits. By definition, by law, the Federal Reserve is not an illegal monopoly. By law, until recently, health insurance companies were exempt from Federal anti trust laws making them not monopoly.

Natural monopolies come about naturally as a result of the free market. Economies of scale is the typical process.

Your refusal to learn just relegates yourself to being an idiot. You haven't "proven" anything.

How am I the idiot? I am going to lump you and PMZ in together. The other poster gave you FACTS about how the government laws actually created monopolies.

According to you and PMZ...
Government prevents monopilies (which is false but i will play)
Monopolies are illegal

The Federal reserve is a monoply. They are the only ones allowed to create currency in the US.

But the Federal Reserve was created by the government, AND is legal.
Therefore the premise that Governments prevent monopolies is flase.
Therefore the premise that Monopolies are created by the free market is also false.

 

[RKMBrown]

The Federal reserve is a monoply. They are the only ones allowed to create currency in the US.

But the Federal Reserve was created by the government, AND is legal.
Therefore the premise that Governments prevent monopolies is flase.
Therefore the premise that Monopolies are created by the free market is also false.

The Federal reserve is a monopoly that has been authorized by our government. They manage/organize/create themselves. Government merely gets a report of their activities and assigns folks who are supposed to be running it.

Our government has the power to break up monopolies that have not been authorized by the government, and take away authorized monopolies. They don't do this as often as they should. Arguably they don't break up monopolies because various political factions claim the monopolies are necessary evils even if unauthorized and/or are to big to fail. Well that and the government stopped doing what they were supposed to be doing.

Your statement "the premise that Monopolies are created by the free market is also false" has no basis. Monopolies are created by the free market all the time. That's why the government is supposed to be breaking them up.

 

[PMZ]

[Monopolies are illegal. (ok)
The Federal Reserve is a Monopoly.
Therefore the Fed Res is illegal

I stand by my earlier statement that monopolies come into existance with the support of governemnt, not in a capitalist society.

Thank you for proving my point for me

P.S. I suggest you do not refer to our system as being a “capitalist” system. The term “capitalism” was popularized by Marx to attack the phrases "free trade", “free enterprise” and “free market” which our founders often used, but never used the term capitalism, which does not appear during our founders era.

JWK

As many times as I've read the Constitution, I just don't recall the Article on economic systems that said anything about capitalism.

Now i am calling your reading skills into question! You can't even read what JWK said correctly. He never said capitalism was in the constituion, he actually said the oppisite. But you can't read in context, which explains your lack of ability to understand the philosophy of capitalism and freedom.

Pitiful Moronic Zombie so sad

" I was just cautioning against using the phrase "capitalism" to describe what our founder sought to protect with a written constitution."

What economic system do you recall in the Constitution that "our founder sought to protect"?

 

[PMZ]

Here, read about anti trust laws.

United States antitrust law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact that there are government sanctioned monopolies doesn't change the fact that there are anti trust laws and that monopolies are illegal.

That you see some fundamental contradiction in there is simply because you are intentionally stupid.

Monopolies are illegal. (ok)
The Federal Reserve is a Monopoly.
Therefore the Fed Res is illegal

I stand by my earlier statement that monopolies come into existance with the support of governemnt, not in a capitalist society.

Thank you for proving my point for me

Your "logic", if we can call it that, is absurd. What is legal and illegal is by government definition. By govt definition, monopolies are illegal and the history of US economics includes the history of anti trust suits. By definition, by law, the Federal Reserve is not an illegal monopoly. By law, until recently, health insurance companies were exempt from Federal anti trust laws making them not monopoly.

Natural monopolies come about naturally as a result of the free market. Economies of scale is the typical process.

Your refusal to learn just relegates yourself to being an idiot. You haven't "proven" anything.

The goal of every capitalist business is to create a monopoly in their market by putting their competition out of business. Than it's clear, high profit sailing.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So britpat, do you have that misbehaving child's parents' permission to splash his face all over the internet? Do you abuse your own children in this way? Or do you keep that kind of behavior quiet so the authorities don't find out?

