# 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:** 32
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/621 "2010-09-05T07:55:21Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@villa](#): > > > > Well that expertise in economics isn’t from a degree as you said. From what source do you claim this expertise? > > > > There isn’t (_sic_) valid scientific argument and serious medical doctors who oppose vaccination. > > How do you know? I have and can easily demonstrate hundred of quotes from MDs and Phd doctors who oppose mandatory vaccination and believe that the number of vaccination given to our children is compromising their health. How can you claim that no serious doctors raise any objections to dozens and dozens of vaccines being given to our children? Vaccines that contain unsafe levels of Mercury and Formaldehyde? > > You are the one who is close minded and ignorant on this issue. Not at all. You are trusting a tiny fringe group of idiots. Why do you believe less than 1% of doctors? What about them is more trustworthy than the other 99%? Do yourself a favor and look up the phrase “Herd Immunity.” ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/622 "2010-09-05T07:56:11Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > [@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. What? This makes no sense at all. I am not, nor have I ever been opposed to public schools. I think control should rest locally and the federal government should stay out of it completely but that is a separate issue. It is simply reality to state that people are dependent on government assistance because government policies have made it impossible to succeed without it. By the way, if I was in charge, help and welfare for the poor would be the LAST place I would cut. How is it inconsistent to say that considering people are dependent on public schooling and certain forms of welfare NOW, they shouldn’t be forced to be given Ritalin or psychotropic drugs? There is absolutely no inconsistency there. Find one place I or any libertarian claimed that there should be no public schools. If you can’t then you are simply reaching for any excuse to try to discredit my motives as it becomes clear you can’t deal with my arguments. You may be fine having your normal child forced to take psychotropic drugs, but I am not. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/623 "2010-09-05T08:04:55Z")
[QUOTE=Jackmannii] Your beloved Austrian school economists these days reportedly don’t like making “quantitative” forecasts/predictions, because of distaste for statistical analysis and other sciency stuff. It’s probably safer that way. [/quote] I’ll take this one on. The Austrians didn’t avoid math because of a distaste for math or for science; they avoided it because they felt that the assumptions and simplifications made to reduce economic information down to aggregate values that can be statistically examined and modeled were not acceptable. And they have a point. Why do you think it’s valid to reduce the incredible complexity of the structure of production down to a single variable? The relationships between relative prices are complex, and contain vast amounts of information. Demand and labor cannot be reasonable reduced to individual numbers without losing details key to understanding them. An economy is an example of a complex adaptive system with emergent properties. Its response to inputs changes unpredictably. It exhibits chaotic responses within an overall framework of spontaneous, optimized emergent order. We are still in our infancy when it omes to understanding and predicting such systems. The Austrians understood this, and so they resisted the simplistic general equilibrium models which abstracted away the very things they felt were most important. Their argument was that arbitrarily reducing and simplifying the economy so that it was more amenable to mathematical manipulation was actually a perversion of science, and somewhat akin to looking for your keys under a streetlamp 500 ft from anywhere you walked, simply because there was more light there. While true, it ignores the critical factors. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/624 "2010-09-05T08:12:46Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > > [@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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > You are welcome to provide a cite to any study done by legitimate scientists proving or demonstrating risk. > 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. I noticed you ignored the links that you couldn’t reject out of hand. I don’t want this thread to be obsessed on the issue of vaccinations. I support SOME vaccinations. As for Homeopathy, it DOES work if you get a good Homeopath. You are astoundingly ignorant. There are many alternative therapies in Eastern Medicine such as acupuncture and Ayurveda that allow people to attain a level of health not seen in Western culture. Your ignorance is based on you believing everything the United States medical establishment tells you without any critical thinking. There are more and more peer reviewed papers and research backing up homeopathic treatments each year. Here is a sample of what some are saying: [http://naturalfoodsmerchandiser.com/tabId/177/itemId/1351/PeerReviewed-Research-Backs-Homeopathy.aspx](http://naturalfoodsmerchandiser.com/tabId/177/itemId/1351/PeerReviewed-Research-Backs-Homeopathy.aspx) [http://www.holisticonline.com/homeopathy/homeo\_clinical.htm](http://www.holisticonline.com/homeopathy/homeo_clinical.htm) > **[Homepage - Homeopathy Education](https://homeopathycenter.org/)** > > Natural medicine for your family, friends, animals and plants Get started with homeopathy Natural medicine for your family, friends, animals, and plants Get started with homeopathy Memberships See our membership options Learn More Join Our Mission... [http://www.emmessar.com/chemical/homeopathy/homeo6.htm#1](http://www.emmessar.com/chemical/homeopathy/homeo6.htm#1) [http://www.emmessar.com/chemical/homeopathy/homeo6.htm#2](http://www.emmessar.com/chemical/homeopathy/homeo6.htm#2) [http://www.emmessar.com/chemical/homeopathy/homeo6.htm#4](http://www.emmessar.com/chemical/homeopathy/homeo6.htm#4) [http://www.emmessar.com/chemical/homeopathy/homeo6.htm#3](http://www.emmessar.com/chemical/homeopathy/homeo6.htm#3) How can you claim that there is no evidence for the success of Homeopathy? I personally got fantastic results for a variety of health concerns a few years back. You need to back away from assuming that everything the government and the medical industrial complex tells you about health care should be taken as gospel. That is hardly the truth. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/625 "2010-09-05T08:18:13Z")
> [@villa](#): > > > [@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. [http://www.businessandmedia.org/commentary/2008/20080827135845.aspx](http://www.businessandmedia.org/commentary/2008/20080827135845.aspx) > **[The DC Counterfeiters - LewRockwell](https://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/07/ron-paul/the-dc-counterfeiters/)** > > The Real Meaning of Inflation by Ron Paul by Ron Paul DIGG THIS Statement before the US House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, Full Committee Hearing on “Implications of a Weaker Dollar for Oil Prices and the U.S. Economy,” July 24,... > **[Home 2024 \* WorldNetDaily](https://www.wnd.com/?pageId=1869)** > > A Free Press For A Free People Since 1997 > **[Mises Daily | Mises Institute](https://mises.org/mises-daily)** [http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/NOTES/HAND6.HTM](http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/NOTES/HAND6.HTM) ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/626 "2010-09-05T08:23:31Z")
> [@Algorithm](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Yes, increases in the money supple IS inflation > > **Wrong**. Please review the definition of “inflation”, as cited 6 times below: > > Cite 1:[ > Cite 2:[url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inflation]](http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Inflation.html) > Cite 3:[ > Cite 4:[url=http://conservapedia.com/Inflation]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation) > Cite 5:[ > Cite 6:[url=[Inflation: What It Is and How to Control Inflation Rates](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/inflation.asp)] > > > [@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. > > ]([http://www.investorwords.com/2452/inflation.html](http://www.investorwords.com/2452/inflation.html)) Nope, the Austrians and classical economists dispute your cites. It is not inherently wrong to say that inflation is rising prices because that is when people KNOW there is inflation and feel its effects. But the precipitating event that causes the rise in prices is the creation of money. You have to read Mises and the Austrians to understand the harm caused by inflation. I wouldn’t recommend you read anybody else in regards to learning about inflation other than the Austrian economists. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/627 "2010-09-05T08:27:21Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > [@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. ALL of them? Are you kidding me? On this thread and in others I have quoted dozens of the Founding Fathers to prove my point. If one or two were mis attributed, then I am more than happy to admit the error. But if you don’t think that the majority of founders believed in small government and considered the growth of government and the creation of a central bank to be the utmost threat to liberty, then you really don’t know your history very well. I have linked to so many pages backing this up, but apparently you haven’t read them yet. I have and know that the founders were libertarians. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/628 "2010-09-05T10:35:43Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > ALL of them? Are you kidding me? On this thread and in others I have quoted dozens of the Founding Fathers to prove my point. If one or two were mis attributed, then I am more than happy to admit the error. > > But if you don’t think that the majority of founders believed in small government and considered the growth of government and the creation of a central bank to be the utmost threat to liberty, then you really don’t know your history very well. > > I have linked to so many pages backing this up, but apparently you haven’t read them yet. I have and know that the founders were libertarians. I do not care what the “Founding Fathers” wanted. The United States back then was a small country with about two and a half million people. What is more, the “Founding Fathers” were rich white men who had different economic interests from most Americans. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/629 "2010-09-05T10:47:30Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > ALL of them? Are you kidding me? On this thread and in others I have quoted dozens of the Founding Fathers to prove my point. Well, you’ve quoted two in this thread and they both turned out to be bogus. And you’ve been bombarding us with links in this thread. It seems a bit evasive to fall back on “oh, I already posted dozens of quotes to back me up, trust me.” ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/630 "2010-09-05T12:57:18Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > [ > As for Homeopathy, it DOES work if you get a good Homeopath. There is no such thing. Homeopathy is bogus. There is no physical mechanism for how it can work. > [@](#): > > You are astoundingly ignorant. Wheras you seem to think that being aggressive with your ignorance makes you correct. > [@](#): > > There are many alternative therapies in Eastern Medicine such as acupuncture and Ayurveda that allow people to attain a level of health not seen in Western culture. Bull. Fucking. Shit. > [@](#): > > Your ignorance is based on you believing everything the United States medical establishment tells you without any critical thinking. Wheras your ignorance is based on a few quotes and ad statements some newage health scammers told you. > [@](#): > > There are more and more peer reviewed papers and research backing up homeopathic treatments each year. Here is a sample of what some are saying: > > [http://naturalfoodsmerchandiser.com/tabId/177/itemId/1351/PeerReviewed-Research-Backs-Homeopathy.aspx](http://naturalfoodsmerchandiser.com/tabId/177/itemId/1351/PeerReviewed-Research-Backs-Homeopathy.aspx) I’m just going to work with this one, because it is classic given how much jrod accuses others of not critically thinking. In this ‘article’ (which lists only the year and the Journal of the article they are trying to spin - no real citations) you find this quote > [@](#): > > Another landmark study was published in The Lancet in 1997. Researchers conducted a meta-analysis (a study of existing studies) to determine if the clinical effects of homeopathy were, in fact, placebo effects. They reviewed 185 studies, found that 119 met their inclusion criteria and used 89 with adequate data for meta-analysis. [/QUOTE] That’s right bucko. Ignore the fact that Linde (who ran this ‘study’) admitted that is was very flawed, [and it certainly was](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874503/) Even without this, the article is amazingly sparse - I didn’t check into all the sources but it lists only 4 with positive outcome, the most recent of which was in 1999 (for an article written in 2009. It does not inspire confidence from those who know what positive results require. I note that all of jrod’s links come from naturopath groups with vested interests in promoting and selling quackery. Not exactly a stirling source. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/631 "2010-09-05T13:27:59Z")
**jrodefeld** has become my favorite libertarian on the boards. By far. No one else comes close. If I took it upon myself to, er… let me say, _advocate for his positions in the method they best deserve_, I am confident that I could never do a _better_ job than he is doing. He is, as far as I am concerned, the utterly perfect spokesman for libertarianism. If I could give a copy of this thread to every economically undecided person in the country, I would do so in a heartbeat. I’m not lying about that. He is truly that perfect. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > Jesus Christ you are ignorant. It is just astounding. Seriously. I could never top this, no matter how hard I tried. This is why I’ve stayed out of this. **jrodefeld** is the best spokesman that I could possibly ask for. His every post is like Christmas morning. But he’s finally repeated a mistake that I dealt with back [in March](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=557309). When I squash an error, I want it to stay squashed. Just how I am. Let’s take a quick look-see. He claims [in post 24 of that thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12272864&postcount=24) that it is ILLEGAL for people to use different currencies. Ah, hell, let’s just let him speak, right? After all, he’s an expert. We know this, because he told us so. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > The government DOES NOT allow competing currencies PERIOD. > > \ > > The creators of the Liberty Dollar were arrested and charged on the following reasons: > > “conspiracy and other charges in connection with an alleged unlawful operation to publish, possess and sell for profit, coins in resemblance and similitude to U.S. coins. All four defendants are also charged in the alleged conspiracy with uttering and passing, and attempting to utter and pass, a coin of silver in resemblance of genuine coins of the United States in the denominations of five dollars and greater, and intended for use as current money.” > > Thus, it is ILLEGAL to circulate competing currencies. Emphasis added. Strong words. Strong enough to yell. Ah, but I actually responded to him back in the day. Let’s see [what I said](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12273168&postcount=29): > [@](#): > > No, it is not ILLEGAL. > > They were arrested, as your own cite explicitly states if you had actually bothered to read it, for creating coins resembling the US dollar. They could have, if they so wished, created coins called Sparmafunq Tollagars. They could have traded their gold and silver Sparmafunq Tollagars for any goods and services that other people agreed to. This is because–and please pay attention this time–they are free to use gold and silver however much they like. It’s for creating too close an imitation of the US dollar that they got busted for. The United States government is quite picky about that. A US dollar is what the gummint say it is, not what some poor dimwitted libertarian protester wants it to be. Emphasis added. Ah. So our expert was wrong. He’s been corrected on the Liberty Dollar case before. That was in March. He claims to be a reader. He readers things. Things like “books”. Maybe he readers YouTube. I dunno. Apparently, though, his eyes glaze over when they hit things like “facts”, because my response to him didn’t sink in. In the current thread, he brings up the very same example he used before. Same one. The whole being-entirely-in-error thing somehow slipped past our _expert_. The expert still hasn’t got this currency law thing quite figured out, does he? > [@jrodefeld](#): > > Did you hear about the Liberty Dollar? The Liberty Dollar was a private currency backed by gold and silver. However, in November 2007 they were raided by the FBI and Secret Service. He was charge with criminal activity, specifically… > > > [@](#): > > > > Bernard von NotHaus is charged with one count of conspiracy to possess and sell coins in resemblance and similitude of coins of a denomination higher than five cents, and silver coins in resemblance of genuine coins of the United States in denominations of five dollars and greater, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 485, 18 U.S.C. § 486, and 18 U.S.C. § 371; one count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and 18 U.S.C. § 2; one count of selling, and possessing with intent to defraud, coins of resemblance and similitude of United States coins in denominations of five cents and higher, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 485 and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and one count of uttering, passing, and attempting to utter and pass, silver coins in resemblance of genuine U.S. coins in denominations of five dollars or greater, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 486 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 > > Don’t ever tell me people are free to circulate private currencies in this country. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Emphasis added. He still can’t comprehend the words that are printed in his own damn cites. And then he tops it off by saying that **begbert** has no idea what he’s talking about. This is just… _beautiful_. I told him half a year ago that he can go to a site like e-gold and do his transactions with electronic currency backed by genuine gold metal, and he _still_ hasn’t figured that out. He still doesn’t know about it. That e-gold website’s customers are doing their transaction with their private gold-backed currency every single day–still operating completely within the law–and he’s not even aware of it. He wasn’t even aware that _his own cite_ explains that the crime was making a coin that looks like a dollar, and not making a new non-dollar currency. So yeah. He’s pretty awesome, is what I’m saying. My favorite libertarian here, no contest. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/632 "2010-09-05T13:39:08Z")
Wouldn’t Paypal be considered a form of private currency? How about casino chips? ---
**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 5, 2010, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/633 "2010-09-05T13:47:36Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Find one place I or any libertarian claimed that there should be no public schools. Find one place I claimed they said that. You have run out of reason, and are reduced to fabricating straw men as a desperate defense. That is what happens when you allow yourself to be deluded by the mythology concocted by charlatans like your libertarian heroes. It withers when exposed to scrutiny, and you are left naked and exposed to the laughter and derision of your audience, with nothing but falsehoods woven from whole cloth to conceal your shortcomings. Pitiful. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/634 "2010-09-05T13:57:43Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Wouldn’t Paypal be considered a form of private currency? How about casino chips? Paypal and casino chips are denominated in the relevant national currencies. You could consider them private currencies–people can and do exchange credits on PayPal computers and casino chips for private transactions–but they don’t go quite as far as it’s possible to go. Those credits are always transferable, one-for-one, with the national currency. It would constitute fraud if that transfer could not be made. A business like e-gold, in contrast, denominates its private currency in real weights of the metal, independent of any national currency. You’re not actually trading the metal–that stays in the vault–you’re trading electronic representations of that gold. That’s a fully-fledged currency, a private gold standard. What’s more astounding is that even in private markets, the commodity backing isn’t necessary. You can have a money that’s backed by an arbitrarily defined _service_, and not even need a commodity like gold. The gold pieces from World of Warcraft, if the stories I’ve heard about the game are true, are just such a currency. The service is entirely electronic, subject completely to the whims of the creators. Which means that Blizzard has managed to create a private _fiat_ currency. And it works. It apparently has a relatively stable exchange rate with government currencies. It’s a genuine store of value, means of exchange, and unit of measure. It’s genuine money. Money can be simply amazing. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/635 "2010-09-05T14:10:49Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > You are the one who is close minded and ignorant on this issue. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > You are astoundingly ignorant. Accusations of igorance are a bit of a gray area in this forum, because they can be simply descriptive of another poster’s perspective, however, when they are simply hurled as an insult, they are treated as insults. Your first quoted statement is borderline and your second quote is over that line. Back off. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/636 "2010-09-05T15:39:12Z")
Libertarianism appeals to high school seniors and college freshmen. It has an appeal in its simple logic , but it is really sophistical. It fails to relate to the real world and is often absurd . When a poster says he is a Libertarian or leans that way, I wonder how young he is. JRODEFLD adds in nasty remarks like “listen up” or “got it” that puts off his readers. He could learn some manners. I love how he bailed on Greenspan who was a proud Libertarian his whole life. When his policies helped destroy the economy, Libertarians had to dig out so they pretend he and the other Bush economic "experts’ who were proud Libertarians, weren’t. I would have preferred if they learned what was wrong with their policies and adjusted from there. Greenspan was a Randian and actually was coached by her. He was a member of her entourage. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/637 "2010-09-05T16:41:28Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > How can you claim that there is no evidence for the success of Homeopathy? I personally got fantastic results for a variety of health concerns a few years back. This is rich. Not only does Jrodefeld not understand basic economics, civics and vaccinations. He believes in homeopathy. Jro, bubbie. Do us a favor. Look at the masthead of this site. Right under the words, “The Straight Dope”, we are here to fight ignorance. You are promulgating it. ---
**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 5, 2010, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/638 "2010-09-05T16:53:58Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > 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 have already acknowledged that I’m not in exact agreement with _what the Founding Fathers said in the 1700’s_. There’s no point in you demanding that I acknowledge that again. What I said was that if they had seen what occurred in the 19th century, they surely would have seen the need for a larger, more involved government. > [@jrodefel](#): > > Now, you weren’t alive in the 19th century. Nobody living today was. [Eugenie Blanchard was](http://www.st-barths.com/en/news/271/56/Eugenie-Blanchard-Oldest-Person-in-France.html). So was [Walter Breuning](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BlJiaOErzo). > [@jrodefel](#): > > All you know about live [sic] during those times has been fed to you by authorities with an agenda to justify government intervention into the marketplace. Is this not so? No, this is not so. As it happens I’ve read a considerable amount from people who were alive in the industrial revolution. For example, William Cobbett was a prolific author who traveled widely in both England and the United States and carefully documented the conditions of people in both countries during the early 19th century. His most famous book is [Rural Rides, which you can read online here.](http://www.archive.org/details/ruralrides01cobb) By reading the words of Cobbett and other first-hand witnesses to the industrial revolution, I’ve gotten a very good picture of what happened during that time period. Much better than the articles written by your economists, which were written many generations after the fact. Is this not so? If you stop reading biased accounts written with