# 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:** 24
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/461 "2010-08-29T10:59:30Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > 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. > > In other words, if you refuse to sell me your vegetables at the price I want, I am justified in taking them without paying. That is exactly what you are saying. The Constitution is only useful to libertarians until it gets in the way. Your ideology is dangerous, and I will oppose it through any means necessary. > > And, as an aside, your hysterical use of the word ‘tyranny’ is an insult to all those in the world who have actually suffered under a tyrant. Your continued use of the word just weakens your position. I said **if** we had a tyrannical government. By the way, State Nullification was advocated by the founders specifically to safeguard the Constitution. You really need to read your history. I have no idea how you think that this is the same as stealing from your neighbor. As far as the word tyranny is concerned, is it tyranny to lock up people indefinitely without trial? What about torturing people? Assassinating people? FDR locking up the Japanese? Going to war and murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people in other nations? There are quite a few things that our government has done and is continuing to do that certainly qualifies as tyranny, at least for some people. Wouldn’t you want people resisting such abuses of liberty any way they can? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/462 "2010-08-29T11:02:41Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Why would you tax the wealthy, other than jealousy? > > To quote another great economic thinker, “Because that’s where the money is.” Of course we should tax them. I am criticizing the lefty idea that we should tax the rich disproportionally as “punishment” for making money. It doesn’t make any sense. Taxes should be low for everyone. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/463 "2010-08-29T11:07:57Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Get the fuck out of here. What inflation? The inflation the Federal Reserve has been creating since its creation. That inflation. The devaluation of the dollar by 96%. > > Out of curiosity, if a cow cost $5 in 1850, what should it cost now? What should the cost of a computer be, in cow-equivalents? Moo-lah, as it were? I won’t go from 1850 because the Fed didn’t exist then. If you bought a cow for $5 in 1913 (the year the Fed was created), in todays dollars that would be $110.11. That is inflation. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/464 "2010-08-29T11:17:06Z")
> [@blanx](#): > > Ok, I get that you believe that what people commonly know as inflation, i.e. a rise in prices, isn’t inflation. In your mind, inflation is an increase in the money supply. > > So what? If prices do not increase, why should I give a crap whether the money supply is increasing? So what? How does that affect me? And by affect me, I mean, TODAY, not at some nebulous Mayan 2012 date in the future. > > Please, for the love of the baby Jebus, can your reply not include the words “[mises.org](http://mises.org)”? I’m asking you to tell me, in small words, why the increase in the money supply hurts me? It leads to higher prices, but after a while. Not immediately. The increase in the money supply obviously leads to a weaker dollar and reduced purchasing power. Your savings are eroded. There is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy. It benefits the political class and corporate cronies in that they have access to new money before the prices rise. Don’t you see the problem there? They get the money when it has real value. After they spend the money into the economy, by the time it circulates to the poorest and most vulnerable the prices have risen and the money has less value. Therefore wealth (true wealth) is transferred to the wealthy. By focusing on prices this fact is hidden from most people. This is a primary reason for the continuing gap between rich and poor. Beyond that, it contributes to the creation of malinvestment and bubbles through bad information being available to investors. It creates the ability for bankers to create complex instruments like derivatives to make money on the phony fractional reserve banking system. Thats a few good reasons, right? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/465 "2010-08-29T11:32:46Z")
> [@villa](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > I think this is a very sloppy argument. The definitions of Free Markets are abused constantly. Plus you haven’t provided any links to back up what you are talking about. It comes down to the difference between creation of wealth and redistribution of wealth. If governments destroy the incentive to produce and create wealth, they are redistributing a shrinking pie. Everyone gets poorer over the long run. What is wealth exactly? > > > > Wealth is goods and services desired by individuals. > > > > To think deeper about it though, businesses have to have a profit to continue doing business. This means providing goods and services to people that they actually want, at a price they want. What is a profit? A profit can be looked at in terms of goods. This means at the end of the day, one has produced more than one has consumed. If you spend all day laboring to produce two loaves of bread, and you eat both loaves of bread the same day, do you have a profit? No, you just