Alexy/price stunned:the W.S.J. now says the 10 stock market myths

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jul 26, 1:31*pm, Michael Price <nini_...**********m> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 1:11*am, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:> alexy/price stunned:the W.S.J. now says the 10 stock market myths that
> > simply will not die:Investing in the stock market lets you participate
> > in the growth of the economy:Stocks on average make you about 10% a
> > year:This is based on some past history stretching back to the 1800s
> > and it's full of holes
>
> * Yes I'm stunned, you posted something that wasn't absolute ****.
>

hyou have never refuted a thing i have ever said. but i included you
crank in the header, because you lied and said that i never attacked
the stock market hucksters, which i have for well over a decade on
*****politics.economics. so now i include you in the header, just to
make sure that perhaps you were flat out wrong as usual!

[Michael Price]

On Jul 28, 5:33*pm, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.*******> wrote:
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 10:43 pm, Michael Price<nini_...**********m> *wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > * in a free market, you are free to do as you please. so when are going
> > to answer my questions, who's rules are we going to follow, and who
> > will enforce those rules. you simply will not respond to a simple
> > question.
>
> Free market does not mean anarchy.
>
> --
> Les Cargill

I'd argue that they do, but "anarchy" doesn't mean "doing as you
please" it means "nobody has the monopoly of force, so if someone
is going to stop you doing as you please they better have a damn good
reason.".

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jul 28, 2:33*am, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.*******> wrote:
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 10:43 pm, Michael Price<nini_...**********m> *wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > * in a free market, you are free to do as you please. so when are going
> > to answer my questions, who's rules are we going to follow, and who
> > will enforce those rules. you simply will not respond to a simple
> > question.
>
> Free market does not mean anarchy.
>


a well regulated market, is the freest.


> --
> Les Cargill

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jul 28, 6:15*am, Michael Price <nini_...**********m> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 5:33*pm, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.*******> wrote:
>
> > Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > > On Jul 27, 10:43 pm, Michael Price<nini_...**********m> *wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> > > * in a free market, you are free to do as you please. so when are going
> > > to answer my questions, who's rules are we going to follow, and who
> > > will enforce those rules. you simply will not respond to a simple
> > > question.
>
> > Free market does not mean anarchy.
>
> > --
> > Les Cargill
>
> * I'd argue that they do, but "anarchy" doesn't mean "doing as you
> please" it means "nobody has the monopoly of force, so if someone
> is going to stop you doing as you please they better have a damn good
> reason.".

and who are they going to answer to and then that means, who's
rules

[Les Cargill]

Michael Price wrote:
> On Jul 28, 5:33 pm, Les Cargill<lcarg...@cfl.*******> wrote:
>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>> On Jul 27, 10:43 pm, Michael Price<nini_...**********m> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> in a free market, you are free to do as you please. so when are going
>>> to answer my questions, who's rules are we going to follow, and who
>>> will enforce those rules. you simply will not respond to a simple
>>> question.
>>
>> Free market does not mean anarchy.
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
> I'd argue that they do, but "anarchy" doesn't mean "doing as you
> please" it means "nobody has the monopoly of force, so if someone
> is going to stop you doing as you please they better have a damn good
> reason.".


A monopoly on force is most likely necessary. All we really
need to improve what we have is better cost-benefit analysis.
We have a pretty good system; if we have a better
understanding of its effects and a commitment
to improving them, we'd be in pretty good
shape.

Referring to ancient philosophers and using
the example of European Anarchists, anarchy
will very likely turn to tyranny.

--
Les Cargill

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jul 28, 1:29*pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...**********m> wrote:
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Jul 28, 5:33 pm, Les Cargill<lcarg...@cfl.*******> *wrote:
> >> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> >>> On Jul 27, 10:43 pm, Michael Price<nini_...**********m> * *wrote:
> >> <snip>
>
> >>> * *in a free market, you are free to do as you please. so when are going
> >>> to answer my questions, who's rules are we going to follow, and who
> >>> will enforce those rules. you simply will not respond to a simple
> >>> question.
>
> >> Free market does not mean anarchy.
>
> >> --
> >> Les Cargill
>
> > * *I'd argue that they do, but "anarchy" doesn't mean "doing as you
> > please" it means "nobody has the monopoly of force, so if someone
> > is going to stop you doing as you please they better have a damn good
> > reason.".
>
> A monopoly on force is most likely necessary. All we really
> need to improve what we have is better cost-benefit analysis.
> We have a pretty good system; if we have a better
> understanding of its effects and a commitment
> to improving them, we'd be in pretty good
> shape.
>

