# 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:** 28
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/541 "2010-08-30T01:55:42Z")
> [@](#): > > Whatever the case, I hope I was able to shine some light in the darkness to light the way to truth and liberty. nope. May I suggest that **you** may “see the world differently” in 10 to 20 years. “In youth we learn; in age we understand.” Marie Ebner von Eschenbach ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/542 "2010-08-30T02:08:28Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Read this: Once again you have posted a complete web page, (this time without even attribution!), in violation of Copyright Fair Use and violation of SDMB rules. This is another Warning that continuing this behavior will get youre posting privileges revoked. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/543 "2010-08-30T02:10:59Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > It is up to you all to reflect on what I have written and go through the links and learn your history. I haven’t had a whole lot to say in this thread. I’ve seen the same things argued before, by more skillful “arguers” for both sides of the matter. But, as far as expecting us to do the research and “educating ourselves” before we will be “smart enough” to discuss any of this with you, and as far as wading through endless cites and videos, I think I speak for well over 2 or maybe more people when I say No I won’t. If you can not put forth a reasoned argument in your own words, in a clear and SHORT CONCISE manner, why should we bother? I know my history and there are others here who kow it far better. There are also those who know legal matters, political science and financial matters. It is incredibly presumptuous to demand that we all are the ones who need a learnin’ isn’t it. Quite frankly, too much of your writing falls into the TLDR category. ---
**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 30, 2010, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/544 "2010-08-30T02:14:43Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Now if you actually spend the time with this material and let it sink in and become more aware of current events of the next few years, I believe you will be sold on the core truths these works contain. I have noticed many of you are still stubbornly clinging to the statist propaganda that has been drilled into your head. > > I promise that you will see the world differently once you understand the true economic effects of government policy. You may even wise up a little and reject big government and authoritarianism outright. Unasked for homework assignment by unassigned teacher deleted. Is there a name for the fallacy where someone claims that the only reason there is disagreement is because the other person is ignorant of all the facts? Something sorter than the “If you read what I read, you’d agree with me, so the only thing I can assume is that you’re ignorant” Fallacy? ---
**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 30, 2010, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/545 "2010-08-30T03:49:24Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Therefore people like you claim that “free markets failed” because of the disaster caused by the Reagan administration. How was deregulation of the S&Ls not free market? Would no regulation at all somehow stop the people running them from making crappy investments? Or would it mean depositors not clever enough to look over the portfolio would lose their money and be smarter the next time? As far as spending goes, it just shows that the claim that you can balance the budget after a big tax cut is just a fantasy. It does not produce immediate additional revenue (in fact none at all besides that from normal growth) and Congress, caring more about the next election than the deficit, keeps spending. Let’s require these spending cuts to be in place for a year before the matching tax cuts come into effect, and let’s require that the cuts actually cut spending. If the cuts aren’t as big as forecast, the tax cut gets cut back. The worst that can happen is that the deficit decreases by the amount of savings for that year. But you seem to reject any kind of practicality and political reality. In a free market everyone would treat each other fairly. Yeah, right. You seem to say that the crashes of the 19th century came partially because the market was not 100% free. Sorry, any policy which is not stable, in that it fails big time without an exact implementation is totally worthless. If moving towards a free market causes big problems, there is no reason to think that moving even further wouldn’t cause even bigger problems. Not recognizing that is irresponsible. ---
**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 30, 2010, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/546 "2010-08-30T03:52:54Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@gonzomax](#): > > > > Would you have rejected the polio vaccine? You have to know it defeated a disease that crippled and killed a lot of kids at one time. Now it is gone. Do you have a right to allow your kids to get crippled because of your distorted concept of personal rights to make a decision for yourself, no matter how damaging and stupid it would be? > > No, I probably would not have rejected the polio vaccine. Thats not the point. If something makes sense, there should be no reason to mandate a person get it. They will do it on their own. Holy crap, you are naive aren’t you? Check out the statistics on the