Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Really? Show us how that would work? Why would I, as Airline Selfish Infant, pay into something that allowed Airline Cheap Flights to compete against me? My planes, my airport, my flights, the sky would be unregulated. I wouldn't pay a dime, no good capitalist would.Bripiss, do tell, what is the immoral selfish infant solution (since it's not in the Constitution) to the FAA? This?
Private companies can control air traffic.
Learn how, and why, governments and businesses use debt. Debt is not what you think, it's not Mommy's check book. - The Advantages of Using Debt as Capital StructureThe stimulus was nothing but a big old pile of iOUs...
Lol
So, if that so offends you, why are you still here? Why don't you go to a country who follows, in your mind, the law?Everything is "unconstitutional." if you refuse to allow interpretation. Which is why we allow interpretation.So, what's the not unconstitutional, in your mind, way that airplanes and air traffic gets regulated? No regulations at all?Nothing of the kind, and every real capitalist, not you of course, knows it. But, you are the guy who thinks we can't have an FAA, because the Founders, with no commercial aircraft, no planes at all, didn't write that into the Constitution in the year 1789...
That's absolutely correct. The Constitution is a document of enumerated powers. Regulating passenger air travel isn't one of the power enumerated.
Virtually everything the FAA does is unconstitutional. If a state ruled that all flights from outside the state had to pay a fee, the FAA could outlaw that, but that's about it.
Virtually everything the federal government does is unconstitutional. Yes, that's why goose stepping toadies like you support "interpreting" the Constitution to mean whatever you want it to mean.
As a capitalist, that is the last thing I would want. No capitalism could be based on a currency whose value was unknown, and undefended.There's no economic reason why national governments have to issue currency.
Yet again:
"A Stable Money Supply. Without reliable money, markets would be based primarily on barter and thus be extremely limited. In the U.S., before the Civil War, almost all paper money was issued by private banks – not the government. This was an unreliable and incredibly chaotic system. Sometimes merchants would not even accept certain currencies. It also meant there was no real control over the money supply – which has a crucial impact on inflation and economic growth. Widespread commerce and a stable economy both require a stable and dependable money system – one in which consumers and merchants have faith. This can only be provided and maintained by the federal government."
Government is Good - Capitalism Requires Government
So, if that so offends you, why are you still here? Why don't you go to a country who follows, in your mind, the law?Everything is "unconstitutional." if you refuse to allow interpretation. Which is why we allow interpretation.So, what's the not unconstitutional, in your mind, way that airplanes and air traffic gets regulated? No regulations at all?That's absolutely correct. The Constitution is a document of enumerated powers. Regulating passenger air travel isn't one of the power enumerated.
Virtually everything the FAA does is unconstitutional. If a state ruled that all flights from outside the state had to pay a fee, the FAA could outlaw that, but that's about it.
Virtually everything the federal government does is unconstitutional. Yes, that's why goose stepping toadies like you support "interpreting" the Constitution to mean whatever you want it to mean.
By chance, is that because there is no such nation, in the real world?
Now you're getting it! Welcome to the real world, where that is how things actually happen.Everything is "unconstitutional." if you refuse to allow interpretation. Which is why we allow interpretation.So, what's the not unconstitutional, in your mind, way that airplanes and air traffic gets regulated? No regulations at all?That's absolutely correct. The Constitution is a document of enumerated powers. Regulating passenger air travel isn't one of the power enumerated.
Virtually everything the FAA does is unconstitutional. If a state ruled that all flights from outside the state had to pay a fee, the FAA could outlaw that, but that's about it.
In other words, Interpretation is a means to define the constitution to mean whatever you want it to mean.
No, as the link shows they didn't know the value of all currencies, and therefore wouldn't do business using some. If that were true today all my clients to have to pay first, and the check cleared, before I would help them.As a capitalist, that is the last thing I would want. No capitalism could be based on a currency whose value was unknown, and undefended.There's no economic reason why national governments have to issue currency.
Yet again:
"A Stable Money Supply. Without reliable money, markets would be based primarily on barter and thus be extremely limited. In the U.S., before the Civil War, almost all paper money was issued by private banks – not the government. This was an unreliable and incredibly chaotic system. Sometimes merchants would not even accept certain currencies. It also meant there was no real control over the money supply – which has a crucial impact on inflation and economic growth. Widespread commerce and a stable economy both require a stable and dependable money system – one in which consumers and merchants have faith. This can only be provided and maintained by the federal government."
