# This One's for The Obama Loyalists, Pay Attention. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 19, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784 "2010-08-19T20:08:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/361 "2010-08-27T06:11:29Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > If enough of us peacefully refused to pay our taxes we could change this system we currently have. > > Why don’t you just use the Constitutionally provided means for changing the law, or amending the Constitution? Or is that not convenient to your ideology? We have tried that. Try getting anyone in Washington to read the Constitution, let alone bothering to amend it. If we have an out of control, and I would even say tyrannical government, the ability to change the system through normal means disappears. After that, Nullification and civil disobedience become reasonable options to bring about change. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/362 "2010-08-27T06:14:08Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > There was never supposed to be a tax on income. The founders would be horrified if they knew we had to pay forty percent of our income to the government each year. > > Considering that they were a bunch of rich guys I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they’d hate the idea of a tax that actually puts a fair burden on the wealthy. So what? Why should we look to the principles of people who, again, were a bunch of genocidal, slaveowning rich men for guidance? They probably would have been horrified that women and poor people and blacks can vote too; should we throw out those changes too? > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > What is your point? Its called civil disobedience. If enough of us peacefully refused to pay our taxes we could change this system we currently have. > > Yes, change it into a bloodthirsty anarchy when everything collapses because everyone is refusing to pay for the governmental machinery that keeps the country running. That extra money in your pocket will feel real good when you are being beaten to death by the local warlord’s thugs as your house burns. I’m actually not going to directly respond to the lunacy that you have typed here. Rather I want to ask you a straightforward and direct question: **At what point would you consider the actions of the government to be tyrannical and the size of government to be too large, too burdensome?** Because you seem to think that government can do no wrong. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/363 "2010-08-27T06:15:51Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > There is no shame in being a tax protester. > > In Libertopia, if I peacefully squat on your property and eat your vegetables, is there any shame in that? This is an ignorant comment. Of course there is a difference between peacefully protesting government and violating someones property rights. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/364 "2010-08-27T06:17:36Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Gold is very useful for making corrosion-resistant electrical contacts. 😃 Yes it is, among other things. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/365 "2010-08-27T06:20:08Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > I’m actually not going to directly respond to the lunacy that you have typed here. > > Rather I want to ask you a straightforward and direct question: Why should I respond to you if you refuse to respond to me? This is a forum for discussion, not some private soapbox site of yours. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/366 "2010-08-27T06:22:42Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > What does that prove? I went to a different rally in a different state and my experience is different. There are rallies that are connected to the GOP and those that are independent. The independent rallies and protests tend to be more diverse. The GOP is attempting to portray an image and hijack the narrative. > > That was one of the very first tea party rallies held and was also the largest. If the GOP had their tentacles in the Tea Party at that time, then it was all a sham to begin with. It also took place in one of the few major cities in America where blacks are the majority of the population. If THAT can’t get 15% turnout (hell, I can’t see evidence that it had 1%), then nothing can. > > Hell, [here](http://wsbradio.com/slideshow/inpage/herman-cain-at-the-cobb-tea-party-7309) is another one, also in Atlanta, where the main speaker was the most popular token black that the tea party has to offer (Herman “Godfather’s Pizza” Cain). Count the black people. I’ll help you out. Let’s see, there is one (Herman)… well, that one guy in the fourth row has a slight tan or a shadow on him, so we’ll say two. Did I miss any? > > It’s time to put up and tell us which protest you’re referring to, so we can verify for ourselves. Lets seriously stick to the important issues, okay? I am not a Tea Party member. I am not here to defend the Tea Party. I am speaking for myself and people I know who are very angry at the current administration and the government. I am far from what you see on TV and none of the people I know are middle age white people. How do you want me to prove that the protest I attended was diverse? I live in California, for one thing. The rally I attended was an independent libertarian rally, no GOP involvement. I don’t have pictures to email you. Its up to you whether you believe me or not. But lets focus on the substance of the protests rather than this bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/367 "2010-08-27T06:42:23Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@Czarcasm](#): > > > > To whom are you addressing this? As stated, **bdgr** stopped reading. > > I bet he’s done a lot of that in his life. “Stopping reading” is probably his default reaction to any material that involves thinking and learning. But I’ll leave that comment there in case he comes back. And if you post anything like it, again, I am going to shut down your (not so) little polemic. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > See, thats just you being lazy. And, again, do not make personal attacks on other posters. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/368 "2010-08-27T06:45:46Z")
[quote=“PBear42, post:254, topic:550784”] Okay, I’ve read the OP’s manifesto. Skimmed yesterday. Read it in full today, twice, once this morning and again this evening. A few thoughts. First, if you want to engage people in discussion, you should leave out the _ad hominems_, the condescension and the question begging (e.g., not everyone who disagrees with you is stupid). I counted half a dozen of these in the first paragraph and would estimate about a hundred across the whole piece. With several dozen more in the posts since. This is no way to influence people. [QUOTE] I appreciate you for actually reading the post and responding in an intelligent way. Thats more than I can say for most of the posters here. The criticisms of the tone are fair. > [@](#): > > Second, although the thesis isn’t altogether unsound, it’s not particularly good either. Submitted as a paper in an undergraduate class in political economics (without the _ad hominems_, etc. and adding citations), it probably would merit about a “B.” Not bad, but not qualifying you as high poobah of national economic policy. Especially when it appears you don’t actually have any credentials in the subject. In this context, “believe me” doesn’t mean squat. As far as credentials, no I don’t have a formal economics degree. I took a few economics classes in college and I have read a ton on my own. In fact if you understand the Austrian school of economics you would know that you would probably know more about real economics by NOT taking any college classes given the Keynesian bullshit they are force feeding students these days. The fact that you think this OP would merit a **B** in a political economics class, given that its simply a post I did in my spare time I think qualifies as “pretty good”. Have you seen any other undergraduate “B” papers on The Straight Dope message boards? If I was actually taking a political economics class in college I would certainly put forth a whole lot more effort and give it much more polish. But I did this for free for your benefit. > [@](#): > > Third, it’s all very well to say how you would organize things if you were high poobah writing on a blank slate, but that’s not how things work in the real world. In the real world, these and myriad related topics go through the sausage grinder of politics, where the libertarians are but one voice among dozens. In this mish mash, the only part of the libertarian agenda which sticks is the part about cutting taxes, which only makes the deficit problem worse. Ever hear of the law of unintended consequences? Sure, cutting taxes without cutting spending is outrageous. I’ve said so many times. You know, the job of the intellectual is not to be practical or political. The job is to argue passionately and persuasively for the way things “should” be, not the way they are. I am not a politician. My goal is to advocate a philosophy I believe in and educate people until they understand and then demand the correct course of action from their government. > [@](#): > > Fourth, you do your argument no service by getting side-tracked on the gold standard issue. As you say (Post #182), “True wealth is manufacturing jobs, goods and services, industry and capital accumulation.” What medium of exchange we use for those things - whether gold-based, wampum, fiat money or something else - is trivial. All that matters is that the medium of exchange be understood and trusted. The real wealth is the stuff. Yes, but the medium of exchange is very important. Capital accumulation is savings. With a fiat currency savings is discouraged and debt is encouraged. The value of the currency is vitally important in relation to how much one can buy with it. For our entire history, until 1971 the dollar was linked to gold. Simply observing the skyrocketing debt, spending and inflation that has occurred since then should make it clear how important the value of the dollar is. > [@](#): > > Fifth, if you want to understand why we don’t have as much prosperity as formerly - which is both true and untrue - you should expand your view to such problems as the loss of our manufacturing base, the balance of trade deficit and externalities like pollution and global warming. Really, economics if frightfully complicated. You’ve only grazed the surface. Sure, there is much more to go into. Our loss of manufacturing base is truly the most important, even more important than the devaluation of the dollar. I can only cover so much in limited space here. Give me a break. > [@](#): > > There is more, but I’m not inclined to bother. Frankly, I don’t engage in debates where I’ve been told in advance that disagreement means I don’t understand. Besides, it seems you already have more Interlocutors than you can handle. So, feel no need to respond to this post. I’ve only gone to the trouble for your own edification. Take from it (or not) as you see fit. You can disagree. I respect those who give a fair effort in understanding what I wrote and responding in an intelligent way. You have clearly done that. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/369 "2010-08-27T06:47:05Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > If we had sound money and no Federal Reserve we wouldn’t have recessions and depressions at all. And we could run surpluses year after year. > > Seriously? > > [Black Friday](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(1869)) > > [Panic of 1884](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1884) > > [Panic of 1896](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1896) > > [Panic of 1901](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1901) > > [Panic of 1907](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907) > > Hell, the move to the Federal Reserve System was in large part a response to the 1907 panic. I’ve already responded to this. Look it up a few replies back. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/370 "2010-08-27T06:48:20Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > Upon further reading, I see that **Fear Itself** has already replied to your bogus claim, so ignore my previous post with the list of pre-Great Depression panics. Feel free to respond to him/her, though. 🙂 Right, like I just said. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/371 "2010-08-27T07:03:19Z")
> [@Baboonanza](#): > > I must admit that despite thinking you’re mostly deluded I respect the fact that you are willing to try and defend your positions and to do so without personal animosity (except to Der Trihs, but I’d ignore him if I were you. Neither of you will change each others mind). > > A lot of your points are even very sound. Balancing the budget, reducing spending, promoting economic competetiveness and stopping overseas adventurism are all worthy goals that many people on both sides of the aisle agree on. > > What I don’t understand is why you think this requires completely rebuilding the economic model? These things aren’t direct results of leaving the gold standard, they are problems caused by America’s disfunctional politics. This sort of mis-identification of cause and effect is a common thread running through all your arguments. > > For instance, you claim that wealth inequality has been increasing and that this is the direct result of welfare programs and inflation. I would suggest that it has much more to do with globalisation (and the shift in labour markets that has brought with it) and the rest of the world catching up to America’s economic success. You should note that all of these are direct results of the Free Markets. It’s not even a given that America’s previous economic leadership was entirely due to it’s limited government and low regulation, though I would say that it helped, since you also benefitted from vast virgin resources, a huge internal market (very helpful in the time before globalisation) and the rest of the world screwing itself in two world wars. > > By ignoring these nuances you have come to form the basis for your theory on unsound assumptions such as: > > - More economic freedom and limited government is the only way to achieve prosperity. > - The move away from this is the main reason for America’s decline. > Both of which are, in my view, missing most of the big picture. This results in you proposing economic theories that just don’tmatch up to reality. Income inequality is increasing partly due to inflation and our monetary system and partly due to cronyism, corporatism, and government favoritism. There are many aspects of America’s decline that I haven’t touched. I also can’t adequately convey the knowledge I have gained in learned about Austrian economics, history and libertarian philosophy. There are many problems associated with a depreciating which you are not acknowledging. It would require some serious study on your part to grasp the seriousness of the effects. Most people don’t give it much thought, which is a serious mistake. > [@](#): > > Economic freedon is not the only sort of freedom. If you have a choice between working 12 hours a day for 2 dollars an hour or starving on the streets you may have economic freedom, but you aren’t free. This is a major flaw in almost all Libertarian ideology, and what leads people like Der Trihs to call it ‘stupid and evil’. Because if you care about the poor, it is. > > These are the sorts of problems with your brand of Libertarianism that are immediately obvious, even to the layman. You get called crazy because you are ideologically blinded to such nuances. First of all, nobody would be forced to work for two dollars an hour or starve. That is a false choice that wouldn’t exist in a free economy. Workers would be paid what they are worth. If a competitor is paying its employees eight dollars an hour, how would this company get away with salaries of two dollars an hour? Plus, people would be unwilling to work for less than a fair amount so business would adjust to pay people what they are worth. Minimum wage laws would be unnecessary. There are certain jobs that are worth less than minimum wage today, but they don’t exist because of minimum wage laws. So, raising the minimum wage destroys jobs and people get laid off. These kind of policies end up hurting people. This is my point. There is a difference between caring about the poor and the true effects of the policies you advocate, which is very much opposite of your intended result. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/372 "2010-08-27T07:08:00Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [Dick Cheney was right - Salon.com](http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2009/03/27/deficits) Jrod is digging in the wrong place. The deficits are a Repub creation. They proudly announce that “deficits don’t matter” and govern accordingly. They loot the treasury until they get voted out. That is when fiscal responsibility suddenly becomes a calling. Reagan, Bush the Geezer and Bush the spoiled brat all governed like the treasury was a piggy bank to be looted and doled out to the wealthy. Tax cuts to the wealthy are hard to justify in mathematical terms. It requires an air that the rich are special, chosen by god, and should gather up as many resources and as much power as possible. They don’t really hide it. > The Dems are far more reasonable in fiscal terms. But the repubs scream about “tax and spend dems” so much, that the majority begins to believe it. The evidence is contrary. Haven’t I made it clear that the Republicans are to blame as well? They are more to blame in fact. But the early 20th century Progressivism planted the seeds for this crisis to happen. The unfunded liabilities, the monetary system and much more were created before Reagan. The Republicans just accelerated its journey to its inevitable conclusion. I think I have made it pretty clear I am not interested in playing partisan games here. I am criticizing liberals because Obama is president and I oppose his policies now. This is not a partisan issue for me. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/373 "2010-08-27T07:17:03Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [When Wall Street Rules, We Get Wall Street Rules | HuffPost Impact](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/when-wall-street-rules-we_b_688866.html) Jrod has some vague concepts about what went wrong. The fact is the wealthy got in charge. They bent the system to enrich themselves at every opportunity. The wealth of America did not disappear. It just slid up the ladder to the richest 2 percent. The people who need the money the least keep getting more. As our jobs go away, the people moving them offshore get richer and richer. They would not do it for free. > Our economy is fundamentally flawed by it’s grab of short term profits. We decry a planned economy as foreign and unAmerican. Yet we have eroded our manufacturing for short term profits. It is a weakening of America for quick money. Exec salaries and bonuses are determined yearly. The reward can set one up for life. There is no incentive to put a business on a long term footing. Investing a lot is R &D and product improvement would result in a lower profit for a short time. Therefore less bonuses for the execs. So they ship everything they can offshore. Yes, but this corporatism is a collusion between government and big business and a total rejection of free markets and the rule of law. The wealthy “getting in charge” as you put it is when business and the banks control the government and control the regulatory system and they screw over everyone else. This is fascism. It is a result of the dollar being delinked from gold in 1971. This created a massive bubble and the rich went along for the ride. What I am saying is we need to re-embrace free enterprise and reject cronyism, corporatism and government intervention in the marketplace. We shouldn’t protect the criminals through bailouts. The answer is not socialism and redistribution of wealth. The answer is undoing the merger between business and government, thereby creating a “free” market once again. Cut regulations. Cut subsidies. No bailouts, no golden parachutes. Prosecute fraud and criminal behavior. You seem to be getting the picture, but you shouldn’t EVER blame the crisis on capitalism and free markets. That wasn’t the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/374 "2010-08-27T07:17:29Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Do you truly believe that the bailout money will be paid back? Did you know that the word gullible is not found in the dictionary? If you are unaware that substantial amounts of the bailout money has already been paid back, I would suggest you abandon the publications who seem to find it inconvenient to publish this information. Now, it is true that much was paid in order to allow for big bonuses for execs, but it was paid, with interest. Will it be 100% paid back? Of course not - it was not meant to make a profit, but rather to prevent a further collapse, which it did. > [@](#): > > The subsidies and bailouts are not related to the robbing of the poor and middle classes. ANY spending and creation of money by the Federal Reserve which creates inflation discourages savings and causes a redistribution of wealth towards the wealthy. But the rich get special treatment. I think at this point the Fed would love a little inflation, since the inflation rate is not even at its target value. > [@](#): > > If we let the banks fail, the “worthless” assets would be valued in the marketplace and anything of value would be bought up by someone who is more competent. The bad debt would be liquidated, we would have a sharp downturn and we would go back to work. In a couple of years we would experience a robust recovery. So, how much unemployment would be acceptable to you in order to maintain your ideological purity? 