have another day to live. If you spend all day laboring and you produce three loaves of bread, and only eat two, you now have an extra loaf of bread with which you can trade with someone else for something else, like a pencil. The next day you do the same thing, now you have two pencils Eventually you get enough pencils to trade for a chair or a piece of silver. Now, if you only produce 1 1/2 loaves of bread a day, eventually, you will starve to death, because you need to produce at least 2 loaves just to stay alive. > > > > So, the reason governments do not produce wealth, is because they do not have profits. All they have are losses. They always need more money. The reason is twofold. First of all, governments are extremely inefficient. So even if they do produce a good or service that people want, they will do it so inefficiently, that they lose money, and as such, consume wealth by taking from wealth producers to fund their activities (for example, using the bread example, governments will only produce 1 1/2 loaves a day per person). Second of all, many goods and services provided by governments are not desirable. For example, licensing. If governments did not require people to get licenses to do business, no one would. As such, people have to waste their productive efforts buying worthless crap. > > > > We want wealth to be created to improve the lives of everyone. The Socialist model simply fails in comparison. > > Please don’t try to lecture me in such a patronizing way about economics. I’ll put my qualifications up against yours any day of the week on that subject. > > So how about, rather than weaseling, answering what I said. > > Do you dispute that the Thatcher regime starting in 1979 was a move towards freer markets? If you do, then youhave absolutely no understanding of history or economics, but hey, I’ll at least throw the question out there… > > If you agree it was, how do you explain given your ‘theories’ that she presided over increases in poverty and inequality, things which you theorized would be eliminated by free markets? The Austrian School emphasizes the soundness of the monetary system in the creation of true free markets. During both Reagan and Thatcher, the move to “freer” markets was very misleading because sometimes a “partial” change can be worse than no change at all. For example Reagan cut taxes, a “part” of libertarian philosophy no doubt, with the emphasis on low tax burdens. But without cutting spending or dealing with the fundamental problems in the banking systems the deficits ballooned and we had more problems related to that. Also, IF we have corporatism and a banking system such as ours, I would argue that we need certain government regulations because the natural market regulations are being subverted. So, if we had truly free markets we could have a low inflation rate, sound money, separation of government and business and a balanced budget. If we simply adopt one or two ideas and neglect the others, it doesn’t work in the way its supposed to. Government grew DRASTICALLY under Reagan and spending didn’t shrink under Thatcher. Yes, they both had elements of free market thinking but neither truly reformed the system in a way which would allow markets to function the way they truly should. Their defenders would say they couldn’t do this or that because there was too much resistance by the vested interests. Maybe. But the truth is that neither provided anything close to the ideal of free markets and small government that the Austrian economists envision. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/466 "2010-08-29T13:22:53Z")
I think the last several posts have pointed out exactly what is wrong with this thread(and most of your other ones). You post a multi-page screed consisting of many points, and since nobody really wants to post multi-page responses to all your points they usually respond to a very limited number of them. You then wait until a great number of responses have been posted, then respond to a a number of them in a row, each response in a separate post, then you step back for a while. There remains a number of posts you haven’t responded to yet, to which are added responses to your _first_ batch of responses. You let these pile up for awhile, then you continue from where you left off with yet another multi-post run that only gets to some of the responses to some of your points, causing the pile to get even higher, then you step back yet again to let the pile increase even more. There is no possible way to hold a debate in a format such as this. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/467 "2010-08-29T14:45:37Z")
Hey, the OP hasn’t responded to a question I asked way up at the top. And have posted in his other threads. **What is jrodefeld’s actual education in economics?** He may have read a bunch of books by his Austrian heroes, but he really needs knowledge of the entire discipline if he wants people to take him seriously. I’m all for autodidactism, but his lofty disdain ought to be backed up by a couple of real degrees. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/468 "2010-08-29T15:04:03Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > … the lefty idea that we should tax the rich disproportionally as “punishment” for making money. Can you cite any “lefty” who avocates taxing the rich as “punishment”? I’ll save you a round of 7-paragraph screeds: No, you can’t. At the end of a few such screeds, you’ll finally concede that that example gibberish resulted from your exasperation, or some such, dealing with the stupid economists you find at SDMB! 😃 **jrodefeld** , do you agree your quoted statement was silly nonsense? (Just a one-word Ye/No response to this, please, not another 7-paragraph screed.) And when you do agree it was silly nonsense, _ **Will you understand why your requests to be treated as a serious thinker aren’t working for you here?** _ ---
