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

Since you admit to never having read an economics book in your life I am not surprised by your mis understanding of free market economics. The point is that the Austrian school proposes a hands off approach because the economy cannot be centrally planned and scientifically managed with mathematical equations designed to predict the behavior of human beings, given that they ARE irrational and unpredictable. I was defending the Austrian emphasis on common sense and self evident axioms and explaining why mathematical equations and the like are not as important in relation to the study of human behavior. Of course people don’t always act rationally. No Austrian or libertarian scholar that I know of claims that they do.

The primary argument in favor of the Austrian School of economics, putting aside the minutiae of abstract theories, is the stunning accuracy of their predictions. Given the current crisis and the lack of effect of Obama’s economic policies, we should look to the Austrians for an alternative solution. Primarily that would be liquidation of debt and malinvestment, and allowing a true market correction to occur. Listen to an article written by Ron Paul shortly after the meltdown began:

The only reason paper money systems are “necessary” is to facilitate the centralization of power and allow governments to expand endlessly. That is the reason so many nations have them. It is the general desire of governments and politicians to control people and expand their power. For ambitious politicians and corporations who could benefit from such a system, there is a strong desire to remove the impediments to the centralization of power. Don’t mistake current economic order to “progress”.

Let me ask this question:

If we want low public debt and a solvent economy over the course of decades (or longer) how on earth could a monetary and banking system like we have function in the long run?

If you learn about our banking system, you will find out that it is designed to be mathematically impossible to pay off the debt. More and more of our revenue is being burnt up by the interest on the debt each year! The only way out is through defaulting on the debt, declaring bankruptcy and reforming the system. We could do that, or we could pursue the current course which is: purposely devaluing the money to pay off debt with cheaper money. Of course that will lead to destruction of the money through hyperinflation if followed through to its logical conclusion.

We don’t have to have any of these problems. But until we reform the system we will be like the Titanic, heading towards the iceberg. Its better that we change course before we hit.

A great documentary to watch is: The Money Masters

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936#

If you haven’t studied the history of the banking system in this country I think you will be shocked by some of what you will learn.

This is a very poor attempt to obfuscate the issue by pulling out one link that you don’t agree with and pretending that that discredits everything else I wrote in pages of a carefully considered essay. This is a pathetic and transparent tactic.

As for the links I posted, I certainly don’t believe everything on every site a listed. I also don’t ignore mainstream sources of news and information. However, places like Rense.com sometimes have links to news articles and pieces of information that are very good. It pays to look through websites such as that one to broaden your perspective a little. If you simply write it off by labeling it a “conspiracy” website, you don’t do any justice to your own education and world view.

So, what about the other links and resources I linked to? Have you looked through mises.org?

Why don’t you actually read what I wrote, absorb the arguments made, and respond to that information? It is a pathetic attack of guilt by association to claim that I am answerable for everything posted on another persons website. Respond to what I am saying.

Another example of someone who is incapable of forming a cogent response to a well thought out, persuasively argued OP? Its easy to make snide remarks. It covers up your intellectual deficits and lack of reading compensation.

First of all, I watch and read all forms of media. Over a period of several years I gravitate towards those with a verifiable track record of accuracy and in depth reporting. I know much of the mainstream source, including Fox, are packed with propaganda and tools of social control. Our media will not do any in depth reporting on the issues that matter. So I have looked for alternative sources. Many websites do a good job. I read many books. Youtube can be an invaluable source for information. There are some good online radio shows I listen to.

Where do you get your news? And, at some point, you should take the time to respond to my OP.

I begin to suspect not.

I’m not paranoid, at least when I’m not high. :smiley: Why would you say that?

You just don’t understand libertarian philosophy. Now, if more of you would actually engage on a substantial level instead of making smart ass remarks, this thread could actually be productive.

You don’t get off that easy. The Repubs brought a disasterous government while proclaiming proudly their Libertarian principles. Bush’e economic advisers were happy to pronounce their Libertarian streaks. Greenspan was just one of many who wanted the hands off, no regulation business will do right attitude.
After the mess they caused Libertarians are scraping for a way to disavow them. But you can not. They are yours and more Bush is what you promise.

