# 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:** 30
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/581 "2010-08-31T21:58:02Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Well, I’m not a doctor. I never claimed to be. Unlike economics and history, medicine is not my area of expertise. Well that expertise in economics isn’t from a degree as you said. From what source do you claim this expertise? > [@jrodefeld](#): > > Don’t ever claim that there isn’t valid scientific argument and serious medical doctors who oppose vaccination. There isn’t (_sic_) valid scientific argument and serious medical doctors who oppose vaccination. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/582 "2010-08-31T22:11:55Z")
> [@blanx](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > 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? Yes, increases in the money supple IS inflation and leads to higher prices. That is just the fact, whether or not you admit it. How can you not understand that if there is more of something its value decreases? That should be obvious. More money means each dollar is worth less, therefore goods and services cost more. I honestly have no idea how a rational thinking person could dispute that. > [@](#): > > 1. 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. How is that a conspiracy theory? If creation of new money causes higher prices, but there is a delay of months or even a year, then the person who has access to that money first has a significant advantage. They can spend that money into the economy BEFORE prices rise. By the way, there IS a Trilateral Commission. It exists. Now, that is not to say that any conspiracy theory about the Trilateral Commission or the Bilderburg Group or the Council on Foreign Relations is true, but you shouldn’t dispute their existence. > [@](#): > > 1. Malinvestment is an incomplete information problem, not related to the money supply. I’ll answer this point (which is completely wrong) by linking to a critical breakdown of the definition and causes of Malinvestment: [Malinvestment: A Primer –](http://www.nothirdsolution.com/2008/12/24/malinvestment-a-primer/) > [@](#): > > I. What is Malinvestment? > A simple, working definition would be something like, “Malinvestment is the systematic allocation of productive factors (i.e., land, labor, capital) towards the production of goods or services for which insufficient demand exists.” It is not “overinvestment“, nor is it “underinvestment.” It may very well be just the right amount, it’s just not allocated appropriately. Malinvestment is at its core an examination of inflation and its effects on the economy: > Inflation causes resources to be allocated towards, and consumed (i.e., destroyed) by the production of goods and/or services that people ultimately don’t want. To the extent that this occurs, it represents a real diminution of material wealth. > Inflation creates an incentive to spend more and invest/save less than that ratio which would be in accord with their true time preference. To the extent that this occurs, values are “realized” or “fulfilled” sooner than would be optimal, this too represents a real sacrifice of (future) well-being. > II. What causes Malinvestment? > Malinvestment occurs when, as Rothbard put it, a central bank has “tampered with the moorings” of the economy, when the price mechanism has been violated by inflation; discouraging investment (which increases our future productivity) and simultaneously encouraging more immediate consumption, inflation destroys an economy from within. Yes Malinvestment is an issue of incomplete information. The Federal Reserve’s printing of money and setting of interest rates distorts the market, sends the wrong signals to investers, producing Malinvestment and the artificial boom that necessitates the inevitable bust whereby this malinvestment and bad debt must be liquidated. > [@](#): > > 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. I find it humorous how you casually throw around the term “the experts”. Any time government or the media is pushing something, we are told “all economists say”, “all scientists believe”, or “all serious thinker say” such and such. This is a simple minded approach to thinking about issues that puts away your critical faculties and renders you helpless to those who seek to mold and control you. Not all economists support the bailout and stimulus packages, despite what is repeated endlessly on the news. There were many who predicted failure of these tired Keynesian policies. Similarly, there are many doctors who are “experts” who dispute this phony “consensus” peddled by the media. You simply have a close mind to looking at issues more carefully. ---
**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 31, 2010, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/583 "2010-08-31T22:21:35Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > What is your view about mandatory mental health screening in public schools? Should I have the right to not have my child placed on Ritalin? Where does it end? First government creates a situation where people are dependent on government help or assistance in one way or another, and then says to receive this assistance you need to take this vaccine or ingest this pharmaceutical drug. You claim there is choice, but there really isn’t a choice for most people. This is a shockingly un-libertarian position, and one I am surprised to hear from you. This is nothing more than personal expediency on your part. Your brand of libertarianism would impose considerable harm on others in the vague hope that at some time in the future, things woiuld be better. But somehow, home schooling your kids is too high a price to pay for exercising your freedom to decline vaccinations. You have lost all credibility in this debate, because you are not motivated by a belief in the superiority of libertarianism, but by personal convenience. