This One's for The Obama Loyalists, Pay Attention.

Subsidies are often ineffective over time. However, please show much we are spending on subsidies, and how that has robbed anyone in any significant way.
As for bailouts, please describe what you think would have happened if we let additional banks fail. You are aware that the bailout money is being paid back, right? I think they should have been tied to increased regulation, but I doubt you do.

Please show us a country with a strong middle class without fiat banking. The Soviet Union? Saudi Arabia? Please give evidence that when the US was on the gold standard with “sound money” income distribution was more equal than, say, the '60s.
Your contention that monopolies do not occur in a market-driven economy has already been refuted.

Please describe what you think caused the recent financial crisis. Do you understand what the impact of a strong dollar is on economic trade? The market is voting for a strong US economy despite the deficit by T-bill purchases and low interest rates. Why are you denying the voice of the market when it is inconvenient?
Do you understand the current demand problem? If you were a small businessman, why would you expand in the face of low demand and existing over-capacity?

It seems to me that you don’t really understand this stuff, and can’t apply it to the questions and issues that have been raised. You talk of hyperinflation, but cannot point to any evidence of it. You talk of the wonders of strong money, but can’t respond to questions about the impact of this in the past. (And you have not presented datapoint one.) You are aware that there were many panics when there was strong money and no central bank, right? Do you understand the danger of deflation on growth, as people refrain from borrowing for expansion for fear that they will have to repay cheaper money with dearer money?

Now, you should respond to ITRChampion’s excellent questions before mine, because they were first and in a larger font. But telling people to read stuff by people generally considered to be kooks by mainstream economists is not a response.

First of all, let me thank you. You are one of the few people to actually engage in a meaningful way on an issue I raised.

A change of the monetary system could not be accomplished overnight. And we cannot pretend that there won’t be pain associated with the attempt to dig ourselves out of the hole we have dug for ourselves. Ideally, we would have a Gold Standard, a tangible stable asset of limited quantity that is backing the currency. Then the treasury the paper “certificates”, which denominate a certain amount of gold (or silver or whatever is backing the money). If a person does not trust the government, they can simply exchange their certificates for the value in gold. This ensures that the government is kept in check by the people. Fractional Reserve Banking is outlawed. Banks are required to keep 100% reserves.

“Growth” is slowed to a degree because there is a limit on the loans they can give. Wealth is not created through a printing press. True wealth develops slowly after hard work and entreprenuerialism. True wealth is manufacturing jobs, goods and services, industry and capital accumulation. People first save their money, then invest in a new enterprise. The “lifeblood” of the economy is not borrowing and lending, but savings and production.

Once wealth is created, it is permanent. It is not subject to booms and busts which wipe out the phony “wealth”. People are not making money playing the stock market like a casino. Without a central bank and fiat money, complex financial instruments like derivatives would not exist. For people to get wealthy they would have to create something of value and sell it to willing buyers. This system of cronyism and corporatism and bailouts would not exist.

It is not likely that we will be able to change this system before a collapse, so it is a non issue. If they destroy the money, there will be chaos. We should eliminate legal tender laws and allow people to circulate competing currencies. Then people could protect themselves from inflation.

Read this article on the subject:

Give me a fucking break. People did protest. There were many that were furious at the spending of Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and others. I was. Libertarians always were angry about this spending.

As far as people being motivated to take to the streets now, perhaps its because people are losing their homes, anger about TARP, and we are moving into a Depression? Maybe? Compare the level of prosperity (or perceived prosperity) in 1996, 2006, and 2010. What is different about those years?

If you have any still functioning brain cells left in your head you should be able to see that the economic conditions are the primary thing that is creating anger against Washington.

I am not saying that there aren’t some racists out there. If you are a racist, you probably are unhappy that a black man is in office. But let me ask you the following questions:

  1. If its all about race, why is there so much anger directed toward BOTH parties and Congress?

  2. Why do the vast number of rallies shun and kick out anyone who displays a racist sign or offensive material?

  3. If its all about race, then the anger and the rallies should not get more intense as the economy gets worse. If there is a correlation between the economic conditions and intensity of the anger and number of rallies, it completely discredits your point.
    There are many ways to criticize people. But to condemn a large group of people you have never met by labeling them racist is the lowest form of ignorance.

Lets debate the issues, considering I, nor anyone I know are angry at Washington based on race.

100% reserves? “a limit on the loans”? No kidding there’d be a limit; 100% reserves means they can’t loan anything at all. A bank only has money to loan because they can ‘pilfer’ it from the reserves. You stop that, you stop bank lending completely.

So no more bank loans or mortgages. You want a house? You save up the money and buy it full price. Or find a rich unregulated private individual to sponsor you, and if you’re slow in paying him back, he sends his goons out to break your legs. Progress!

Back to the banks. In eliminating reserve banking, you’ve also eliminated all interest-bearing accounts; why should the banks pay you to let them hold your money for you, if you’re not letting them use it as a lending base? So none of that. In fact there’s no reason for anybody to be in the banking business at all; their only remaining income is on fees. So welcome to having to pay to get a zero-interest account that will let you support a debit card.

