Okay, you should know that I am non partisan. I know the Republicans have been worse historically. At least in the later part of the 20th century. I am dealing with the facts. Its not as if Democrats run on a platform of fiscal restraint. Republicans sometimes do, and then they are worse. I am not engaging in “scare” tactics. The reason I showed that graph was to illustrate the rapidly increasing rate of increase in the national debt. I want a president who CUTS the debt. The issue is not the percent increase, but the accumulative effects of several decades.
I am not saying Obama caused all this, but the stakes are higher now. If he does the wrong things the effects will be far worse than and increase by Nixon when we had a much more manageable debt.
I am arguing not against Democrats but against the IDEOLOGY of deficits, Keynesian economics, and Welfarism. Now that it is a Democrat who is pursuing these policies I am directing my criticisms towards his followers.
Leave aside the partisan stuff and deal with the issues.
And, no I don’t think that if Obama leaves office with a 20 trillion dollar national debt that that is better than Nixon increasing the debt by several hundred billion dollars. Get real.
Currencies are destroyed and replaced frequently throughout the world. They experience terrific hardship and economic pain when it does occur. Non, obviously have been as prosperous and powerful as the United States. If we experience destruction of our currency it will be disastrous. It is not the same as a third world nation, or small European nation having a collapse of their economy.
Look at this link:
Most of the world is accustomed to living in poverty. We have had the most prosperous nation ever, with the most freedom and the most vibrant economy. We don’t know what true poverty is. The stakes are higher for us. We have a lot to lose.
The founders warned us. They laid out the blueprint for us to be the most prosperous nation in history. But no nation can remain great while abandoning sound money and fiscal restraint for the political expediency of paper money.
Like Benjamin Franklin said:
“When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic.”
Hah! You’re one to talk; you don’t know thing one about economics. You are literally a complete ignorant regarding the subject - everything you say is propaganda. Which makes you accusing me of it all the more ironic and pathetic.
And I want a pony. Poverty will always be with us. Any philosophy that says otherwise, like yours, is sci-fi fantasy that nobody with any knowledge whatsoever about economics or reality will ever give one moment’s credit to.
Unlike yourself, I actually have some modicum of education about economics. And the free market has properties.
Let’s start with the basics. You probably haven’t heard of “supply curves” and “demand curves”, but in actual reality they are the driving force behind a free market. They are quite literally how free markets work. Allow me to teach you about them.
This is a demand curve: ‘’. Note how on the demand curve, as the price rises the number of purchases consumers are willing/able to make drops.
This is a supply curve: ‘/’. Note how on the supply curve, as the price rises the number of sales producers are willing/able to make rises.
This is the two together: ‘X’. The intersection point is what is called the equilibrium point; it is the most important thing in the free market model. It describes the price where the market will tend to settle to maximize a variety of things, including societal utility. (Look that up.)
Now, note how the ‘X’ isn’t a ‘y’. That is, there is a portion of the demand curve below the intersection point, signifying how if prices were lower, more purchases would be made. At the free market price these purchases will not be made, because the price is too high. The people who would have made these purchases? Out of luck. They don’t get to buy what they want; the market set the price too high for them.
Now label the graph “bread”. Oh look - there are people who would be buying bread, except the price is too high. No bread for them! And the market doesn’t care. This is because the market, while composed of people, is not moral. Which is fine - it’s the price we pay to have a system that determines prices for us.
Moral societies recognize that the free market as an inherent property will set the prices to what the market will bear, irrespective of the portion of the population that can’t bear it, which will inevitably exist until scarcity is defeated, by the function and definition of free markets themselves. Moral societies, therefore, set up social programs to operate outside the free market to pick up the slack for the tail end of the demand curve. It’s what moral societies do - moral societies that aren’t based on complete ignorance of basic economic realities.
Wealthy people who want to take care of the less fortunate implement social programs. Libertarians don’t want to.
And when more wealth is created in an unregulated free market society it tends to flow to the top. The people with resources use their resources to collect more resources, as we have seen throughout history. It’s socialism that ensures that wealth is distributed to all.
However, having one or two classes in economics will tell you that your fantasyland understanding of Austrian theory is complete and obvious horseshit.
If there’s something wrong with the current american economic system, then that’s a problem. But shooting the baby in the bathwater and adopting instead Batshit-Insanonomics that doesn’t even understand supply and demand curves is not the solution. Obviously.
No, when I was in school I learned how economies work, at least to a small and limited degree. Unlike the lies you’ve been told.