20%? 30%? How many years would this take? 3 years after the start of the Depression there was no recovery. > [@](#): > > Frankly, even if I hadn’t read everything about Austrian economics, I would look at the track record of the Keynesians and “mainstream” economists and be willing to try anything different. **Hellestal** in the other thread has nicely refuted the notion that the Austrians ever explained the Depression, and the followers of Keynes brought stability for a long period of time - far longer than existed in the 19th century. I agree that the middle class is in danger - but only because of conservative economic policies that favored the rich. But I realized something fascinating in your support of gold buggery. If I said that it was important to have stable prices and wages, and thus supported controls on these, I’d think a charge of socialism would be far more accurate than those being thrown around today. I of course don’t believe in this. However, you seem to believe in strong government control of the currency, and seem to oppose letting the free market set the values of currencies. Socialism? Let’s remember that the biggest nation that does not let its currency float is Communist China. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/375 "2010-08-27T07:19:47Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Attention, **jrodefeld** , would you _please_ respond to this post? > > You have said that “Gold maintains its value for thousands of years”. You’ve made this same basic claim many itmes in this thread and more times in your earlier threads. Yet every time you make it, I bring up the same objeciton, and you’re not willing to answer that objection. > > In fact, if you go pack to post 168 of this thread, you will see that I posted a list of 5 objections to your main line of argument. I note, and like others I respect, that you’ve answered so many posts in this thread. Yet I also note without surprise that for some reason you skipped over post 168 without any response. In fact, in post 168 I predicted that you would not respond to it. My prediction was correct. Can Ron Paul or Ludwig von Mises make predictions with that kind of accuracy? > > Now, to make things simple for you, I will repost what I wrote in 168, which as I said was merely a clone of what I wrote in your earlier threads. This will thus be your third chance to answer these arguments. > > \*\*Real Criticism of jrodefeld’s argument #1:\*\*You say that “I think most of us sense that this country is not the great country it used to be. We don’t have the same type of prosperity.” > > I agree with that statement. We don’t have the same type of prosperity that we used to have. We have much more prosperity than we used to have. Even after the recent economic troubles, we are still vastly wealthier than we were in the era of the gold standard. It really doesn’t matter what measure we use: GDP, personal income, home ownership, education level, etc… It all doesn’t matter whether we adjust for inflation or not. The fact remains the same. The idea that we have less prosperity than we used to is absurd, when any decent source will confirm that we have more. > > \*\*Real Criticism of jrodefeld’s argument #2:\*\*You say “the early stages of hyperinflation are here.” > > The early stages of hyperinflation are not here, nor even the early stages of ordinary inflation. The current rate of inflation is roughly three tenths of a percent. Do you hear me? I said **THREE TENTHS OF A PERCENT**. That means that inflation is not occurring. To warn about hyperinflation is absurd. We’re currently at high risk for almost any economic problem _except_ inflation. The biggest fear right now among sensible people is _deflation_, which is the opposite of inflation. Home prices have gone _down_ about 30% in the past three years, not up. To say that hyperinflation is occurring is like telling Pakistanis that their river levels are too low. > > Ah, but now I hear you saying that hyperinflation will occur in the future. Will it really? When I walk past a bank, I see 5-year and 10-year CDs and bonds going for interest rates around 2-3%, even lower than the rates from a few months ago. If high inflation was actually around the corner, why is the market not predicting it? > > **Real Criticism of jrodefeld’s argument #3:** You say “gold holds it value well over time.” > > Gold is uniquely bad at holding its value over long periods of time. For example, in 1981 gold prices rose over $800 per ounce. By 1998 they were down to almost $200 per ounce. Gold does not hold it’s value over time. > > **Real Criticism of jrodefeld’s argument #4:** You say “Monopolies in a free market