Not that this will bother you; you probably want everyone to have little piles of their gold stuffed in their mattresses. Home robberies are certainly going to go up! Yay freedom! Of course this notion of everyone hunkering down in their basements with shotguns probably appeals. It’s the Wild West! Very american.

You do realize that these would be fiat currencies, right? That or miscellaneous generic gold coins, which are valued on the spot by weight. Just like in the old west.

No, I categorically assume that you will already have summarized anything of value in any link you post.

Good grief…that’s…well, completely insane. I wouldn’t even know where to start on something this loony.

-XT

Inflation is the destruction of money. The Federal Reserve as an institution is designed to create more inflation. When they inflate the currency they are stealing wealth and purchasing power from the poor and middle class. The cost of living goes up for these people. Meanwhile there is no oversight. The Fed can bailout people in secret, make deals with other countries and monetize the debt, creating no incentive for politicians to be frugal.

Since 1913 the value of the dollar has dropped 96%. The monetary base has expanded exponentially. Fiat currencies don’t last very long. We have only had a truly fiat currency since 1971.

Inevitably, the currency is destroyed when the politicians and special interests cannot control themselves and create new money endlessly to fund various projects.

This is what can happen:

We are already experiencing very high inflation in this country. Hyperinflation can set in very quickly as confidence is lost in the dollar.

The crises we are now in is caused by Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve. People are losing the homes and hurting from no fault of their own. That is why I call the Federal Reserve an immoral institution.

The number of people that actually protested (not whined or complained; protested) was essentially zero, if not actually zero. And then Obama entered the picture and the numbers swelled tenthousandfold. The claim that the current tea party movement was active before the race component entered the picture is provably unmitigated bullshit.

Give me a fucking break indeed.

The timing proves otherwise. Or at least that’s what the brain cells say.

I don’t believe that the anger is directed equally.

I don’t believe that the vast number of rallies do this.

I never said it was all about race. I merely proved that the timing proves that racism is the difference between when protesting wasn’t happening and when it was.

Suppose you need an outrage level of 100 to protest.

Suppose the economy gave the teabaggers 30 outrage points 5 years ago, which has increased linearly up to 60 at the present.

The election of obama gave them 100 putrage points (jumping them from around 25 to around 125 at the moment of Obama’s election).

This model would match the observed reality, and the economy is generating increased outrage. But it’s not the reason why most of these people are protesting, and it’s certainly not the reason they suddenly started protesting when they did.

It’s only ignorance if it’s untrue or uninformed.

Let’s debate the issues too, of course. In fact I’d rather focus on that. But I don’t intend to deny reality either.

And it’s possible that you and your friends aren’t racist - you may have indeed have been holding tea party rallies when Reagan was president, for all I know. But if so you are decidedly in the minorty of tea partiers. Provably.

What? Got a cite for that?

People are losing their homes because the value of those homes are deflating.

And you really need to stop lecturing us:

You’re not going to get people to debate with you if you take that attitude.

I agree with everything you said. The FIRST place to cut is the defense budget and ending these wars. See, this is the debate we need to have. There are things some democrats would agree we need to cut. There are obviously some things republicans want to cut.

Some democrats want to cut the military budget and end the wars, end corporate welfare and the war on drugs.

Some republicans want to reduce the welfare state, reform social security and medicare, and end meaningless bureaucracy.

A compromise would be to cut a little of each. Instead the “bipartisanship” we usually get is to increase funding for the wars (which Republicans want) and increase government control of medicine (which the Democrats want). Meanwhile the deficit explodes and we are plunged deeper into debt.

As far as increasing taxes, I would support it temporarily. There are negative economic effects of high taxes and I like people to be able to keep their own money. However, tax cuts without massive spending cuts, like the Republicans push, is suicidal. I think we need to cut spending to the point where we can afford tax cuts.

Patent nonsense. Prove it. No blog or speculation will work either - you need to find something in the government rulings that created the Fed that says, in plain english, “This new institution is created with the specific primary intent of creating more inflation.”

Good luck with that.

You are grossly misinformed, or posting from an alternate universe.

Why not have an economy that grows with no inflation? The argument that other countries had inflation as well does not make it right. Also, the argument that wages have keep up with inflation so there are no negative aspects to it is complete nonsense. In the last fifty years it has been increasingly difficult to make ends meet in America. In the fifties a man could graduate high school, no college, go work for a good company, buy a house and provide for a family on one income and retire before old age. This is impossible today. Families require two to three incomes. People are working later and retirement is not an option for many people. For a detailed look at the negative effects of inflation, consider these passages from an article by libertarian and Austrian scholar Murray Rothbard:

Absolutely. But it will happen. The end stages of the Bretton Woods II agreement are here. This monetary system will have to be replaced. Just as Ron Paul spent his entire political career warning about. We have not yet experienced massive hyperinflation but if we continue on this course the day of reckoning will be here within the next decade, perhaps in the next five years.

I don’t have to wait for hyperinflation to know that Ron Paul has been right. All his prediction about current economic conditions, the wars overseas and the failure of Keynesian theories has been spot on.

