Well, for one thing they saw people have their beating hearts ripped from their chest and then get tossed down the stairs of a temple. I find that pretty unfathomable.
I believe that vengeance is a valid cause for violence. Let me clarify: any form of injustice needs to be answered. Violence sends a message. its an effective tool for change.
I believe the word you are looking for it "justice".
If you ever read the textbooks, a bank only needs like 15% of the total amount of their loans in hand (I don't remember exactly what the phrase is called).
The Reserve Requirement is 10%. It is in place to ensure that banks have enough money to handle routine daily transactions (to avoid runs). If it was 15% interest rates would be a lot higher (smaller money supply) and if it was lower than 10% banks would end up taking on too much risk.
The Fed can manipulate the percentage to increase or decrease the money supply, but they prefer to play with interest rates instead.
I think the fact that so many states are more or less guaranteed to go one way or the other is an opportunity for the people on the fringes of the parties to vote for third party candidates that they otherwise would not want to "waste" their votes on.
For instance: I am libertarian in most of my thinking, but I am a Republican because of pragmatism. I'd rather compromise on some issues to defeat socialists than vote purely on ideological grounds (of course Republicans are almost as bad...that's another thread). However, since the state I live in (Texas) can be pretty much counted on to deliver for the Republican side I am left free to vote for a Libertarian or Federalist without worrying about helping the enemies of Liberty.
If enough people took the opportunity to vote for a third party without the consequences of tanking the election for their side we could start sending a real message to the government and maybe even break us out of the two party system. Unfortunately I don't expect that will ever happen.
At any rate Bob Barr will be getting one more vote in Texas this year.
I was at a Gunnery range in Ft. Hood. I was in the HQ platoon at the time so my place of duty was in the shack where there happened to be a television (not something you usually have at a training exercise).
Since you've brought up economics in a pointless attempt to justify confiscatory tax rates, allow me to explain to you how the real world works.
Lets say your scenario holds true, and this product which costs you .80 to make (and market, sell and ship...not likely but lets keep it simple) and sells well for $10. A nifty 1150% margin there. You seem to think that this is sustainable, which justifies the government stepping in and taxing away those "runaway pricing and profits". I'm not sure how taxing something would make something cheaper, but that's a discussion for another time.
In reality, anything with that kind of margin will attract competitors, all of whom will eat into your margins by a) increasing the supply of the good and b) selling it at a lower price. The first mover(s) will walk away with abnormal profits initially, and why shouldn't they? That is their reward for having a great idea that everyone else seems to appreciate. Eventually the price and profit margins of this good will find a level where the consumers won't pay any more for it and the producers can still earn and adequate profit (10-15% on average...at this point the product will stop attracting new competitors because those people will be searching for abnormal profits elsewhere...repeating the cycle for another good or service).
Notice how this is accomplished without some government entity stepping in to tax those evil abnormal profits away.
Taxes serve a purpose...but that purpose is not to punish innovation and hard work.
Well, since you guys are all bringing knives and swords to the fight, I guess I'll bring a M1911. Plenty of stopping power and adequate capacity without too much recoil. A rifle would be a better general purpose weapon but since I think we're talking up close and personal here, I'd rather have something that's convenient to carry and shoot for all these knife-fights that seem to be breaking out.
It depends what you mean by "win". I doubt the US has the manpower to pacify the entire country. However, my definition of "win" in this case is to destroy the capability of the Chinese government and military to function. I think the US could pull that off without much difficulty due to our tremendous advantage in air & sea power.
I honestly don't think it would be necessary to set one foot ashore to accomplish this goal, though it may be profitable to conquer the major port cities just to get the ports and airfields (not absolutely necessary, but nice to have)
This is how I'd conduct the war if I were President Fox:
1) Seize all Chinese assets in the US (a no brainer). This means that the US no longer has to honor its Treasury debt held by China. They are spoils of war. I think it goes without mention that we would cease trading with them.
2) We blockade the coasts of China, and use our superior air power to destroy all key military and economic infrastructure (power plants, refineries, dams, bridges, roads, railways, air fields, factories, crops...you get the drift).
I don't expect China to take this sitting down...they'll send out their planes and ships to try to destroy our fleets...but I don't think they'd get a plane withing a hundred miles of our ships. They might have some missile capability against the ships, but we have defenses against those as well. I'm not saying the US side will be unscathed, but it won't suffer any significant losses. The result of China's counterattack is the destruction en total of their navy and air force, leaving the US free to bomb at will.