we had a good system, not one great depression, nor one great
recession from 1933-1981, till we started to peel away the new deal 30
years ago. since then, every recession got deeper, every bubble got
bigger, till they finally all popped at once. and what do we have to
show for almost 30 years of this, debt, poverty, and a recession?
without end. but, i agree, its not all gone yet. we still have shreds
of rule of law, and we have the ability to enforce it. we can reform.


> Referring to ancient philosophers and using
> the example of European Anarchists, anarchy
> will very likely turn to tyranny.
>


agreed. look at any country that has no government, or such a weak
government that there is no rule of law. who writes and enforces the
rules then, why, its warlords and pirates.

> --
> Les Cargill

[Michael Price]

On Jul 29, 2:51*am, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 6:15*am, Michael Price <nini_...**********m> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 28, 5:33*pm, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.*******> wrote:
>
> > > Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > > > On Jul 27, 10:43 pm, Michael Price<nini_...**********m> *wrote:
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > * in a free market, you are free to do as you please. so when are going
> > > > to answer my questions, who's rules are we going to follow, and who
> > > > will enforce those rules. you simply will not respond to a simple
> > > > question.
>
> > > Free market does not mean anarchy.
>
> > > --
> > > Les Cargill
>
> > * I'd argue that they do, but "anarchy" doesn't mean "doing as you
> > please" it means "nobody has the monopoly of force, so if someone
> > is going to stop you doing as you please they better have a damn good
> > reason.".
>
> *and who are they going to answer to and then that means, who's
> rules

I gave you the link, the fact that you couldn't be bothered to read
it is
not my problem.

[Michael Price]

On Jul 29, 4:29*am, Les Cargill <lcargil...**********m> wrote:
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Jul 28, 5:33 pm, Les Cargill<lcarg...@cfl.*******> *wrote:
> >> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> >>> On Jul 27, 10:43 pm, Michael Price<nini_...**********m> * *wrote:
> >> <snip>
>
> >>> * *in a free market, you are free to do as you please. so when are going
> >>> to answer my questions, who's rules are we going to follow, and who
> >>> will enforce those rules. you simply will not respond to a simple
> >>> question.
>
> >> Free market does not mean anarchy.
>
> >> --
> >> Les Cargill
>
> > * *I'd argue that they do, but "anarchy" doesn't mean "doing as you
> > please" it means "nobody has the monopoly of force, so if someone
> > is going to stop you doing as you please they better have a damn good
> > reason.".
>
> A monopoly on force is most likely necessary.

Based on what evidence?

> All we really need to improve what we have is better
> cost-benefit analysis.

Which will never happen as long as the monopoly of
force can shift costs to others, which is basically all it does.

> We have a pretty good system;

We have a system that gives billions of dollars to people who
only need said billions due to their proven incompetence handling
other people's money, spends trillions trying to impose it's will
on muslims resulting in thousands of deaths of it's own citizens
and over a million of them, all the while continually increasing the
money given to an education system with lower literacy rates than
before it existed. How is that a good system?

> if we have a better
> understanding of its effects and a commitment
> to improving them, we'd be in pretty good
> shape.
>
> Referring to ancient philosophers and using
> the example of European Anarchists, anarchy
> will very likely turn to tyranny.

