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

[Robot_Arm]

@jrodefeld

You are absolutely wrong that it was because the government forced everyone to be tolerant. It happened because people became more educated about different cultures, the media and the internet exploded allowing for people to become more enlightened.

@jrodefeld

As for the debate in California, I have heard these ridiculous arguments against Prop 8. But who do you think fans the flames of this issue? The media.

Huh?

[jrodefeld]

@septimus

@Kiber

However, the actual data from the great depression pretty clearly shows exactly the opposite.

Actual data!
You expect Actual data to have any effect on the “thinking” of a Teabagger?? :smack: … one who wants the Feds to start buying gold? :smack:

Thanks for this morning’s laugh, Kiber.

Septimus, I am not a Teabagger. And I think I have clearly demonstrated on this thread a high level of understanding of economics and the mental tools to articulately express these complex ideas in my own words. If you could see the stacks of books I have read on economics, and the time I have put in to understanding these problems, I think you would dispense with the infantile name calling, or outright ignorance of my real positions (I want the Fed to start buying gold?).

Once you put forth some real effort here which demonstrates that there is something going on upstairs, then you will have earned the right to act smug and superior. As it is, I figure that you simply absorb information without thinking, accepting propagandistic distortions and never once endeavoring to do any actual research or learning of your own. That actually takes effort.

You are as comfortable with the establishment bullshit that you and your circle has been exposed to as you are with a tailored suit, and without thinking, you write off anyone who challenges the conventional, politically correct version of history that the revisionists have worked so hard to push on unsuspecting minds such as yours.

So, for the record, the TRUTH about the Great Depression is this:

1. Hoover was NOT a libertarian, did NOT promote free markets or Laissez-faire. He was just as much of an interventionist as Roosevelt. He instituted the beginnings of the New Deal.

Look here:

The Hoover New Deal of 1932 by Murray Rothbard

President Hoover came to the legislative session of 1932 in an atmosphere of crisis, ready for drastic measures. In his annual message to Congress, on December 8, 1931, Hoover first reviewed his own accomplishments of the past two years:

Many undertakings have been organized and forwarded during the past year to meet the new and changing emergencies which have constantly confronted us . . . to cushion the violence of liquidation in industry and commerce, thus giving time for orderly readjustment of costs, inventories, and credits without panic and widespread bankruptcies.
Measures such as Federal and state and local public works, work-sharing, maintaining wage rates (“a large majority have maintained wages at high levels” as before), curtailment of immigration, and the National Credit Corporation, Hoover declared, have served these purposes and fostered recovery. Now, Hoover urged more drastic action, and he presented the following program:

Establish a Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which would use Treasury funds to lend to banks, industries, agricultural credit agencies, and local governments;

Broaden the eligibility requirement for discounting at the Fed;

Create a Home Loan Bank discount system to revive construction and employment measures which had been warmly endorsed by a National Housing Conference recently convened by Hoover for that purpose;

Expand government aid to Federal Land Banks;

Set up a Public Works Administration to coordinate and expand Federal public works;

Legalize Hoover’s order restricting immigration;

Do something to weaken “destructive competition” (i.e., competition) in natural resource use;

Grant direct loans of $300 million to States for relief;

Reform the bankruptcy laws (i.e., weaken protection for the creditor).

Hoover also displayed anxiety to “protect railroads from unregulated competition,” and to bolster the bankrupt railroad lines. In addition, he called for sharing-the-work programs to save several millions from unemployment.

…

Read the rest here: America's Great Depression | Murray N. Rothbard
2. FDR’s policies prevented the correction and caused the crisis to go on for many years longer than it would have otherwise. I posted this already, but for your benefit:

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

“Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.” …

Read the rest here: Newsroom | UCLA

3. Free Markets and the Gold Standard DID NOT CAUSE the great depression. The Federal Reserve easy credit of the 1920s did.

Read this excerpt from great Austrian scholar Hans Sennholz:

The Business Cycle

The first phase was a period of boom and bust, like the business cycles that had plagued the American economy in 1819–1820, 1839–1843, 1857–1860, 1873–1878, 1893–1897, and 1920–1921. In each case, government had generated a boom through easy money and credit, which was soon followed by the inevitable bust.

