$60b wiped off market (7 Viewers)

[zombie omie jay]

"i can't believe you actually have this grandiose idea that tax is theft. you assume gov. run corporations will run efficiently~ turning profits? you need only look at telstra and cbas profitability since they were sold off as a government asset, it's a generally agreed upon fact that gov. owned companies run at high levels of inefficiency."

!!!

 

[Garygaz]

yes i agree that government is innefficent but we already discussed this. telstra never needed to be gov owned, cba never needed to be government owned. as many government owned assets as possible should be sold off to the private sector, however, my argument was that specific gov. owned services such as health, education, policing should stay in their hands, regardless.

i don't like the idea of privately owned police and no public schools. that's what i was arguing the whole time.

 

[Garygaz]

a practical use of gold is as a store of value

which is why it was traditionally used as a currency

what is so hard to understand about this

except it's not a currency anymore? it's a store of value because people literally have faith that it is a store of value. if times get bad, you can't do anything with it, you can't redeem it for something.

 

[zombie omie jay]

how can you argue that

if there is a market for health services, education and protection/prosecution then by your logic, they would be better off run by a private company

all you need is the legislative framework to keep them up to the same standard that we expect from govt monopolies

there is no real difference between a state owned police force or a publically owned one, they still follow state legislation

 

[Garygaz]

yes but in the police force, in roads, in education, the government often takes expenses (such as rural roads, schools, police) that end up in a net loss. do you really think private enterprise is going to make a school for the 50 kids who go to wiggawoogajibberish land school 2000kms away from a major city? No. and how on earth does a private police force make money? by giving out fines and making arrests? surely you can see the problems that would lead to.

my points are the exact same for roads and hospitals, if there's no profit to be made, why would they bother?

 

[zombie omie jay]

more money is collected in road associated taxes and registration etc than is spent on roads in nsw each year
roads could very easily be privately run, there would just need to be legislative requirements regarding the coverage of the road network ie roads to be kept up to x standard in rural areas lol m8

private police force would run like any other security force lol if you want something investigated, pay them
how many times have you used the nsw police force this year v how much money you paid in taxes that they used


you point is great, if there was no profit to be made, then there is no demand for the service and hence there is no need for it fuck

 

[zombie omie jay]

govt exists to provide legislation not to run businesses

once upon a time people would have scoffed at an essential service like a telco being privately owned lol

 

[Garygaz]

policing, schooling (maybe roads, it's arguable, because it would be such a monopoly), hospitals shouldn't be treated as businesses, but state run services. i understand where you're coming from, i don't know if everyone realizes all the things that the government funds in this country. i think you're treating every human as an economic entity.

 

[funkshen]

i think you're treating every human as an economic entity.

wait what

 

[SylviaB]

if i want to short the market, ill buy some calls and ETFs, not buy gold. that is a GUARANTEED way to make money when the market collapses.

good for you

but most people feel safer with physical, as do I

almost every other commodity traded on the market has a practical use and a demand which is derived from such, as previously discussed (like pages and pages back) the price of gold in no way reflects its practical use.

um its practical use is a store of value

and it performs this function brilliantly

money is redeemable for almost anything, even during massive depressions, if a government doesn't go ape-shit and print mass amounts of cash, money still retains value.

People like abbey and myself believe that there will be a major economic downturn for precisely this reason.

gold derives its value from peoples perceived notion that it is a stop loss on their investments if the market performs badly. tbh just forget that it is gold, it could be any substance, any material (that is limited in its production) e.g. a bottle of reserve whiskey. what if a hypothetical market presumed that a rare bottle of whiskey (which only 500 were produced every year) was like gold is now

such an item would be less durable, less fungible, easier to forge, and most importantly entirely undivisable.

gold has all the characteristics of a bubble right now, and maybe if it does correct, i'll feel slightly vindicated. but god knows how long that could be.

Of course it's in a bubble, but until the government stops printing money to "fix" the economy, it won't burst. Not for years. there will of course likely be significant corrections in the short term, but no collapse.

