|
I Am The Scum posted:Why do you statists call it universal healthcare if it doesn't cover the entire universe? The slime beings of Zeta Reticuli seem really committed to their "devour the infirm" policy.
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I wasn't aware enacting a program guaranteed its success. You're moving into an area of ethics versus numbers, convincing people that it's better to take a risk on a program (all programs involve risks, period) versus major short term costs and changes is partly numbers, but convincing them they should no matter what is totally ethics. If your argument is your political philosophy would work if everyone was onboard, congrats, you're nearly in the same boat as the "all people should be rational actors" type. I can't imagine a philosophy that wouldn't work with 100% total dedication, full-on ant colony style communism included. But that's not real world. Single payer's greatest risk is cost. This is something that the US can easily manage; if the US received the same premiums that are currently paid to insurance companies, the cost would be dealt with. Once implemented, we could examine premium costs vs expenditures and modify things accordingly. The US pays way more per person to insurance companies than any country with single payer pays, so it's very likely that premiums would start to go down in such a centralized system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:The slime beings of Zeta Reticuli seem really committed to their "devour the infirm" policy. Hey man if it means I don't have to pay FICA taxes anymore I'm willing to give it a shot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:if the US received the same premiums that are currently paid to insurance companies, the cost would be dealt with. Once implemented, we could examine premium costs vs expenditures and modify things accordingly. The US pays way more per person to insurance companies than any country with single payer pays, so it's very likely that premiums would start to go down in such a centralized system. No, to repeat myself, the US already spends more tax money on healthcare than most European countries. You don't need to do anything with premiums. A change of law a a few years setting up the bargaining agreements are all that would be needed. poo poo, just hire some of the ex-NHS bods we fired for being too good at running UHC. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:That said, I don't think that Mr Interweb was claiming that conservative policies negatively influenced unemployment, but rather that they did not keep unemployment as low as was promised by the rigid supply-side policies that have been instituted there in recent years. And that is true; Governor Brownback took on the long-discredited Laffer as an adviser and began instituting strict supply-side policies in what he described as an attempt to create a successful red-state model for the rest of the country to follow. As a result, the wealthy have experienced huge gains in income, the poor have actually wound up paying more in taxes, and huge cuts in education resulted in the closing of numerous schools, forcing Kansas citizens to spend even more of what little money they had on shutting their kids far distances. After several rounds of income tax cuts, while maintaining a high sales tax, what does Kansas have? Its unemployment rates aren't any better off, its deficit is enormous, and its economic growth is worse than ever, despite promises from Laffer and his ilk. The Kansas budget is so dysfunctional that its bond rating was recently downgraded to "poor". The red-state model in Kansas has been disastrous, and I won't be surprised when conservatives choose to ignore the Kansas experiment in 2016. Yup, that is correct, thank you.. I was criticizing Kansas' current performance based on Brownback's own promises of his tax cuts leading to both amazing economic growth and increase in revenues, neither of which happened (like you already pointed out). But the excuse about Kansas being at full employment is an interesting one. If that's the case and there won't be much job growth as a result, then what's the point of keeping the tax cuts? There are more that are about to be phased in by 2015 that Brownback has said he has no intention of reversing, using the same inane arguments about leading to job growth and more revenues. What practical reason do we have keeping these in place? Mr Interweb fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Yup, that is correct, thank you.. Really if you look at it the right doesn't actually care it the employment numbers improve or not. The rich get richer so it's a success in that it's doing what it's intended. The whole "well we obviously just didn't cut things hard enough, let's cut everything even more!" nonsense is just justification. The only reason they say that is so that they can tell the base that they'll be rich some day too, we just need to get the government out of the way so you can make yourselves rich. It's why the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" quote just keeps ringing true. The right has convinced their base that they're all a bunch of ubermensch that would be totally filling swimming pools with $100 bills if it weren't for those loving liberals preventing it from happening deliberately just to be mean.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Merry Christmas you vile statists and an-cap retards. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:There is more to that trick question too: We HAVE tried elements of the very system he supports in the past. It didn't work. You HAVE to ignore history in order to accept libertarianism as valid Sort of. We have reasons why we know it won't work. But I wouldn't say we've come close to trying the whole thing. This is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Really if you look at it the right doesn't actually care it the employment numbers improve or not. The rich get richer so it's a success in that it's doing what it's intended. The whole "well we obviously just didn't cut things hard enough, let's cut everything even more!" nonsense is just justification. The only reason they say that is so that they can tell the base that they'll be rich some day too, we just need to get the government out of the way so you can make yourselves rich. It's why the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" quote just keeps ringing true. The right has convinced their base that they're all a bunch of ubermensch that would be totally filling swimming pools with $100 bills if it weren't for those loving liberals preventing it from happening deliberately just to be mean. Oh definitely. I'm just making the argument under the assumption that Deus and other libertarians truly and genuinely believe that their policies are designed not to support the rich, but to help the common man. Might as well play along.