Haha…

Thought it had a deeper meaning behind it…

Couldn't help giggling a bit when I saw the picture

That's some mean birdie that you don't wanna mess with, especially if you don't want to end up like that fish on its back

Eh, what the heck – might as well join the crowd

That's the car I purchased about 9 months ago:

I have always been a fan of Honda Civics not only because of their stylish appearance, but also because of their reliability and fuel efficiency.

If you've never driven one, I highly recommend you give it a test drive

Hi Dubsteps,

It's the first time I've heard the saying:

"Walk Softly and carry a big fish"

If you don't mind me asking, what does that mean?

Cheers,

Kong

Great job Engelo!

Me neither M.Investigator

The first I heard of him was at one of the Mega Conferences

I think he is American or Canadian

Thanks for creating this thread

I'm interested in the Ron White memory courses

If you've completed the course, and would like some extra cash feel free to send me a PM for a quick sale

I'm based in Ballarat, so if its within driving distance I can come pick it up in person

Otherwise would prefer to do it via E-bay and paypal

Wikipedia defines 'Socialism' as:

• "a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the people. Many socialist ideas come from Marxism (more commonly, "communism"), which essentially calls for a reversal of what we know as the structure of society. In The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx predicts that the proletariats will overthrow the bourgeoisie (which seems to be happening to some degree). The bourgeoisie are upper management and upper class, the white collar workers, while the proletariats are the working class, the blue collar workers. Since the proletariats "do all the work", Marx and other socialists suggest that they should get an equal share of the wealth. A Marxist society would have no private property rights and goods produced in it would be distributed among the citizens–"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Robert Kiyosaki in his conspiracy of the Rich Bulletin puts it in much simpler words:

• "Socialists have the Robin Hood theory of economics, which is 'take from the rich to give to the poor'. Socialists believe the government should solver our problems for us. Capitalists believe… that we should solver our own problems."

B. Taylor, 2006, Socialism vs Capitalism:

• "The idea of a Marxist society is very alluring. In today's world of freedom and fairness, the notion of everyone being completely equal, even if this means taking from the rich and giving to the poor, seems just; however, the defect in Marxism is obvious. It is dependent on a type of human nature that is hard to come by. For Marxism to work, very little greed and jealosy can exist and people must have a general feeling of charity and a willingness to work their hardest for the good of everyone. These are obviously not common traits. Marxism could also work if those who have the greatest abilities and those who work the hardest are satisfied with rewards equivalent to those with lesser abilities and those who don't work hard at all. This is also very unlikely. Marxism undoubtedly leads to free riding and slacking.
• On the other hand, capitalism utilizes the willpower of individuals, especially entrepreneurs, to foment economic activity. Capitalism is based on the assumption that individuals operate based on self interest; however, by doing so they not only help themselves, but also propel others towards economic success. As Adam Smith put it, "by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."

Margaret Thatcher, longest serving Prime Minister of the United Kingdom summarizes Socialism quite well:

• "Socialism works until you run out of other people's money"

Xdrew, you have every right to be angry and annoyed, and I appreciate you voicing your opinions about this issue in such a straightforward manner. And yes, you are right, the garbage that I have spouted comes from what I have read, heard and watched. To address your request about naming a ‘period in history where currency wasn’t fiat’ we first need to be on the same page – what is your definition of ‘fiat’? To me, ‘fiat currency’ is currency that is not backed by anything of intrinsic value.

In the book ‘Guide to investing in Gold and Silver’ Mike Maloney summarizes the pattern of currency debasement quite well:

1. “A sovereign state starts out with good money i.e. money that is gold or silver, or backed fully by gold and silver
2. As it develops economically and socially, it begins to take on more and more economic burdens, adding layer upon layer of public works, and social programs
3. As its economic affluence grows so does its political affluence, and it increases expenditures to fund a massive military
4. Eventually it puts its military to use, and expenditures explode
5. To fund the war, the costliest of mankind’s endeavors, it steals the wealth of its people by replacing their money with currency that can be created in unlimited quantities. It does this either at the outbreak of the war (as in the case of World War I), during the war or wars (as in the cases of Athens and Rome), or as a perceived solution to the economic ravages of previous wars (as in the case of John Law’s France)….”

Just to clarify my position… I have nothing against Saving money, and believe the ability to ‘spend less than you earn’ is an essential habit to develop. All I simply wanted to highlight is that the monetary system we have today is designed to work against savers, and simply saving on its own may not be sufficient to fund a comfortable retirement.