The TruthSeeker1234 $1000.00 Challenge

[Loss Leader]

On a free market, producers of any product or service compete by differentiating themselves from their competitors. This differntiation may take the form of lower prices, or higher quality, or unique features. In the U.S. there are over 1000 federal and state laws regulating insurance, dictating what must be covered, what the allowable prices are, who is and is not allowed to enter the industry, and many other things. Nothing resembling a free market. Insurance companies answer to government agents known as "insurance commissioners", not so much their customers. See Murray Rothbard, Hans Hermann Hoppe, austrian school of econ. Hoppe gives a brilliant lecture called "from healthcare to welfare".

This answer actually gave me a headache.

The sad part is TinHat1234 has it pretty much backwards. The government agencies charged with overseeing the insurance business, both state and federal, regularly exchange managers with the insurance companies themselves. The regulators are as likely to be former insurance executives as high-level insurance executives are to become regulators.

Most political scientists and economists agree that this creates a situation where the government is more an arm of the insurace companies than the other way around. All that money buys a massive amount of access and all that access buys extremely favorable treatment.

Virtually the only governmental check on the insurance companies comes from the courts. These independent jurists hold companies to their policies and interpret their contracts of adhesion quite strictly.

But what do I know. My Masters in Public Administration and Doctorate in law is no match for your training as an audio technician at a local LA cable company.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Actually I'm quite well learned on the austrian school, and familiar with most all of the work of all the prominent austrians. My favorite is Man Economy and State. I lean toward the Mises-Rothbard-Hoppe fork, as opposed to the Mises -Hayek-Kirzner.

It was Mises who explained how, for example, Nazism was socialism. For while the the buisinesses were in private hands on paper, the decisions were made by government officials. It was de-facto socialism. Any industry whose prices are fixed and whose product descriptions are fixed into law, are de-facto government agencies, not private businesses. We can do the Federal reserve on another thread, if you know Rothbard, Hoppe, Walter Block, Joseph Solerno, George Reisman, you know what I will say.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Most political scientists and economists agree that this creates a situation where the government is more an arm of the insurace companies than the other way around.

It's the same thing. Yes, an unholy marriage between willing govenrment agents who benefit from the regualtions (tax revenue, enforcement apparatus) and willing buisinesses who also benefit from regulation (elimination of competition). Seeing this partnership as either "favoring" one side or the other misses the point.

Most economists believe that central banking is good, and a lot of other evil nonsense. If you want correct economic theory, please see the Austrian school.

 

[chipmunk stew]

"de-facto"

[Inigo Montoya]You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.[/Inigo Montoya]

 

[Gravy]

I'll give you an hour to answer my pyroclastic flow question, TS. It's your theory. Time to show the nice folks that you can back it up.

 

[Gravy]

This answer actually gave me a headache.

The sad part is TinHat1234 has it pretty much backwards. The government agencies charged with overseeing the insurance business, both state and federal, regularly exchange managers with the insurance companies themselves. The regulators are as likely to be former insurance executives as high-level insurance executives are to become regulators.

Most political scientists and economists agree that this creates a situation where the government is more an arm of the insurace companies than the other way around. All that money buys a massive amount of access and all that access buys extremely favorable treatment.

Virtually the only governmental check on the insurance companies comes from the courts. These independent jurists hold companies to their policies and interpret their contracts of adhesion quite strictly.

But what do I know. My Masters in Public Administration and Doctorate in law is no match for your training as an audio technician at a local LA cable company.

I never thought I'd say this about an insurance subject, but thank you for that moment of sanity in a very silly thread.

 

[Abbyas]

Most economists believe that central banking is good, and a lot of other evil nonsense.

Yes, because runs on banks during the depression were a whole heck of a lot of fun.

Oh and inflation control sucks too. And adjusting the Balance of Payments curve. All evil nonsense.