 

[abbeyroad]

jesus fucking christ you shit poster. i said it's price in no way reflects its practical use as opposed to other commodities.

go die in a hole and learn to read

yeah but the fact that it's overvalued does not in any way substantiate your view that it's an illegitimate store of value this is the fucking 1000th time I've said this you imbecile. you were trying to argue that the 'philosophy' behind using gold as a store of value was somehow illogical and when we pointed out the inconsistency in your position you backtracked to arguing that gold is in a bubble as if that would somehow substantiate your previous assertion. and when we subsequently pointed out that you were in fact arguing for two different things you resort to ad hominems? I mean really?

learn to form a coherent argument you dumb fuck.

 

[abbeyroad]

yes but in the police force, in roads, in education, the government often takes expenses (such as rural roads, schools, police) that end up in a net loss. do you really think private enterprise is going to make a school for the 50 kids who go to wiggawoogajibberish land school 2000kms away from a major city? No. and how on earth does a private police force make money? by giving out fines and making arrests? surely you can see the problems that would lead to.

my points are the exact same for roads and hospitals, if there's no profit to be made, why would they bother?

policing, schooling (maybe roads, it's arguable, because it would be such a monopoly), hospitals shouldn't be treated as businesses, but state run services. i understand where you're coming from, i don't know if everyone realizes all the things that the government funds in this country. i think you're treating every human as an economic entity.

ahahahhahahahahah why then the objection to abolishing taxes when I've shown that things like public roads could be funded without them ($600 per car lol). your claim that state run enterprises, which are essentially giant monopolies, won't be able to return a profit is untenable - I've provided evidence pointing to the contrary and so far you've given zero data to support your claim. and before you bring out your trite platitude that SOEs are inefficient let me just point out for the last fucking time that inefficient=/=unprofitable. lrn2argue you incoherent fuck.

 

[Blastus]

except it's not a currency anymore? it's a store of value because people literally have faith that it is a store of value. if times get bad, you can't do anything with it, you can't redeem it for something.

Anything that is fungible and that can be traded for goods and services is a currency.

 

[SylviaB]

garygaz look at these pl0x

[youtube]A1gp9_oCafM[/youtube]
[youtube]EAhgbzl8kCc[/youtube]
[youtube]ylXAhyDZhZ4[/youtube]

 

[Garygaz]

ahahahhahahahahah why then the objection to abolishing taxes when I've shown that things like public roads could be funded without them ($600 per car lol). your claim that state run enterprises, which are essentially giant monopolies, won't be able to return a profit is untenable - I've provided evidence pointing to the contrary and so far you've given zero data to support your claim. and before you bring out your trite platitude that SOEs are inefficient let me just point out for the last fucking time that inefficient=/=unprofitable. lrn2argue you incoherent fuck.

/disregard

you just completely disregarded my post and as such i will do the same to yours.

 

[Garygaz]

like seriously i just posted about needing to not view certain services as being essential to turning a profit as a police force, schooling and other services; they needn't be seen as a business. i said that funding that is currently provided by the government (for example rural schools) in certain areas which would be seen by the private sector as completely unattractive.

nvm choose not to read.

p.s. omie go look up the privately contracted military forces in afghan vs the marines. civilian deaths per soldier is out of control. i guess this is sort of side tracking the discussion but i in no way believe policing should be outsourced to private contractors.

 

[Garygaz]

this derpn market

 

[Garygaz]

i'll watch those videos tomorrow or sunday and try and write up a reasonable response (unlike some people)

 

[abbeyroad]

/disregard

you just completely disregarded my post and as such i will do the same to yours.

yes I admit that wasn't really a response to your post so much as a confutation of your claim that public services could only be funded through taxation. my contention with you has always been on whether public services could be financed without taxes, not whether those services could/should be privatised. i mean really your arguments are all over the place, are you incapable of constructing your arguments in a logically consistent manner?

 

[Garygaz]

yes I admit that wasn't really a response to your post so much as a confutation of your claim that public services could only be funded through taxation. my contention with you has always been on whether public services could be financed without taxes, not whether those services could/should be privatised. i mean really your arguments are all over the place, are you incapable of constructing your arguments in a logically consistent manner?

sure, from the stats i've seen i'll concede roads could be, some schools could be, some hospitals could be. but i think if you take a look at the american health care system, that's a good example case of what happens in a completely privatized health care industry. yes, they have a high standard of care, but not many can afford it. same goes for schools, you're going to have private schools which some can afford, but there's always going to be a demographic which will be put at a severe disadvantage because of it.