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Oh definitely. I'm just making the argument under the assumption that Deus and other libertarians truly and genuinely believe that their policies are designed not to support the rich, but to help the common man. Might as well play along. They really do think that. Seperately, it's true. Their politics don't support the rich. They don't support anyone. And the existing rich, protected by the state as they are, wouldn't have a prayer in a world lacking it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:They really do think that. I would like to hear how that is true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
In a world where courts and security are privatized and a vague unenforceable let alone definable rule of "non-violence " rules the day, the rich won't stand a chance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
I mean everything I know of history would suggest that any rich people lacking a state would immediately seek to create one for themselves, and probably succeed. I mean what the gently caress do people think feudalism was exactly? Being rich means being able to hire the best murderers and murderous organizations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I mean everything I know of history would suggest that any rich people lacking a state would immediately seek to create one for themselves, and probably succeed. I mean what the gently caress do people think feudalism was exactly? Being rich means being able to hire the best murderers and murderous organizations. You're confusing different groups of people. There are rich people now. There would be rich [fuedal lords] in an anarchy. They are not the same people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:You're confusing different groups of people. There are rich people now. There would be rich [fuedal lords] in an anarchy. They are not the same people. Many of them probably would be. Either way it doesn't really make a difference! You get rich people lording it over everyone either way, except this way I don't have to pay a toll every 30 feet of road.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
No you see, I will be the leader of the civilizing forces.pre: Three DROs for the Job-Creator-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Banker-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Conservatives doomed to die,
One for the Freedom Lord on his Freedom throne
In the Land of Liberty where the Shadows lie.
One DRO to rule them all, One DRO to find them,
One DRO to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Liberty where the Shadows lie.RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 09:21 on Dec 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
Actually, maybe my original claim might not have been fair. Deus, Jrode and some others in this thread may in fact be true believers in that they truly do feel libertarian will somehow benefit the common man. As opposed to hacks like Stephen Moore and Peter Schiff. Still, regardless, libertopia does favor the rich even if it winds up having different rich people than are currently rich right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Still, regardless, libertopia does favor the rich even if it winds up having different rich people than are currently rich right now. Nope, still not true. Libertopia doesn't benefit any group. The "rich" [feudal warlords] in libertopia will be far worse off than rich people today. As will everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The "rich" [feudal warlords] in libertopia will be far worse off than rich people today. Well, those particular people would likely be better off than those same people are today where warlording skills are not as well renumerated. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Santa Claus: Statist?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Actually, maybe my original claim might not have been fair. Deus, Jrode and some others in this thread may in fact be true believers in that they truly do feel libertarian will somehow benefit the common man. As opposed to hacks like Stephen Moore and Peter Schiff. One thing that lolbertarians utterly and completely fail to realize, often willfully, is that the biggest irony of a free market and free society is that it relies heavily on regulation to make sure that somebody doesn't rig the game. This is what we're seeing in America; fewer regulations that are allowing the very wealthy to just gently caress everything up with total impunity. The answer in this case isn't fewer laws but rather more and actually loving enforcing the ones we have. America is horrifyingly far from a free market in that a few gigantic companies basically just run everything. The nation's wealth is held in very few hands and those born on the wrong side of the tracks are extremely lucky if they ever break loose of their social status. Those born poor tend to stay that way no matter what they do. Aside from that expanded access to education (which requires, you know, taxation) would go a long way toward approaching the meritocracy that libertarians so adore. Plus a truly free, even market requires government oversight to make sure that things like enormous monopolies, cartels, and price fixing don't happen, which become absolutely loving rampant the instant you take your hands off. The 19th century is actually a good example of what happens if you just take your hands off and let the rich run the show and it was loving awful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Santa Claus: Statist? Worse, he's a hippy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Worse, he's a hippy. Have you noticed wealthier families get better presents? Santa has perfect knowledge and Christmas is a perfect meritocracy, everyone gets the presents they deserve based on their value to society/the market.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
Every year rich techies load down our shelter with expensive presents to purchase forgiveness for their consumerist lifestyles. ENABLING DEPENDENCY, at this rate every teenager will want to be homeless. You'll get an iPod and Nikes!