The spectacular crash of 1929 followed five years of reckless credit expansion by the Federal Reserve System under the Coolidge administration. In 1924, after a sharp decline in business, the Reserve banks suddenly created some $500 million in new credit, which led to a bank credit expansion of over $4 billion in less than one year. While the immediate effects of this new powerful expansion of the nation’s money and credit were seemingly beneficial, initiating a new economic boom and effacing the 1924 decline, the ultimate outcome was most disastrous. It was the beginning of a monetary policy that led to the stock-market crash in 1929 and the following depression. In fact, the expansion of Federal Reserve credit in 1924 constituted what Benjamin Anderson in his great treatise on recent economic history (Economics and the Public Welfare, D. Van Nostrand, 1949) called “the beginning of the New Deal.”

The Federal Reserve credit expansion in 1924 also was designed to assist the Bank of England in its professed desire to maintain prewar exchange rates. The strong US dollar and the weak British pound were to be readjusted to prewar conditions through a policy of inflation in the United States and deflation in Great Britain.

The Federal Reserve System launched a further burst of inflation in 1927, the result being that total currency outside banks plus demand and time deposits in the United States increased from $44.51 billion at the end of June 1924, to $55.17 billion in 1929. The volume of farm and urban mortgages expanded from $16.8 billion in 1921 to $27.1 billion in 1929. Similar increases occurred in industrial, financial, and state and local government indebtedness. This expansion of money and credit was accompanied by rapidly rising real-estate and stock prices. Prices for industrial securities, according to Standard & Poor’s common stock index, rose from 59.4 in June of 1922 to 195.2 in September of 1929. Railroad stock climbed from 189.2 to 446.0, while public utilities rose from 82.0 to 375.1

A Series of False Signals

The vast money and credit expansion by the Coolidge administration made 1929 inevitable. Inflation and credit expansion always precipitate business maladjustments and malinvestments that must later be liquidated. The expansion artificially reduces and thus falsifies interest rates, and thereby misguides businessmen in their investment decisions. In the belief that declining rates indicate growing supplies of capital savings, they embark upon new production projects. The creation of money gives rise to an economic boom. It causes prices to rise, especially prices of capital goods used for business expansion. But these prices constitute business costs. They soar until business is no longer profitable, at which time the decline begins. In order to prolong the boom, the monetary authorities may continue to inject new money until finally frightened by the prospects of a runaway inflation. The boom that was built on the quicksand of inflation then comes to a sudden end.

So, you have bought into a phony, bullshit story of history that simply isn’t true. The true history of the Great Depression was a crisis caused by the government being used as a means for implementing policies and facilitating a power grab by the bankers. The story is complex. You should learn about it sometime.

[jrodefeld]

@Algorithm

@acsenray

He’s probably on vacation or something. Say what you will, he’s always been pretty persistent.

He’ll probably be back in a few weeks to start a new thread with a new essay. That’s generally his pattern - he starts a thread, sticks around for up to a week responding to posts, then comes back up to a month later to start a new one, oblivious to the substantive and rational objections to his previous thesis.

I don’t expect he’ll get anything out of this thread, and will be repeating the exact same easily-disprovable assertions in the next one.

See, the thing is, I don’t spend most of my time in front of a computer. Once I embark on creating a thread, I feel obligated to respond to everyone, which takes a long time. I was quite busy for about a week due to unforeseen circumstances in my life and I couldn’t access a computer. I’m sure that happens to you guys sometimes, or do you spend ALL your time on these boards?

There are some reasonable counterpoints to what I write, but you are right that I am not easily swayed at this point. I have studied too much, formed my opinions through research and ongoing analysis. I DO change my mind, but there has to be a very compelling reason for me to do so.