people who don’t sign up for 401Ks (and free money) when it is an opt-in situation. ---
**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 30, 2010, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/547 "2010-08-30T03:58:08Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > You know, I don’t really want to get into the vaccination thing on this thread. It is more a matter of opinion and personal preference. I have read a number of articles by doctors and scientists warning about the negative effects of long term vaccinations. I may link to some here at another point. But its perfectly fine if you believe in vaccines. I just have a problem when the government is mandating I do ANYTHING in relation to my personal health care. I should still have some choice in the matter. If the government can inject anything into my arm, then I am not free. > > That is how I look at it. And the government doesn’t. But the government is perfectly within its rights to not allow unvaccinated children into classrooms and by doing so put other children at risk. Plus, your level of medical knowledge leaves something to be desired. ---
**Author:** ![blanx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f04885/32.png) [@blanx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blanx)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/548 "2010-08-30T13:24:06Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@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? But none of those reasons make any sense. Let’s take them in turn: 1. “increases in the money supply lead to inflation, after a while”. Well, no, not so. Money means nothing, intrinsically. The only value in money is what it can buy me. So, if prices do not rise, then why do I care about the money supply? If I can buy a bottle of 14 year old Oban scotch for $75.00 today, and $75.00 2 years from now, then so what if there’s more money floating about in the economy? 2. Your second point about the “access to money when it has real value” also makes no sense. It just smacks of conspiracy theories. There is no Trilateral Commission, and there is no Council of the Elect. There’s just people. Prices are prices are prices. Now, if you were talking about the slow growth or negative growth of lower-wage wages, that might be something, but that’s got other causes. 3. Malinvestment is an incomplete information problem, not related to the money supply. Here’s the thing: The way you, and honestly many libertarians/supporters of Ron Paul write is off putting. You start off with a screed, and then what you do is make assertions of things you believe to be “obvious”. Trust me, the members of this board are smart people, by and large. They do not like to be insulted, or patronized. You will NEVER be able to convince anyone of anything by hectoring them. You say that you get heated and mean nothing by the insults and outrage? Think on this- if there is a failure to communicate, it is on you, not on the listener. You’re the one wanting to teach/convince. You failed, not the listener. Also, to address your points about vaccines: sometimes, the experts do actually know what they’re talking about. Doctors know more than you about medical care. Are they still human? Yup. Medical companies actually break even at best on vaccines- think about it. Everyone gets it once, (oversimplification, but bear with me). One dose. That’s it. Now, think about something like Lipitor, which many people take to manage high cholesterol. Multiple doses, for years. Where’s the money at? The “arguments” against vaccines are simply bad science, or woo-woo crap. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/549 "2010-08-30T13:56:55Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > I am sure I will grow and become more wise as I get older. This is a debate and I want people to respond to the points I make. What is wrong with linking to another article? The reason I do it is that I can’t fully articulate all the complex points I want to make in the limited space I have here. Plus, there are many articles and quotations of brilliant men who can express certain ideas better than I can. If they support my points, why shouldn’t I link to it? > > Don’t take the insults personally. I don’t mean anything by it, I just get carried away at times. No offense is intended. Since you quoted me directly I’ll take that last as an apology, and accept it at face value. As for the rest-- no, this isn’t a debate. As others have pointed out, it is impossible to debate a magnum opus like your OP. There are simply too many different issues being discussed at once, none of which receive the proper concentrated attention. A link or a citation isn’t the same as reproducing page after page of someone else’s text. You’ve been “corrected” on this issue repeatedly. And what nonsense is that about space? You’ve got all the space in the world to articulate whatever you wish, in your own words. If you can’t explain the points yourself, either you don’t actually understand them, or they are logically inconsistent and/or fallacious and fail on their own lack of merit. The fact that we are unmoved by your hero worship and refuse to bow down at the altar of Austrian economic brilliance does not necessarily mean anything in particular. But your understanding of the world around you is warped by such nonsense as conspiracy theories (you’ve offered quite a few, including the Pearl Harbor crap, base motivations of the Federal Reserve, and more) and anti-vaccination lunacy. Often in life, when you find that the sides are basically _you_ versus _nearly everybody else_, it may be beneficial to re-examine your basic axioms. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > I want to make the point now that I have answered every single reply to my thread. I’m sure there will be more, but I figure I have gotten my positions out there. > > It is up to you all to reflect on what I have written and go through the links and learn your history. I have a few suggestions by way of summary. The critical areas of study if one desires to become politically astute is as follows:\ > > Now if you actually spend the time with this material and let it sink in and become more aware of current events of the next few years, I believe you will be sold on the core truths these works contain. I have noticed many of you are still stubbornly clinging to the statist propaganda that has been drilled into your head. > > I promise that you will see the world differently once you understand the true economic effects of government policy. You may even wise up a little and reject big government and authoritarianism outright. > > Whatever the case, I hope I was able to shine some light in the darkness to light the way to truth and liberty. > > I am going to take a break. Feel free to respond in summary of this exercise. I will be back later. I doubt many of us are going to accept the homework assignment. Nor are we likely to be searching the syllabus of Great Debates, waiting with bated breath for your next dissertation. We are childish fools, “stubbornly clinging to the statist propaganda” and absolutely unwilling to “even wise up a little”. Unlike you. Really, are you able to buy a hat big enough to fit on your head these days? Merely answering every single reply does not a debate make. Nor is it even a discussion when you continually insult other posters while sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the substance of their replies. If all you intended was to “g[et your] positions out there”, you have still failed, because most posters (I’m guessing here, I didn’t do a poll, but I doubt I’ll be contradicted) most posters saw your lengthy quotations as TLDR. And those with actual expertise in those matters who read them and offered point by point refutations were treated to your less than admirable response of calling them stupid deluded fools and repeating your same now debunked assertions all over again. If you want a personal blog where you can laud your heroes without contradiction, please go and get one elsewhere. If you want an actual debate, make it concise, restrict it to a single point, present it in a few paragraphs of your own words, support it with citations but not page-on-page-on-page of quotes, and post it here in GD. _Then_ we can have a debate. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/550 "2010-08-30T14:47:59Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Read this: > > Once again you have posted a complete web page, (this time without even attribution!), in violation of Copyright Fair Use and violation of SDMB rules. > > This is another Warning that continuing this behavior will get youre posting privileges revoked. > > [/Moderating] I we lived in a Libertarian Utopia you never would have had to post that. I’m sure someone can offer you a pamphlet. 🙂 -Joe ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/551 "2010-08-30T15:53:37Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > 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. “Many, many reputable websites”? I’ve searched and I only see it quoted by the freepers, Glenn Beck, and the like. One of the fundamental problems you have is that what you call “reputable” actually is a bunch of crazy, racist garbage. In any case, the question of whether that Jefferson quote is genuine has been answered. It is a fake. The _Jefferson Cyclopedia_ containing all the man’s writings does not contain that quote. End of story. Here’s the link again: > **[The Writings of Thomas Jefferson-Truth! & Unproven!](https://www.truthorfiction.com/jefferson-quotes/)** > > A forwarded email with the several quotations from Thomas Jefferson relating to the economy, democracy and government. Continuing to insist that your statements are true even after they have been proved false will not do much to bolster you claims of intellectual superiority. > [@](#): > > 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 Articles of Confederation:** > [The Articles of Confederation – The U.S. Constitution Online – USConstitution.net – U.S. Constitution.net](http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html) **jrodefeld** my buddy, I really hate to tell you this, but the Articles of Confederation are no longer in effect. They were tried, they failed, and their creators acknowledged that failure and junked them in favor of a stronger, more centralized government. If you want to lecture everyone else about history, you probably should be aware of facts like this. More largely, concerning the views of the founding fathers, the Federalist Papers and so forth are irrelevant. What they believed in the late 1700’s tells us nothing about what they would believe today, given the vastly increased amount of information. If they had observed the human misery caused by the unfettered free markets in the 19th century, if they had witnessed the damage caused by the robber barons, if they had seen the enormous prosperity that emerged only after we abandoned the gold standard and created the Federal Reserve, they most likely would have changed their minds. Guiding our economy according to the literal words of a bunch of wig-wearing slave owners who lived over 200 years ago would be the height of folly. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/552 "2010-08-30T16:26:36Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > > > Also, let’s look at your claim that “the price of gold is virtually flat”. No it isn’t. Click on your own graph. The price of gold, as compared to oil, goes up and down by well over 50% many times. It is neither flat nor virtually flat nor anywhere close to flat. Come on, **j** , you’re making this too easy for me. > > > > Bottom line, though, is that the graph only gives you seven years of history. As I’ve already pointed out, if you look at the price of gold from 1980 to the 1995 it lost almost 75% of its value. If you think that looking at graphs of gold v. oil over time is a good way to gauge gold’s stability, then give me a graph of gold v. oil that covers those years. Until you’re willing to acknowledge that the value of gold has dropped dramatically in the past, I’m going to assume that you have no real answer to my third criticism. > > A few misconceptions should be cleared up about Gold, the Gold standard and its use as money: After this you posted a long article by Hans Hoppe that does not appear to have anything to do with either of my questions. > [@](#): > > Check this out: [http://www.ridelust.com/wp-content/uploads/oilgoldsm.jpg](http://www.ridelust.com/wp-content/uploads/oilgoldsm.jpg) **jrodefeld** , please. That is the same graph that you posted earlier. You intended it to show that the price of gold stays stable relative to oil over time. Unfortunately for you, I looked at the graph and noted two things. First, it does not show the price of gold as stable relative to oil, but instead shows the price going up and down by more than 50%. Second, that graph only covers the years 2002-2007. It is clipped to mislead the viewer by removing those periods in time when the value of gold went wildly down. Honest, **j** , did you think you were going to get away with that? I remember what I post. I know that I’ve already debunked that graph. Linking to the graph a second time won’t make the fact go away. Now, as you can see above, I’ve already asked you to provide a graph of gold prices vs. oil covering the past 20 years. As usual, you ignored the request, just as you’ve ignored the vast majority of criticisms of your arguments in this and other threads. Well, no matter, I’ll fill in where you failed. [Here is a graph that compares gold prices to oil prices over 20 years.](http://www.tradersnarrative.com/crude-oil-very-expensive-even-when-priced-in-gold-1760.html) As you can see, gold has lost about 80% of its value compared to oil in less than 10 years. Since you have a tendency to ignore any data that doesn’t fit your worldview, I will now write the same thing in gigantic letters. Gold has lost about 80% of its value compared to oil in less than 10 years. Now you have claimed, not just once, but over and over, that “gold holds its value over time”. I have now proved, ad nauseum, that this is not true, and I have shown that your claims in this direction are based on misdirection and dishonesty. So with that said, I will now ask you one question, the same question that I have asked you four times already in this thread and equally often in several other threads. I suggest that you actually answer the question this time. Why do you keep saying that gold holds its value over time when, in reality, the value of gold often declines severely? It’s a pretty simple question and I don’t see why I should have to ask it ten times just to get an answer. ---
**Author:** ![blanx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f04885/32.png) [@blanx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blanx)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/553 "2010-08-30T16:33:53Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > A few misconceptions should be cleared up about Gold, the Gold standard and its use as money: > > After this you posted a long article by Hans Hoppe that does not appear to have anything to do with either of my questions. > > > [@](#): > > > > Check this out: [http://www.ridelust.com/wp-content/uploads/oilgoldsm.jpg](http://www.ridelust.com/wp-content/uploads/oilgoldsm.jpg) > > **jrodefeld** , please. > > That is the same graph that you posted earlier. You intended it to show that the price of gold stays stable relative to oil over time. Unfortunately for you, I looked at the graph and noted two things. First, it does not show the price of gold as stable relative to oil, but instead shows the price going up and down by more than 50%. Second, that graph only covers the years 2002-2007. It is clipped to mislead the viewer by removing those periods in time when the value of gold went wildly down. > > Honest, **j** , did you think you were going to get away with that? I remember what I post. I know that I’ve already debunked that graph. Linking to the graph a second time won’t make the fact go away. > > Now, as you can see above, I’ve already asked you to provide a graph of gold prices vs. oil covering the past 20 years. As usual, you ignored the request, just as you’ve ignored the vast majority of criticisms of your arguments in this and other threads. Well, no matter, I’ll fill in where you failed. [Here is a graph that compares gold prices to oil prices over 20 years.](http://www.tradersnarrative.com/crude-oil-very-expensive-even-when-priced-in-gold-1760.html) > As you can see, gold has