 

[Loss Leader]

I never thought I'd say this about an insurance subject, but thank you for that moment of sanity in a very silly thread.

That actually brought a tear to my eye. If I knew your exact address in New York, I'd drive across the bridge and give you a hug.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Most economists believe that central banking is good, and a lot of other evil nonsense. If you want correct economic theory, please see the Austrian school.

Please do not respond to this until you've responded to Gravy's ultimatum, but after you've demonstrated to him whether or not you're worth debating, I'd like to hear about where the Austrian school economic theory has been tested empirically and what the results were that led you to conclude that it is correct.

 

[Loss Leader]

Yes, because runs on banks during the depression were a whole heck of a lot of fun.

Oh and inflation control sucks too. And adjusting the Balance of Payments curve. All evil nonsense.

Just for the record, I would have to say that monetary policy is an over-abused substitute for fiscal policy, especially in the current administration. To the extent that puts me in agreement with Truthshredder1234, I am deeply, deeply ashamed.

 

[Gravy]

Whatever you do, people, don't miss this thread just started by TS. I think it's the apex of his illustrious career.

 

[LashL]

Legitimate questions:

1. Why don't you make your challenge directly to NIST and FEMA instead of posting anonymous challenges on an Internet forum.
2. Why aren't you enlisting lawyers to sue?
3. Why aren't you pursuing civil and criminal options?
4. Why aren't you working with the insurance companies to expose the fraud perpetrated by the "inside job"
5. Why are people like you, exposing the criminal activity of those who had no qualms about killing 3k innocent people, still alive?

BS answers:

1. NIST civil engineers, et al have been asked and declined to debate.
2. such a lawsuit could easily cost a hunderd million dollars to prosecute,and worse, the court system is part of the very institution, i.e. "the government" which is under dispute.
3. ditto to 2.
4. On paper, insurance companies are private. However, de facto they too are government agencies.
5. The soviets tried killing all dissidents, and it didn't play out very well for them. Same with the Chinese. The U.S. has developed a different strategy of disinformation and discrediting. Make the crime very big, very complex, and make sure that many variations on the story all get out there. Then people won't know what to think. They'll just go back to making widgets and paying taxes, something that the soviet people were not good at. People like Dr Jones can be handled by killing their careers, while allowing them to live. Killing the likes of Dylan Avery would serve only to make him a martyr, and publicize his film.

That has to be the most pathetic display of sheer ignorance combined with conspiranoia that I have seen all week.

 

[Gravy]

I'll give you an hour to answer my pyroclastic flow question, TS. It's your theory. Time to show the nice folks that you can back it up.

Welcome to "Ignore," you absurd waste of time.

 

[Abbyas]

Just for the record, I would have to say that monetary policy is an over-abused substitute for fiscal policy, especially in the current administration.

Ah, fair enough. But fiscal policy sans monetary means same GDP, more infation. [/econtutor mode]

 

[Darth Rotor]

Unbelievable. Do you have any brains?

Your friendly wordsmith here, in support of your noble efforts.

DR

 

[Foolmewunz]

TS - I was just interested in knowing that you were a believer in the darlings of the Libertarians. I don't care one way or the other for the Austrian school. They've said some things that I can agree with, and others that are just plain stupid. And no one really speaks for them, as a whole (considering that a number of them are dead)....

I was more concerned that you were taking a laissez-faire speech, obviously about healthcare coverage, and extrapolating it to property/capital coverage, two totally separate fields. If you look up any of the major "Re's" you will see no mention of health/medical coverage at all. You will see only the occasional reference to life insurance. Their big markets and big interests are not in those areas. And there is only marginal regulation of Re's. They are multinational and don't work out of the Allstate office.

Surely you don't believe that the bad gubmints are in that field? That would require a NWO vision equal to Childlike Empress'.

 

[tsig]

Congratulations Stellafane! I have chosen you, the writer. Who better to write it than the writer? You are hired. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I think I remember someone calling you Kate, or maybe it was you. In any case, I wrote this to Kate, but if that's not correct then please understand that "Kate" means "Stellafane".

