20 comments posted · 2 followers · following 0

10 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Hospital of Cards - An... · 5 replies · -15 points

Heathroi....Thank you for your honesty. You said: people will die in the streets like they used to in the old days

And I want you to make that clear as part of "free market" healthcare. If you want free market healthcare....people will die in Emergency Rooms because they can't afford to have their lives saved.

I don't want to live in that kind of country. But if you're going to advocate free market healthcare....then advocate real free market healthcare. Let people who can't afford their hospital bills to die.

Thank you for being hones heathroi. I have to give you a big "thumbs up" for answering the question honestly.

10 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Hospital of Cards - An... · 4 replies · -20 points outpatient clinics in Mexico? Mexico has single-payer govt run healthcare. I'd like to see an American doctor try to compete with that.

10 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Hospital of Cards - An... · 10 replies · -24 points

People, Industrialized countries that pay the least for their healthcare, are single-payer government run healthcare. And here in the US, Medicare has done a much better job of controlling healthcare costs than private insurance.

Those are just facts. I can’t believe that with all the information available on this…we still ignore the facts and prefer to depend on heresay and anectdotes to drive our healthcare debate. I bet before this day is out, I’ll see 20 posts saying “my neighbor told me….” Or “I once had to wait in a waiting room…”

People, the numbers and facts are out there. Get them. And the fact is we have a private healthcare system now….and it’s the most expensive in the world with no better outcomes on the whole than England, Germany, Canada etc.

So stop spreading myths. We’ll never be able to fix a problem that we deliberately mis-diagnose.

10 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Hospital of Cards - An... · 3 replies · -18 points

Free, stop spreading the lies. The “Guardian” newspaper in England examines your claim. Read here:
As a country, we need to solve this problem. And spreading lies is like dropping poop all over the ground that has to be picked up before we begin a serious discussion. So please read the British newspaper first.

Also, the British live longer than Americans. And isn’t that the ultimate gauge of how good your healthcare is?

10 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Marxist Dreams and Sov... · 1 reply · -17 points

Couterus…. THE ANSWER IS “YES” can you not take “yes” for an answer? Everyone who worked for Bush believes in our form of govt.

When you say “neo-con” I have to know what you’re talking about. I assume you mean did every in Bush’s White House support the Iraq war. I would say that most his top advisors (just as Von Mises was a top advisor to the fascist dictator Dolfuss), are Neo-cons.

The definition of a NEO-CON is a person that believes in Democracy and our form of govt and felt we should have invaded Iraq. Yes, I think all of Bush’s top advisors were Neo-cons.

there’s no doubt that every Bush top adisor agrees with our form of govt. And every one of Bush’s top advisors were Ne0-cons…. No doubt. And I think Von Mises was the same. I think he agreed with the basic tenants of the govt he served.

10 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Marxist Dreams and Sov... · 5 replies · -17 points

An easy question. Yes, Von Mises worked for fascists, but he didn’t have to…he chose to. Einstein refused fascism and left the country instead of working for fascists. You see, it’s not as simple as saying “that was his job”. Von Mises had freewill just as Einstein did and could have refused to serve the fascists just as Einstein did.

What I said to you earlier is that Von Mises certainly wasn’t as bothered by fascism as you are, and was much less bothered by fascism than Einstein. Einstein chose to leave the country and Von Mises went to work for the fascists. And Einstein wasn’t alone, just the most famous. Germany suffered a “brain drain” when the fascist took over because only people like Von Mises would work for them. If you had the means to leave the country and avoid working for fascists… did.

You can argue that Von Mises wasn’t a fascist, just that it didn’t bother him to work for the fascists. You may have a point. But in making that point you prove mine; ”Obviously Von Mises wasn’t as anti-fascist as you seem to be. Maybe you should learn more about the “Austrian Perspective”.

Question: If fascism is so terrible, why did Von Mises choose to go to work for them?

