I, for one, welcome our robot overlords.

Currency only has value because people think it has a value. That's why we have Bit Coins.

Relating a currency's value to precious metals only had meaning when people thought there were limited quantities of it. Aluminum used to be valuable until a cheap method to making it was discovered and now we use it for soda cans.

@BOG: "Steep - Why do you support big government?"

Surprise surprise, I do not support big government.
Could you, just for once, ask me a question in reaction to what I say rather than some made up stuff of what you seem to believe I say or believe?

I think this is a serious problem and the sole cause of all radical opinions you hold. You condemn Islam because you 'know' what they believe even if Muslims tell you you're simply wrong about what they believe. You condemn socialism with an argument against democracy. 3 wolves and a sheep voting for dinner has absolutely 0 to do with socialism, yet this is why socialism is evil.

You make up opponents, throw them in a group of your choice and hold everyone in that group responsible for your made up opponents.

This is really bad for you because you'll be less and less able to see what's real and what isn't if you continue down this path.

Please react to this. Please react to every part of this without throwing an irrelevant one-line question at me.

More accurately, it declares that the US dollars have value by accepting taxes and paying people with US dollars. Since people are willing to take US dollars as payment and are willing to pay US dollars as tax, it has value as an exchange unit.

Steep - “Surprise surprise, I do not support big government.
Could you, just for once, ask me a question in reaction to what I say rather than some made up stuff of what you seem to believe I say or believe?”
Of course.

“I think this is a serious problem and the sole cause of all radical opinions you hold.” Please define radical. I believe in the Constitution as the absolute best defining document for government.
“You condemn Islam because you 'know' what they believe even if Muslims tell you you're simply wrong about what they believe.” I don’t pretend to know what individual Muslims believe, unless they say it themselves. I know what the Koran says because I can read. And I can see: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/5093.htm Do all muslims believe what this guy says? I don’t know. Do his actions follow what the Koran says he is supposed to do? Absolutely.

“You condemn socialism with an argument against democracy. 3 wolves and a sheep voting for dinner has absolutely 0 to do with socialism, yet this is why socialism is evil.” Socialists ‘vote’ to take your money to pay for their benefits.

“You make up opponents, throw them in a group of your choice and hold everyone in that group responsible for your made up opponents. This is really bad for you because you'll be less and less able to see what's real and what isn't if you continue down this path.” I don’t make up opponents. I look at facts. I look at the Koran as the basis of Islam. You look at the beliefs of individual Muslims as the basis of Islam.
“Please react to this. Please react to every part of this without throwing an irrelevant one-line question at me.” My questions are not irrelevant. They get to the root cause.

At this point you are shouting past each other so you might as well both take a break.

I am not shouting. I asked everyone of Steep's questions. He asked me to respond.

BOG is not shouting, but he's not doing a very good job of listening either. He is doing what too many conservatives do these days: Take as fact what their favorite conservative pundits say the "other side" believes.

JK - I form my own opinions. If I am factually inaccurate, please point out the error instead of simply offering an opinion as fact. For example, I point to verses in the Koran that forms the playbook for muslim terrorists. Terrorists quote the exact verses, and take the actions prescribed. And yet, I am told I have the wrong translation (correct translation never provided, of course!) or that I need to ask a muslim what he believes the verse to mean.

"“You condemn socialism with an argument against democracy. 3 wolves and a sheep voting for dinner has absolutely 0 to do with socialism, yet this is why socialism is evil.” Socialists ‘vote’ to take your money to pay for their benefits."
I tried to point out this was incorrect, so I'll go into a little more detail. Ahem. You're using tyranny of the majority, a political concept used to criticize pure democracy (which, as you point out, doesn't exist) to describe what's wrong with socialism, an ECONOMIC system. It's kind of like saying Capitalism is 1 wolf and 3 sheep, where the wolf alone gets to decide what's for dinner. Both of these analogies are wrong, because we're using political structures to describe economic systems.

Thanks for responding BOG. I still think your methods are not very effective if educating yourself and finding out the best things to do etc. is your goal, but I think it won't serve any purpose to discuss that more than we have already. I see your reasoning a little better now, although I still disagree with it.

One question out of curiosity: do you speak any language other than English?

Je parle un peu français

I can read Latin.

TrP "It's kind of like saying Capitalism is 1 wolf and 3 sheep, where the wolf alone gets to decide what's for dinner." Absolutely incorrect. Capitalism is where the wolf and the sheep each decides what to have for dinner, based on their personal preference and disposable income. Or the wolf invites the sheep and buys dinner, hoping to source wool for his yarn factory. Read Milton Freidman's "Capitalism and Freedom"

And yes, I have read Bell's "The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism"

You missed my point entirely. I said outright that my analogy was wrong.

TrP I saw your point. I substituted an example of how dinner works in capitalism. Socialism forces me to pay for your dinner, because I am successful and you are not.

But that's not at all what your analogy would suggest. That's the point I'm trying to make. Democracy is not the same as socialism.

TrP You vote to take my money to pay for your socialist redistribution policies (dinner). 51% in a Socialist democracy allows you to take my money. Where is my analogy wrong?

a) Are you implying that I'm a socialist? Because I'm not, I'm a social capitalist.
b) Voting is inherently political in nature, and socialism is inherently economic in nature. Any political structure has the potential to become socialist. Your analogy about the wolves and sheep is just as wrong as mine, which is actually an analogy for tyrannical monarchy.

BoG, the wolfs of wall street aren't inviting the sheeps of main street to the dinner table. there isn't billions of dollars to make when dealing with sheep.

lol wolves and sheep, ignore my abysmal grammar

Hm-hmm. ;)

And, just to make it absolutely clear, economic systems have far more to do with means of production than distribution of wealth. Distribution of wealth is largely just an effect of whichever economic system is incorporated.

TrP -" Distribution of wealth is largely just an effect of whichever economic system is incorporated." This is the fallacy of your position. Socialism takes wealth from producers and gives to the unproductive. Capitalism allows producers to distribute their wealth as they see fit.

Have you taken economics or poli sci classes?

"Socialism takes wealth from producers and gives to the unproductive." Who, pray tell, are the producers in socialism?

TrP "Who, pray tell, are the producers in socialism?" Suckers who refuse to leave.

TrP "Have you taken economics or poli sci classes?" I was fortunate not to have a socialist as my economics professor. I have an MBA in Finance.

Keynes was an idiot.