That is a very fair and valid criticism as I have said many times. But like I have said, sometimes it takes a crisis to motivate people to get off their couches and do something. However, the libertarians, Ron Paul, and others have been consistent on this. I can’t speak for anyone else. I am just glad they are on my side now.

Because whenever prices rise, inflation occurs. This occurs whenever the money supply grows - including when it does so due to good old-fashioned morally upright manufacturing of real value. To stem inflation, you need to not only fix the size of the money supply, but also kill the growth of the economy and personal wealth completely.

We went over this before, Ron Paul’s predictions have most certainly not been “spot on”.

Again, with the current system, people can already simply exchange their certificates for their value in gold. Just walk into any precious metal dealer, and buy it. No government intervention necessary. What we have now is the free-market solution; what you’re proposing instead is for the government to fix the price of a commodity by fiat.

We already have competing currencies, too, and folks are free to decide which ones they want to accept. All that legal tender laws mean is that people can’t refuse one particular currency in payment of a debt. They don’t mean that they can’t accept others. They can even refuse legal tender, if there’s no debt involved. Credit card points, airline miles, and coupons are all perfectly legitimate currencies, and some merchants choose to accept them.

No I don’t. I don’t need to know jack shit about Prasident Obama to express my unbridled disgust with Obama’s warmongering, constitution-shredding, false-dichotomy posing, strawman-building foes.

Same as I don’t need to have any knowlege about particle physics to explain how to make a decent chocolate chip cookie above 5,000 ft. The two are, for all practical purposes, completely unrelated.

What does that prove? I went to a different rally in a different state and my experience is different. There are rallies that are connected to the GOP and those that are independent. The independent rallies and protests tend to be more diverse. The GOP is attempting to portray an image and hijack the narrative.

I actually hate how when we look at groups of people we don’t address the ideas being raised we immediately look to the race of the participants. If there aren’t enough black people or Hispanic people present we don’t pay attention to what they are saying because they are not sufficiently “diverse” for our politically correct sensibilities.

I will maintain that, from my experience, the people who are upset at Obama are much more diverse that the media would let on. But I don’t think that is important. I think we need to focus on the issues.

By the way, do you seriously expect me to believe that all non whites in the country support Washington and are unabashed fans of this administration? There is plenty of anti incumbent feelings from people who are not members of the Tea Party. The unemployment numbers are close to 16% among African Americans. You think that if Obama’s policies don’t start changing this situation around, they won’t start looking for alternatives by 2012?

Missed the edit window. I went over how some of those predictions had absolutely not come true, here and here.

Your dodging the reality of Ron Paul’s objective incorrectness after I pointed it out indicates to me you have no interest in facts.

If you think that, you seriously need to study economics. You have bough into the worst kind of socialist propaganda. I believe we need to provide for everyone who is relying on Social Security and Medicare. But we have to admit that both are completely bankrupt. If we don’t reform them, with the aging population, they will self destruct and everyone will be out on the streets. Those that are receiving benefits now should be protected.

First, we need to massively cut spending on overseas militarism, cut the deficit and fund these programs for now.

Secondly, we need to allow young people to opt out of Social Security and announce that beyond a certain date Medicare will no longer be given out benefits. This allows time to take care of people who rely on these programs and cuts down on the obligations by reducing the number of people who will be getting these benefits down the road.

Third, we have no choice but to, after a decade or two transition, completely privatize our entitlement system. WE DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE. These entitlements will destroy our budget and impoverish all of us if we don’t do this.

Do you agree with the following statement or not?:
The best society is one which is wealthy enough that people don’t need to rely on government assistance.

I want our country to be wealthy. I don’t want people to need government handouts. In my system of government we would have:

  1. No public debt.
  2. No inflation
  3. Healthy, vibrant markets
  4. Poverty would be almost non existent.
    You have an abysmal understanding of what a “Free” market is. A free market is not some abstract thing or entity. It is not the big corporations. It you and me. It is everyones ability to engage with one another economically. It is a charities ability to exist without government regulation. It is an entrepreneurs ability to enter a market without interference. It is peoples ability to keep the money they earn and do with it what they like.

The more wealth that is created in a society, the less poor there are. The wealthier people are, the greater their ability to take care of the less fortunate.
You would know this if you truly understood Austrian theory and Free Enterprise. But the bottom line is, our entitlement system has an unfunded liabilities in excess of one hundred trillion dollars. ONE HUNDRED TRILLION!

You don’t need a degree in economics to see that this is nonviable.
A problem with the liberal ideology is that they fail to see that the ideology they promote is actually creating more poor people. Then the point and say “look at all the poor people. They need our help (“our” meaning the government).” And these policies of deficits and over regulation of the marketplace create more poor people due to their impoverishing effects.

If we follow the current course, we will all be poor and the government won’t be able to take care of anyone. Given reality, why don’t we bite the bullet, reform our entitlement system, balance the budget, start over with a very small government and sound money and try freedom for a change.

You might even find out that all those scary stories you were told in school about the horrors of the “free” economy were nothing more than propaganda agitating for a government power grab.