Has anyone ever kicked you in the nuts repeatedly, until you collapsed into a heap and passed out?

If not, why not?

 

[PMZ]

So britpat, do you have that misbehaving child's parents' permission to splash his face all over the internet? Do you abuse your own children in this way? Or do you keep that kind of behavior quiet so the authorities don't find out?

Has anyone ever kicked you in the nuts repeatedly, until you collapsed into a heap and passed out?

If not, why not?

I can't wait to find out the meaning behind this post.

 

[itfitzme]

Monopolies are illegal. (ok)
The Federal Reserve is a Monopoly.
Therefore the Fed Res is illegal

I stand by my earlier statement that monopolies come into existance with the support of governemnt, not in a capitalist society.

Thank you for proving my point for me

Your "logic", if we can call it that, is absurd. What is legal and illegal is by government definition. By govt definition, monopolies are illegal and the history of US economics includes the history of anti trust suits. By definition, by law, the Federal Reserve is not an illegal monopoly. By law, until recently, health insurance companies were exempt from Federal anti trust laws making them not monopoly.

Natural monopolies come about naturally as a result of the free market. Economies of scale is the typical process.

Your refusal to learn just relegates yourself to being an idiot. You haven't "proven" anything.

How am I the idiot? I am going to lump you and PMZ in together. The other poster gave you FACTS about how the government laws actually created monopolies.

According to you and PMZ...
Government prevents monopilies (which is false but i will play)
Monopolies are illegal

The Federal reserve is a monoply. They are the only ones allowed to create currency in the US.

But the Federal Reserve was created by the government, AND is legal.
Therefore the premise that Governments prevent monopolies is flase.
Therefore the premise that Monopolies are created by the free market is also false.

Because you are attempting to define things that are defined by law, economics science, and business accounting. That, and you embellish other peoples presentation. And you are refusing to accept the reality which has been determined by others smarter than you. I detect a certain lack of allowing feedback, acknowledging the determination of definitions by the experts in the field. I am pretty sure you are neither a lawyer or an economist. Rejecting what has already been defined is a mental issue, in part the Dunn-Kruger effect.

No where did anyone say that the government prevents all monopolies. I simply pointed out the fact that they are illegal by US Law. And, the legality, the enforcement, sanctioning, and the creation of monopolies by the US government aren't at odds with each other. Surely you realize that the government can and does allow for patent rights which create monopolies until the patent runs out. Then, if conditions are right, as for Alcoa, a natural monopoly may ensue. This gets tried in court under anti-trust law, establishing the monopoly to be at odds with the law and therefore illegal. That the government creates monopolies doesn't mean that they also determine monopolies to be illegal.

By your reasoning, seat belts in automobiles don't prevent injuries because injuries occur while people are wearing a seat belt.

Yes, monopolies are created by the free market. You seem to be starting with the premise that the free market can't create monopolies and then attempting to force some false logic to make it so. How you manage this is beyond me.

That monopolies are created in the free market is well established and a simple search for description of monopolies will yield this information. One has to intentionally ignore the information presented by economists, the US government, and business. That the Federal Reserve might be considered a monopoly doesn't negate that the free market creates monopolies naturally or that the Supreme Court has found companies in violation of anti-trust laws on multiple occasions.

The Federal Reserve doesn't create the US currency that is used in the private economy and market place. The Federal Reserve creates money in the reserve accounts of reserve banks. It is called "outside money". The money we use is created by private banks as business loans, consumer loans, etc. It is called "inside money". Inside and outside money don't mix. The money supply created by private banks, outside money, is larger than the money supply created by the Federal Reserve. The last measure of M2 is 10,947.7 Billions of Dollars. The last measure of the monetary base is 3,682.285 Billions of Dollars. Historically, M1, the money used for purchases of goods and services, has been 1.5 to 3 times the monetary base.

The specific ratio is shown here;

It is M1/Mb. M1, the inside money used in exchanges, the money in circulation, is always more than Mb. And as the Federal Reserve only creates outside money, Mb, at the very least we can say that the difference, (M1-Mb), is clearly not created by the Federal Reserve.