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/584 "2010-08-31T22:22:36Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > > [@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. Sure, next time I post here it will be shorter and easier to digest. But don’t pretend that any of you have really “debunked” my points. This is not just me being stubborn. Some of you have given well thought out criticisms of certain parts of my post. But most were simply a misunderstanding of what I wrote, an issues of having the wrong definitions of words or phrases. And in all cases, I responded with an articulate explanation of what I really meant and where the poster went wrong. I don’t think any of you “stumped” me. Look, I understand the frustration with me posting lots of links and excerpts that you don’t want to take the time to read. Thats fine. I really hope that some of you do read some of this stuff on your own time. You may not be convinced, but you will broaden your horizons and gain a greater appreciation for economics and and liberty. Its up to you of course. ---
**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 31, 2010, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/585 "2010-08-31T22:30:11Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Well, I’m not a doctor. I never claimed to be. Unlike economics and history, medicine is not my area of expertise. However, there are many doctors who have written extensively about the potential dangers of over vaccination of our children. There is a Medical Industrial Complex in this country that does not speak for most doctors, yet directs most national policy decisions. Here’s a clue for you. Most doctors, while very busy keeping up with the explosion of knowledge in treating their patients, are not experts in running or analyzing studies. My wife had a job analyzing studies for a major drug company, and she had to tell the doctors reporting that it was not all right to throw out the data that didn’t look good. Plus, I’d much rather have experts setting medical policy than politicians who are swayed by scare stories. > [@](#): > > What is your view about mandatory mental health screening in public schools? Should I have the right to not have my child placed on Ritalin? Where does it end? First government creates a situation where people are dependent on government help or assistance in one way or another, and then says to receive this assistance you need to take this vaccine or ingest this pharmaceutical drug. You claim there is choice, but there really isn’t a choice for most people. Give me some cites about schools prescribing drugs for students. Do you think kids should be allowed to disrupt the education of everyone else? Do you think kids should be allowed to spread disease to everyone else. > [@](#): > > Also, don’t pretend that all of these drugs and vaccines are preventing the outbreak and spread of very serious disease. Some maybe are. The most are unnecessary and refusing the vaccination will not pose a significant risk to those around you. Please give us specific examples of unnecessary vaccines. And it is very clear that if enough people refuse vaccines they can endanger those around them. > [@](#): > > How could you not see how such a centrally managed medical system could be subject to abuse? Even at the expense of the health of the public at large? What does this have to do with a centrally managed system? Schools may require vaccination, but the vaccination is usually done by family doctors. (Though I did take polio vaccine sugarcubes in elementary school, but the vaccine had just been introduced and they wanted it spread as quickly as possible.) The was 50 years ago, so I suppose there were no ill effects. > [@](#): > > If, in fifteen to twenty years people start having all kinds of horrible health problems that they didn’t have before, who’s to say the two generations of children brought up with (effectively) hundreds of mandatory vaccinations didn’t contribute to the development of severely compromised health in later life? You are welcome to provide a cite to any study done by legitimate scientists proving or demonstrating risk. > [@](#): > > In case you doubt the validity of such concerns, look through these links: > > [http://www.vaccinetruth.org/doctors\_against\_vaccines.htm](http://www.vaccinetruth.org/doctors_against_vaccines.htm) Are you shitting me? This guy is a homeopath, the very definition of ignorant quack. Do you have any idea of why homeopathy is nonsense? You might as well cite a flat-earther about a geography issue. > [@](#): > > So, when you claim that the concerns about vaccinations are simply hysteria peddled by Jenny McCarthy, you display your own close mindedness and ignorance. There are massive numbers of doctors who are coming out against vaccinations and speaking about the number of dangerous side effects and health risks associated. Many of these vaccines are given to prevent fairly harmless diseases and illnesses of childhood. Many are concluding that the risk is simply not worth it. > > Don’t ever claim that there isn’t valid scientific argument and serious medical doctors who oppose vaccination. Anyone citing a homeopath about a medical issue had better not talk about ignorance. When I was a kid we lost a lot of school time due to diseases now prevented. Plus there were cases of adults who had never gotten the diseases getting very sick. My kids were a lot healthier than I was because they got vaccinated. Study after study refutes the dangers of vaccination being greater than the dangers of the diseases they prevent. Some doctors are idiots (example: Ron Paul) and a few doctors believing any kind of crap is no substitute for valid studies. But I suppose people who cite homeopaths wouldn’t know that. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/586 "2010-08-31T22:32:18Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Yes, increases in the money supple IS inflation and leads to higher prices. That is just the fact, whether or not you admit it. How can you not understand that if there is more of something its value decreases? That should be obvious. More money means each dollar is worth less, therefore goods and services cost more. > > I honestly have no idea how a rational thinking person could dispute that. Well the reason that you cannot understand it is because you artificially presume the Volume of Circulation and the Quantity of Transactions to be constants. Without any justification for so doing. Everyone accepts MV=PT. It’s impossible to argue that. But to take a blind leap as you do do and assume that all chances in M will be mirrored in P is just, frankly, ridiculous. The velocity of circulation of money does vary as the money supply varies. It can be empirically shown. The number of transactions varies as the money supply varies. It can be empirically shown. Of course, Friedman’s first law comes into play here - if the facts do not conform with the theory, the facts must be disposed of. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/587 "2010-08-31T23:03:58Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > > [@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!](http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/j/jefferson-quotes.htm) > 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. Okay, if I am wrong then I apologize for failing to verify that quote before posting it. Apparently a lot of other people were mislead as well. The point is if I look for a quote to describe the views of the founders, and I find several that sound exactly like what they have said elsewhere and is consistent with their other writings, it hardly disputes my larger point on the matter. So, a quote I posted was misattributed, yet still is consistent with the views of the founders. If you nitpick these kinds of things, it implies you have no real rebuttal to my larger argument. So you focus on a typo, a mis-attributed quote or a simple case where I misspoke. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. Of course I know that. The Constitution, as envisioned by the Founders is no longer in effect either. The point was to give credence to the intent of the Constitution by the founders. And the truth is that the Founders wanted extremely limited central government compared to today. The point is, there has been a massive amount of writings by the founders giving us a very clear view about what they believed about the role of government and human liberty. And they were on my side on most issues, That is not debatable. Your views are in direct contradiction of the beliefs and warnings of the founding fathers. You appear to be okay with that, but you should clearly acknowledge it and don’t pretend otherwise. I want to tackle this phrase in particular: **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.** Now, you weren’t alive in the 19th century. Nobody living today was. All you know about live during those times has been fed to you by authorities with an agenda to justify government intervention into the marketplace. Is this not so? How much effort has there been expended on your part to learn about the industrial revolution, beyond your high school history textbook? We were a very young nation, with a small population and only the principles of liberty and the hopes and dreams brought about through independence from a Tyrant. Prior to the adoption of capitalism and industrialization the conditions for most people were deplorable. Forgive me for using a quote once again, but the brilliant economist Ludwig von Mises addresses this point quite eloquently: [ _Post taken in its entirety from a copyrighted website alledging to be an analysis byu von Mises of the Industrial Revolution deleted. No link provided since jrodfeld could not be bothered to provide it._ Ed. tomndebb ] In other words the market economy and industrialization, for the first time in history, allowed for the development of a middle class and improved the lives of the workers. Throughout history societies have been broken into classes. The poor are destitute and without any valuables. The rich have luxuries based upon the labor of the poor. This has been the standard throughout history. Yet, through the adoption of market economics and industrialization the poor were able to have access to luxuries that only a few decades earlier were only available to the wealthy. This system of market economics allowed the upward mobility that characterizes The American Dream. This was unique in all of history. The wealthy instead of exploiting the poor, were forced to satisfy the masses of the people who constituted the “consumer”. Through the scale of industrialization that drove down the price of goods and services, the standard of living was able to go up drastically for many people. Conditions were still poor, at least compared to today, but they were light years ahead of where they were prior to the Industrial Revolution. We are where we are today not as a result of government policies, but as a result of globalization and increased population, thus creating a larger workforce. The fallacy you make is assuming that because human technological progress marches on, that government economic policies are responsible when our standard of living goes up. This is ridiculous. In viewing the conditions of the late 19th century, you don’t compare it to now and think that if we adopted similar policies we would immediately have the same type of wealth and living conditions they had. That is the leap you make. The key is the progress and rate of growth and creation of wealth they experiences compared to before industrialization. That is the key. As far as the constitution is concerned, if it is outdated, as you seem to claim, then answer me this question: **Instead of simply ignoring the Constitution, why didn’t we amend it to change with the times? Wouldn’t this keep the limitations on government that the founders set up yet still allow the government to slowly evolve over time?** I await your answer. ---
**Author:** ![Algorithm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/algorithm/32/12204_2.png) [@Algorithm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algorithm)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/588 "2010-08-31T23:18:35Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Yes, increases in the money supple IS inflation **Wrong**. Please review the definition of “inflation”, as cited 6 times below: Cite 1:[ > [@econlib.org](#): > > Economists use the term “inflation” to denote an ongoing rise in the general level of prices quoted in units of money. The magnitude of inflation—the inflation rate—is usually reported as the annualized percentage growth of some broad index of money prices. ]([Inflation - Econlib](http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Inflation.html)) Cite 2:[ > [@dictionary.com](#): > > a persistent, substantial rise in the general level of prices related to an increase in the volume of money and resulting in the loss of value of currency ]([http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inflation](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inflation)) Cite 3:[ > [@wikipedia.org](#): > > In economics, \*\*inflation \*\*is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time. ]([Inflation - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation)) Cite 4:[ > [@conservapedia.com](#): > > In economics, **inflation** is a general rise in the price of goods and services in relation to purchasing power. ]([http://conservapedia.com/Inflation](http://conservapedia.com/Inflation)) Cite 5:[ > [@investorwords.com](#): > > The overall general upward price movement of goods and services in an economy (often caused by a increase in the supply of money) ]([http://www.investorwords.com/2452/inflation.html](http://www.investorwords.com/2452/inflation.html)) Cite 6:[ > [@investopedia.com](#): > > **What Does Inflation Mean?