There have been some reasonable objections to my threads here and I respect that. I’m not “oblivious”, and I think I have responded to most every reply I receive here. A problem I have is that to truly understand some of the more complex points requires you guys to watch some documentaries, read some Austrian literature and spend some time going through the material and I know most of you won’t do that. I do link to this stuff anyway just in the hopes that some of you will wake up and see the truth (at least SOME of it).

I am finishing up responding to everyones post, so if any want to continue the discussion, I am open to that. Please, try and read through the links and view and videos I post and look at the facts I use to back up my arguments.

[jrodefeld]

@Jackmannii

He’s convinced himself that even though virtually 100% of the responses here have debunked and/or ridiculed his theories and claims, that a silent group of believers is growing with every screed he posts, and that come next election* the Libertarian/Rand/Austrian Economic Forces will sweep to victory, amazing the doubters. The logic behind his program is incredibly strong, after all.
Or the election after that. Or the one after that. Victory is inevitable once we come to our senses.

Really? 100% of my responses and points have been debunked? Ridiculed, sure. But that says more about your intellect than it does mine. If you think the growing number of libertarians in the country has been silent you are certainly not paying attention.

Look at it this way, at least my side of the argument is saying, “look, the economic policies and social policies of the last few decades have failed. They have brought us to the point we are today. I am advocating we try something truly new and radical, balance the budget, slash the military budget, eliminate much of government spending, clear the books and start over clean from a solid foundation.” What your side is advocating is more of the same. More failed Keynesian policies, more spending, more debt, more inflation, more Cronyism and more wars.

Yet the sad thing is that you defend that because anyone who truly wants to reform the system is a “radical”, “extremist”, and even “dangerous”. I don’t know what on earth makes you think if we adopted some of my policy ideas and reforms, it could be worse than what we are facing right now.

Apart from the philosophic arguments, what makes you so afraid to try anything new?

[jrodefeld]

@Fear_Itself

@jrodefeld

Non of my facts have been refuted.

Not just refuted, refudiated. You will never admit it, but it is clear to most readers.

Clear to most readers? What, is the truth subject to democratic vote now? Seriously, I post here because, apart from the few libertarians here, most of you are not, therefore I am hoping to have a true debate with people that disagree with me. You all have not given satisfactory responses to any of my many points, links and facts that I have posted. For the most part, the effort simply isn’t there.

To substitute rational debate and point by point debunking of the issues with “well, most of us disagree with you” is pretty lame.

I want some evidence that more of you actually understand the core tenets of Austrian economics and the Constitution. So many have simple, lazily lumped me in with people like Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan. Clearly someone who understands Austrian theory would never do that.

So, how about this. From what you know about what I have posted:

What do you agree with? Where are the areas where we can find common ground?

[jrodefeld]

@Czarcasm

And I am awaiting word as to where and when that integrated Tea party rally took place.

Do you find it even a little embarrassing that while I am trying to discuss critically important issues facing the economy and the future of our nation, you are reduced to playing the race card, basing your perceived merits of the Tea Party based on the percentage number of minorities in these movements? Unlike you when I judge a movement or protest, I don’t base my opinion and perceived worth of the group by first making sure there is some arbitrary number of blacks, Hispanics, and asians in the crowd.

For the record, I attended several Independent, non GOP rallies in Los Angeles area California earlier this year and from my experience they were much more diverse than the media storyline I have heard.

Now that thats established, PLEASE focus on the important things? Our country is going down the tubes and you obsess on race? You should be embarrassed.

[jrodefeld]

@Algorithm

@jrodefeld

The things Ron Paul has been right about:

The war in Iraq and its consequences
The war in Afghanistan and its consequences

No, you’re wrong, and so is Ron Paul:
Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

He further stated to keep these predictions around for “5 to 10 years”. This was in 2002. Unless you think all of the above will take place in the next 2 years, you have to admit that Ron Paul is wrong. Until all of the above take place, you have to admit that, at the very least, Ron Paul was not “spot on” with his predictions.

@jrodefeld

Many that you may label as “wrong” are really long term predictions that haven’t come true yet.

The draft, oil boycott, mass civilian casualties, ICC war crimes - these are most certainly not “long term predictions.” Further, terming things as such is a cop-out: certain predictions will always come true over the long term, and referring to them that way reduces the usefulness of the predictions to zero.