Still, it is certainly incorrect to say that the Federal Reserve creates US currency when they create far less than the functioning money supply. All the Federal Reserve does is make outside money available through the reserve banking system. The private banks then creates money based on demand. It is correct to say that the money supply is created by the private banking system because, in fact, it is. It would be incorrect to say that the Treasury Department creates money in the US economy because, while it does print and mint, that money only becomes inside money when a private bank decides to do so. It may be better said that money creation is done by the combined behavior of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, and the private banking system. If we have to pick one to speak of as being the major source, it would be the private banking system. As M1 is inside money and Mb is outside money, the Federal Reserve doesn't actually create the money inside the economy.

The Federal Reserve's role is to stabilize the money supply.

This fact, that the Federal Reserve's role is to stabilize the money supply goes right back to the central point brought about this discussion. Lacking the government and Federal Reserve's role in stabilizing the money supply, the economy would go to shit repeatedly. And there in lies the point. Money has no purpose except in exchange. It is far more a public good than anything else.

There is one concept that is clearly missing from your considerations, the concept of "and". Governments AND the free market creates monopolies. Governments sanction AND suppress monopolies. Monopolies are illegal in the US by Federal law AND health insurance companies were exempt from anti trust laws.

Private banks AND the Federal Reserve create money. The government AND the free market create monopolies. Monopolies are illegal in Federal law AND some monopolies are not illegal.

Whatever you have come to believe is simply wrong. And you have created false logic based on false or a lack of information


Understanding Inside Money and Outside Money | PRAGMATIC CAPITALISM

 

[itfitzme]

Here is how monopolies are defined in micro economics.

Monopoly. A monopoly is a single supplier to a market. This firm may choose to produce at any point on the market demand curve.

The reason a monopoly exists is that other firms find it unprofitable or impossible to enter the market. Barriers to entry are therefore the source of all monopoly power. If other firms could enter a market then the firm would, by definition, no longer be a monopoly. There are two general types of barriers to entry: technical barriers and legal barriers.

A primary technical barrier is that the production of the good in question may exhibit decreasing marginal (and average) costs over a wide range of output levels. The technology of production is such that relatively large-scale firms are low-cost producers. In this situation (which is sometimes referred to as natural monopoly), one firm may find it profitable to drive others out of the industry by cutting prices.

Many pure monopolies are created as a matter of law rather than as a matter of economic conditions. One important example of a government-granted monopoly position is in the legal protection of a product by a patent or copyright. Prescription drugs, computer chips, and Disney animated movies are examples of profitable products that are shielded (for a time) from direct competition by potential imitators.

Although some barriers to entry may be independent of the monopolist’s own activities, other barriers may result directly from those activities. For example, firms may develop unique products or technologies and take extraordinary steps to keep these from being copied by competitors. Or firms may buy up unique resources to prevent potential entry.

http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~ebayrak/teaching/500F12/XYZ.pdf

 

[originalthought]

Your "logic", if we can call it that, is absurd. What is legal and illegal is by government definition. By govt definition, monopolies are illegal and the history of US economics includes the history of anti trust suits. By definition, by law, the Federal Reserve is not an illegal monopoly. By law, until recently, health insurance companies were exempt from Federal anti trust laws making them not monopoly.

Natural monopolies come about naturally as a result of the free market. Economies of scale is the typical process.

Your refusal to learn just relegates yourself to being an idiot. You haven't "proven" anything.

How am I the idiot? I am going to lump you and PMZ in together. The other poster gave you FACTS about how the government laws actually created monopolies.

According to you and PMZ...
Government prevents monopilies (which is false but i will play)
Monopolies are illegal

The Federal reserve is a monoply. They are the only ones allowed to create currency in the US.

But the Federal Reserve was created by the government, AND is legal.
Therefore the premise that Governments prevent monopolies is flase.
Therefore the premise that Monopolies are created by the free market is also false.