** > The rate at which the general level of prices for goods and services is rising, and, subsequently, purchasing power is falling. ]([Inflation: What It Is and How to Control Inflation Rates](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/inflation.asp)) ---
**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:** [September 1, 2010, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/589 "2010-09-01T00:02:40Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > The point is if I look for a quote to describe the views of the founders, and I find several that sound exactly like what they have said elsewhere and is consistent with their other writings, it hardly disputes my larger point on the matter. So, a quote I posted was misattributed, yet still is consistent with the views of the founders. How is it still consistent with the views of the founders, when, judging by the accuracy of your ‘quotes’ we still don’t know what their views are? I posted an incontestable quote that makes it pretty clear Franklin was somewhat of a socialist, and you hand wave it away with vague claims of quotes that contradict that, but are unable to cite any that are verifiable. Once again, your credibility is taking it in the shorts. > [@](#): > > If you nitpick these kinds of things, it implies you have no real rebuttal to my larger argument. So you focus on a typo, a mis-attributed quote or a simple case where I misspoke. But your argument is that the Founders supported libertarian ideals, yet all your quotes turn out to be fabricated by libertarian zealots. This is hardly trivial nit-picking; your whole claim about the Founders is suspect. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/590 "2010-09-01T00:26:14Z")
**jrodefeld** , since you simply cannot refrain from violating the SDMB rules regarding Fair Use citations of copyrighted works, I am Warning you that you are on very thin ice and, to make sure you take the time to read our rules, (cited above), I am giving you a couple of days off from the board. When you come back, pay attention and behave yourself. [/Moderating] ---
**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:** [September 1, 2010, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/591 "2010-09-01T16:04:37Z")
Sorry that the whole violation of rules thing has interrupted our discussion but, assuming you’ll be back, I’ll offer a couple of comments. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > Well, I’m not a doctor. I never claimed to be. Unlike economics and history, medicine is not my area of expertise. However, there are many doctors who have written extensively about the potential dangers of over vaccination of our children. There is a Medical Industrial Complex in this country that does not speak for most doctors, yet directs most national policy decisions. \ > Don’t ever claim that there isn’t valid scientific argument and serious medical doctors who oppose vaccination. Although I thought your main screed was filled with revisionist and rejectionist history, it seemed that your anti-vax position was merely a minor diversion, an aside into which you had put little thought. Now though you demonstrate that you are firmly entrenched in the camp of woo. Come on, a shadow cabal (“a Medical Industrial Complex”) riding roughshod over doctors and governments alike, forcing endless and harmful inoculations? Cue the Twilight Zone music. And please note that there is no more “valid scientific argument” against vaccination than there is against evolution. The poster child of anti-vax hysteria, the belief that vaccination causes autism, has now been scientifically and thoroughly debunked. Perhaps you should read something outside of your circular and self-reinforcing supposed authorities for a change. The anti-vax arguments are nonsense. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > Now, you weren’t alive in the 19th century. Nobody living today was. All you know about live during those times has been fed to you by authorities with an agenda to justify government intervention into the marketplace. Is this not so? More woo. All of recorded history available from every diverse source has been specifically corrupted and “fed to you by authorities with an agenda”. All of recorded history _except_ those parts sequestered by the brilliant Austrians and revealed to acolytes such as yourself. Uh huh. But you go on… > [@jrodefeld](#): > > We were a very young nation, with a small population and only the principles of liberty and the hopes and dreams brought about through independence from a Tyrant. Prior to the **adoption of capitalism and industrialization** the conditions for most people were deplorable. Forgive me for using a quote once again, but the brilliant economist Ludwig von Mises addresses this point quite eloquently: [bolding mine- CannyDan] > > [ _Post taken in its entirety from a copyrighted website alledging to be an analysis byu von Mises of the Industrial Revolution deleted. > No link provided since jrodfeld could not be bothered to provide it._ Ed. tomndebb ] > > \ Yet, through the adoption of market economics and industrialization the poor were able to have access to luxuries that only a few decades earlier were only available to the wealthy. This system of market economics allowed the upward mobility that characterizes The American Dream. This was unique in all of history. The wealthy instead of exploiting the poor, were forced to satisfy the masses of the people who constituted the “consumer”. Through the scale of industrialization that drove down the price of goods and services, the standard of living was able to go up drastically for many people. Conditions were still poor, at least compared to today, but they were light years ahead of where they were prior to the Industrial Revolution. A very young nation, with a small population and only the principles of liberty and the hopes and dreams brought about through independence from a Tyrant. Sniffle. Yeah, that and _ **almost unlimited land and natural resources** _. And insulation by two great big oceans from any country that might have wanted