Carpe Pecuniam for Governor.

[JoelKeys 412]

On 02/03/2017 at 9:09 PM, uncannierlink said:

All banks do not run with a for profit motive. If I am elected the bank will be run as a credit union. While it is unusual for a government to run a credit union, I believe it will work in Identity.

 

On 28/02/2017 at 4:03 AM, uncannierlink said:

The second Idea involves my business. If I am not elected, my business will continue as a privately owned company with me as the sole holder of equity. However, if I am elected my business would be run by an appointed (by congress) committee of 12 members. They will be responsible for running the bank as a non-profit, managing interest rates in order to keep businesses and the economy growing. It would be a "national" bank.

You are inconsistent yet again. See below.

5 hours ago, uncannierlink said:

What I call the bank should matter less than what is actually is. I only mentioned credit unions because you claimed "no banks are run as nonprofits." This statement was completely false, see: credit unions.

So no. You didn't only mention it because of my claims. Also, my claims are 100% true. Here is a snippet from an article written by www.pscu.org.

Quote

Credit unions are not-for-profit financial cooperatives, whose earnings are paid back to members in the form of higher savings reates and lower loan rates. Banks are for-profit corporations, with declared earnings paid to stockholders only.

Also the following statement comes no where near close to an response to my first point.

5 hours ago, uncannierlink said:

To address your first point, which is your best, I am running because I care about Identity. I want to shape the economy into a living, breathing free market on a scale similar to eve online. I think it has the ability to be that, but not if the people in power don't work towards it.

So, I have given you the facts. I cannot wait to see your poor attempt at an argument back. You are a BANK owner running for governor who wants to implement a money making scheme into the government.

[uncannierlink 225]

When I called it a national bank, that was solely for naming purposes. It has nothing to do with how it will be run. It's operations would be as that of a credit union and nothing else. I apologize for the confusion it caused but I am glad that is cleared up. In the future I will be sure to mention that "national bank" is only a name and it is actually run like a credit union where the "members" are the citizens of Identity. 

 

2 hours ago, JoelKeys said:

Also the following statement comes no where near close to an response to my first point.

What I hoped to address in the statement, was about my motivation for running. As you seemed to be saying "why are you running if you have no declared personal motivation, therefore you're corrupt." I hoped to address the true reasons as to why I was running. If you're still not convinced I do plan on working with congress to give everyone in government a fair salary as well.

 

2 hours ago, JoelKeys said:

if I am elected my business would be run by an appointed

It was a mistake to use the language of "my business" here. I should have said, "the bank" as in the scenario of me being elected, i would have no ownership of the bank, as it would be a government bank.

 

2 hours ago, JoelKeys said:

So no. You didn't only mention it because of my claims. Also, my claims are 100% true. Here is a snippet from an article written by www.pscu.org.

I fail to see how this quote proves you correct about all banks being run for profit. Perhaps because you don't consider credit unions to be banks? Either way, my plan is for a non-profit, government run, credit union/bank (whatever we decide to call it). You may attack my minor syntax inconsistencies, but this is the plan I have always had and will continue to have.

 

If you think a government organization offering citizens low interest loans and decent interest rate savings accounts is a bad idea, THEN we can have a very interesting discussion about economics, as apposed to nitpicking my use of language.

[JoelKeys 412]

12 hours ago, uncannierlink said:

When I called it a national bank, that was solely for naming purposes. It has nothing to do with how it will be run. It's operations would be as that of a credit union and nothing else. I apologize for the confusion it caused but I am glad that is cleared up. In the future I will be sure to mention that "national bank" is only a name and it is actually run like a credit union where the "members" are the citizens of Identity. 

 

What I hoped to address in the statement, was about my motivation for running. As you seemed to be saying "why are you running if you have no declared personal motivation, therefore you're corrupt." I hoped to address the true reasons as to why I was running. If you're still not convinced I do plan on working with congress to give everyone in government a fair salary as well.

 

It was a mistake to use the language of "my business" here. I should have said, "the bank" as in the scenario of me being elected, i would have no ownership of the bank, as it would be a government bank.

 

I fail to see how this quote proves you correct about all banks being run for profit. Perhaps because you don't consider credit unions to be banks? Either way, my plan is for a non-profit, government run, credit union/bank (whatever we decide to call it). You may attack my minor syntax inconsistencies, but this is the plan I have always had and will continue to have.

 

If you think a government organization offering citizens low interest loans and decent interest rate savings accounts is a bad idea, THEN we can have a very interesting discussion about economics, as apposed to nitpicking my use of language.

No actually I won't attack this post. This a reasonable response, and instead of digging a deeper hole you admitted to a few mistakes. Good luck with your campaign, THIS is how you should answer criticism. 

[SupremeLeader 127]

On 2/27/2017 at 8:12 PM, Kyleson said:

Right away I already have a concern. In the first paragraph you mention that you're the owner of a bank. I worry that this, intertwined with you running for governor, might cause a conflict of interest. Anything you want to add to dismiss this notion?

Agreed. But not as much in this case because he states that he will be completely separate from his bank in the event he becomes elected. I also have this concern with the Royal Family party, as they are constantly in the pockets and in affiliation with large business magnates and conglomerates. 

 

EDIT: Not relevant anymore because he dropped out of the race

Edited April 11, 2017 by SupremeLeader