And this would be the model that Wall Street derivative "manufactures" have done for the past decade. The house of cards has just imploded due to a false sense of infinite cash supplies.

Well one way of looking at is that you would be increasing the supply of law and order. Just because each entity that supplies law and order is backed by force does not mean that the use of force becomes more common. Since rampant violence is generally not what people want from their law enforcement, it is reasonable to think that the use of violence might go down rather than up compared to under a state.

QFTOAFK

This is misleading. People bought things they admittedly did not understand, some of these instruments were basically bets that prices would move in a certain way and these instruments weren't backed by enough or any real money, just credit that could be revoked. It has nothing to do with cash supplies. It has more to do with people buying things they don't understand and then blaming the market or government or something because they didn't understand the risks of the transaction, which were basically "we're selling you something not backed by any real money, take it or leave it." People chose to take their word for it without looking into what they were buying and got burned. Just like I can offer you my used car that has no motor, brakes, or steering wheel for $50,000 when I bought it new for $20k, if you accept the offer then who is to blame? The market? Lack of cash?

Who is anyone to say increased violence is wrong? What if widespread stealing started to take hold? Wouldn't increased violence counteract that? The main thing to remember is that under AC the violence would be justified and under gov't it isn't.

If violence is automatically bad, regardless of the circumstances, how can government defend its actions?

Then you can't argue that demand is infinite, either, because ultimately the people demanding will have to pay for whatever it is with finite resources.

The history of geopolitics. Given an initial state of anarchy, first local warlords arise to impose order. Over time, the situation evolves toward large scale institutions with monopolistic force through the concentration of political power into fewer hands.

This seems to be the standard answer for these bogus securities. Like any other product, as long as there are sellers and resellers of the same item, the prices will rise until there is saturation. These bonds became a classic Pyramid/Ponzi structure because at no place along the line is there any value added. If these transactions came from OFF Wall Street, the SEC and the FBI would have been involved long ago to prosecute under RICO statute. How can you defend a practice of grouping together bad debt instruments and magically calling them AAA? That is the issue.

If these financial "engineers" were involved with aerospace or automotive designs that were as toxic as these products, would you still defend their practice because the users should have been more responsible to ensure their own safety? Is it the responsibility of every airline passenger to review the detailed service logs for every plane they plan on flying in today? For every purchaser of an automobile to review the engineering design specs, safety testing records, and internal calculations of fatality probabilities?

There are always risks in any endeavor, but when a "Financial Engineer" is involved, there must be accountability. An engineers work is to identify and mitigate risk. These guys not only passed the risk along, they praised their designs as solid.

King brings up a good point here borodog,

How will AC land deal with the cheap robot labor of the future? Will the supply of luxury cars become infinite? How will we deal with the inevitable robot uprising without a state?

"I love capitalism for the same reasons that I love physics and evolution."



well said

Borodog I am happy to post in your thread sir. A thread so nice it was made twice.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/62...-bbv4l-256074/



lol Bryce




I would like to quip (quip?? **** it, I'm drunk, quip it is) a question/scenario/question to you sir.



I would like to ... bring to example musical instruments, particularly electric guitars and effects and amplifiers.


Arguabley, and absolutely currently imo, old school is the ****ing nuts. I ****ing use an all tube amplifier, I use all analog effects, I play a classic ****ing Fender Stratocaster, and this type of equipment is still extremely popular, and really, when we get down to it in this drunken and high state of mine, the ****ing digital **** can't hold a god damn candle to analog. It's been ****in ... ****, ****, ****, we'll go Fender Stratocaster just for good measures imo

It's been 58 ****ing years since the Fender Stratocaster was invented and produced. Still today, most electric guitar designs are based off of the Fender Stratocaster and Gibson Les Paul (1952).

Effects pedals. They came to life in the mid to late sixties. The tone bender. The fuzz face. The fender bender. Octavio. The wah pedal. And I do see continiuous innovation here admittadely, but still analog > digital

Amplifiers. All tube is where it's at ainec. We got all this ****ing hybrid and modeling **** going on today, but a modeling amp's Marshall 1959 plexi is ****ing going to be abso****inglutely nothing like a real Marshall 1959 plexi. ****ing solid state sounds like ****, ****ing tube is STILL the standard after how many ****ing decades?



What I'm getting at in my drunken and high state aorn sir is, where is the innovation in this market iyo? Electric guitars, still basically unchanged since the 50s/60s. Amplifiers, still basically unchanged since the 50s/60s. Effects pedals, admittadly, there has been steady innovation going on with further fuzz pedals introduced like the big muff (based on the fuzz face) representing an evolution of design ... overdrive pedals hitting the scene, reverb pedals, delays, pitch shifters, on and so forth, but still .... almost all that **** is based on original designs, and analog sounds better than digital.

Is the innovation not like advancing the technology, but lowering production costs?


anyway I'm just ****ed up aorn and wanted to bump this classic thread.


don't kill me wookie

Sick bump dude

In the band that I was in up until recently, one guitarist played a solid state marshall with a crap load of pedals with a peavey wolfgang.

My brother played an American Standard Telecaster through a 5 watt epiphone tube amp. He has a pedal board but uses it sparingly.

Nobody in the band could hear the other guy's guitar no matter how loud it was, it was nothing but fuzzy mud. My bro's guitar just sliced through the mix like a hot knife through butter.

I would guess that tube amps have at least gotten cheaper compared to the 60s, but I don't know that. In fact they might be more expensive because tubes were common back then and practically non existent now. All the digital innovation does have the benefits of convenience and low maintenance, but yeah everybody knows that the best sound comes from the old designs.

I am pretty sure that it is a lot cheaper to start and have decent equipment. Mexican Fenders are dirt cheap, you can get very powerful (if low quality) bass amps for less than 500 bucks. Heck, you can have a decent sounding and playing bass with power enough power to play bars for 700 bucks. I can't imagine the same expenditure in 1960 dollars getting the same value. Why are they cheap? Made in Mexico and China, computer design and machine takes the skilled craftsmanship out of the equation. Then again comparing bass equipment to guitar equipment is not ideal. I guess the innovation is in the form of cheap entry level equipment rather than better top end equipment.

Now I got to post in this thread too.