Notice that I'm not sending a landing force. This leaves their million man army without much to do except eat up food and fuel, which I will be in the process of destroying as much as possible.
3) Continue number 2 until China surrenders or collapses. Then call the troops home and leave the Chinese to deal with the aftermath.
Of course, I don't expect China to go that far down the road without resorting to nukes, so hopefully I'd have destroyed their nuclear capability by this point.
Also, for Lex Luther having gaurds, the Joker has walked into several millitary bases and Mobster meetings with nothing more than his flower with Joker gas and walked away still smiling.
Well, for one thing they saw people have their beating hearts ripped from their chest and then get tossed down the stairs of a temple. I find that pretty unfathomable.
I believe the word you are looking for it "justice".
The Reserve Requirement is 10%. It is in place to ensure that banks have enough money to handle routine daily transactions (to avoid runs). If it was 15% interest rates would be a lot higher (smaller money supply) and if it was lower than 10% banks would end up taking on too much risk.
The Fed can manipulate the percentage to increase or decrease the money supply, but they prefer to play with interest rates instead.
For instance: I am libertarian in most of my thinking, but I am a Republican because of pragmatism. I'd rather compromise on some issues to defeat socialists than vote purely on ideological grounds (of course Republicans are almost as bad...that's another thread). However, since the state I live in (Texas) can be pretty much counted on to deliver for the Republican side I am left free to vote for a Libertarian or Federalist without worrying about helping the enemies of Liberty.
If enough people took the opportunity to vote for a third party without the consequences of tanking the election for their side we could start sending a real message to the government and maybe even break us out of the two party system. Unfortunately I don't expect that will ever happen.
At any rate Bob Barr will be getting one more vote in Texas this year.
Lets say your scenario holds true, and this product which costs you .80 to make (and market, sell and ship...not likely but lets keep it simple) and sells well for $10. A nifty 1150% margin there. You seem to think that this is sustainable, which justifies the government stepping in and taxing away those "runaway pricing and profits". I'm not sure how taxing something would make something cheaper, but that's a discussion for another time.
In reality, anything with that kind of margin will attract competitors, all of whom will eat into your margins by a) increasing the supply of the good and b) selling it at a lower price. The first mover(s) will walk away with abnormal profits initially, and why shouldn't they? That is their reward for having a great idea that everyone else seems to appreciate. Eventually the price and profit margins of this good will find a level where the consumers won't pay any more for it and the producers can still earn and adequate profit (10-15% on average...at this point the product will stop attracting new competitors because those people will be searching for abnormal profits elsewhere...repeating the cycle for another good or service).
Notice how this is accomplished without some government entity stepping in to tax those evil abnormal profits away.
Taxes serve a purpose...but that purpose is not to punish innovation and hard work.
Thanks for playing.
I honestly don't think it would be necessary to set one foot ashore to accomplish this goal, though it may be profitable to conquer the major port cities just to get the ports and airfields (not absolutely necessary, but nice to have)
This is how I'd conduct the war if I were President Fox:
1) Seize all Chinese assets in the US (a no brainer). This means that the US no longer has to honor its Treasury debt held by China. They are spoils of war. I think it goes without mention that we would cease trading with them.
2) We blockade the coasts of China, and use our superior air power to destroy all key military and economic infrastructure (power plants, refineries, dams, bridges, roads, railways, air fields, factories, crops...you get the drift).
I don't expect China to take this sitting down...they'll send out their planes and ships to try to destroy our fleets...but I don't think they'd get a plane withing a hundred miles of our ships. They might have some missile capability against the ships, but we have defenses against those as well. I'm not saying the US side will be unscathed, but it won't suffer any significant losses. The result of China's counterattack is the destruction en total of their navy and air force, leaving the US free to bomb at will.
Notice that I'm not sending a landing force. This leaves their million man army without much to do except eat up food and fuel, which I will be in the process of destroying as much as possible.
3) Continue number 2 until China surrenders or collapses. Then call the troops home and leave the Chinese to deal with the aftermath.
Of course, I don't expect China to go that far down the road without resorting to nukes, so hopefully I'd have destroyed their nuclear capability by this point.
The great thing about a Federal Republic is that if you don't like the state you're in, you can move with a minimum of hassle.
I wish you weren't deaf and blind.
Scouts Out!
How could you forget his magic pencil?
Anyhow, Joker wins. No contest.