10 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Marxist Dreams and Sov... · 2 replies · -26 points

Leckie...I should respond by giving you a "reading list" about your "reading list". You wouldn't answer the question about 100% reserve banking because you can't. And your ego won't allow you to say that.

There is nothing to stop you from setting up a 100% reserve bank right now... and yet nobody does it. Have you ever stopped to wonder why? I didn't think so.

While I don't agree with Henry Cameron on everything he said, at least he answered the question. I think he's right about lending being "impaired" , but that's a huge understatement. Lending would collapse and the economy would crash.

Henry at least catches this out of the corner of his eye. And I could have a reasonable discussion with him. But you guys are not used to examining your beliefs and so you use an Admin who’ll delete posts that question your beliefs. And you handing out "reading lists" that obviously didn't help you answer the question is .... Sad, sad, sad.

10 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Marxist Dreams and Sov... · 18 replies · -24 points

Leckie, the only person who answered my 100% reserve banking question was Henry Cameron. He didn’t give me a reading list, he didn’t attack me for asking the question, and he didn’t call on the Admin to delete my post. He simply answered the question… refreshing. He said:

“I don't think any reasonable person would demand the entire banking system convert to 100% reserve…. If you, as a consumer, decide to put all your money in a 100% reserve bank, you would most likely pay a fee for the storage of your money, and for checking services. You would not receive interest on your deposits, because they are not being lent out…… If EVERY bank operated under this reserve requirement, lending would absolutely be 'impaired'

Wow!!! Henry made a real attempt at answering the question. Leckey…you should learn from this guy! But my guess is that the best you'll be able to do is get the admin to delete my posts, and if he doesn''ll be reduced to handing out reading lists.

10 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Unions and the Other T... · 4 replies · -17 points

Everyone, Let's give a big "thumbs up" to our Von Mises hero of the day.....Henry Cameron! He answered the question nobody on this board could answer, although Freeharmonics gave it a pretty good shot (a hat tip to freeharmonics).

In 100% reserve banking you couldn't lend out any "demand deposits" (checking or savings...anything you could draw out immediately without notice to the bank). He also said that you under a 100% reserve bank, not only would you NOT receive'd actually have to pay the bank to safeguard your money and clear your checks.

Since 90%+ of all money in US banks is in "demand deposit" accounts, lending in the US would effectively go to ZERO. Yes there may be a little lending left on the last 10% of "time deposits" like CD's and bonds...if the bank has any money to lend it'll be to Alcoa Aluminum to buy a new machine and not to some "palluka" that wants a new dump truck for his small business.

Hat's off to Henry Cameron. He answered the question without attacking me, giving out a "reading list" or resorting to deleting my posts. Henry........YOU 'DA MAN!!!!!!

10 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Unions and the Other T... · 9 replies · -18 points

WOW!!!! Henry Cameron answered my question!!!! After 6 weeks....he got it right! I encourage everyone to read his response.

To summarize, Henry says that with 100% reserve banking, the bank will not lend any money (he's right). Henry goes on to say that instead of receiving interest on their money....<b >depositors will actually have to PAY the bank to hold their money and clear their checks.

People, Henry Cameron is 100% right. I encourage all of you to read his post'. In Henry's bank, he won't lend out your money and his bank will never fail. But instead of receiving $3000/year on your $120K have to pay Henry $800 to safeguard your money and clear your checks.

Several things here:

1. Henry's bank (if it can attract enough customers), will never fail.
2. Henry's bank will never finance a house for you.
3. Henry's bank will never finance your business equipment.

Now, remember Henry's bank could be create right now....and nobody is doing it (i'd ask you people "why" there's no bank like that now, but that question seems to bother you so much that you'd atttack me and delete my posts). But I do have another question...Do you really want a banking system that can't lend any money???? and what do you think that would do to our economy?

Remember...answer the question. Don't respond by attacking me you providing a "reading list" just answer the question.