Congratulations Kate! I have chosen you, above all others to earn the $1000.00! You come highly recommended by R.Mackey.

I have a great idea, an it could be a career breakthrough for you. Why don't you pitch publishers on the idea of your doing a story about this debate? Instead of posting right away on JREF, we agree to do the whole debate by private email. We each agree not to publish any part of our dialog until after our publishing deals have been signed.

While our debate dialog is proceeding, you can also communicate with me and ask me anything you want about my personal life and what I do for a living. A lot of people think what I do for a living would be very interesting and rewarding, and they're right! I manipulate many unusual objects in fun way, and somehow that translates into paychecks in my mailbox.

Kate, I will reveal to you anything you want to know, as long as you agree to keep it all to yourself until our publisher decides to break the story. I'll send you $100 per week through paypal for 10 weeks, totaling $1000. That should give you plenty of time to pitch your story idea and get a deal for yourself.

There seems to be great curiosity out there about just who I might happen to turn out to be in real life. I will tell all to Kate, and Kate will have herself a great story. "Conspiracy Theorist Lunatic Debunked Back in to Reality" or whatever by Kate. "Kate Wins Debate! Handsdown!" There Kate. Pitch that headline. I'm sure you can think of something even better than my lame titles. You can give them the actual debate, and also do a human interest piece on me. "How the other side thinks" or whatever. "Journey into a diseased mind". There, give them that one. A real hit piece. They sell Kate. Now go sell your idea about doing a hit piece on TruthSeeker1234.

I can tell you this much now. My real name currently appears on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth home page.

Your ego is so BIG.

Always have to be at the center of attention, do we.

What a drama queen!

 

[Darat]

This answer actually gave me a headache.

The sad part is TinHat1234 has it pretty much backwards. The government agencies charged with overseeing the insurance business, both state and federal, regularly exchange managers with the insurance companies themselves. The regulators are as likely to be former insurance executives as high-level insurance executives are to become regulators.

Most political scientists and economists agree that this creates a situation where the government is more an arm of the insurace companies than the other way around. All that money buys a massive amount of access and all that access buys extremely favorable treatment.

Virtually the only governmental check on the insurance companies comes from the courts. These independent jurists hold companies to their policies and interpret their contracts of adhesion quite strictly.

But what do I know. My Masters in Public Administration and Doctorate in law is no match for your training as an audio technician at a local LA cable company.

Also add in the fact that many of the underwriters of the insurance policies regarding the WTC attack and associated claims were (and are) non-USA companies and organisations regulated by non-USA governments it looks like we have to add in a whole new level to the conspiracy to explain why these companies accepted billions of dollars of losses. Perhaps all these non-USA underwriters are also just an "arm of their government" and all those governments were also in on the conspiracy?

 

[tsig]

Actually I'm quite well learned on the austrian school, and familiar with most all of the work of all the prominent austrians. My favorite is Man Economy and State. I lean toward the Mises-Rothbard-Hoppe fork, as opposed to the Mises -Hayek-Kirzner.

It was Mises who explained how, for example, Nazism was socialism. For while the the buisinesses were in private hands on paper, the decisions were made by government officials. It was de-facto socialism. Any industry whose prices are fixed and whose product descriptions are fixed into law, are de-facto government agencies, not private businesses. We can do the Federal reserve on another thread, if you know Rothbard, Hoppe, Walter Block, Joseph Solerno, George Reisman, you know what I will say.

Why don't you show your knowledge instead of bragging about it.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

We can do the Federal reserve on another thread, if you know Rothbard, Hoppe, Walter Block, Joseph Solerno, George Reisman, you know what I will say.

But you fail to take into account the work doen by Tiffany, Debbie Gibson, Lindsay Lohan and Hillary Duff.

Name dropping is fun!