Yet it did not in Somalia, where if anarchy was going to
fail it would have had the best excuses possible.
>
> --
> Les Cargill

[Michael Price]

On Jul 29, 7:17*am, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 1:29*pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...**********m> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Michael Price wrote:
> > > On Jul 28, 5:33 pm, Les Cargill<lcarg...@cfl.*******> *wrote:
> > >> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > >>> On Jul 27, 10:43 pm, Michael Price<nini_...**********m> * *wrote:
> > >> <snip>
>
> > >>> * *in a free market, you are free to do as you please. so when are going
> > >>> to answer my questions, who's rules are we going to follow, and who
> > >>> will enforce those rules. you simply will not respond to a simple
> > >>> question.
>
> > >> Free market does not mean anarchy.
>
> > >> --
> > >> Les Cargill
>
> > > * *I'd argue that they do, but "anarchy" doesn't mean "doing as you
> > > please" it means "nobody has the monopoly of force, so if someone
> > > is going to stop you doing as you please they better have a damn good
> > > reason.".
>
> > A monopoly on force is most likely necessary. All we really
> > need to improve what we have is better cost-benefit analysis.
> > We have a pretty good system; if we have a better
> > understanding of its effects and a commitment
> > to improving them, we'd be in pretty good
> > shape.
>
> *we had a good system, not one great depression, nor one great
> recession from 1933-1981, till we started to peel away the new deal 30
> years ago. since then, every recession got deeper, every bubble got
> bigger, till they finally all popped at once. and what do we have to
> show for almost 30 years of this, debt, poverty, and a recession?
> without end. but, i agree, its not all gone yet. we still have shreds
> of rule of law, and we have the ability to enforce it. we can reform.
>
> > Referring to ancient philosophers and using
> > the example of European Anarchists, anarchy
> > will very likely turn to tyranny.
>
> *agreed. look at any country that has no government,

Yep they all get better. Somalia is an example, got better under
anarchy,
got worse under government. Medieval Iceland and Ireland also weren't
ruled by pirates and brigands as you claim anarchys always are.


> or such a weak government that there is no rule of law.

By "weak government" you mean a corrupt one that has no interest in
implementing the rule of law. AFAIK there has never been a
government
interested in maintaining the rule of law that became what you call
"weak".

> who writes and enforces the
> rules then, why, its warlords and pirates.
>
> > --
> > Les Cargill

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jul 28, 8:53*pm, Michael Price <nini_...**********m> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 7:17*am, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 28, 1:29*pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...**********m> wrote:
>
> > > Michael Price wrote:
> > > > On Jul 28, 5:33 pm, Les Cargill<lcarg...@cfl.*******> *wrote:
> > > >> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > > >>> On Jul 27, 10:43 pm, Michael Price<nini_...**********m> * *wrote:
> > > >> <snip>
>
> > > >>> * *in a free market, you are free to do as you please. so when are going
> > > >>> to answer my questions, who's rules are we going to follow, and who
> > > >>> will enforce those rules. you simply will not respond to a simple
> > > >>> question.
>
> > > >> Free market does not mean anarchy.
>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Les Cargill
>
> > > > * *I'd argue that they do, but "anarchy" doesn't mean "doing as you
> > > > please" it means "nobody has the monopoly of force, so if someone
> > > > is going to stop you doing as you please they better have a damn good
> > > > reason.".
>
> > > A monopoly on force is most likely necessary. All we really
> > > need to improve what we have is better cost-benefit analysis.
> > > We have a pretty good system; if we have a better
> > > understanding of its effects and a commitment
> > > to improving them, we'd be in pretty good
> > > shape.
>
> > *we had a good system, not one great depression, nor one great
> > recession from 1933-1981, till we started to peel away the new deal 30
> > years ago. since then, every recession got deeper, every bubble got
> > bigger, till they finally all popped at once. and what do we have to
> > show for almost 30 years of this, debt, poverty, and a recession?
> > without end. but, i agree, its not all gone yet. we still have shreds
> > of rule of law, and we have the ability to enforce it. we can reform.
>
> > > Referring to ancient philosophers and using
> > > the example of European Anarchists, anarchy
> > > will very likely turn to tyranny.
>
> > *agreed. look at any country that has no government,
>
> * Yep they all get better. *Somalia is an example, got better under
> anarchy,
> got worse under government. *Medieval Iceland and Ireland also weren't
> ruled by pirates and brigands as you claim anarchys always are.
>

cite.


> > or such a weak *government that there is no rule of law.
>
> * By "weak government" you mean a corrupt one that has no interest in
> implementing the rule of law. *AFAIK there has never been a
> government
> interested in maintaining the rule of law that became what you call
> "weak".
>

cite.


> > who writes and enforces the
> > rules then, why, its warlords and pirates.
>
> > > --
> > > Les Cargill

answer the question.