Except that the "throw away Western civilization" is only ever thrown out there by the "do nothing" crowd as a caricature of progressive proposals. That said, there is ample precedence for the concept of you break it you pay for it, so some wealth redistribution is going to be a factor in most reasonable strategies.

I appreciate the effort, but it is pointless I'm afraid. I'm assuming that these folks actually mean well, in the sense that they genuinely believe that 97% of climate scientists are involved in some harebrained conspiracy ("green is the new red"). My point is that once that idea is firmly lodged into someone's mind, no amount of links to actual science is going to change their opinion. If anything, it'll just reaffirm it.

I suppose, but today you can probably do it with skype or something of that sort.

all you have to do is call cops on an unsuspecting victim at night, especially if the person in question has guns in the house and may use them to attempt and protect himself from some sort of an attack. At this point cops in the US are militarised enough and are fucked in the head just enough to attack and shoot first and ask questions later, so that's a way to do it if you are into that kind of a thing.

- first of all it has nothing to do with 'innovation' during Reagan era, supply side is the only real economics and it made USA into the first rate producer of cheap, high quality goods in the 19th century, turned an country that used to be an afterthought to Europe into the largest producer and creditor nation.

USA lost that status in the last 40 years for the exact opposite reasons, those reasons being that USA SUPPLIES NOTHING except for ungodly amounts of paper currency. USA supplies nothing specifically because worker productivity per worker is negative, instead USA lives off of the supplies that are brought from other countries and those supplies are vendor financed. The only people that are confused here are those who can't understand the simplest of things: productive workers produce and USA doesn't produce anything.

The companies with their profits are showing inflation, not productivity. Current profits are based solely on the ability of the Federal reserve bank to create inflation via money printing and their ability to print money is actually infinite, but not their ability to do anything positive for the economy. Every newly created dollar (electronic or otherwise) only undermines USA economy specifically because it has nothing to do with any productivity whatsoever, it is not a reflection of productive output, it is only the indicator that USA economy is dying and it will choke on the dollar vomit that the Fed is producing.

USA corporations that are catering to the foreign consumers are showing some real gains, but be careful buying into them as well, as their gains will very likely be stolen from them by the government once the inevitable real collapse (dollar this time) wipes out the remaining economy in the States and then we will see just what USA government and the mob are capable of when they decide to confiscate every last penny from anybody who is still actively producing something, anything.

Good luck to you.

I don't care one way or another what you derive from this, given your position I am not sure you can actually derive anything from a conversation that doesn't go your way.

I have seen pretty much anything you can imagine, from multiple immigrations to wars and collapses of countries, I can say with absolute certainty that nothing compares to the risk of running a business with employees and clients, with money and years of life on the line.

I don't need any links to any lists, in my life I rely on my own experiences and knowledge and make my own decisions, so if you want to talk to me, you will have to actually have meaningful additions to the conversation that you make on your own without cheat sheets.

Banks foreclosing, etc., all of this is based on government participating in the market, destroying lending standards and propping up failing business models with money that is stolen from the individuals (taxpayers). None of this is normal behaviour under free market conditions, these situations are created by government "trying to help".

Banking is government regulated.
Power is government regulated.
Health care is government regulated.
Insurance is government regulated.
Food industry is government regulated.
Money is obviously government regulated.

Find me something that is not government regulated beyond computer software and other systems (and even many of these are regulated by the government) and then lets talk about free markets and how somehow without government regulations, taxes, inflation and generally control companies 'tax people' in an actual competitive environment.

You don't know what risk is until you take put all of your money on the line and then hire somebody in an anti-business environment to work for you, in a system that sees every employer as a potential cash cow to be stolen from, to be sued for every transgression even of the people that have nothing to do with the business in the first place. You have 0 understanding of real risk, you are thinking very small and insignificant.

Once you have employees that can sue you, clients that can sue you, government that can sue you, all of your money on the line, even your personal freedom on the line, all because you are now an employer, then you will start gaining a slim sliver of understanding of what risk actually is. You are a child in this, you know nothing until you actually do it. You have nothing to compare to. People do risky things every day, immigration is risky, life is a risky thing. However starting a business in an anti-business system is about as risky for all layers of your life as it gets.