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
Curious, has there ever been a any examples of a tax cut that's actually led to more revenues than would have been collected without the tax cut? Either on a state or federal level?ToxicSlurpee posted:One thing that lolbertarians utterly and completely fail to realize, often willfully, is that the biggest irony of a free market and free society is that it relies heavily on regulation to make sure that somebody doesn't rig the game. This is what we're seeing in America; fewer regulations that are allowing the very wealthy to just gently caress everything up with total impunity. The answer in this case isn't fewer laws but rather more and actually loving enforcing the ones we have. America is horrifyingly far from a free market in that a few gigantic companies basically just run everything. The nation's wealth is held in very few hands and those born on the wrong side of the tracks are extremely lucky if they ever break loose of their social status. Those born poor tend to stay that way no matter what they do. Yup, you oddly enough can't have a proper free market without some interference from the tyrannical state. quote:Aside from that expanded access to education (which requires, you know, taxation) would go a long way toward approaching the meritocracy that libertarians so adore. Plus a truly free, even market requires government oversight to make sure that things like enormous monopolies, cartels, and price fixing don't happen, which become absolutely loving rampant the instant you take your hands off. The 19th century is actually a good example of what happens if you just take your hands off and let the rich run the show and it was loving awful. Speaking of meritocracy, how do conservatives/libertarians justify repealing the estate tax? By doing so, they're implicitly making the claim that people who actually work hard to earn their money are on the same level as those that inherit it. Not very meritocratic, is it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Speaking of meritocracy, how do conservatives/libertarians justify repealing the estate tax? By doing so, they're implicitly making the claim that people who actually work hard to earn their money are on the same level as those that inherit it. Not very meritocratic, is it? Generally it's justified in the "taxes = theft" category. As in, if a person earned the money they have every right to do what they want with it, up to and including giving their offspring a massive head start. And no, your average lolbertarian doesn't give a single poo poo about meritocracy. If they did they'd support banning private education and funding the poo poo out of public education but that requires taxes, which are evil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Curious, has there ever been a any examples of a tax cut that's actually led to more revenues than would have been collected without the tax cut? Either on a state or federal level? I've heard it alleged that this happened when the top marginal rate was lowered from its peak of 90+%. Mostly due to less hiding / cheating. Other than that? No, we've been firmly on the left side of any supposed curve for decades. Somehow I get the feeling that anyone advocating tax cuts with that justification is just lying and wants to drive taxes to zero and gently caress everything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Most libertarians seem to either believe that 1) inherited wealth is good, since it consolidates power among the genetic ubermenschen, or 2) it's no problem, since their dogma says that the cream will rise to the top regardless of starting position (unless the starting position involves any kind of government). e: Forgot a third category: the kind who support a 100% estate tax because they clearly believe themselves to be the ubermenschen and blame their lack of inheritance for not being an oligarch. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Dec 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Most libertarians seem to either believe that 1) inherited wealth is good, since it consolidates power among the genetic ubermenschen, or 2) it's no problem, since their dogma says that the cream will rise to the top regardless of starting position (unless the starting position involves any kind of government). Hahahaha, there are no libertarians who support 100% violence!