Just admit you were wrong. The facts are quite plain.

First of all, yes Ron Paul expressed his concerns in a floor speech in 2002. He warned of what he thought could happen if current policies don’t change. And he said to hold onto these predictions for ten years and he hoped they would not come true. Giving an address on the floor with warnings and concerns of what could happen in the future given current policy is not the same as making a prediction and staking your reputation on the result. Aren’t you missing the forest for the trees? Ron Paul gives a speech about his concerns for the next decade or so and you pick out a half dozen items that haven’t happened yet, or exactly as stated, and you criticize him for that? Not only are you ignoring all the things that HAVE come true so far, you are criticizing him before the timetable for his concerns is even up!

A few things though. The Karzai government HAS failed and we will certainly be forced to leave Afghanistan before too long.

I don’t rule out for a second the possibility of a MAJOR war (or sufficient expansion of current wars) will be engaged in within a few years now. Gerald Celente has predicted this as well. In an effort to “stimulate” the economy and distract the people and prevent revolt, the ruling class will engage in war. It is entirely possible. Even if it doesn’t happen, a fair evaluation of the facts would lead one to think that this is a very distinct possibility.

Other things, like an oil boycott and the reinstatement of the draft are things that current events lead us to look out for. Conditions are such that either could happen as a result of increased tension around the world.

Let me give you an example. In 2008, the Bush Administration, particularly Cheney, was looking for every rationale to attack Iran before the November elections. He was even caught attempting to stage a false flag “attack” on our ships to get away with it. Forecasters at the time would be correct to predict an imminent attack on Iran. This is still being discussed, as you probably know. They may still get their war. Yet if someone where to forecast an attack against Iran in 2008, you would call them a liar. Even though the facts clearly lead them to such a conclusion. If someone lays out their fears and worries about what could happen in the future, and even admits they hope that they are wrong, you cannot blame them if certain events conspire to sabotage the plans of people in power. It should be a relief.

And Ron Paul is not always right. He is right far more often than anyone in Congress. I think that those remaining predictions could very well materialize in the next five years or so.

[jrodefeld]

@Bosstone

@jrodefeld

Obama is warmongering and constitution shredding? You should be disgusted at Obama himself.

Considering your penchant for writing at length, I’m surprised a mildly complex sentence like Inigo’s got the better of you. There’s a word at the end you missed.

I know that. I was making the point that Obama is exactly fits the description that Inigo gives of his “foes”. Obama supports more war. He doesn’t give a shit about the Constitution, either. Its just bizarre to use those adjectives to describe his opponents. If those are your concerns, you better be worried about the guy in the Oval Office right now.

[jrodefeld]

@tomndebb

@jrodefeld

By the way, does anyone looking at Canada’s debt stunned by how small it is compared to the United States? Canada has a national debt which is the same as the price of a three bedroom, two bathroom home in California? Don’t ever compare this kind of country to one with a thirteen trillion three hundred billion dollar national debt and claim they are similar.

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.)

:smack:Yeah, you got me. I completely take back that statement. I really didn’t think that one through. And no, I haven’t memorized the national debt of every country in the world. If I was quoting the national debt of another country, I would write the figure in full to avoid such confusion.

But, yeah, I definitely should have known better.

[jrodefeld]

@Czarcasm

@jrodefeld

California, Los Angeles area.

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

Could we stick to the issues? What are you hoping to accomplish? Do you think you will be able to find exact statistics on the racial groups that attended the event in an effort to disprove what I said? I have gone to five separate events this year and I have been involved in a local meetup group that is unaffiliated with the Tea Party. I also attended a Progressive Anti War rally.

I probably couldn’t find the exact dates for these events. They were not centrally planned and organized by a national group. It was grassroots organized through Meetup groups.