**Author:** ![Clark\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c77e96/32.png) [@Clark\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clark_K)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/469 "2010-08-29T15:36:01Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@Clark\_K](#): > > > > Bravo, JRod. Thank the good Lord that I’m not the only one paying attention to the great minds of history. > > > > I myself understand Australian Schoolhouse Rock economics. I have studied the philosophy and predictions of: > > > > Carl Barks > > Camper van Beethoven > > Salma Hayek > > Murray the K > > Hoppy the Marvel Bunny > > Dita von Teese > > Jimmie Rodgers > > Hans Across America > > Les Paul > > Peter North > > > > I have seen the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked. I understand the Monopoly monetary system and the way the Federal Bureau of Investigation benefits private parts and is an attack on fiefdoms and physical well-digging for our Father Who Art in Heaven. Amen. > > Get the fuck out of here. I’m serious. Don’t post on my thread again. You are cluttering up this discussion with stupid bullshit. What are you getting out of posting a reply like that? Whats the point? Bravo, JRod! Thank the good Lord someone around here will stand up to the riff-raff with their “opinion” that “satire” can be used in debate to highlight “pompous” statements and reveal the speaker to be “a faintly ridiculous bag of hot air.” After your stern warning, I certainly shall never post in this thread again. Wait, what? I just did? Oh my stars and garters – I’m mortified! ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/470 "2010-08-29T18:30:44Z")
> [@villa](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > As I stated earlier, the definition of inflation is skewed. Inflation is not an increase in prices, it is an increase in the money supply. Rising prices result from inflation. > > If you had ever studied economics, you’d know that rather than an increase in prices, inflation is actually defined as a persistent tendency for prices to rise. That’s something I taught kids in their first month of studying the subject. **Its the increase in money supply.** Period. Rising prices are the _result_ of inflation. The creation of new money creates the persistent tendency for prices to rise. Its the action of money creation that causes inflation. Are you trying to be cute or something? I say that the conventional definition of inflation is rising prices and you say no, its the “tendency” for prices to rise? Well, if prices don’t rise, the government says we have no inflation. Either way, thats wrong. Prices tend to rise over time due to persistent money creation. Before prices rise the true inflation (increase in money supply) causes all sorts of problems in the economy which current government statistics and establishment economists don’t take into account. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/471 "2010-08-29T18:34:36Z")
> [@villa](#): > > > [@tomndebb](#): > > > > **jrodefeld** , you will NOT continue to simply paste in the words of other authors as though you were making a point. Quote relevant (small) sections and then make your own point in your own words. > > > > [/Moderating] > > Kind of entertaining in a bizarre way someone so keen on property rights is willing to violate the intellectual property rights of others in such a cavalier fashion… No, I’m quote other authors work because it seems clear that most of you will not actually click on any of the links I post. If I paste some relevant passages into this thread, some of you may read it. I have actually done this very little, but some other artists are far better at articulating certain points than I am. Quoting somebody is not violating intellectual property rights. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/472 "2010-08-29T18:41:59Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > They have pretty well demonstrated that they are full of racists. And they themselves named themselves Teabaggers. Perhaps if they weren’t such a collection of fanatics, thugs, idiots and bigots other people might be less inclined to gloat over how they picked such an insulting name for themselves. As it is, tough. > > > > Oh, the poor victimized white man. :rolleyes: > > > > Oh, and as it happens I’m a white man. With Hispanic neighbors, who have yet to kill and eat me or whatever it is you think such people do. > > Look, Der Trihs, I am calling you out now. If you claim to know how racist, uneducated and white trash the people who make up the Tea Party are, you had better tell us how many rallies you have attended and people you have talked to. Because unless you have first hand experience with dealing with grassroots these movements, you are talking out of your ass. They call themselves Teabaggers. That’s pretty damn stupid right there. Look it up some time. Oh, and some of them are white trash. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/473 "2010-08-29T18:45:06Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > First of all, we have a Republic, not a democracy. > > Those terms are not mutually exclusive. Libertarians like to repeat that chestnut, but it really doesn’t make any sense. We are a representative democracy. We are a republic. Those two statements are not contradictory. Actually no. You are right in a way that we have democratic processes in this country and we are also a republic. But, in a Republic government is limited by laws and restricted to certain delegated functions. Unless the Constitution is amended, government is not allowed to do certain things no matter how many people want it to. In a direct democracy, people can blindly vote their own self interest, which frequently violates the liberties of others. This leads to progressive loss of liberty over time and lends itself to the creation of authoritarian government. Don’t you see the difference? Those who want a certain massive government program always can claim “a majority of the people want this”, even though that is irrelevant in a Republic. The founders were very distrusting of the people. They didn’t believe that 51% of the country would usually make the right and didn’t believe in mob rule. The founders advocated a small, Constitutionally limited federal government with specific delegated functions. That is what they wanted. Obviously, what we have today is the polar opposite of that. Now, every violation of liberty can be justified by quoting a poll that shows a slim majority supporting the law or government program. Don’t you see the danger there? This is actually a profoundly important point to make. You should watch this short Youtube video on the subject: [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/KFXuGIpsdE0/hqdefault.jpg "Republic vs Democracy") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0) We want government ruled by law. That is the best form of government devised in history. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/474 "2010-08-29T18:54:34Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > > Those terms are not mutually exclusive. Libertarians like to repeat that chestnut, but it really doesn’t make any sense. We are a representative democracy. We are a republic. Those two statements are not contradictory. > > Actually no. You are right in a way that we have democratic processes in this country and we are also a republic. But, in a Republic government is limited by laws and restricted to certain delegated functions. Unless the Constitution is amended, government is not allowed to do certain things no matter how many people want it to. > > In a direct democracy, people can blindly vote their own self interest, which frequently violates the liberties of others. This leads to progressive loss of liberty over time and lends itself to the creation of authoritarian government. We do not have a direct democracy; we have a representative democracy. Do you not see the difference? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/475 "2010-08-29T19:33:14Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > FDR didn’t pursue policies that he thought would lengthen the Depression, but thats the effect that they had. > > > > Some evidence:\ > > This is almost common knowledge at this point. > > FDR really knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor before it happened. Then he used it as an excuse to get involved in World War II. As sensationalistic as that sounds, it is absolutely true. Some evidence:\ > > Even many mainstream historians are admitting that FDR and members of his administration knew about the planned attack on Pearl Harbor and wanted to use the attack to get support for our involvement in the war. > > > > Did you really look into this, or did you simply write it off without any thought? > > The Master [speaks](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1889/did-roosevelt-know-in-advance-about-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor-yet-say-nothing). (By proxy, anyway.) > > This side issue is analogous to the rest of your screed. You have absorbed some rather unusual world views and interpretations of history, converted them into dogma, and reject out of hand all attempts to provide you with reasoned and reasonable refutation. That article hardly refutes this claim and actually gives credence to the notion that many could easily come to that conclusion based on an evaluation of the facts. You should read the book Lies the Government Told You by Judge Napolitano. He devotes an entire section to Pearl Harbor. Another great book is _The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable_. Read more about it here: > **[The Pearl Harbor Lie - LewRockwell](https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/07/john-v-denson/the-pearl-harbor-lie/)** > > A new book entitled The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable by George Victor and published by Potomac Books Inc. of Washington, D.C. is well researched and gives a very clear picture of how and why the Pearl Harbor myth was... Other links for you to look through. A **brilliant** documentary called Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor. Watch this one: [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=270975414048677528#](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=270975414048677528#) > **[American Academy of Pediatrics Says Students Should Return to Schools in the...](https://thenewamerican.com/us/education/american-academy-of-pedatrics-says-students-should-return-to-schools-in-the-fall/)** > > The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) delivered a statement