are traditionally very rare and almost never occur.” > > This is completely untrue. Are you familiar with Standard Oil? How about the Northern Securities Company? How about the Beef Trust, the Sugar Trust, and the monopolies that controlled over a hundred American industries in the early 20th century? Clearly monopolies occur extremely often in free market economies. They are rare only in well-regulated economies. > > **Real Criticism of jrodefeld’s argument #5** You say “As I have shown in this post, the Progressive Utopias promised by your idols FDR and Lyndon Johnson are disappearing”. > > You haven’t shown any such thing. Every significant agency and economic reform enacted by FDR or LBJ is still here. Every one. Not one exception. Your statement is merely inane. > > Once again, I await your responses. I did respond. I had to attend to some issues for several days so I could not spend all my time responding to each and every post. I am back on now and will answer each and every post in great detail. Look and you will find what I wrote. You might even learn something in the process. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/376 "2010-08-27T07:20:47Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@TriPolar](#): > > > > He could respond this way: > > > > "Phfft! Facts. You can use them to prove anything. > > – Homer Simpson > > That is the primary substance of his responses so far. When his facts are refuted, they become philosophy. When the inconsistencies are revealed, we are unable to grasp his wisdom. > > Non of my facts have been refuted. You haven’t contributed much yourself, by the way. Instead of hiding behind the posts of others, why not take on my OP yourself? First, I haven’t been hiding. I haven’t been paying attention to this thread. I just skimmed through numerous posts where your facts were refuted. Facts are not numbers. Facts are the provable statements requiring quantification and qualification. When you cite a number as a fact, such as the price of gold in some year, and attach it to your opinions or philosophies, it is no longer a fact. Let me demonstrate: Fact: 1+1=2 Not Fact: 1+1=2 so we should return to the Gold Standard I’m not going to bother addressing the rest of your non-facts. The time I’ve spent reading your OP and your responses has been wasted already. It’s easier to refute your logic. I’ll return in a few days to do that. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/377 "2010-08-27T07:23:40Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > > > Attention, **jrodefeld** , would you _please_ respond to this post? > > I begin to suspect not. I already have. I am trying to respond to EVERY SINGLE REPLY on this thread and I have some of you criticizing me because I haven’t gotten to their special comment in time? I do actually have a life outside of endlessly posting on message boards. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/378 "2010-08-27T07:25:43Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Why are you bringing this partisan bullshit in here? I am not a Republican. I am talking about ideology. I am trying to bring up important issues about the debt, the monetary system and protection of civil liberties and you want to engage in partisan bickering. > > The truth is both parties have given us bad government. > > You don’t get off that easy. The Repubs brought a disasterous government while proclaiming proudly their Libertarian principles. Bush’e economic advisers were happy to pronounce their Libertarian streaks. Greenspan was just one of many who wanted the hands off, no regulation business will do right attitude. > After the mess they caused Libertarians are scraping for a way to disavow them. But you can not. They are yours and more Bush is what you promise. Fucking hell. For the last time, whatever certain Republicans may have claimed, their policies **were not libertarian in any way, shape or form.** Thats just the way it is. I can’t say this any more plainly. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/379 "2010-08-27T07:28:42Z")
Also, since I’m not Czarcasm, could you please provide a fact to back up your claim of a Tea Party protest that was at least 15% African American. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/380 "2010-08-27T07:29:49Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Lots of people makes all kinds of economic predictions, from doom to fantastic upswings, on a continual basis. When something bad happens you can always point to a bunch of seemingly accurate predictions, while ignoring all the occasions on which the End of the World did _not_ occur. > > It’s like psychic predictions - by careful cherry-picking you can make them look hair-raisingly prescient. Just overlook all the embarassingly dumb picks that failed to materialize. Okay, but this current crisis was a major event. Rather than talk about how or why certain people predicted it correctly, we should be talking about how mainstream economists failed to predict the crisis. That is the real shocker. The Austrians know how bubbles are formed and that they are doomed to collapse. They are extremely prescient. You cannot claim that it is a matter of a broken clock is right twice a day. Over and over again they have predicted accurate economic events which have unfolded. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=20)