Government is Good - Capitalism Requires Government
You belief that no one knew the value of the currency under free banking only proves that you're an economic ignoramus. They knew precisely what the currency was worth. The dollar was defined to be worth 1/28th of an oz of gold. All private currencies were denominated in dollars.
On the other hand, our current fiat currency is something no one knows the value of. It fluctuates daily. All one has to do is look at the currency markets to see that no one knows how much a dollar is worth.
You're propaganda was written by a government toady. It's pure bullshit.
Yeah, we definitely need thousands of different currencies handled by private banks.. God, learn to live in the real world.These people are the ones who lack a basic understanding of a modern monetary economy. I used to be like them.Since you have no solution to life without a Federal government, not even able to praise them for winning WWII, why should anyone care what the hell you say?Trust the federal government all you want, I don't care... Just don't expect anyone else to trust any part of the federal government. lemmings
Lol
You're the kind who says there should be no taxes, but can't tell us how anything would then be paid for...
They don't understand that the US government issues the currency used by the private sector.
So? Until 1866 private banks could issue their own currency.
In the United States, the Free Banking Era lasted between 1837 and 1866, when almost anyone could issue paper money. States, municipalities, private banks, railroad and construction companies, stores, restaurants, churches and individuals printed an estimated 8,000 different monies by 1860. If an issuer went bankrupt, closed, left town, or otherwise went out of business the note would be worthless. Such organizations earned the nickname of "wildcat banks" for a reputation of unreliability; they were often situated in remote, unpopulated locales said to be inhabited more by wildcats than by people. Yet according to Lawrence H. White's article in The Freeman, "it turns out that 'wildcat' banking is largely a myth. Although stories about crooked banking practices are entertaining—and for that reason have been repeated endlessly by textbooks—modern economic historians have found that there were in fact very few banks that fit any reasonable definition of wildcat bank".[1] The National Bank Act of 1863 ended the "wildcat bank" period.There's no economic reason why national governments have to issue currency.
No, as the link shows they didn't know the value of all currencies, and therefore wouldn't do business using some. If that were true today all my clients to have to pay first, and the check cleared, before I would help them.As a capitalist, that is the last thing I would want. No capitalism could be based on a currency whose value was unknown, and undefended.There's no economic reason why national governments have to issue currency.
Yet again:
"A Stable Money Supply. Without reliable money, markets would be based primarily on barter and thus be extremely limited. In the U.S., before the Civil War, almost all paper money was issued by private banks – not the government. This was an unreliable and incredibly chaotic system. Sometimes merchants would not even accept certain currencies. It also meant there was no real control over the money supply – which has a crucial impact on inflation and economic growth. Widespread commerce and a stable economy both require a stable and dependable money system – one in which consumers and merchants have faith. This can only be provided and maintained by the federal government."
Government is Good - Capitalism Requires Government
You belief that no one knew the value of the currency under free banking only proves that you're an economic ignoramus. They knew precisely what the currency was worth. The dollar was defined to be worth 1/28th of an oz of gold. All private currencies were denominated in dollars.
On the other hand, our current fiat currency is something no one knows the value of. It fluctuates daily. All one has to do is look at the currency markets to see that no one knows how much a dollar is worth.
You're propaganda was written by a government toady. It's pure bullshit.
You fail to understand even the most basic things of economics. I can't help you.
Yes...we love the United States unique brand of socialism. We like collectively paying for infrastructure and safety (you know, like our police, firefighters and military). We would ALSO like to expand that unique brand of socialism to things like healthcare and education. We get the best "free" military in the world, why not the best "free" education and healthcare?
False premise. 1st you tell us how much we are already paying for education compared to everyone else, and since it is run by the teachers union which is basically SOCIALIST, explain why more SOCIALISM will improve it.
I don't think he fully grasps that we live in a modern monetary economy with a fiat currency that the government essentially controls.As a capitalist, that is the last thing I would want. No capitalism could be based on a currency whose value was unknown, and undefended.There's no economic reason why national governments have to issue currency.