on Monday encouraging government officials and school administrators to allow students to return to class in the fall, regardless of the COVID-19 pandemic. By Raven Clabough > **[Do Freedom of Information Act Files Prove FDR Had Foreknowledge of Pearl...](https://www.independent.org/article/2002/03/11/do-freedom-of-information-act-files-prove-fdr-had-foreknowledge-of-pearl-harbor/)** > > According to Stinnett, Roosevelt provoked Japan to attack us, let it happen at Pearl Harbor, and thus galvanized the country to war. I follow the truth no matter where that leads me. > [@](#): > > See, it is statements like these that demonstrate just how distorted your understanding of the world truly is. The 19th Century, despite (or because of) the Industrial Revolution and the manifest changes it brought, basically sucked for everybody except industry owners and the landed elite. Factory workers paid pennies per hour in cities differed little in “the finer things in life” from agricultural peasants in the countryside. So you are claiming that industrialization provided no benefits to the population at larger? Are you kidding me? I am NOT saying that there is absolutely no need for government to intervene at all or provide any help for people. Nor am I saying that different government policies in the 19th century couldn’t have improved matters somewhat. I AM saying that a mostly phony version of history is peddled to denigrate free market capitalism and that is completely ridiculous. In any system there will be poverty and problems. Hell, I could easily write about all the poverty and problems we have today and blame our current government policies for the problems. People in record numbers were lifted out of poverty during the industrial revolution. If you pick out a few cases of greedy businessmen acting badly, that does not take away from the greater facts that America was being built into the greatest nation on earth through the engine of free enterprise and entrepreneurship. Some more on this: > [@](#): > > The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are often referred to as the time of the “robber barons.” > > It is a staple of history books to attach this derogatory phrase to such figures as John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and the great nineteenth-century railroad operators — Grenville Dodge, Leland Stanford, Henry Villard, James J. Hill, and others. To most historians writing on this period, these entrepreneurs committed thinly veiled acts of larceny to enrich themselves at the expense of their customers. Once again we see the image of the greedy, exploitative capitalist, but in many cases this is a distortion of the truth. > > As common as it is to speak of “robber barons,” most who use that term are confused about the role of capitalism in the American economy and fail to make an important distinction — the distinction between what might be called a market entrepreneur and a political entrepreneur. A pure market entrepreneur, or capitalist, succeeds financially by selling a newer, better, or less expensive product on the free market without any government subsidies, direct or indirect. The key to his success as a capitalist is his ability to please the consumer, for in a capitalist society the consumer ultimately calls the economic shots. By contrast, a political entrepreneur succeeds primarily by influencing government to subsidize his business or industry, or to enact legislation or regulation that harms his competitors. > > In the mousetrap industry, for instance, you can be a market entrepreneur by making better mousetraps and thereby convincing consumers to buy more of your mousetraps and less of your competitors’, or you can lobby Congress to prohibit the importation of all foreign-made mousetraps. In the former situation the consumer voluntarily hands over his money for the superior mousetrap; in the latter case the consumer, not given anything (better) in return, pays more for existing mousetraps just because the import quota has reduced supply and therefore driven up prices. > > Most who use the term “robber barons” are confused about the role of capitalism in the American economy. > The American economy has always included a mix of market and political entrepreneurs — self-made men and women as well as political connivers and manipulators. And sometimes, people who have achieved success as market entrepreneurs in one period of their lives later become political entrepreneurs. But the distinction between the two is critical to make, for market entrepreneurship is a hallmark of genuine capitalism, whereas political entrepreneurship is not — it is neomercantilism. > > In some cases, of course, the entrepreneurs commonly labeled “robber barons” did indeed profit by exploiting American customers, but these were not market entrepreneurs. For example, Leland Stanford, a former governor and US senator from California, used his political connections to have the state pass laws prohibiting competition for his Central Pacific railroad,[1] and he and his business partners profited from this monopoly scheme. Unfortunately, the resentment that this naturally generated among the public was unfairly directed at other entrepreneurs who succeeded in the railroad industry without political interference that tilted the playing field in their direction. Thanks to historians who fail to (or refuse to) make this crucial distinction, many Americans have an inaccurate view of American capitalism. > > … > The Real History > > The lesson here