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:I've heard it alleged that this happened when the top marginal rate was lowered from its peak of 90+%. Mostly due to less hiding / cheating. Other than that? No, we've been firmly on the left side of any supposed curve for decades. Somehow I get the feeling that anyone advocating tax cuts with that justification is just lying and wants to drive taxes to zero and gently caress everything. Yeah thought so. Speaking of which, I posted this in the politics thread: quote:Ohio Gov. John Kasich will roll out “responsible” tax plans that protect against revenue gaps. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Arizona’s new Republican governor are delaying big dreams of nixing the income tax as they face budget shortfalls. And Missouri Republicans, once jealous of their neighbor Kansas’ massive cuts, are thankful they trimmed less. Some choice quotes: quote:Of course, Republicans aren’t ditching supply-side economic theory or tax cuts. But they’re considering ways to avoid Kansas’ troubles. Their takeaways include smaller cuts over extended periods of time, stopgaps to protect revenues — and avoiding overpromising. quote:“Kansas did too much too fast, so at this point we’re continuing to look at our tax policy to make sure it’s competitive. But we’re not jumping — not following Kansas,” said Missouri state Sen. Will Kraus, a GOP tax writer who in 2013 pointed to Kansas as the reason tax cuts were needed in the Show Me State. quote:In the meantime, Vos says they’re keeping an eye on Kansas: “I definitely share the goals of the way … Kansas went, which is to say you want to reduce taxes on the people who create jobs so they reinvest by hiring more people. … But the jury is still out so I’d rather watch what happens for another year or two before we follow their lead.” quote:“You can’t promise that everything is going to change overnight,” said Jonathan Williams, top tax adviser at the conservative policy group American Legislative Exchange Council, which lobbies states. Williams believes Brownback’s tax plan will pan out eventually, but he said messaging is key. “It’s going to be a change of incentives over several months and years.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/gop-learns-lessons-from-brownbacks-tax-scare-113806.html#ixzz3N8ZqoOmu  at the last bolded quote. Good luck selling that poo poo without the promise of not hurting government programs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Caros posted:Hahahaha, there are no libertarians who support 100% violence! Now you got me thinking of a libertarian version of A Clockwork Orange. "Me and my droogs, we would go around the town enforcing CO2 emission standards. Then we figure it was a little time for the ol' arrest someone for shooting up heroin in the street. After that was done, we went an educated children using the townspeople money that we collected through the law." The scene where they sing "Singing in the Rain" while paying the licensing fees to the Freed/Brown estates is utterly terrifying. It just sticks with you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
I have often toyed with the idea of a libertarian dystopia where the President has been stripped of all responsibility except for ceremonially auctioning off a turkey on Thanksgiving. kind of like a reverse Tom Kratman novel
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Most libertarians seem to either believe that 1) inherited wealth is good, since it consolidates power among the genetic ubermenschen, or 2) it's no problem, since their dogma says that the cream will rise to the top regardless of starting position (unless the starting position involves any kind of government). It can seem like libertarians are utilitarians, and many will adopt those views when trying to persuade others, but most often their reasons are moral ones. Most libertarians believe 3) Property owners have the moral right to dispose of their property however they want, even upon the event of their death.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:I have often toyed with the idea of a libertarian dystopia where the President has been stripped of all responsibility except for ceremonially auctioning off a turkey on Thanksgiving. Sounds like Snowcrash. I especially loved the private police's long list of disclaimers when arresting you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sounds like Snowcrash. "I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief. “Bad news, detective. We got a situation.” “What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?” “Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars’ worth of bitcoins.” The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. “What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?” “Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.” “Easy, chief,” I said. “Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.” He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.” “Don’t worry,” I said. “I’m on it.” I put a quarter in the siren. Ten minutes later, I was on the scene. It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside. “Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®” I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t. “Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up. “Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?” It didn’t seem like they did. “Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.” Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care that a fortune in computer money invented to buy drugs was missing. I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth. Just then, a man in glasses made a break for it. “Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®” I yelled. Too late. He was already out the front door. I went after him. “Stop right there!” I yelled as I ran. He was faster than me because I always try to avoid stepping on public sidewalks. Our country needs a private-sidewalk voucher system, but, thanks to the incestuous interplay between our corrupt federal government and the public-sidewalk lobby, it will never happen. I was losing him. “Listen, I’ll pay you to stop!” I yelled. “What would you consider an appropriate price point for stopping? I’ll offer you a thirteenth of an ounce of gold and a gently worn ‘Bob Barr ‘08’ extra-large long-sleeved men’s T-shirt!” He turned. In his hand was a revolver that the Constitution said he had every right to own. He fired at me and missed. I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose. “All right, all right!” the man yelled, throwing down his weapon. “I give up, cop! I confess: I took the bitcoins.” “Why’d you do it?” I asked, as I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy. “Because I was afraid.” “Afraid?” “Afraid of an economic future free from the pernicious meddling of central bankers,” he said. “I’m a central banker.” I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner. Instead, I shook my head. “Let this be a message to all your central-banker friends out on the street,” I said. “No matter how many bitcoins you steal, you’ll never take away the dream of an open society based on the principles of personal and economic freedom.” He nodded, because he knew I was right. Then he swiped his credit card to pay me for arresting him."
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Ahahaha I had forgotten about that story. Gold. You're all right, Nintendo Kid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I put a quarter in the siren.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ahahaha I had forgotten about that story. Gold. I had also forgotten and it was marvelous to be reminded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Now you got me thinking of a libertarian version of A Clockwork Orange. My a priori reasoning doesn't allow it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I am well aware that I come into these discussions making certain unfounded assumptions about you all as you probably do to me. I have in my head some concept of a left wing ideologue that I am going to refute while you no doubt imagine some stereotype about a sort of libertarian caricature and these illusions permit us to hurl ad hominems, insults and otherwise engage in a more hostile exchange than would happen in a face to face discussion. I thought about this quote again, and I think JRod has a point: we have a tendency to try to make Libertarian answers to one another's questions when no libertarians are around in the thread, and then mock how dumb those arguments are. This is silly. After all, there are plenty of authentic dumb arguments to go after!  THIS WEEK IN MISES.ORG! (apologies to Fulchrum in the forwarded email thread for stealing his gig. As for the rest of you, I'm not sorry at all.) Private Volunteers Step In Where Police Are AWOL posted:In Ferguson, Missouri, when police and national guard failed to protect businesses from rioting protestors, a private organization called Oath Keepers stepped up to fill the gap. The Oath Keepers: a boon to the black community? Correcting Scrooge's Economics posted:As Charles Dickens himself admits, Ebenezer Scrooge is a thoroughly peaceful man, guilty of no true crime, who has robbed no one. Therefore, we must conclude that his wealth is a sign of his ability to please at least some people, and as Michael Levin notes: “Dickens doesn't mention Scrooge's satisfied customers, but there must have been plenty of them for Scrooge to have gotten so rich.” Actual libertarians are sillier than our parodies could hope to match. A Capitalist Christmas posted:[Reprinted from the December 1995 issue of The Free Market.] Presented in its entirety. I can see why this person would need a break from the politicization of everything. To "Give Back," Add Real Value posted:A recent article in the left-leaning Independent argued that student volunteers are useless. In one project putting UK college students to work building a local school, the work was so awful that local Ugandan masons "dismantled the structurally unsound work [the students] had done — relaying bricks and resetting timbers whilst the students slept." "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good." -Adam Smith, apparently. Also: not good at math? Try math! I'm not sure how Fulchrum does LL101 every week. This poo poo is taxing on the soul.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 20:18
|
|
...]
]. It's the most pro-capitalist of all holidays because its temporal joys are based on private property, voluntary exchange, and mutual benefit.