to gain those resources for itself. Poor, poor us. Credit the Austrians with dragging us, kicking and screaming, back from the edge of that abyss! Phwew! Again the rising tide argument, this time with the added nonsense of crediting someone or something (presumably those Austrians or pre-Austrians) with “adoption of capitalism and industrialization” as if this was a deliberate choice. But no, **jrodefeld** , the Industrial Revolution was driven by advances in engineering and technology (steam power among them) and not by purposeful macroeconomic actions of an elite international corps of industrialists. The global Industrial Revolution (it wasn’t just American, you know) did indeed eventually float a lot of boats, but there was a huge toll of human misery and death associated with the societal upheaval it entailed. That toll was paid, not by the capitalists and industrialists, but by everyone else. Please note that, axiomatically, “the poor” do not actually “have access to luxuries [once] only available to the wealthy”. You didn’t mean stale bread and a leaky roof, did you? And yet you come back once more to that specially revealed history wherein the sainted wealthy industrialists, acting on altruistic Austrian impulses by taking from their own pockets and from the mouths of their own babies, went out of their way to “satisfy the masses of the people” rather than working them literally to death in sweatshops and child labor factories. Yup, the poor were light years ahead. Starving to death in a squalid and disease-ridden shanty town adjacent to an industrializing city was ever so much better than starving as a sharecropper in the countryside. They should have been grateful, but all they did was cry out for government interference in the free market, wanting things like limited work hours, limited work days, safe(r) working conditions, and salaries that would allow them to actually feed, clothe and house their families. Damn Keynesian ingrates! Perhaps I’m wrong, but the undercurrent in your entire thesis strikes me as that of an enthusiastic acolyte. Your unabashed adoration of your “brilliant” heroes, your seeming inability to stop yourself from quoting them at great length rather than offer your own arguments, even your outright rejection (“There is no debate!”) of every single demonstrated fact that contradicts your recitation, all have the feeling of religious fervor. The words of your heroes are treated as dogma, to be unquestioningly followed, even when they are glaringly, irrefutably, ridiculously (e.g., Ron Paul’s predictions) _ **wrong!** _ I hope you will take time during your sabbatical to read some of the actual debate points offered by other posters upthread. I’m not suggesting you become a Keynesian sycophant, but really, you need to branch out more. Your present efforts ring sadly of a pseudo-religious echo chamber, and suffer from a lengthy list of demonstrable errors. I think you can do better than that. Oh, and one more piece of unasked-for advice – stay far, far away from the woo. Often, insinuation of guilt by association is unwarranted and unjust. But sometimes when you lie down with dogs you do indeed get fleas. Just sayin’. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/592 "2010-09-01T17:18:34Z")
[quote=“ITR\_champion, post:552, topic:550784”] > [@jrodefeld](#): > > 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. I don’t see how we can have an honest debate with **jrodefeld** when he refuses to answer where/when his mystical %15+ black membership tea party rally was, and the mods have forbidden us from asking him for more details. I at first thought he was playing fair, and sounded like a reasonable person who was REALLY trying to discuss issues that he has obviously read about, and just came to the IMO, wrong conclusions. Then when I saw he was making stuff up about the black tea party rally participants, I realized he was nothing special. ---
**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:** [September 1, 2010, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/593 "2010-09-01T21:09:15Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Some of what you are saying here is actually insane and offensive. What link did I EVER post that claimed that blacks, Jews and Mexicans should be exterminated? I provided quite a bit of links that back up what I am saying. If you are going to play the race care, you had better back it up with some facts. **jrodefeld** , even by your standards, asking me to review your past history of racist statements and links is not a very smart idea. But since you asked for it, I’m going to do it. **Your record of promoting anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, and Hitler-worship.** In post 85 of [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=556453&page=2) you linked to a video which says: “The same World Order that started World War One and World War Two, the same World Order that stole billions of dollars from African nations and hid it in Geneva banks, the same World Order that manufactured the Holocaust and managed to frame the German people for terrible deeds.” So that’s holocaust denial and all kinds of other conspiracy theory craziness in one post. In that same post you linked to [NWOObserver.wordpress.com](http://NWOObserver.wordpress.com), a blog which claims that Jews are joining forces with Satanists to control the world. [See here.](” [Pawns in the Game: A Satanic conspiracy to control the world | NWO Observer](http://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/pawns-in-the-game-a-satanic-conspiracy-to-control-the-world/%E2%80%9D)) Also in post 475 of this thread current you linked to an article by John Denson which is pro-Hitler, pro-Nazi, as part of its argument against President Roosevelt. And at the start of this current thread, you ordered us to get our news from [rense.com](http://rense.com). Scores of articles on that site warn about Jewish plots to control the financial system and all the other usual anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Among the articles currently up: “The Jewish Role in Slavery”, “Crazed Israelis Threaten Total War”, and “Massive Israeli Manipulation of US Media”. **Your record of declaring black people inferior.