Okay, why not explain to me that data behind Keynes belief that “deficits don’t matter” because “in the end, we are all dead”? Deficits DO matter. The Keynesian argument, if I could sum it up, is first create an artificial bubble, or boom and keep it going forever. Don’t allow the correction. Keep dumping in stimulus during any and all downturns to keep the party going. Even though the wealth created is illusory, the goal is to keep the illusion going.

I would say a policy that has given us a thirteen trillion dollar deficit, the housing bubble, stagflation in the 70s, and the current crisis we are dealing with has pretty much been discredited by real life events. Not to mention their complete lack of ability to predict future economic events.

You are completely wrong when you say that Austrian economists make no prediction. Mises correctly predicted the stock market crash of 1929 when virtually no one else did. Today Ron Paul, Peter Schiff and other Austrians correctly predicted the current crisis for about a decade while no one else did.

How can you explain this?

Lots of people makes all kinds of economic predictions, from doom to fantastic upswings, on a continual basis. When something bad happens you can always point to a bunch of seemingly accurate predictions, while ignoring all the occasions on which the End of the World did not occur.

It’s like psychic predictions - by careful cherry-picking you can make them look hair-raisingly prescient. Just overlook all the embarassingly dumb picks that failed to materialize.

You don’t have to post here if you don’t want to. I will certainly come back and create separate threads for brief topics of debate.

But briefly, my main points are:

  1. The Opposition to Obama goes way beyond the media characterization of the Tea Partiers. There is a chance for a third movement in 2012 who will not simply vote GOP.

  2. The monetary system that finances big government and progressivism impoverishes people. The social welfare that people receive is crumbs in comparison. Just economically speaking, smaller government and an emphasis on honest money and no debt is far more compassionate.

  3. We need to privatize our entitlement system. There is no other way to become fiscally solvent. We should keep our commitments to current recipients but transition away over a decade or so.

  4. Most regulation needs to be eliminated. Most regulation protects big business and hurts small business. This is not the same as allowing corporations to get away with crimes. We can have a very vigilant watchdog government prosecuting fraud and crimes while having very few “regulations” on the larger economy, therefore preserving the truly free market.

  5. The liberal distrust of the free market is both irrational and naive.

Thats pretty much it. Although my OP was in depth, I think overall it was pretty on message. These five points should be easy to follow or respond to.

I don’t agree that they are right wing. I don’t see things through those narrow lenses. Did you already know about the creation of the Federal Reserve on Jekyl Island? Did you know about the Cantillion effect of inflation and how our monetary system enriches the wealthy at the expense of the poor? I would think for a liberal such as yourself, you would care that the very big government you advocate is impoverishing people. Given your screen name, how do you feel that FDR’s New Deal policies lengthened the Depression? Did you know that FDR maneuvered and provoked Japan into an anticipated attack on Pearl Harbor to justify American entry into World War II? It is the truth:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm

The man who caused a three to four year downturn to become a fifteen year catastrophe and lied to get us involved in the bloodiest war of the last century is your model president? How about Lyndon Johnson escalating the war in Vietnam? And similarly, how about the devaluation of the dollar and the growing income gap as the government grew over the decades?

Your side typically derides libertarians for not caring about the poor and being cruel and insensitive. I am saying that I am a libertarian BECAUSE I care about the poor and middle class more than the rich. The system you advocate is impoverishing people. Then the government throws them some crumbs and we are supposed to be grateful?

Respond to these points. You claim to care about the poor right? You want a more progressive and fair system in America, right? How can that be accomplished through inflationism and debt? Enlighten me.

What inflation?

No, I don’t claim to be smarter than Keynes and Galbraith. I claim that Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt, and Rothbard are smarter. I know this because I have seen the predictions of Keynes fail repeatedly over the decades. Having studied history extensively, I recognize that Keynesian economics became in vogue because politicians and bankers had a very strong desire to interfere with the market and centrally plan the economy, for a variety of reasons. For those who want to control a government or an economy for their own personal gain, they will persist until they accomplish their goal.

I believe that Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Paine, and others who insisted that the money be denominated in gold and silver only and warned of bankers and “money changers” being the gravest threat to the economy were indeed smarter than Keynes.