is that most historians are hopelessly confused about the rise of capitalism in America. They usually fail to adequately appreciate the entrepreneurial genius of men like James J. Hill, John D. Rockefeller, and Cornelius Vanderbilt, and more often than not they lump these men (and other market entrepreneurs) in with genuine “robber barons” or political entrepreneurs. > > ``` > $14 > > ``` > > Most historians also uncritically repeat the claim that government subsidies were necessary to building America’s transcontinental railroad industry, steamship industry, steel industry, and other industries. But while clinging to this “market failure” argument, they ignore (or at least are unaware of) the fact that market entrepreneurs performed quite well without government subsidies. They also ignore the fact that the subsidies themselves were a great source of inefficiency and business failure, even though they enriched the direct recipients of the subsidies and advanced the political careers of those who dished them out. > > Political entrepreneurs and their governmental patrons are the real villains of American business history and should be portrayed as such. They are the real robber barons. > > At the same time, the market entrepreneurs who practiced genuine capitalism, whose genius and energy fueled extraordinary economic achievement and also brought tremendous benefits to Americans, should be recognized for their achievements rather than demonized, as they so often are. Men like James J. Hill, John D. Rockefeller, and Cornelius Vanderbilt were heroes who improved the lives of millions of consumers; employed thousands and enabled them to support their families and educate their children; created entire cities because of the success of their enterprises (for example, Scranton, Pennsylvania); pioneered efficient management techniques that are still employed today; and donated hundreds of millions of dollars to charities and nonprofit organizations of all kinds, from libraries to hospitals to symphonies, public parks, and zoos. It is absolutely perverse that historians usually look at these men as crooks or cheaters while praising and advocating “business/government partnerships,” which can only lead to corruption and economic decline. Read the rest here: [http://mises.org/daily/2317](http://mises.org/daily/2317) You desperately need to have a broader understanding and more critical look at the history of the period. > [@](#): > > QUOTE=jrodefeld;12846890]\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. \ Well, in point of fact, this isn’t really true. Lots of people historically have been forced to work, for poor or even zero wages. Even if we remove chattel slavery from the discussion, economic slavery remains. Until the government protected wage earners, business could pay whatever the poorest, most hardship ridden segment of the population could be given, even when that wage was below life sustaining levels. Workers who became too sick or weak to continue to work could always be replaced by others, willing to take whatever was offered to eek out an existence, the alternative being receiving nothing at all. How can people refuse to work for “less than a fair amount” when the alternative to “less than a fair amount” is zero? The idea of wage earners holding out for whatever the competitor is paying reminds me of an old (very old) joke. A woman goes to the butcher and asks “How much is your ground beef?” The butcher answers “Twenty cents a pound.” “Outrageous!” the woman replies, “Schmidt down the street has it for ten cents!”. “Well why don’t you go buy it from Schmidt then?” the butcher asks. “Because he doesn’t have any more!” “Well, when I don’t have any more, I sell it for five cents a pound”, the butcher declares. Why would I work for Company A at $2 when Company B pays $8? Because Company B isn’t hiring! If you mean these amazing change in human nature whereby those who have will be self motivated to share equitably with those who have less, and will pay livable wages when they could get away with paying less, and will reduce their own profit margins to do so, in contrast to all of history under every different economic and social system that human animals have ever tried – if you really believe this will be true tomorrow, in the bright new Libertarian Gold Standard world you want to bring us, I remain unconvinced by your rhetoric and unimpressed with your authorities. And I don’t want your newsletter. [/QUOTE] Okay, in a vibrant economy where all markets have plenty of competition and many jobs are available, the notion that large segments of the population would be “forced” into slave labor by a certain single corporation with no hope is downright laughable. I’m not saying there is never exploitation, but the examples of it would be very limited. The entire country would have so much wealth that poverty would be very low. Companies have to be competitive. They cannot abuse their workers and hope to remain viable. What is your view of the notion that the minimum wage laws frequently destroy jobs and cause previously employed people to be laid off? The facts indicate such. There is always a price that certain jobs are worth. If we raise the minimum wage, low skilled jobs are eliminated from the economy. You know, when I was 11 I had a bike route. I made about $200 a month. That was a lot of money for an 11 year old. The point is that there is always a segment of the population who will be willing and glad to do very basic menial jobs for low