lost about 80% of its value compared to oil in less than 10 years. Since you have a tendency to ignore any data that doesn’t fit your worldview, I will now write the same thing in gigantic letters. > > Gold has lost about 80% of its value compared to oil in less than 10 years. > > Now you have claimed, not just once, but over and over, that “gold holds its value over time”. I have now proved, ad nauseum, that this is not true, and I have shown that your claims in this direction are based on misdirection and dishonesty. So with that said, I will now ask you one question, the same question that I have asked you four times already in this thread and equally often in several other threads. I suggest that you actually answer the question this time. > > Why do you keep saying that gold holds its value over time when, in reality, the value of gold often declines severely? > > It’s a pretty simple question and I don’t see why I should have to ask it ten times just to get an answer. Because they define “gold” and “value” differently, silly person. Much like “reality” is also defined differently. ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/554 "2010-08-30T17:23:26Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > 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. I agree with this. Also with **CannyDan’s** similar points in [Post #549](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12856851&postcount=549). As a thought exercise yesterday, I contemplated trying to wrestle this beast to the ground and bring together in one post the various elements of the OP’s platform. Then I logged in to discover the thread had sprouted another three pages. Sorry, **JRod** , but this is getting to be too much like work. I’m moving on. ---
**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 30, 2010, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/555 "2010-08-30T17:33:58Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > I am sure I will grow and become more wise as I get older. We’re rooting for it! Your growth won’t come from reading more at [mises.org](http://mises.org), but from challenging your own thinking. Many here were once where you are. You’ve made mistakes in this thread; your credibility would improve if you acknowledge them. An example of annoying “thought”: you _define_ money as gold, and then state that gold has _never_ changed its monetary value! Well I suppose that’s true, by definition if gold is defined as value. An ounce of gold was worth exactly one ounce of gold 100 years ago … and _is still worth exactly one ounce of gold today!!_ (Surely it’s not possible that **jrodefeld** fails to see this as vacuous?) In a previous screed, he announced that he opposed unnecessary government regulations but supported necessary ones. I agreed this was a stance we could all get behind! I chose vaccination as a topic to test if he was capable of exercizing his mind: > [@septimus](#): > > … I didn’t consider vaccination to be an important issue, but thought that it would be a good example to refute the more extreme forms of libertarianism. But no matter how much we discussed this, _ **OP never grasped that society forces his kids to be vaccinated in order to protect my kids** _. But now he pretends he knew that all along. Retraction. Judging by his recent comments, **jrodefeld _still doesn’t grasp this simple fact_** , which has been rephrased by several others just in this thread. **jrodefeld** , would you run over a cripple in the street if you thought no “lefty” police were looking? Why don’t you care if my kids catch rubella from yours? I also tried this: > [@septimus](#): > > Can you cite any “lefty” who avocates taxing the rich as “punishment”? > **jrodefeld** , do you agree your quoted statement was silly nonsense? (Just a one-word Yes/No response to this, please, not another 7-paragraph screed.) I’m asking this question again (despite that you already responded to it … with a 7-paragraph screed!). I hope it’s not too rude to say I don’t care if your answer is “Yes” or “No.” I’m just curious if you’re capable of giving a Yes/No answer! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/556 "2010-08-30T17:48:07Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > This point was addressed brilliantly by Guido Hulsmann, > > > [@](#): > > > > If I understand this point correctly, higher deficits need not be monetized (or not much) because of the current drop of T-bill rates. Therefore, the danger of inflation is limited. Well, this argument presupposes that it is always possible for political institutions such as the Fed to stabilize TB rates at the current low levels, or even decrease them. But this is wishful thinking. In the past 20 months, the US Treasury, along with the German treasury and a few others, have benefited from the fact that investors have been losing confidence in all other market participants. Therefore, their TB rates have declined while the rates of all others have increased, or are starting to increase. However, this group of beneficiaries shrinks by the day. > > > > Pressure is mounting for rates to go up, for three reasons: (1) there are more and more countries that have to pay higher rates, which will create pressure on T-bills and bonds precisely if and when the general situation seems to stabilize; (2) the supply of T-bills and bonds could dramatically increase if and when the general situation deteriorates, because the US and the German governments have started to act as financial problem-solvers of last resort; and (3) the return on