No, it benefits the political establishment and the cronies. People go to business school and learn these things without giving it much thought. Of course people don’t think they are hurting the economy, they simply focus on the minutiae and mathematical theories and ignore the big picture.
Believe me when something benefits the cronies and banks, the incentive to marginalize dissenting views is very strong. People just go to school, get a degree and do what they are told so that they can make a living. Really, many people don’t question the shared assumptions so long as they can collect their paychecks.
There’s nothing at all in that link to make us think that fiat money is guaranteed to hyperinflate. Honestly, Thor only knows what you hoped to achieve by linking to it. You think we don’t know that hyperinflation has occurred in a small fraction of the countries that have had fiat currency? The thing is, it’s not occurring now. Despite whatever’s happening in the alternate universe you keep talking about where inflation is high.
Debate-by-link is poor debate. Debate-by-links-which-don’t-support-your-point prove instantly that you’re wrong and not worth listening to.
By this I meant that the function and definition of free markets themselves cause there to be a portion of the population who won’t/can’t afford to buy the commodity at the market price in the quantities they desire. I did not mean that scarcity would be defeated by the function and definition of free markets. That would be crazy talk!
Well, not wrong, but misleading. As of last month we had 80000 troops still in Iraq, so perhaps I was using outdated figures. But Obama HAS doubled the use of contractors in Iraq and THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NON COMBAT TROOPS. We still have at least fifty thousand troops there and we will maintain a troop presence in Iraq beyond 2011, believe me. This is simply a re branding effort. I wouldn’t get too excited. Most of these troops are probably going to Afghanistan.
What this president has done is typical. He is pretending there is a massive difference between his foreign policy as Bush’s, but in actuality he is just shuffling troops around a little. There is not an actual draw down of troops overall.
I don’t think the people give a shit whether or not there are troops in Iraq of Afghanistan. We just know we continue to deploy military men to no win wars in countries that we shouldn’t be in. Next up, Iran? Who knows what these psychopaths will think of next.
So Obama will try and milk this “victory” announcement as some great accomplishment. This is a pathetic re branding effort to cover up the disastrous policies we continue to pursue. Give me a break.
I’ll cheer once ALL the troops are out of Iraq and we leave Afghanistan as well, not to mention refrain from murdering innocent women and children in Pakistan. If Obama gets a conscience and really changes overall foreign policy before he gets out of office I’ll cheer.
You never know. Its not like Republicans have opposed government intervention into medicine in the past. It was Bush who pushed the Prescription Drug Entitlements for Medicare, remember? And considering the final bill was not universal health care or a public option, but rather more corporate control of medicine, I think that we definitely could have gotten a bill somewhat similar to what Obama passed.
As far as foreign diplomacy goes, I agree the tone would be different. McCain would probably continue Bush’s “War on Terror Fighter” mentality. But the actual foreign policy would be just the same.
Well, I would admit that there isn’t really enough of a difference between the two parties for it to matter which one gets elected. To really reform the system in the way we all want we need to either vote third party, or actively get involved in one of the parties at the local level. Organize on the grassroots.
You know, I don’t agree with everything with the average Tea Party protester. Far from it. But I don’t mock them. They are active and engage in the issues right now. I want to engage with them and move them towards my philosophy. I think the Tea Partiers, many Progressives and others can easily point out the problems we have in this country. Hate them or not, the Tea Partiers are having an effect. Why not have a liberal or independent version of grassroots protests, not to fight with the tea partiers, but to push the Democrats towards more sensible positions.
We need to change the system till people like Ron Paul and Ralph Nader can win the elections. Honest people. Not cronies or corporate sellouts.
Isn’t that a chicken-and-egg problem? Won’t the same flaws in the system that prevent Paul and Nader from being elected also prevent the system from being changed by the democratic process?
I appreciate the tone of this reply. I certainly know I am facing opposition to my views. Thats what I want and why I posted here. So, no worries about that. I don’t like to spend ALL my time online so its easy to get way behind, especially when I am trying to respond to each post individually.
I certainly don’t consider myself a conspiracy theorist. I have noticed however that that term is thrown about to discourage people from ever taking positions contrary to the “mainstream” version of events and I have a problem with that. There are some conspiracies that are in fact real. But in a general sense, your criticisms are generally those that are leveled against libertarians. They aren’t “practical”, they aren’t “politically viable”, etc. You may think I am arguing against reality.
