Now you are getting it (sarcasm).

The bubbles are created by the Federal reserve (has no reserve by the way) pumping fake money into the system (inflation) and manipulating interest rates that let USA 'Treasury' (should be called Debtory, it has no treasure but debt) to sell debt that will never be repaid. This inflation pushed savings and as a consequence pushed productivity out of the USA and somewhere else. Without savings and productivity there is no way for banks to find yield. At the same time FDIC creates fake impression of insurance, which doesn't exist, only Fed's printing exists. Combined with the laws that destroyed lending standards the system invited banks and everybody else to gamble rather than to save and be productive. The bubbles are created by the governments. Greed is good in the free market, there greed creates the economy. In centrally planned and controlled market it is only a tool of the government, destroying the economy.

It is curious to observe the pro government mania taking place at this time, the time of the biggest economic downturn pretty much in history of the USA, the downturn caused by the government power grab and destruction of individual freedoms. It looks like this case, like in so many before it, the people will be looking towards the very entity that caused the destruction of the economy for solutions, 'solutions' that cannot solve anything but make it worse because the reasons for the problems are so completely and utterly misdiagnosed. It is not surprising but it is nevetherless unfortunate to see it happen again after so much history showing that this is the worst way to go about trying to fix the problems. This will not fix anything, will make things worse in the long term. But who is really capable of thinking long term? Very few, and nobody wants to hear the actual solution or indeed the problem.

Wrong, you are being obtuse. No customer or client is paying a company before the product exists. Whether creating a new product type or just entering an existing field as a competition, the company has to hire people out of its own savings and that means taking the risk of doing something that may as well (in many cases) lose money instead of making any money. The job is created by the person a who is putting the money on the line. If the clients prepaid for the product upfront you could have half an argument, even then it is not true, somebody had to work to find those clients. But there are no clients prepaying anything in most cases, I know it is true in my case.

When you, yourself use your own savings to hire somebody to build something you intend to sell before having any clients paying you anything, then come back and talk here. Some asshole will be waiting to tell you that those jobs were 'created by consumers' ask him what consumer put his money on the line to create the product in the first place.

You are being obtuse because you cannot admit you are talking out of your ass.

All demand is consequence (and a trivial one) of production. iPads didn't exist and demand for them didn't exist until thousands of people were paid millions of dollars over a number of years (jobs) to create them.

Wrong, demand is a consequence of production. With barter a person works (a job) to feed himself only. Companies create huge amounts of products hoping it would sell. The jobs exist much before any sale whatsoever. If the company is wrong as to how much it can sell and it spends too much on production it will lose money, it may fire people and even shut down but the work was already done long before then, salaries were paid out, people hired and products created.

I run a company and some of what I do doesnt have any clients, I am hoping to create the market. Yet I have 6 people in 2 countries who I employ working on these projects. I created the jobs. My savings are used to pay the salaries. My resources are used to create the product that I invented. Tell me more about jobs and products and customers, I am listening here.

Strawman. Barter or not, the job is produced by the seller or manufacturer and not by consumer as you stated before. The difference between an individual barterer and a company is the size and scale but not the concept. An individual only creates a job for himself and produces only what he can by himself, so he satisfies very little demand. A company produces more than 1 person can. A company organizes scarce resources including labour, land and capital to produce much more efficiently than a single person can.
Jobs are created in this efficient allocation of resources.

Don't start with me on economics if all you have is political agenda.

Use a webhost that lets you pre-pay for service, and prepay for a bunch of it. Register the domains through that host too, and set them to autorenewal. This won't get you indefinite service, but it can get you quite some years, if the host remains in business. Also you might want a static HTML website rather than something that might need upgrades.

Nearlyfreespeech.net is an example of a host you can do that with. If you deposit, say, $500, they will keep hosting your website until you use up $500 worth of service, which for a modest static-HTML site with one domain should be many years.

An employee loses a job, finds another one. Sure, he may have some difficult time in between. However he can just walk away and there is nothing the employer can do about it. I want to be able to sue employees for just walking away as they do sometimes. If I lose money as a company I want the employee to share in the pain of the financial loss. If a client doesn't pay for the work I want not to pay the employee who I hired to do the work. I can be sued as a business, I want to split the damages so that the employees also bear some reponsibility.