** In Post 475 of this thread you linked to an article in _The New American_, side-by-side with ads from the John Bircher Society and ads for a medal of “Jefferson Davis, Champion of the Confederacy”. That magazine is a regular fount of racist garbage; pick up an issue in your local library if you don’t believe me. As I write this, the top story on their website is an endorsement of the birthers. At the start of this thread you ordered us to follow Tom Woods, and in post 482 of this thread you linked to a video presentation by him. Woods is a leading American racist. Among other things, he has claimed that no black people fought for America in the American Revolution and that slavery didn’t exist at the time of the founders. See this review of one of his books: [The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.](http://www.slate.com/id/2114713/) . At the start of this thread, you ordered your readers to visit and trust [rense.com](http://rense.com). That website endorses David Duke for President. If you don’t believe me, go see for yourself. (It’s between the add for five pounds of pot and the link entitled “Freemasons control local economies.”) In that same post, you linked to World Net Daily, which has a long history of using racist slurs and other unwanted stuff. See this link for details: > **[WorldNetDaily ‘journalism’ and ‘Christian’ racism](https://jmcpherson.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/worldnetdaily-journalism-and-christian-racism/)** > > I have to admit that when I see the url for WorldNetDaily, wnd.com, I automatically start coming up with appropriate alternative meanings for the abbreviation: Phrases such as WackjobNewsDelivery, … **Your record of attacking Mexicans and Hispanics.** You also ordered us to visit [breakthematrix.com](http://breakthematrix.com), another racist website. Their leading article right now is a claim that Barack Obama and Mexican immigrants are conspiring with the UN against America. You’ve linked to the website of the magazine Human Events (in the same post as you linked to the Holocaust denial video). Human Events is famous for things such as posting the “Illegal Alien Christmas Song”, which you can find using Google if you absolutely have to see it. In this thread you made scores of posts claiming that the NAFTA Superhighway, the Amero, and the North American Union are real. In reality all three are imaginary are right-wingers use them to drum up hatred of Hispanics. In that same thread you linked to a video in which Lou Dobbs says: “Mexicans are at war against America” and are “trying to destroy America”. * * * So there you have it. A dozen clear examples of you going out of your way to make clear that you hate Jews, blacks, or Hispanics. I’m sure everyone in this thread will agree with me when I say that the ones I’ve listed are only a small sample of the ones you’ve posted. In total, you’ve posted scores of such links that I can remember and doubtlessly many more that I missed. Thus I stand by my claim that roughly half you links go to racist bilge. Probably more than half, actually. So let’s go over the defenses that you’ve offered. Defense # 1: You say that you’ve never linked to anything racist. I’ve given a dozen examples of you doing so. So much for that defense. Defense #2: You admit that you’ve linked to racist things but you say it was an accident, and you intended to link to something else. So half of your links are accidents, and it’s just by coincidence that all of those accidents involve linking to white supremacists? Not bloody likely. So, for lack of any alternative, it seems safe to conclude that your real goal is posting on our board is to promote the hatred of Jews, black, and Hispanics. (Of course I could also mention the various times when you promoted the theory that women and homosexuals are trying to neuter men by dumping chemicals in the drinking water, that the BP oil spill was a government conspiracy, and so forth.) > [@jrodefeld](#): > > How are Austrian School economists driven by racism? You’re the one who’s trying to promote Austrian School economists by linking to pages run by white supremacists. You tell me. Ten dollars says that you chicken out and refuse to respond to this post. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/594 "2010-09-01T21:57:58Z")
[QUOTE=jrodefeld] Well, I’m not a doctor. I never claimed to be. Unlike economics and history, medicine is not my area of expertise. However, there are many doctors who have written extensively about the potential dangers of over vaccination of our children. There is a Medical Industrial Complex in this country that does not speak for most doctors, yet directs most national policy decisions. [/quote] The Conspiracy rides again. Make up your mind, fella - is it “many” doctors or “most” doctors who peddle antivax tripe? (whack) The Cluestick says: it’s a tiny minority of quacks and cranks that reject vaccination. Heavily represented amongst these “doctors” are chiropractors, homeopaths, naturopaths, a smattering of PhDs who are speaking outside their areas of expertise and a few M.D.s who fancy themselves as Brave Mavericks persecuted by The Man, and who are fringe players lacking respect in their profession. There’s at least one recent study showing, for example, that better than 90% of pediatricians report following the full recommended vaccine schedule in their own children. And of the remainder, you’d be hard-pressed to find more than a handful who avoid vaccines entirely. > [@](#): > > Also, don’t pretend that all of these drugs and vaccines are preventing the outbreak and spread of very serious disease. Some maybe are. The most are unnecessary and refusing the vaccination will not pose a significant risk to those around you. Vaccines are not “drugs”. Realizing that you are not a doctor, how can you baldly say that “most” vaccines are unnecessary? I invite you to consider pertussis (currently hitting California), Hib meningitis, polio, measles and rubella (for starters) and provide your evidence that catching these vaccine-preventable diseases is fine and dandy. > [@](#): > > If, in fifteen to twenty years people start having all kinds of horrible health problems that they didn’t have before, who’s to say the two generations of children brought up with (effectively) hundreds of mandatory vaccinations didn’t contribute to the development of severely compromised health in later life? By this impeccable logic, we should steer way clear of Ron Paul and all his Libertarian buddies. Who’s to say that otherwise, in fifteen to twenty years there won’t be total global anarchy and starvation? **jrodefeld** goes on to cite “valid” links such as [vaccinetruth.org](http://vaccinetruth.org), [naturalnews.com](http://naturalnews.com), [mercola.com](http://mercola.com) (quackery-laden sites all) and (pause for hilarity to ensue) whale.to. While [rense.com](http://rense.com) is an automatic fail, citing whale.to on any health-related matter (or to back up any sort of claim) is a _nuclear_ fail. The whackjobs on the Whale make the [rense.com](http://rense.com) folks look almost half-sane. About the only loony-bin site you’ve omitted is Curezone. And I have faith that you’ll link to it sooner or later. > [@](#): > > **“If children receive all recommended vaccines, they will receive 2,370 times the “allowable safe limit” for mercury in the first two years of life (as if there is such a thing as a “safe” amount of a toxic poison). Yet, even after Congressional hearings instigated by Congressman Dan Burton (whose own grandchild became autistic after receiving vaccines) resulted in the FDA requesting (not ordering) vaccine manufacturers to remove this toxic heavy metal from their products, mercury is still present in many vaccines.”** > > -Rebecca Carley, M.D Can you at least keep the delusional antivax paranoia up to date? Mercury-based preservative (thimerosal) has been gone from virtually all vaccines since at least 2002 (it’s still employed in multi-use influenza vaccine vials, but a thimerosal-free alternative exists). It was removed for precautionary reasons but no negative health effects have ever been demonstrated. The quote “as if there is such a thing as a “safe” amount of a toxic poison” is absolute nonsense - there are minute amounts of all kinds of “toxic poisons” in everybody’s system. The dose makes the poison, a concept you need to familiarize yourself with. Speaking of doses, we have been overdosed with links to nutbags. Hint: if you can’t find respectable sources to support your ideas, maybe they contain a wee flaw here and there. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/595 "2010-09-01T22:33:37Z")
> [@rogerbox](#): > > I don’t see how we can have an honest debate with **jrodefeld** when he refuses to answer where/when his mystical %15+ black membership tea party rally was, and the mods have forbidden us from asking him for more details. Sorry, but the issue of racism within the Tea Party is not central to this discussion. There was no harm in raising it, but if one party declines, (through declaration or silence), to discuss it, it is not so central to the theme of the thread that there is a point to allowing the thread to be hijacked. If you do not believe the debate can be “honest” without that information, then you are free to not participate in the debate. However, unless **jrodefeld** raises the issue, again, it is dead in this thread and you will drop it. **CannyDan** , **ITR champion** , **Jackmannii** , and any other poster to this thread: the issues of woo, libertarian views of universal vaccination, and racism are really not pertinent to this thread. (I agree that giving voice to some of those beliefs casts a particular light on the quality of the reasoning behind other assertions by a poster, but they are really off topic to the issue of the economy and President Obama that is the ostensible purpose of this thread.) I would strongly suggest that we drop such hijacks, (however tempting some may find them), so that the thread is not immediately derailed if and when the OP returns. Anyone may open a new thread to discuss those issues or open a different thread in The BBQ Pit to express displeasure with the views put forth, but do not pursue those lines of discussion in this thread. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/596 "2010-09-04T01:08:53Z")
> [@PBear42](#): > > > [@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. Well, fine. I have no problem if some of you don’t want to read the links and tackle this complex subject. Like I said earlier, I will later elaborate with specific points in individual threads that are more condensed and easier to debate. I just want to get this information out there for your benefit. You don’t have to reply, but following up on what is posted, you should take the time to read the literature and learn about the philosophy of liberty. You may not agree, but you will broaden your views and develop a more nuanced view of the world. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/597 "2010-09-04T01:35:15Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > > [@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: > 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? First of all, I do challenge my own thinking. I do this continually. As to whether I have made mistakes on this thread, you may be right. I have made typos and posted a couple of links by accident. Other than that I don’t think I have made any mistakes which have in any way invalidated my argument. I think you are the one who is mistaken. By the way, gold value fluctuates in relation to _various fiat currencies_. The reason to tie a currency to gold is to define the value of money in terms of an asset of fixed quantity. Therefore, the currency will maintain its value over time. It will limit inflation and restrict government growth. That is the point. Yet you and others confuse the issue by stating how gold price **in fiat dollars** has fluctuated! That is completely irrelevant and in no way invalidates the notion of tying a currency to a tangible asset to restrain the government and the banking industry from corruption and fiscal mismanagement. The idea is this: **We the people own the money, which is defined in terms of gold by the Constitution. The government works FOR US by our consent. For purposes of convenience we allow the government to print certificates to facilitate easier transactions. THE PEOPLE’S gold is held in Fort Knox. If we lose trust in our government we can exchange our certificates for the gold, thus holding the government accountable.** This is what the founders advocated. They saw this as critical for the survival of liberty in America. The notion that the people would be forced to accept fiat money printed in secret by a private bank that continually devalues the money would seem crazy to our founders and early presidents. Why on earth would this seem not sensible to you? As to the value of gold, there has never been a time in history where gold has not had tremendous value in a society. Yet, fiat currencies are destroyed in a few decades sometimes. No fiat currency has ever lasted more than a century. I don’t understand why you don’t get this. > [@](#): > > 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! 