Because you are attempting to define things that are defined by law, economics science, and business accounting. That, and you embellish other peoples presentation. And you are refusing to accept the reality which has been determined by others smarter than you. I detect a certain lack of allowing feedback, acknowledging the determination of definitions by the experts in the field. I am pretty sure you are neither a lawyer or an economist. Rejecting what has already been defined is a mental issue, in part the Dunn-Kruger effect.

No where did anyone say that the government prevents all monopolies. I simply pointed out the fact that they are illegal by US Law. And, the legality, the enforcement, sanctioning, and the creation of monopolies by the US government aren't at odds with each other. Surely you realize that the government can and does allow for patent rights which create monopolies until the patent runs out. Then, if conditions are right, as for Alcoa, a natural monopoly may ensue. This gets tried in court under anti-trust law, establishing the monopoly to be at odds with the law and therefore illegal. That the government creates monopolies doesn't mean that they also determine monopolies to be illegal.

By your reasoning, seat belts in automobiles don't prevent injuries because injuries occur while people are wearing a seat belt.

Yes, monopolies are created by the free market. You seem to be starting with the premise that the free market can't create monopolies and then attempting to force some false logic to make it so. How you manage this is beyond me.

That monopolies are created in the free market is well established and a simple search for description of monopolies will yield this information. One has to intentionally ignore the information presented by economists, the US government, and business. That the Federal Reserve might be considered a monopoly doesn't negate that the free market creates monopolies naturally or that the Supreme Court has found companies in violation of anti-trust laws on multiple occasions.

The Federal Reserve doesn't create the US currency that is used in the private economy and market place. The Federal Reserve creates money in the reserve accounts of reserve banks. It is called "outside money". The money we use is created by private banks as business loans, consumer loans, etc. It is called "inside money". Inside and outside money don't mix. The money supply created by private banks, outside money, is larger than the money supply created by the Federal Reserve. The last measure of M2 is 10,947.7 Billions of Dollars. The last measure of the monetary base is 3,682.285 Billions of Dollars. Historically, M1, the money used for purchases of goods and services, has been 1.5 to 3 times the monetary base.

The specific ratio is shown here;

It is M1/Mb. M1, the inside money used in exchanges, the money in circulation, is always more than Mb. And as the Federal Reserve only creates outside money, Mb, at the very least we can say that the difference, (M1-Mb), is clearly not created by the Federal Reserve.

Still, it is certainly incorrect to say that the Federal Reserve creates US currency when they create far less than the functioning money supply. All the Federal Reserve does is make outside money available through the reserve banking system. The private banks then creates money based on demand. It is correct to say that the money supply is created by the private banking system because, in fact, it is. It would be incorrect to say that the Treasury Department creates money in the US economy because, while it does print and mint, that money only becomes inside money when a private bank decides to do so. It may be better said that money creation is done by the combined behavior of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, and the private banking system. If we have to pick one to speak of as being the major source, it would be the private banking system. As M1 is inside money and Mb is outside money, the Federal Reserve doesn't actually create the money inside the economy.

The Federal Reserve's role is to stabilize the money supply.

This fact, that the Federal Reserve's role is to stabilize the money supply goes right back to the central point brought about this discussion. Lacking the government and Federal Reserve's role in stabilizing the money supply, the economy would go to shit repeatedly. And there in lies the point. Money has no purpose except in exchange. It is far more a public good than anything else.

There is one concept that is clearly missing from your considerations, the concept of "and". Governments AND the free market creates monopolies. Governments sanction AND suppress monopolies. Monopolies are illegal in the US by Federal law AND health insurance companies were exempt from anti trust laws.

Private banks AND the Federal Reserve create money. The government AND the free market create monopolies. Monopolies are illegal in Federal law AND some monopolies are not illegal.

Whatever you have come to believe is simply wrong. And you have created false logic based on false or a lack of information


Understanding Inside Money and Outside Money | PRAGMATIC CAPITALISM

The basis of your beleif system is not based on logic and reason. So everything else that comes from you is Bull Shit.