Oh, I can't really do any of that. The fucked up society cares to protect the employees much more than employers. In fact laws, lawsuits, regulations take away my individual rights as an employer but employees still have those and they get entitlements to demand things from me that go beyond what I am willing to offer.

Employees do not have the headache of obligations imposed by the oppressive violent government structures that employers have.

I am firmly on the side of individual rights, and this means I am firmly on the side that if a person becomes an employer they must not lose those rights.

Why oh why does it happen so that a group representing the majority of people in a so called democracy get more rights than a minority, employers. Can it be that democracy is really a system of the mob ganging up against a minority? Hmmm.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha aha has ooooh, good one. A company creates jobs as a consequence of organizing scarce resources in such a way that somebody becomes a paying customer while before that organization the customer did not exist. A person that never saw a car in his life may be an obvious client for somebody offering him a stronger horse, but he is not a client to a car company. A car company has to invest, hire and produce first, before the first buyer buys anything at all, the company already spent money, hired people and built the product.

Why don't you add "you didn't build that", while you are at it?

Precisely, that is exactly what socialism is: legal codification and glorification of plunder of the minority of business owners and professionals by running the majority - the mob. They feel justified in it too, they legalized theft, codified destruction of the individual rights.

Oh, you wanted to conflate THAT with sound business practice of lowering input costs to make production more efficient by replacing more expensive work force with less expensive one? Why don't you also advocate for unions while at it? You think a job is owned by the employee as opposed to the employer? I take it you codified and glorified theft of private property in your mind just fine.

Corporations shouldn't exist because government shouldn't be regulating or taxing business in the first place. Government should be less than 1% of what it is today, maybe less than 0.001% of what it is. A business is a private matter, government mixing with business is the problem. Before 1970s most banks where private partnerships who were not 'too big to fail', they could fail and that was healthy for the economy and society to let failures fail (businesses or individuals, no difference).

Corporation is government protection against liability that shouldn't even exist, neither should any business regulations or income or wealth taxes. Only the best in the field businesses should survive on their own merits, not because of any law anywhere.

As far as I am concerned all transactions must absolutely voluntary, nobody should be coerced into anything. Let the chaotic movement become organized by purr market forces. This means no boundaries, no artificial locks or prices. Only real money, only real prices on everything. Society should not be based on violence as it is still today. USA was a good attempt at market based society, but not good enough. Apparently China is already doing better.

Supposedly capitalist USA gives bad name to capitalism and supposedly communist China gives good name to communism. In reality China is much more capitalist than the USA is today and the effects are obvious. USA is on a quick decline and China ison a very quick rise.

So you say.

I say that a society that destroys individual freedoms by using government violence l shouldn't exist. As to 'I am alright, fuck you', that is a nice narrative, applied to individual freedoms, but the reality is that it is much more appropriate tocyour socialist vision, where the majority oppresses a minority, minority being people building the economy, running businesses that produce thing everybody needs and wants. Businesses are the entities that create and give (and selling is giving in exchange, that is the only way to be sustainable). I say that companies give us everything and the mob wants to steal more than what is exchanged on the voluntary basis.

I say that the true humanitarians are businesses, without them the society is precisely what you described. I say that by running a business an individual must not lose his or her rights to the collective wishes of the mob. I say everybody must be free to do business as they wish, as long as they do not murder, rape or steal. I say mob and government are the primary causes of murder, rape and theft, not business.

I don't know about a smurfhammer but this topic reeks of being a trolldozer.

It is utterly sickening, because it means you are not actually the owner of the property that you are trying to operate. The government now polices over your business, which means over you and it means you now lost a whole bunch of rights that you have as a person. No government should be anywhere near the voluntary exchange that happens between any two non-government parties. There shouldn't be such a concept even as 'business regulations' any more than there should be 'person regulations' and that also shouldn't exist. As for any crime that could be committed, even that doesn't require any government intervention, people can have perfectly fine private systems to deal with criminals, with murder, theft, breaches of contract and any type of harm.

Yeah, obviously, truth hurts and I don't think you can take the amount of pain that you genuinely deserve on this entire subject without having your ass explode out of your mouth.