Yet again:
"A Stable Money Supply. Without reliable money, markets would be based primarily on barter and thus be extremely limited. In the U.S., before the Civil War, almost all paper money was issued by private banks – not the government. This was an unreliable and incredibly chaotic system. Sometimes merchants would not even accept certain currencies. It also meant there was no real control over the money supply – which has a crucial impact on inflation and economic growth. Widespread commerce and a stable economy both require a stable and dependable money system – one in which consumers and merchants have faith. This can only be provided and maintained by the federal government."
Government is Good - Capitalism Requires Government
Why would Citibank dollars be better than US Federal Reserve dollars?Yeah, we definitely need thousands of different currencies handled by private banks.. God, learn to live in the real world.These people are the ones who lack a basic understanding of a modern monetary economy. I used to be like them.Since you have no solution to life without a Federal government, not even able to praise them for winning WWII, why should anyone care what the hell you say?Trust the federal government all you want, I don't care... Just don't expect anyone else to trust any part of the federal government. lemmings
Lol
You're the kind who says there should be no taxes, but can't tell us how anything would then be paid for...
They don't understand that the US government issues the currency used by the private sector.
So? Until 1866 private banks could issue their own currency.
In the United States, the Free Banking Era lasted between 1837 and 1866, when almost anyone could issue paper money. States, municipalities, private banks, railroad and construction companies, stores, restaurants, churches and individuals printed an estimated 8,000 different monies by 1860. If an issuer went bankrupt, closed, left town, or otherwise went out of business the note would be worthless. Such organizations earned the nickname of "wildcat banks" for a reputation of unreliability; they were often situated in remote, unpopulated locales said to be inhabited more by wildcats than by people. Yet according to Lawrence H. White's article in The Freeman, "it turns out that 'wildcat' banking is largely a myth. Although stories about crooked banking practices are entertaining—and for that reason have been repeated endlessly by textbooks—modern economic historians have found that there were in fact very few banks that fit any reasonable definition of wildcat bank".[1] The National Bank Act of 1863 ended the "wildcat bank" period.There's no economic reason why national governments have to issue currency.
We would be better off than being forced the worthless currency the federal government issues so it can rob us blind. Somehow thousands of banks manage to issue credit cards that everyone will take. I think they could come to a similar arrangement with currency.
Really? Show us how that would work? Why would I, as Airline Selfish Infant, pay into something that allowed Airline Cheap Flights to compete against me? My planes, my airport, my flights, the sky would be unregulated. I wouldn't pay a dime, no good capitalist would.Bripiss, do tell, what is the immoral selfish infant solution (since it's not in the Constitution) to the FAA? This?
Private companies can control air traffic.
Why would Citibank dollars be better than US Federal dollars?Yeah, we definitely need thousands of different currencies handled by private banks.. God, learn to live in the real world.These people are the ones who lack a basic understanding of a modern monetary economy. I used to be like them.Since you have no solution to life without a Federal government, not even able to praise them for winning WWII, why should anyone care what the hell you say?
You're the kind who says there should be no taxes, but can't tell us how anything would then be paid for...
They don't understand that the US government issues the currency used by the private sector.
So? Until 1866 private banks could issue their own currency.
In the United States, the Free Banking Era lasted between 1837 and 1866, when almost anyone could issue paper money. States, municipalities, private banks, railroad and construction companies, stores, restaurants, churches and individuals printed an estimated 8,000 different monies by 1860. If an issuer went bankrupt, closed, left town, or otherwise went out of business the note would be worthless. Such organizations earned the nickname of "wildcat banks" for a reputation of unreliability; they were often situated in remote, unpopulated locales said to be inhabited more by wildcats than by people. Yet according to Lawrence H. White's article in The Freeman, "it turns out that 'wildcat' banking is largely a myth. Although stories about crooked banking practices are entertaining—and for that reason have been repeated endlessly by textbooks—modern economic historians have found that there were in fact very few banks that fit any reasonable definition of wildcat bank".[1] The National Bank Act of 1863 ended the "wildcat bank" period.There's no economic reason why national governments have to issue currency.
We would be better off than being forced the worthless currency the federal government issues so it can rob us blind. Somehow thousands of banks manage to issue credit cards that everyone will take. I think they could come to a similar arrangement with currency.