the intention of misleading you about the past and start reading documents actually written at that time period, you’ll learn that what actually happened in the industrial revolution is quite different from what your Austrian School economists say happened. > [@](#): > > In other words the market economy and industrialization, for the first time in history, allowed for the development of a middle class There has been a middle class since the the days of ancient Greece and Rome. Claiming that it appeared for the first time in the 19th century is absurd even for you. > [@](#): > > 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. So if your version of events is actually correct, answer me this question: how much social unrest was there among the poor in the first fifty years of the industrial revolution in England? How does that compare to the fifty years before the industrial revolution? How about if we ask the same question in France, the United States, Germany, or any other country that industrialized in the 19th century? Obviously, since your an expert on economic history, you know that in both Europe and America in that time period the government and the upper class were constantly using violence to suppress the workers. If life for the workers was so great, why was this violence necessary? > [@](#): > > 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. And as I’ve already told you multiple times, the rate of economic growth in the last 30 years has been quite bit higher than in any other 30-year period in American history. It seems that since this established fact contradicts your beliefs, you’ve chosen to simply ignore it. However, since I like rubbing things in your face, I’m going to place it in gigantic letters. the rate of economic growth in the last 30 years has been quite bit higher than in any other 30-year period in American history. Now, given that fact, why do you keep saying that the rate of economic growth was higher in the 19th century than in recent times? It’s another one of my trademark _very simple questions_, and I think it deserves an answer. > [@](#): > > 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. We did amend the Constitution so as to ignore the will of the founders. The founders wanted slavery. We amended the Constitution to outlaw slavery. The founders didn’t let women vote. We amended the Constitution so that women could vote. The founders didn’t allow a federal income tax. We amended the Constitution to allow a federal income tax. etc… By the way, I’m still waiting for you to justify your statement that gold prices remain consistent over time, when in reality the price of gold has dipped 80% against oil over the past decade. Please answer that question. ---
**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 5, 2010, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/639 "2010-09-05T17:30:06Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > I’m gonna tackle this part first, because it is astounding. _I’m a little bit worried about the national debt but not much._, and _Sure, we face large shortfalls in the future, but those can be eliminated through minor changes such as raising the retirement age and trimming benefits for the richest quartile._ > > No. Go back and read some economics. We CANNOT deal with the problem through tinkering around the edges. Raising the retirement age and “trimming” benefits for the richest is going to cover $100 Trillion dollars? If you believe that then you need to also go back and take some math courses as well. All right, take a few deep breaths. First of all, you claim that there’s a projected shortfall of “$100 trillion dollars” [sic]. Like must of what you say, this is completely untrue. The projected shortfall in Social Security is [5.3 trillion dollars](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/18/business/main6494282.shtml). For Medicare I can’t find a cite that reflects the changes from the recent Health Care overhaul, but even the highest estimates before that law were nowhere near 100 trillion dollars. So your figure of 100 trillion dollars is utterly bogus. Now as for the fact that we can solve these shortfalls with any one of several minor changes, here’s a quote from the same article. > [@](#): > > The entire $5.3 trillion shortfall over the next 75 years would be wiped out if payroll taxes were increased by 1.1 percentage points for both workers and employers. It would also disappear if Congress started taxing all wages, not just those below $106,800, said the Senate report, citing projections by the actuaries at the Social Security Administration. > > On the benefits side, more than three-fourths of the shortfall would vanish if Congress reduced annual cost-of-living increases by 1 percentage point each year. Social Security recipients get annual increases based on inflation. This January, for the first time since automatic adjustments were adopted in 1975, there was no increase because prices decreased last year. > > About 23 percent of the shortfall would be gone if Congress gradually increased the age when retirees qualify for full benefits from 67 to 68. Nearly a third of the shortfall would disappear if the full retirement age were gradually increased to 70. So