😃 This is a completely unimportant point. This is more opinion than fact. In my experience, many liberals are more engaged in class warfare rhetoric in the idea that all wealthy (or many) made their money exploiting the poor. Therefore we need to tax them much more as a sort of “punishment” to make things right. This is very socialistic line of thinking. There are some who make money exploiting people for sure. In a free market, people make money giving value to other people. Therefore the only way to get wealthy is to provide superior goods or services, creating jobs, and raising everyones standard of living. We should eliminate corporate welfare, prosecute fraud and prevent government getting in bed with corporations and eliminate the practice of regulatory capture. But we should not think that we should levy an extreme tax rate on business simply because they make more money. We should have a small government where we don’t need to tax anybody very much. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/598 "2010-09-04T02:01:37Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > This point was addressed brilliantly by Guido Hulsmann, > > . > > > > 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? The mechanisms of the marketplace are rather complex, especially considering the amount of unwise intervention and manipulation taking place by the federal reserve. Here is the issue: **Bond markets have, since 1971, been very poor predictors of inflation. In the 1970s the bond market underestimated inflation, and the bond yields were very strong in the 80s and 90s when they overestimated inflation. It is very hard to predict future price increases when the interest rate is set by central planners.** You seem to have been suckered into believing government statistics like the CPI to measure inflation. The reason central planning of the economy doesn’t work is because the intervention creates false signals in the market that don’t correspond to reality. You should not be reassured that ads you may have seen about the rate of bonds indicate that we will not see rising prices. There was a reason that Austrian economists were able to correctly predict the crash of 08 when so few Keynesians did. It is because of things like this. Greenspan, Bernanke, Goolsby, Geithner, Summers and the rest of the gang have failed in everything they have said and done regarding the economy. I suggest you don’t listen to another word any of these men say. And read up on Austrian economics. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/599 "2010-09-04T02:15:02Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > 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. You know, this is not my main point of contention here. I have been exposed to a multitude of holistic doctors and alternative medicine and nutritional research that you may not have been exposed to. And I have never been vaccinated. I don’t feel I am a threat to anyone and I rarely get sick. Growing up, I was far healthier than other kids who did get vaccinated. I believe that modern, conventional medicine has many flaws to it that most don’t consider. There are vaccines that can and should be administered based on the situation. But consider this: Most vaccines contain all of these substances: \*\*Sodium chloride Sodium Hydroxide (also known as lye, caustic soda, soda lye.) Is corrosive and is an Eye, skin and respiratory irritant. Can burn eyes, skin and internal organs. Can cause lung and tissue damage, blindness and can be fatal if swallowed. Found in oven cleaners, tub and tile cleaners, toilet bowl cleaners and drain openers. Formaldehyde: A neurotoxin and carcinogen (effects the nervous system and known to cause cancer.) May cause insomnia, coughing, headaches, nausea, nosebleeds, and skin rashes. Commonly known to embalm corpses. It has been said that there is no safe level of formaldehyde to be ingested into the body. Hydrochloric acid: CAN DISTROY TISSUE UPON DIRECT CONTACT! Found in aluminum cleaners and rust removers. Aluminum: toxic, cancerous. Thimerosal: _mercury_ derivative (contain mercury.) Extremely dangerous preservative. Made from a combination of Ethylene Glycol (AKA antifreeze!!!) and ethanol, thiosalicylic acid, sodium hydroxide and ethyl mercuric chloride. These chemicals are nerotoxic, dangerous, fatal and easily cause brain and liver damages. causes cancer. Phosphates: suffocates all forms of aquatic life. Found in laundry and dishwasher detergent and cleaners.\*\* We are injecting children with dozens and dozens of shots before they are even a few years old. I was taught about holistic medicine and building up the bodies natural immunity through proper supplementation, a good diet, and exercise. From my experience this is a far superior course of action to ensure good health. Now, many vaccines don’t have to contain Mercury and these other poisons. It is not necessary for them to do their job. There are dangerous amounts of these substances that you favor injecting into young children who are still developing. If you want to vaccinate your son, that is fine. I HIGHLY recommend you do not get all the vaccinations. Think for yourself. Seek the opinion of an alternative and holistic doctor about the possible dangers of vaccines. Don’t be pressured into this. If there is a very low risk of a certain illness, why subject your child to a vaccine which contains all these poisons? It just doesn’t make any sense. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/600 "2010-09-04T02:19:58Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > [@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. Actually no. I was a libertarian and supporter of Ron Paul in the 2007-2008 campaign. I knew of Austrian economics but I wasn’t as convinced as I am now. I witnessed over the past three to four years how the establishment economists and forecasters have failed us and the Austrians and independent libertarians have been right in their predictions and policy suggestions. I became completely convinced beyond a doubt around December 2008 to January 2009. If you follow the predictions of the Mises Institute, Ron Paul, Peter Schiff and Gerald Celente over the course of a couple years and compare them to the “mainstream” CNBC, Fox, CNN and establishment talking heads you will be convinced as well. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=29) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=31)