The problem I have is when I bring up the subject of, say going back on the Gold Standard, people say its “never going to happen” or other variations of “don’t think about it because its not realistic”. People rarely discuss why it would be a bad idea or what life would truly be like in this country if we did have a gold standard and limited government. That is what is so frustrating. Powerful people gather to expand the power of government in various ways, often misguided and no matter how unsuccessful the result people can never imagine eliminating the program or reforming the system.
I have an idealistic view of government and society. But I also have interim priorities and steps we could agree on to deal with the deficit and restore transparency and accountability. But I am not persuaded with the claim that a truly free society like the founders envisioned is not “realistic” or “politically possible”.
My job is to inform people about the benefits of such a society and the harms from a central bank and government intervention, so that it will become politically possible.
How is it that we live in an era were our politicians and corporate bankers tell us what type of government we can have? How about the people tell them what type of government we want?
If we want to tear down the system and completely replace it with a new one, that is our right.
By the way, it is easier to sell the idea of massive reform if the current system is breaking down. That is one of the benefits to a crisis like this. It becomes more politically palatable to suggest dramatic changes to the system.
I am going to ignore that last comment. As to the difference between “good” government and “bad” government, who do you know who thinks they are advocating for bad government? That is a foolish way of phrasing the debate.
Cap and Trade is not, and has nothing to do with Free Markets. It is a corporatist scheme designed to enrich certain favored corporations by selling and trading “carbon credits”. It won’t help the environment, it will only enrich certain individuals (including Al Gore).
Do you agree with this statement:
Whether or not we can agree with what the definition of “small” government is, our current size of government is not sustainable so we need to reduce it drastically to make it solvent?
Crunching the numbers you would easily see that current spending levels are not sustainable. So we have to have smaller government.
The second point is a libertarian understands that there are few things the government does well. There are some things where there is no possible way that the government can perform that function efficiently and cost effectively with a quality outcome no matter who is in charge. It is just the nature of government.
Are you a liberal who distrusts the private sector? What do you think about the track record of government in managing the following areas:
Health Care
Education
The Post Office
Amtrak
Obviously the quality of education and health care have dropped significantly in the last forty years.
What do you think government should do vs the private sector?
There is a recent draw down, or rather redeployment. He DID double the number of contractors. The eighty thousand troops number was accurate a month ago. Why aren’t ALL the troops leaving? Why don’t we give the Iraqis their country back?
I don’t care if Obama ran on that. And I don’t give a shit if Afghanistan falls to the Taliban. That would happen if we leave now or in fifty years. Its not “bad”, its non of our business.
Again, who gives a fuck? If Obama had any balls he would say “The Rite of Habeas Corpus is not negotiable” and tell the Republicans to eat a dick. Seriously, the idea that we can detain people indefinitely without trial is abominable.
Yeah, I understand economics so I know that the bailouts were NOT necessary. These people would tank the economy to save their summer home and Yacht. They have no conscience. They didn’t want to lose any money so they called on their buddies in the Federal Reserve and got bailed out. Now they are even bigger engaging in the same type of shenanigans that caused the crisis in the first place.
Its okay with you that Obama’s economics team is packed with people who use to work for Goldman Saches and Citigroup and are protecting the banks for oversight? The same people who caused the crisis are not in charge of fixing it? Obama could have brought in outside economists to crack down on Wall Street and push for real reform, but he didn’t. Why don’t you read about Matt Taibbi’s expose about this very thing:
We are heading INTO a depression and the recovery is being stalled by Obama’s willingness to prop up bad debt and prevent a true recovery.
Prove that he’s cut them down. I don’t believe that for a second. How about his new power to assassinate American citizens? Heard about that one?
Its not gonna cost less. Give me a break. They cooked the numbers. Name one government program that cost what was projected when it was passed?
Why should I (a very healthy 25 year old) be forced to purchase health insurance I don’t want or need?
You didn’t get what I was saying. ALL modern presidents are Keynesians, or support some variation of that philosophy. Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II are no supporters of Austrian economics or libertarian ideology.
Now, think about the logic of what you just posted. You (apparently) read my OP and then somehow figured that the modern Republican Party represents my views on economics? How did you make that leap? If I am arguing for smaller government, a decrease in the national debt, monetary reform and civil liberties I would be condemning ALL modern presidents.
Clinton was actually the least fiscally irresponsible. However that was because for six years he was faced with a very hostile Republican Congress which wouldn’t let him push through his agenda. Its not as if he ran on a platform of smaller government and cutting spending.