Just look at Operation Northwoods, a conspiracy by the Pentagon to carry out terror attacks against American targets to justify an attack on Cuba. It had been unanimously approved by the Joint Chiefs before an appalled President Kennedy canceled the project. To get to the Joint Chiefs scores of people had to be involved. No one ever talked, it never made it into the press, no documents were ever leaked. It was discovered by accident as part of a FOIA request on a peripherally-related subject. If you ask most people about it today they'll refuse to believe it, even if you show them the documentation.

Capital is valued much more than labour because there is a huge lack of capital in the face of labour that has no capital and no skills that are useful enough to be combined with any available capital in a profitable manner, that is why.

Capital is not always valued more than labour, however the system that we are in set up the government that is destroying capital formation with inflation, rules and taxes and because the capital is being destroyed and the formation of capital is disincentivised with all the inflation there is a huge shortage of capital, so the real interest rates are so high that new businesses cannot afford to borrow at that cost of money and the existing businesses are engaged into the asset bubble creation with the fake money supplied by the Federal reserve.

So instead of building new businesses we are supporting the failing existing business models that are not providing utility that would reflect positively on the huge trade imbalances.

As to risk, you don't know what risk is until you started your own business (or maybe went to war).

Obviously. Rights are protections against government abuse, persecution, theft and murder, not against other individuals or businesses.

Government is the only entity that has legal ability to fine, imprison or even murder an individual, companies cannot do that (of-course under a contract fines are possible between 2 parties that agree to a contract).

Inalienable rights are the rights of the individual not to be stolen from and destroyed by the collective, where the collective is the organisation with legal privileges actually to steal from you (taxes, inflation, regulations) and destroy you (imprison you, murder you).

So what, in many cases people choose mates and friends based on their race preferences.

Many clients choose which businesses they will deal with based on the origin business owner (some prefer to frequent or to avoid Indian or Middle Eastern or Asian establishments for example).

People must be able to discriminate however they see fit and I am talking about people in their individual lives and I am also talking about businesses obviously.

Yes, it should be possible to discriminate based on race, absolutely. Race, age, sex, any form of discrimination must be absolutely legal (and by the way it is unconstitutional, illegal for the federal government to regulate businesses and the entire concept of interstate commerce does not allow government to regulate business, it is only there to prevent individual States from erecting barriers of entry, which are still all there, so the federal government is not doing what it's job is and instead it constantly harasses businesses for no reason whatsoever).

Now, government must not be able to discriminate against anybody based on age, race, sex, ethnicity but that is also constantly happening for example with the war on drugs, with the so called 'war on terrorism', with every war that government runs.

Government must not be able to discriminate because it destroys the rule of law, destroys the free market (which is already destroyed in USA of-course) and eventually destroys the economy and thus the society. Government must be forced to treat people equally regardless of their natural characteristics, individuals must not be forced into anything.

If you will not accept government forcing you to marry any particular person or to frequent any particular business then it is inconsistent for you to be cheering for the government forcing a business to either hire or to serve any particular person. Cheering for it is the real discrimination and helps the government to grow its gigantic poisonous tentacles that end up stealing and murdering everything on their path.

I am absolutely correct, worker productivity is productive output, not inflated value of assets and various dollar related bubbles that these graphs are actually showing, which is coincidentally why they all start in early 1970s, after Nixon's default on the dollar, when USA took the world off of the gold standard.

The world used to be on the gold standard before 1971, which prevented gigantic bubbles that we are living through now. USA was (is still) the reserve currency that foreign national banks hold as 'reserves', however that literally meant that the foreigners had gold reserves in those dollars (that's what the gold standard promised). As Nixon defaulted on the dollar, the world was taken off of the gold standard and that started gigantic inflation mania that we have experienced since.

USA productive output is negative, which is why USA cannot pay for its own consumption, which is subsidised by the very people that produce the stuff that Americans consume (Chinese and the like). USA has been running a 500Billion USD/year trade deficit for over 2 decades now, there is nothing at all productive about an economy that does not pay for imports with its own exports, this the destruction of productivity I am talking about and what the pundits that push nonsensical propaganda about 'rising USA productivity' are actually talking about is inflation and the related to the inflation rising cost of living, rising prices that do not reflect productivity, in fact they reflect destruction of the economy.

Please, RT is pure propaganda, most of this information comes from Reuters, AP and White House press briefings directly. But after you've seen few of these, you just know how to put information in context. If you learn how to translate text to emotionally neutral terms, the facts come out from horse's mouth. All you got to do is listen.

I think you may have misunderstood my post -- probably I wasn't sufficiently clear. That the real reasons for these policies is a "desire for control" is precisely what I was suggesting.