As to whether or not there are liberty rallies with a significant minority presence, why don’t you view these youtube videos:

I have also attended some anti war demonstrations in California where there were a lot of minorities and liberals who are furious with Obama for his continuation of the wars overseas and his assaults of civil liberties. I agree with them. I think there are many more independents and minority groups who would gladly join or work together with the Tea Parties if they weren’t unfairly tainted as being racist in the media. Some are driven away before they give them a chance. Even so, with 16% unemployment among black Americans, believe me they are very angry as well.
It really shouldn’t matter what race the protesters are. The ideas should be all that matters.

Yeah, the tone of some of my posts could be interpreted as arrogant. I prefer to think of it as confidence in what I believe.

I would be glad to start a new thread soon that is more concise and focused on one or two points. I don’t think it is too complicated to read and understand. Although it is in depth, it can easily be summed up in only four or five points, which are all related. “big” government is related to the monetary system. Progressivism is related to distrust of the marketplace. Etc. It would be easy for me to respond to a thread like this.

Let me just say this, if you want a “Great” debate, come here. If you want a debate that is easier to understand and requires less effort, visit another thread.

By the way, there was no cutting and pasting. I don’t need to plagiarize because I know these subjects like the back of my hand.

I don’t care how many of you disagree with me. I could count on one hand the number of people who actually engaged in a substantial way with what I have posted.

Isn’t there someone here who truly believes in the value of the welfare state and resists efforts to cut spending that will challenge my positions? Are there liberals and progressives that believe in cutting spending across the board?

Why are you cluttering up my thread with this nonsense? Whether or not I consider myself an intellectual is irrelevant. You obviously don’t have to post here or participate, but if you are claiming that my OP is an “incoherent shamble”, it should be no hard task to poke holes in my arguments, right?

Right.

Thats easy. All take them one by one:

More Peace: I advocate a non-interventionist foreign policy. That means that we would avoid wars at all cost. The only justifiable war is a defensive war to repel an impending attack. We should not occupy other nations indefinitely. We should support free trade, travel, diplomacy and good will towards all. We should cut the military budget drastically. Shut down overseas bases and bring all our troops home.

More Freedom: Restore Habeas Corpus. Follow the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Allow all consensual behavior to take place. Gambling, prostitution, drugs, and all other vices should be legal. People should be allowed to keep the money they earn.

More Tolerance: Obviously not everyone is going to be tolerant under any system. But in a libertarian society, where nobody is allowed to take away the rights of anyone else, then people become less resentful and more accepting of other people. If we decide government has no business in marriage, for example, these hot button “culture war” issues would go away and people wouldn’t care. If we allow the notion that a certain state or community can set their own standards and another community can set different rules, then everyone should be happy. People are free to move to a state that is closest to their beliefs. Nobody will feel like another group is forcing their beliefs on them. This would encourage tolerance and goodwill among our citizens.

Equal Justice: This is easy. Corporate criminals should be tried under the same conditions as a poor person. No special favors or special treatment for the white collar criminals. Government should abide by the same rules they make us follow.

Nobody is making you use gold coins. This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of economics. We want gold backed currency, so that the money maintains its value. Or better yet, competing currencies so the Federal Reserve would have some competition. We want to reduce regulations so you could easily start a business, for example.

I don’t think I missed your posts. But, humor me, what brilliant and devastating critique of my OP did I miss? I will be glad to respond to any posts of substance.

You’re kidding, right? No, I suspect you are not.

I’ve been reading along, frankly not too impressed with your arrogance and your arguments, but enjoying the discussion. But at this post you’ve jumped completely off the rails, left the roadway, skidded down the ditch, rolled over, fallen off the cliff, crashed onto the rocks, and… Well.

FDR basically turned a “market correction” into the greatest and most protracted depression (jury is still out on the present one) of all time? And caused the war in the Pacific? All to further someone’s financial situation. “It is the truth”.

Holy cow.

If that’s Libertarian ::truth::, well, I don’t think I’m gonna bother reading your screeds any longer.

Sheesh. Talk about monumental fail. Tag-- you’re it.