If you can’t get this, then I doubt you are going to “tear apart” the nuances of Austrian Business Cycle Theory or the work of the great libertarian intellectuals that I have studied.
If you want a head start, go to the Mises Institute Website and read some of the literature. They are certainly no fans of the GOP either:
Nah. The OP and I probably vote the same way, but I think he’s arrogant and/or misguided too. The way to change minds is not to post several pages of what people should think. That just pisses people off.
Perhaps you are disowning your own when they fail. Greenspan is the ultimate Libertarian sitting at th right hand of Rand . He and the repubs that blew up the economy were proud to proclaim their Libertarianism. You guys were proud of them until the silliness of their convictions blew up the worlds economy. Now you will disown them. .What a surprise.
Greenspan Shrugged | HuffPost Latest News Greenspan describes himself as a lifelong Libertarian and was great friends with Rand. When you talk about Libertarianism, you speak of an illogical and stupid philosophy that can never work. It is childish and simplistic. When it finally got power, it showed what it was.
What the fuck are you talking about? I would “hand” the money back to the people. The wealthy control the money now, to the detriment of the poor and middle class.
And how can you hand “freedom” to only one class of people? That is absurd.
In a libertarian society, all people are free to keep all of their money. All people are protected from acts of aggression from another. There is no coercion allowed. All voluntary activity is permissible.
You think these things would only benefit the rich?
The ideal would be competing currencies where people weren’t forced to use only one currency. We could have a silver standard. Or a basket of currencies. The notion that there isn’t enough gold is absurd. For whatever amount we had would be sufficient. This was answered some 200 years ago:
“If the quantity of gold or silver in the world employed as money were exceedingly small, or abundantly great…the variation in the quantity would have produced no other effect than to make the commodities for which they were exchanged comparatively dear or cheap. The smaller quantity of money would perform the function of a circulating medium as well as the larger.”
David Ricardo
In other words - pretty much any amount of commodity-money could accommodate for pretty much any amount of commerce - it would just be denominated differently.
Pure nonsense? Are you crazy? Have you cracked a history book in your life? Think about this, if we dug up a box of gold coins from ancient Rome, and found a box of paper money from a nation only a hundred years old, which one would have the most value?
Gold maintains its value for thousands of years and paper money can be destroyed in a few decades. In one hundred years, or even fifty years, will our dollars be worth anything?
If you answered no, you proved my point.
How do you define “works”? Let me ask this question of you:
There is absolutely no way to fund the government we have nor the government you want. At what point do you say, “We need to have smaller government” and start over?
If you truly understood economics you would see that the current system creates wealth inequality.
Say there is very small government, everyone is allowed to keep their money, and no one is allowed to commit aggression against anybody else. We all have the ability to engage economically with anybody we wish. If we harm somebody we get punished by the law, obviously.
How, in your mind, does the above system equate to economic inequality with the rich “taking all the money” and everyone else being poor and helpless? It is mind boggling the way your brain works.
First, many of the Founders did not own slaves and abhorred racism. There was a healthy abolitionist movement dating back to the revolution. I am not here to defend or deify the founders. What are your views on the Constitution and Bill of Rights? The separation of powers? Should we get rid of all these safeguards of our liberties? You can criticize the authors of a great novel without tarnishing the novel itself.
For example, Beethoven was apparently an antisocial asshole and a heavy drinker. Given his personal faults, do we denigrate the great works of music that he produced? Of course not. You had better be thankful that the founders wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Its the very reason we can engage in open debate like this.
See, this is why I originally directed this thread towards you Der Trihs. Statements like these make me think you were dropped on your head when you were a baby or something.
I talk about a “LIBERTARIAN” society based on the non aggression principle and equal rights, tolerance and not permitting acts of aggression against anyone. And you claim that I would allow millions to be “enslaved”. How exactly would a libertarian society tolerate slavery given that explicitly there is no coercion allowed? All social change would be facilitated through persuasion and reason as opposed to force and aggression.
You know, it was these very principles that propelled our country to being the most prosperous the world has every seen. Free Market capitalism is the only system that virtually eliminated hunger in societies that practiced it.
If you compare countries with a Market economy and Free Enterprise to those which have a socialist model or authoritarianism with central planning, the poorest members of the nation with the market economy are far better off. In fact they would be rich by the standards of the Authoritarian government.
That fact blows your argument right out of the water.