PMZ stated that Government prevents monopolies (which is bullshit, look at communism. i dont care if he wants to say "american government")
You tend to agree and said that monopolies are illegale

Federal Reserve=monopoly=created by the government=legal
Therefore it is false that Government prevents monopolies and they are illegal

Its simple logic. Explain how it is incorrect.

I will argue you seatbelt explanation.
No one has ever claimed that seat belts prevent injury in car accidents.
People do claim that Seat Belts reduce the risk of injury.

If either of you want to retract the statement that government prevents monopolies, we can move on to another point.

I hope someone else has the time to take you to school on the Federal Reserve, because that is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. They are the ones who caused this mess.

 

[Indeependent]

How am I the idiot? I am going to lump you and PMZ in together. The other poster gave you FACTS about how the government laws actually created monopolies.

According to you and PMZ...
Government prevents monopilies (which is false but i will play)
Monopolies are illegal

The Federal reserve is a monoply. They are the only ones allowed to create currency in the US.

But the Federal Reserve was created by the government, AND is legal.
Therefore the premise that Governments prevent monopolies is flase.
Therefore the premise that Monopolies are created by the free market is also false.

Because you are attempting to define things that are defined by law, economics science, and business accounting. That, and you embellish other peoples presentation. And you are refusing to accept the reality which has been determined by others smarter than you. I detect a certain lack of allowing feedback, acknowledging the determination of definitions by the experts in the field. I am pretty sure you are neither a lawyer or an economist. Rejecting what has already been defined is a mental issue, in part the Dunn-Kruger effect.

No where did anyone say that the government prevents all monopolies. I simply pointed out the fact that they are illegal by US Law. And, the legality, the enforcement, sanctioning, and the creation of monopolies by the US government aren't at odds with each other. Surely you realize that the government can and does allow for patent rights which create monopolies until the patent runs out. Then, if conditions are right, as for Alcoa, a natural monopoly may ensue. This gets tried in court under anti-trust law, establishing the monopoly to be at odds with the law and therefore illegal. That the government creates monopolies doesn't mean that they also determine monopolies to be illegal.

By your reasoning, seat belts in automobiles don't prevent injuries because injuries occur while people are wearing a seat belt.

Yes, monopolies are created by the free market. You seem to be starting with the premise that the free market can't create monopolies and then attempting to force some false logic to make it so. How you manage this is beyond me.

That monopolies are created in the free market is well established and a simple search for description of monopolies will yield this information. One has to intentionally ignore the information presented by economists, the US government, and business. That the Federal Reserve might be considered a monopoly doesn't negate that the free market creates monopolies naturally or that the Supreme Court has found companies in violation of anti-trust laws on multiple occasions.

The Federal Reserve doesn't create the US currency that is used in the private economy and market place. The Federal Reserve creates money in the reserve accounts of reserve banks. It is called "outside money". The money we use is created by private banks as business loans, consumer loans, etc. It is called "inside money". Inside and outside money don't mix. The money supply created by private banks, outside money, is larger than the money supply created by the Federal Reserve. The last measure of M2 is 10,947.7 Billions of Dollars. The last measure of the monetary base is 3,682.285 Billions of Dollars. Historically, M1, the money used for purchases of goods and services, has been 1.5 to 3 times the monetary base.

The specific ratio is shown here;

It is M1/Mb. M1, the inside money used in exchanges, the money in circulation, is always more than Mb. And as the Federal Reserve only creates outside money, Mb, at the very least we can say that the difference, (M1-Mb), is clearly not created by the Federal Reserve.

Still, it is certainly incorrect to say that the Federal Reserve creates US currency when they create far less than the functioning money supply. All the Federal Reserve does is make outside money available through the reserve banking system. The private banks then creates money based on demand. It is correct to say that the money supply is created by the private banking system because, in fact, it is. It would be incorrect to say that the Treasury Department creates money in the US economy because, while it does print and mint, that money only becomes inside money when a private bank decides to do so. It may be better said that money creation is done by the combined behavior of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, and the private banking system. If we have to pick one to speak of as being the major source, it would be the private banking system. As M1 is inside money and Mb is outside money, the Federal Reserve doesn't actually create the money inside the economy.

