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

Great Debates
341

The first thing would be to educate the electorate to overcome the media bias and elect someone with character like those two men. Then it would send a massive signal to the political bodies that they need to adopt policies similar to the demands of their constituents. I do believe the process can work if people are focused enough and keep the pressure on the government. I would still be a struggle to truly reform the system if a Nader or Paul were in the Oval Office.

But lets try that before we resort to open revolution, all right?

342

California, Los Angeles area.

343

Does anyone else looking at these numbers admit that they are so truly without comprehension as to fail to understand that the figures are given in millions?

(Hint: “2008-09 $463,710” would read “2008-09 $463,710,000,000” if printed in full. Not even in California would that be the price of even a very large house. I understand that the full figure was not presented, but I would have expected a person fully experienced and well-read in economics to have a basic grasp of the size of Canada’s debt.)

344

This is such bullshit. A fundamental tenet of Austrian economics is that the Federal Reserve shouldn’t exist. So, you think somehow that they would support or be a fan of a Fed chairman? Greenspan is not and was not a libertarian. PERIOD. Anyone who says differently is a liar.

By the way, what do you mean “you guys”. I am not a Republican. I don’t support supply side economics. I though Reagan was terrible. Have you been reading this thread?

345

This is the truth. Alan Greenspan as a youth believed in the Gold Standard and was a fan of Ayn Rand. He changed his views before he became a Fed chairman. Even accepting that position would be to, by default, abandon all your libertarian and Austrian learnings. You know who was a fan of Goldwater when she was young? Hilary Clinton. People change.

Find me one Austrian economist or libertarian who has anything good to say about Greenspan or his policies.

346

When and where did this integrated rally happen? What is the date and location? Where can I find information about it?

347

Right on. I just wished more Democrats like yourself would hold Obama accountable for these decisions.

348

jrodefeld, do not post entire web pages in violation of copyright.

From the SDMB Registration:You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by the operator of the SDMB, except as permitted by the “fair use” provisions of the U.S. copyright laws (in general this means brief excerpts only).

Link to the page and post a few relevant extracted statements.

[ /Moderating ]

349

Clearly, jrodefeld lacks either the ability or the desire to respond to this question.
Just drop it.

[ /Modding ]

350

I bet he’s done a lot of that in his life. “Stopping reading” is probably his default reaction to any material that involves thinking and learning. But I’ll leave that comment there in case he comes back.

351

Assuming he will not bring it up again, I’ll do just that.

352

Bravo, JRod. Thank the good Lord that I’m not the only one paying attention to the great minds of history.

I myself understand Australian Schoolhouse Rock economics. I have studied the philosophy and predictions of:

Carl Barks
Camper van Beethoven
Salma Hayek
Murray the K
Hoppy the Marvel Bunny
Dita von Teese
Jimmie Rodgers
Hans Across America
Les Paul
Peter North

I have seen the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked. I understand the Monopoly monetary system and the way the Federal Bureau of Investigation benefits private parts and is an attack on fiefdoms and physical well-digging for our Father Who Art in Heaven. Amen.

353

Many people give to charity already. If people had more money they would give more. A lot of people would be greedy and not do anything. But you just need a small number of people running private charities and organizing to solve social problems.

As I’ve said elsewhere the late 19th century was a lot better than you think it was. After the creation of the Federal Reserve there was a massive effort to rewrite history to make “going back” or undoing government intervention seem outrageous. There were problems then, just like there are problems now. There was a lot of creation of wealth and people were able to escape poverty at record rates unprecedented in history. Don’t believe everything your high school history text book says.

See, thats just you being lazy. This is a common attitude. I don’t have to do anything because the government will do it for me. The government doesn’t do anything efficiently. You are much better off giving your money to a private charity. Or better yet, volunteering your time to help others.

Except you really don’t have a choice. You have to give your money to the government. A dramatic amount is eaten up in meaningless bureaucracy and a small amount may get to people who need it.

The biggest reason to oppose government welfare is that the politicians don’t want people to get off welfare. They want them to be dependent so they will vote Democrat. It is cheap and sleazy but they do it anyway.

354

Why would you tax the wealthy, other than jealousy? Yes, our founders envisioned very minimal taxation of the people. A far cry from what we have now. They NEVER could have imagined an income tax. And no, the revenue was not intended to be spent on “whatever the voters want”, and they expressly warned against tyranny by the majority. The minimal taxation that the founders set up was for the operation of the expressly delegated functions spelled out in the Constitution.

You clearly haven’t read the writings of the founders. If you think the founders advocated a massive social welfare system and redistribution scheme with the level of taxation we have now, you are certifiably insane.

355

First of all, we have a Republic, not a democracy. Government usually does not speak for the majority of us, but rather the narrow interests of a lobbying group. That is my problem. Society is all of us, individually. If I want to give back to society I volunteer and help my neighbor. I don’t give my money to the government.