Why would you think that? That would only be true if a law were passed making that so. And with that, you just defeated your entire argument.Why would Citibank dollars be better than US Federal dollars?Yeah, we definitely need thousands of different currencies handled by private banks.. God, learn to live in the real world.These people are the ones who lack a basic understanding of a modern monetary economy. I used to be like them.
They don't understand that the US government issues the currency used by the private sector.
So? Until 1866 private banks could issue their own currency.
In the United States, the Free Banking Era lasted between 1837 and 1866, when almost anyone could issue paper money. States, municipalities, private banks, railroad and construction companies, stores, restaurants, churches and individuals printed an estimated 8,000 different monies by 1860. If an issuer went bankrupt, closed, left town, or otherwise went out of business the note would be worthless. Such organizations earned the nickname of "wildcat banks" for a reputation of unreliability; they were often situated in remote, unpopulated locales said to be inhabited more by wildcats than by people. Yet according to Lawrence H. White's article in The Freeman, "it turns out that 'wildcat' banking is largely a myth. Although stories about crooked banking practices are entertaining—and for that reason have been repeated endlessly by textbooks—modern economic historians have found that there were in fact very few banks that fit any reasonable definition of wildcat bank".[1] The National Bank Act of 1863 ended the "wildcat bank" period.There's no economic reason why national governments have to issue currency.
We would be better off than being forced the worthless currency the federal government issues so it can rob us blind. Somehow thousands of banks manage to issue credit cards that everyone will take. I think they could come to a similar arrangement with currency.
They would be backed by gold, for one thing. They couldn't be inflated away.
Somehow the economy functioned and thrived under free banking. That indicates you are full of shit.No, as the link shows they didn't know the value of all currencies, and therefore wouldn't do business using some. If that were true today all my clients to have to pay first, and the check cleared, before I would help them.As a capitalist, that is the last thing I would want. No capitalism could be based on a currency whose value was unknown, and undefended.There's no economic reason why national governments have to issue currency.
Yet again:
"A Stable Money Supply. Without reliable money, markets would be based primarily on barter and thus be extremely limited. In the U.S., before the Civil War, almost all paper money was issued by private banks – not the government. This was an unreliable and incredibly chaotic system. Sometimes merchants would not even accept certain currencies. It also meant there was no real control over the money supply – which has a crucial impact on inflation and economic growth. Widespread commerce and a stable economy both require a stable and dependable money system – one in which consumers and merchants have faith. This can only be provided and maintained by the federal government."
Government is Good - Capitalism Requires Government
You belief that no one knew the value of the currency under free banking only proves that you're an economic ignoramus. They knew precisely what the currency was worth. The dollar was defined to be worth 1/28th of an oz of gold. All private currencies were denominated in dollars.
On the other hand, our current fiat currency is something no one knows the value of. It fluctuates daily. All one has to do is look at the currency markets to see that no one knows how much a dollar is worth.
You're propaganda was written by a government toady. It's pure bullshit.
You fail to understand even the most basic things of economics. I can't help you.
Why would you think that? That would only be true if a law were passed making that so. And with that, you just defeated your entire argument.Why would Citibank dollars be better than US Federal dollars?Yeah, we definitely need thousands of different currencies handled by private banks.. God, learn to live in the real world.So? Until 1866 private banks could issue their own currency.
In the United States, the Free Banking Era lasted between 1837 and 1866, when almost anyone could issue paper money. States, municipalities, private banks, railroad and construction companies, stores, restaurants, churches and individuals printed an estimated 8,000 different monies by 1860. If an issuer went bankrupt, closed, left town, or otherwise went out of business the note would be worthless. Such organizations earned the nickname of "wildcat banks" for a reputation of unreliability; they were often situated in remote, unpopulated locales said to be inhabited more by wildcats than by people. Yet according to Lawrence H. White's article in The Freeman, "it turns out that 'wildcat' banking is largely a myth. Although stories about crooked banking practices are entertaining—and for that reason have been repeated endlessly by textbooks—modern economic historians have found that there were in fact very few banks that fit any reasonable definition of wildcat bank".[1] The National Bank Act of 1863 ended the "wildcat bank" period.There's no economic reason why national governments have to issue currency.
We would be better off than being forced the worthless currency the federal government issues so it can rob us blind. Somehow thousands of banks manage to issue credit cards that everyone will take. I think they could come to a similar arrangement with currency.
They would be backed by gold, for one thing. They couldn't be inflated away.