investments in the “natural monies” gold and silver is outpacing the meager return offered by T-bills, and this at much lower risk. These facts are so glaringly obvious that even mainstream banks such as the Landesbank of Baden-Württemberg in Germany, Société Générale in France, or UBS in Switzerland are now hammering this point, to the benefit of their clients. See the latest installment of this wave of financial enlightenment. > > > > As soon as the rates of US T-bills and of bonds start increasing to a moderate crisis level of, say, 10 percent, all government budgets will be belly-up. Then the only remaining alternative will be between (I) US and German government default, entailing a deflationary meltdown of world financial markets, and (II) monetizing T-bills and bonds, which will very quickly bring us on the road of world hyperinflation > > . > > Make sense? No, it does not make sense. In fact, I fail to see any connection between what Guido Hulsmann said and my question. The question, which you don’t seem to understand, was this: **When I walk past a bank, I can see ads saying that long-term bonds (both government and corporate) are going at interest rates of 2-3%. Moreover, bond prices are actually _lower_ now than they were six months ago. If prices are actually going to shoot up in “the next couple years”, why is this not reflected in the price of long-term bonds?** It’s a fairly simple question. I’ve already asked it three times and gotten no response. Why can’t you give me an answer? ---
**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 30, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/557 "2010-08-30T17:58:34Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > It’s a fairly simple question. I’ve already asked it three times and gotten no response. Why can’t you give me an answer? The Professor has gone home for the day. When class resumes he will expect you to have done your homework assignments. He will then give a lecture and, if there is time, he will accept questions from the class. ---
**Author:** ![blanx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f04885/32.png) [@blanx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blanx)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/558 "2010-08-30T18:05:29Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > > > It’s a fairly simple question. I’ve already asked it three times and gotten no response. Why can’t you give me an answer? > > The Professor has gone home for the day. When class resumes he will expect you to have done your homework assignments. He will then give a lecture and, if there is time, he will accept questions from the class. Has the drop/add period run yet? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/559 "2010-08-30T18:43:27Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@Jackmannii](#): > > > > Because it’s bankrupt conspiratorial thinking. Drug companies and docs could make more money in the treatment of millions of sick kids. Hospitalization and I.C.U. stays run up big bills. By your logic, the Medical Establishment should be fighting vaccination tooth and nail to protect their profits. Except that they’re fighting to keep children healthy. > > No, its not. Its reality. Telling me that the concept of vaccination is scientifically valid does not invalidate the danger of allowing governments to stick whatever they want in our arms, without a choice in the matter. And yes, many vaccines are unnecessary but are pushed by pharmaceutical companies in the pursuit of profits. This has been well documented. Wow!!! Can you provide a cite because I have about a dozen doctors in the family and every last one of them is telling me to get my newborn son vaccinated (and as far as costs go, its free because I have insurance but my brother and sister assure me that they would be relatively cheap even if i didn’t have insurance). I did find this cite but he seems a little out of teh mainstream: [http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/vaccine\_awareness/vaccine\_induced\_autoimmunity.html](http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/vaccine_awareness/vaccine_induced_autoimmunity.html) > [@](#): > > Also, why would you make the assumption that there have been no negative effects of vaccines on the health of the population? There is a rise in autism, allergies, learning disorders and numerous health problems over the last couple decades. Are you outright rejecting the notion that the increased number of immunizations is possibly contributing to that problem? > > Given the health of the population at large, I would say the medical establishment is failing us. Why don’t you quit sucking up to them for a minute and think about this issues objectively? This fails to address why allergies, autism, asthma and ADHD is so much higher in America and England than in other countries that immunize all their children (in some Asian countries, immunization is not a choice left up to the parent). The four A’s have seen a dramatic rise over the last 15 years and cannot be linked to any increase in vaccination activity. If you look at it on a global scale, there seems to be something else going on. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/560 "2010-08-30T19:10:23Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > The correct predictions of the Austrian economists in predicting the crash of 2008 convinced me that this school of thought is correct. Something tells me you were probably convinced before that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=29)