[jrodefeld]

@Clark_K

@jrodefeld

I understand Austrian School economics. I have studied the philosophy and predictions of:

Carl Menger
Ludwig von Mises
Friedrich Hayek
Murray Rothbard
Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Friedrich von Wieser
Jim Rogers
Hans Sennholz
Ron Paul
Peter Schiff
I have witnessed the correct predictions of the Austrian School with my own eyes. I understand the monetary system and the way the Federal Reserve System benefits private bankers and is an attack on freedom and fiscal well being for our country.

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.

Get the fuck out of here. I’m serious. Don’t post on my thread again. You are cluttering up this discussion with stupid bullshit. What are you getting out of posting a reply like that? Whats the point?

[jrodefeld]

@PBear42

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.

First, I appreciate the productive reply. Gold is money as determined in the marketplace. What this means is that instead of people accepting a piece of paper because governments declare that it is money (by fiat, hence the name), people naturally, without coercion have decided throughout history to use gold as money. It is limited in quality and it is beautiful. It has lasted as far back as civilization itself. Looking at the price of gold is a very sound method of determining the soundness of a currency. If the price of gold goes up, it means that the value of the money is going down. It is far better than comparing our fiat currency to other fiat currencies.

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.

Yes, absolutely. That is why using money that is backed by a tangible asset makes so much sense. Its STUFF. Its limited in quantity. People have decided, on their own, that gold is valuable. This makes it true wealth. You may argue that as long as we have factories, and are producing things, the currency choice doesn’t matter. But this is not true. If we all buy stuff on debt, we are not wealthy. If our commodities and productions are measured in fiat dollars and the dollar crashes, our wealth crashes also. The Austrian economists are dedicated to explaining to people all the harm created by inflation over the decades.

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.

You are wrong, the point is of critical importance. This is the game that is played. The true cost of inflation is hidden by relying on simply prices as a measure of inflation. If the fed creates a ton of new money today, spends it on corporate welfare or warfare, but the prices don’t rise for most people for three years, people don’t make the connection between cause and effect. The rising prices can be blamed on other things. It is a complex thing that people have difficulty comprehending, yet their cost of living goes up. The true rate of inflation and how it disproportionately effects different groups of people is hidden behind CPI’s and government figures that don’t tell the whole story.

Like right now, we have slightly falling prices, so people are claiming we have deflation. Yet the Fed prints money like crazy and anyone who says we have inflation says we are crazy. When prices shoot through the roof in a year or two, only the Austrians will know the swindle that has occurred. If we want to stop inflation we have to prevent the Fed from creating money, pure and simple.

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.

No, but going off the gold standard allowed government to grow by leaps and bounds, especially since 1971. Government control of health care and education is in large part responsible for the shape they are in. That is where the connection is made. Also, the existence of fiat money means that the obligation to spend responsibly or get value for the money disappears. With no restraint, industries like health care and education simply become money sucking vampires who will continually get more funding despite the lack of results.

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.

I’ll let you read this article, which will answer most of your questions:

In Defense of "Extreme Apriorism" | Murray N. Rothbard

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.

Yes I know that, but they have economic effects. Do you really think that most of our federal regulations are dedicated to preventing food poisoning and consumer protection? That is the myth. In reality they destroy the free market, protect the giant corporations and drive honest business overseas. There is an argument to be made for moderate involvement for food safety and very basic consumer protection concerns. But for the most part, government should be absolutely out of the business world altogether. Very very little regulations should be permissible in a free society. We shouldn’t be anti business because some of the largest corporations are engaged in bad behavior (usually as a result of government help or regulation). Small business is hurt the most.

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.

If we cannot voluntarily help the poor, then there is no hope. Because government DOES NOT help the poor. They impoverish more people than they help. It simply doesn’t work. We need to advocate a system that creates the maximum wealth first. Then we can help the few who still need assistance. There are some very generous people in this country and around the world.

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.

Yeah, but I’m not going to let the other stuff go. I think we need to have a true revolution in our thinking about government and society in general. Tinkering with the current system simply won’t cut it.

[jrodefeld]

@Der_Trihs

@jrodefeld

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.

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.