wages. Teenagers, recent immigrants and others may want to offer their services for less than minimum wage. They are forbidden by law to do such. Just as it wasn’t exploitation to pay me only $200 a month for a couple hours a day of work, it isn’t exploitation to allow people the option of very low skilled jobs that are paid what they are worth. Now, machines are used because employers are forbidden from providing these low level jobs to people nowadays. You seem to have an unyielding faith in government to solve these problems and to promote “equality” and justice, but I would prefer to have the choice of various businesses who try to persuade me to buy their product and who I can choose to work (or not work for). In a free economy the consumer is king and people get wealthy by providing value for others. It would take quite a bit to undo the myths that you take as gospel about the “evils” of the market and the “benevolence” of government. You have to do that on your own. You can start by reading the Austrian literature. Once you understand how markets really work and the way in which history has been rewritten to benefit the establishment, you will see the light. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/476 "2010-08-29T19:44:39Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > You are wrong. The founders did not trust the people at all. Thats why they abhorred direct democracy. > > > > Here are a few quotes from the founders you should consider: > > > > **“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”** > > Benjamin Franklin > > [This quote is a fake.](http://www.r8ny.com/blog/barry_popik/lunches_with_wolves_the_fake_ben_franklin_quote_on_democracy.html) Franklin never said any such thing. Ha. > [Another fake.](http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/j/jefferson-quotes.htm) Ha Ha. > > > [@](#): > > > > There can be no doubt upon really listening to the words of the founders that they would side with me on most issues. > > Actually, there’s plenty of doubt, since what you claim to be “words of the founders” are actually bogus nonsense that you copied from libertarian websites without first checking whether they were genuine. Does anyone doubt that if we checked the rest of your ‘quotes from the founders’, we’d find them to be fakes as well? In any case, now that I’ve exposed the truth about the first two, are you still going to claim that none of your facts have been debunked? You are right that the first quote was incorrectly attributed to Franklin. I made a mistake. The second quote has been linked to many, many reputable websites so I would hesitate to say that it is incorrect. None of this really matters though. I have actually read the Federalist and Antifederalist papers. I have read the Jefferson Papers and Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. I distinctly know the views of the founders. If you pick two erroneous quotes that have been commonly mis-attributed, it hardly dispels my larger point. If you really doubt what I say read these: **The Federalist Papers:** [Campaign for Liberty - Reclaim the Republic. Restore the Constitution.](http://www.campaignforliberty.com/pillars/federalistpapers1.php) **The AntiFederalist Papers:** [http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm](http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm) **The Jefferson Letters:** [http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jeflxx.htm](http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jeflxx.htm) **The Articles of Confederation:** > **[The Articles of Confederation – The U.S. Constitution Online –...](https://www.usconstitution.net/articles-html/)** > > Also see the Constitutional Topics Page for this document, a comparison of the Articles and the Constitution, and a table with demographic data for the signers of the Articles. Images of the Articles are available. Contents Preamble Article I – Style... **Common Sense, by Thomas Paine:** > **[Thomas Paine: Common Sense](http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/)** > > Full text of Thomas Paine's \_Common Sense\_, published on January 10, 1776. The founders advocated limited Constitutional government, property rights, sound money (defined as a weight in Gold), States rights, and a non interventionist foreign policy (don’t engage in wars, except in self defense). So, the facts speak plainly that the founders were libertarians. If I pick out a mis-attributed quote, it hardly debunks my larger point. After making more than a hundred replies, a small error or oversight is bound to happen. You are missing the forest for the trees however. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/477 "2010-08-29T19:47:25Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Now, machines are used because employers are forbidden from providing these low level jobs to people nowadays. Only because they are unsafe. Do you advocate repealing all workplace safety laws? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/478 "2010-08-29T19:52:17Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > That said, ITR champion, you clearly have learned a version of history and economics that I know to be incorrect. Clearly the information gap between you and me is quite wide and it would be very hard for me to correct every misconception in the limited space we have here. I will try though. > > You’re going to have to try a lot harder. > > Okay, so let me get this straight. You **admit** that the amount physical stuff that an average American has in vastly greater than in any previous decade, which is good, since there’s no point in denying it. Then you try telling me that the amount of stuff we have doesn’t matter, and that the only thing that matters is “the rate of development and the growth in the market”. Why? As a human being, it is vitally important to me that I have a home, car, clothing, food, electricity, health care and other basics. It is also important to me that those around me have the same. As long as I and my fellows have those things, there’s no reason for me to care about “development” or “growth”. I’d be happy to stay at my current level of prosperity for the rest of my life. The growth of the U. S. economy does not matter to me. > That said, your claim that “the highest levels of growth” were in the late 19th century and after WWII until the late 60’s is flatly false. It doesn’t matter whether you’re measuring economic growth by GDP, average wages, stock market, or anything else. The highest rate of growth in American history was from 1980-2010 as compared to any other 30-year period. The end of the 19th century was not a particularly good time economically, but as you’ve been shown information about that already (see post 255) there’s no need to repeat it here. > I don’t believe that most of the things you say in this paragraph are true. Please provide cites from a _reliable_ source. > Based on the fact that the typical American today has a better house, better car, more and better food, health care, more college education, and more of nearly anything that he or she wants than at any previous time. Do you deny it? > > > [@](#): > > > > True wealth in my opinion is factories, tangible assets, healthy industry, savings, and high levels of production. We have lost these things. > > We have? Really? Let’s take productivity. What’s the average productivity of a worker today? What was it back when we had a gold standard? Nuff’ said. > In any case, you don’t get to define “true wealth” for everybody. I think that “true wealth” is when the ordinary members of society have their needs and wants met. Today we have that sort of wealth. In the era of the gold standard we did not. If you want to whine about the fact that our homes and food and so forth aren’t being made in the proper, Austrian School way, you’re free to do so, but most people care about having homes and food rather than about obeying dead economists whose names sound like mad scientists. > So, to summarize, I stand by my original statement that “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.” Your response to this claim was to try making up your own definition of “wealth” and by making a bunch of bogus claims that you can’t support. You have not provided any meaningful response. You know at this point I am going to ask you to study economics a little. There is not too much more that can be said. But how about this: Does the DEBT concern you at all? That we have bought prosperity on a credit card? Secondly, the improvement in technology and progress is made despite government policy, not because of government policy. Also, much of our wealth is due to productivity in other countries, rather than our own. If we stayed on a gold standard and resisted the urge to regulate the economy like crazy the wealth we would have today would be double or triple what it is today. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/479 "2010-08-29T19:58:24Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > We want government ruled by law. That is the best form of government devised in history. And who makes the law? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/480 "2010-08-29T20:00:14Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Yes, our founders envisioned very minimal taxation of the people. A far cry from what we have now. They NEVER could have imagined an income tax. > > Yet they found it prudent not to codify that in the Constitution. The Constitution represents a consensus of the founders; they all agreed that the non-consensual quartering of soldiers in private homes was bad, so it was in the Constitution. > > It really doesn’t make any difference if you can produce some quotes by some founders against a personal income tax. They saw the wisdom in allowing the Congress to decide how to tax and spend. If there had been a consensus against a personal income tax, it would have been proscribed in the Constitution. Since there is not, it is pointless to go on and on about the imagination of the founders. > > What they imagined is not law; the Constitution is, and you either abide by it, change it, or abandon it. You seem to want it both ways. You profess allegiance to the Constitution when it is convenient, but when it stands in the way of your agenda and you are unable to change it through the political process, you claim violating the law is acceptable. I find that kind of expediency uncompelling as an argument for your ideology. See, you have a horribly faulty understanding of the Constitution. The Constitution is not a list of prohibitions. It is an express list of delegated functions to the federal government. If a function is not expressly delegated, the government cannot do it, no matter what. What would lead you to believe that the founders ever had the intention of writing in the Constitution everything they were AGAINST? Everything not expressly authorized in the Constitution is by default prohibited from doing and left to the States and to the people. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=25)