The Federal Reserve's role is to stabilize the money supply.

This fact, that the Federal Reserve's role is to stabilize the money supply goes right back to the central point brought about this discussion. Lacking the government and Federal Reserve's role in stabilizing the money supply, the economy would go to shit repeatedly. And there in lies the point. Money has no purpose except in exchange. It is far more a public good than anything else.

There is one concept that is clearly missing from your considerations, the concept of "and". Governments AND the free market creates monopolies. Governments sanction AND suppress monopolies. Monopolies are illegal in the US by Federal law AND health insurance companies were exempt from anti trust laws.

Private banks AND the Federal Reserve create money. The government AND the free market create monopolies. Monopolies are illegal in Federal law AND some monopolies are not illegal.

Whatever you have come to believe is simply wrong. And you have created false logic based on false or a lack of information


Understanding Inside Money and Outside Money | PRAGMATIC CAPITALISM

The basis of your beleif system is not based on logic and reason. So everything else that comes from you is Bull Shit.

PMZ stated that Government prevents monopolies (which is bullshit, look at communism. i dont care if he wants to say "american government")
You tend to agree and said that monopolies are illegale

Federal Reserve=monopoly=created by the government=legal
Therefore it is false that Government prevents monopolies and they are illegal

Its simple logic. Explain how it is incorrect.

I will argue you seatbelt explanation.
No one has ever claimed that seat belts prevent injury in car accidents.
People do claim that Seat Belts reduce the risk of injury.

If either of you want to retract the statement that government prevents monopolies, we can move on to another point.

I hope someone else has the time to take you to school on the Federal Reserve, because that is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. They are the ones who caused this mess.

Fair Share is a nonsense meme.
The US has no borders thus driving down wages.
US entities that effectively are NOT US entities receive taxes from the middle class to pay for a military that protects them worldwide and for global patent protecttion.

Illegals, thanks to Reagan's COBRA, receive tax payer medical care.

Both sides of the fence..insane.

 

[PMZ]

Monopolies are illegal. (ok)
The Federal Reserve is a Monopoly.
Therefore the Fed Res is illegal

I stand by my earlier statement that monopolies come into existance with the support of governemnt, not in a capitalist society.

Thank you for proving my point for me

Your "logic", if we can call it that, is absurd. What is legal and illegal is by government definition. By govt definition, monopolies are illegal and the history of US economics includes the history of anti trust suits. By definition, by law, the Federal Reserve is not an illegal monopoly. By law, until recently, health insurance companies were exempt from Federal anti trust laws making them not monopoly.

Natural monopolies come about naturally as a result of the free market. Economies of scale is the typical process.

Your refusal to learn just relegates yourself to being an idiot. You haven't "proven" anything.

How am I the idiot? I am going to lump you and PMZ in together. The other poster gave you FACTS about how the government laws actually created monopolies.

According to you and PMZ...
Government prevents monopilies (which is false but i will play)
Monopolies are illegal

The Federal reserve is a monoply. They are the only ones allowed to create currency in the US.

But the Federal Reserve was created by the government, AND is legal.
Therefore the premise that Governments prevent monopolies is flase.
Therefore the premise that Monopolies are created by the free market is also false.

You have so, so much to learn. The anti monopoly laws in the US are defined as actions in restraint of trade. Market by market. If you are in such a market, and you compromise competition, you will be dealt with by the Justice Department.

There are other markets where competition is either impossible or impractical. The typical way to solve that problem is to satisfy the market with socialism. Means of production owned by all of us.

In some cases there is a middle ground called a regulated monopoly. Privately owned companies but so regulated that they can't benefit unilaterally from their monopoly. Many energy companies are like that.

So is the Federal Reserve. It's assets, means of production, are owned by member banks. It's responsibilities require it to be a monopoly. It's managed by a board appointed by government. It is highly regulated.

If you think that you have a better idea go back to school at get a PhD in macroeconomics, spend 30 or 40 years in the banking business and become among the best in the country at your job.

There's a chance then that someone will listen to your ideas.