the fiscal problems of Social Security are easily solvable. Medicare could be dealt with likewise. Now that I’ve provide an airtight cite that proves myself to be right and you to be wrong, I guess you’ll have to go back to calling me “retarted” and “insane”. > [@](#): > > As to this fear of deflation, here is what is going on. Deflation is good. It is what the market is demanding. The market is demanding to establish the true price of houses and assets and liquidate the bad debt and establish equilibrium. Don’t you see how falling prices help the poor? You would rather we had inflation? Well, okay, those are fair questions. My answer are that I do not see how falling prices help the poor, and that I want a healthy inflation level of about 4-5%, which is about what we’ve had during our wonderful fun of good economic times since 1982. Inflation is good for the poor, good for the middle class, and only mildly bad for the ultra-rich. Deflation is terrible for the poor, terrible for the middle class, and excellent for the ultra-rich. That’s why your Austrian School economists love deflation and hate inflation. They want to grab all the wealth that’s currently held by the poor and middle-class and hand it over to the rich. Consider me. I’m middle-class and not far from the poverty line, earning about $26,000 per year. I have a mortgage on my house of about $130,000, for which I pay $956 each month. At the moment I can pay that mortgage, buy food and other necessities, and save a little each month. If we entered a deflationary spiral, my salary would fall but I’d still owe the bank $956 per month, so I’d lose my house. By contrast, if our leaders were smart enough to give us some inflation, then my salary would shoot up, bud I’d still owe only $956 per month. So now that you’re on the record as saying that you want to see deflation, please answer me this question: Why do you want to take away the houses currently owned by me and millions of others like me and give them to the rich? Ten dollars says that you refuse to answer this question. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > This is just an astounding ignorance you display with regards to economics. By “focusing” on the current crisis you are making the problem worse. These policies will make this crisis last maybe a decade (even two decades), rather than a couple of years. > > In a downturn, WE CAN cut spending and reduce the deficit. Keynes was wrong, his theories are complete bullshit. If we cut spending and restrained the printing presses the correction would occur, it would be painful and it would be over. > > Don’t believe Keynes. First of all, I’m note sure why you keep talking to me about Keynes. I’ve never read anything by Keynes nor quoted him, nor has anyone else in this thread that I can recall. Keynes is totally irrelevant to this thread, any by bringing him up 50 times in each post you’re only demonstrating your own inability to stay on topic and address the questions we’re asking you. Second, why should I believe what you say about the “current crisis”? Obviously you’ve already admitted that you’re unable to provide cites, but you should at least provide some form of argument. However, you’re in real trouble when you talk about address the “current crisis” because there isn’t any current crisis. The economy is not in a crisis right now. There’s a risk of crisis, namely a deflationary spiral, but that can be addressed with more government spending. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > [QUOTE=ITR Champion] > Oh really? Are you going to give me any reason why I should believe this? (On top of all those other cites that you owe me from previous posts in this thread and from previous threads? I can’t convince you. You have to do the work to understand the fundamentals of Austrian economics and why a stable dollar is so important for true economic growth. You could read some books, but I doubt that you will. [/QUOTE] Okay, so now you’ve finally admitted that you’re not able to give me the cites that I requested. Oddly enough, that’s exactly what I predicted you would do. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/640 "2010-09-05T17:40:07Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@villa](#): > > > > 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. > > [http://www.businessandmedia.org/commentary/2008/20080827135845.aspx](http://www.businessandmedia.org/commentary/2008/20080827135845.aspx) > > [The DC Counterfeiters - LewRockwell](http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul468.html) > > [WorldNetDaily](http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=1869) > > [http://mises.org/daily/2914](http://mises.org/daily/2914) > > [Money and Inflation](http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/NOTES/HAND6.HTM) I’m not going to go to a bunch of links with no explanation. I am certainly not going to a [lewrockwell.com](http://lewrockwell.com) link from work - they think I am crazy enough already. Why don’t you, the undegreed economics expert, inform me, _ **in your own words** _, why you make the leap from MV=PT to changes in M being automatically mirrored in P? It should be easy for you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=33)