356

No, government intervened because of ambitious politicians with grandiose ideas about their ability to solve problems. You seem to think the private sector can’t do anything right. Like I said earlier, if we had more wealth created in this country, there would be less poor.

If the people can’t voluntarily solve these problems then there is no hope. The government cannot and will not solve these problems. As I have stated government policies have created more poor and made it harder to escape poverty. The policies have had the opposite of the intended effect.

357

I’m not sure how much I want to participate in this thread, but I feel a need to point out a few things.

First, there is no intrinsic validity in talking about how the dollar is doing vis-a-vis gold in the present monetary system. This only works if we assume gold is the standard. You would like it to be, but at present it isn’t. Rather, the value of gold in fiat dollars is essentially speculative, i.e., a wager about its value in fiat dollars at some future point.

Second, I should like to expand my earlier comment about wealth being the stuff (as opposed to the monetary supply) to point out that a lot of wealth is intangible, e.g., know how, patents and operating concern value. For example, computer companies, software producers, Hollywood studios and investment banks have value because they produce something for which people are willing to pay. The bricks-and-mortar value of these enterprises is only a small fraction of their worth.

Third, the quibbling about the CPI as a measure of price inflation pretty much misses the point. No one says we can add or average the prices of milk and butter. What mainstream economists say is that we can construct a basket of goods and services, measure their aggregate price at T1 and compare that to their aggreate price at T2. The difference expressed as an index is price inflaction (or deflation). Surely you know this is how it’s done. BTW, whether price inflation or inflation of the monetary supply is the “true” definition is an argument, not a fact.

Fourth, you overlook many factors which complicate the assessment of changes in healthcare, education and jobs. For examble, healthcare is complicated by the fact that we have more older people than in prior generations and better (albeit more expensive) treatments. Going off the gold standard had nothing to do with this problem.

Fifth, speaking of the gold standard, how would we go about your fantasy of returning to the same? Presumably the Treasury would have to acquire a shitload of gold. With what would we buy it? What exchange rate do you contemplate? Do we need full backing or just a reserve? Hint: We didn’t go off gold for no reason.

Sixth, almost all the licensing, regulatory and security measures of which you complain have almost nothing to do with economics. We have licensing because we want to be sure people are competent for their trade and can pay claims for any injuries they cause. We have regulations to prevent things like food poisoning and thalidomide. We have security measures because we’re afraid of a repetition of 9/11. People can (and do) debate where the lines should be drawn, but “let the chips fall there they may” isn’t very popular.

Seventh, private charity as a substitute for public redistribution of wealth is an illusion. Yes, some wealthy folks will so so, but to say they can isn’t the same as saying they will. In fact, but for the “confiscatory” estate tax rates prevailing until the Dubya cuts, we would have seen little of ths.

Stepping back, ISTM, the good argument you have is that, as a twenty-something, you’re sick-and-tired of current politics balancing the books on your back and those of your peers. With this, I agree. So, my advice would be to focus here and to let the other stuff go. What you do, of course, is up t you.

358

Okay one by one,

The panic of 1819 and 1837 was caused be the creation of the first and second banks of the United States, precursors to the Federal Reserve. Subsequently they were eliminated.

We were not on a perfect gold standard or free market system during the 19th century. There are many other issues, like war, which can cause a panic.

The key factor is to link the boom to credit expansion, to show that the same contributing factor is always present. The bust is less important, since the important thing is identifying what causes these unsustainable booms.

Then you essentially wind up with a theoretical case: knowing what causes the boom, knowing what the market is trying to do during the bust, and knowing further than government interference can only impair rather than enhance that process. Therefore government intervention would not have made the bust any less painful (except at the cost of holding the recession off for a few years, when it will be worse). The real lesson is: don’t start credit-induced booms in the first place. We need savings-induced growth.

Therefore, in the absence of creating credit induced booms, the inevitable downturn is impossible. That is the point.

359

Pure nonsense. Private citizens and non-government organizations had thousands of years to solve those problems, and failed - or made them worse. Government has had far more success. Nor does creating more wealth in a country necessarily reduce the number of poor, since can just as easily all simply go to make the wealthy wealthier.

Nor did I say or even imply that “the private sector can’t do anything right”. I simply think that the government is better at some things; the private sector is better at others. The idea that one has to be for or against the government or the private sector as a blanket policy is your ideological bugaboo, not mine.

360

You are wrong. The founders did not trust the people at all. Thats why they abhorred direct democracy.
**
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”**
John Adams

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
Benjamin Franklin

**“It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.” **
Alexander Hamilton June 21, 1788

That is an interesting quote, however it is important to understand that the founders meanings for certain words and terms were quite different from what we know them to be today. Some did believe in larger government (though not as large as we have today). The argument was small government vs extremely small government.

Here are a few quotes from the founders you should consider:

*"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."*

-Thomas Jefferson

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare… The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.”

-Alexander Hamilton

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”

-John Adams

*“As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.”

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”

“It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated.”

“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”*

-James Madison
There can be no doubt upon really listening to the words of the founders that they would side with me on most issues.