Well, do you support the idea that local government is better than national government at solving problems? None of these problems are “solved”. Poverty has always existed. Social problems have always existed. I am saying that governments don’t do a very good job at trying to make things better. I am not saying there is no role for government, I am saying that the private sector does most things better than the government and they do it through persuasion, rather than force.

As a general rule, creating more wealth in a country makes EVERYONE richer. There are varying levels of income inequality in any system, but in a free market people get rich by providing value to other people, thereby creating wealth for others as well. Competition lowers prices and everyone is better off. Government destroys wealth and the creators of wealth, leaving people dependent. At the far end of the philosophy you advocate, Socialism, government destroys the incentives for wealth creation and they start redistributing a shrinking pie. Everyone is made poorer.

[jrodefeld]

@Der_Trihs

@jrodefeld

I’m actually not going to directly respond to the lunacy that you have typed here.

Rather I want to ask you a straightforward and direct question:

Why should I respond to you if you refuse to respond to me? This is a forum for discussion, not some private soapbox site of yours.

Because you didn’t actually ask a question and your tirade against the Founders would be laughed at by most serious historians and scholars. Yes, some (but not all) owned slaves. Many had a variety of personal faults. They also gave us the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Should we get rid of those? Your attitude that we should never listen to the words of the founders and heed their advice is frankly ridiculous.

[jrodefeld]

@Voyager

@jrodefeld

Do you truly believe that the bailout money will be paid back? Did you know that the word gullible is not found in the dictionary?

If you are unaware that substantial amounts of the bailout money has already been paid back, I would suggest you abandon the publications who seem to find it inconvenient to publish this information. Now, it is true that much was paid in order to allow for big bonuses for execs, but it was paid, with interest. Will it be 100% paid back? Of course not - it was not meant to make a profit, but rather to prevent a further collapse, which it did.

So, hows that recovery going? I’m sure not feeling it. The truth is they can always say how bad it would have been if they hadn’t done what they did, bailing everyone out. You are just taking their word for it. Is there some point where you would say, “maybe what they are doing is making it worse”?. That is the truth. Big companies and banks, with lots of political pull, got bailed out. They didn’t want to lose their personal wealth, so they made up some bullshit about how it would devastate the larger economy and things would be terrible. Do you understand the concept of allowing the correction to occur and why that is necessary? Why should we buy up toxic assets and dump them on the taxpayers?

I think at this point the Fed would love a little inflation, since the inflation rate is not even at its target value.

:eek: What? I don’t want to know what will happen when they hit their “target value”

By the way, I have a target value of confiscating half your money every month. How does that sound?

So, how much unemployment would be acceptable to you in order to maintain your ideological purity? 20%? 30%? How many years would this take? 3 years after the start of the Depression there was no recovery.

You should blame the people who created this crisis. The Austrians warned that we shouldn’t build this giant bubble in the first place. They are the ones who advocated that we take our bumps a decade or two ago, reduce our debt and reform the monetary system. We didn’t and now that the crisis that the Austrians correctly predicted has occurred, you still believe the predictions of the Keynesians? Are you crazy?

Allowing the liquidation of debt and malinvestment and having the correction and doing the proper things to reform the system will allow a MUCH shorten down turn. Haven’t you read about the New Deal causing the Depression to be much longer than necessary? The blue print for current policies is one that caused the great depression to last more than fifteen years.

Do you want a depression or do you want hyperinflation?

Frankly, even if I hadn’t read everything about Austrian economics, I would look at the track record of the Keynesians and “mainstream” economists and be willing to try anything different.

Hellestal in the other thread has nicely refuted the notion that the Austrians ever explained the Depression, and the followers of Keynes brought stability for a long period of time - far longer than existed in the 19th century. I agree that the middle class is in danger - but only because of conservative economic policies that favored the rich.

But I realized something fascinating in your support of gold buggery. If I said that it was important to have stable prices and wages, and thus supported controls on these, I’d think a charge of socialism would be far more accurate than those being thrown around today. I of course don’t believe in this. However, you seem to believe in strong government control of the currency, and seem to oppose letting the free market set the values of currencies. Socialism? Let’s remember that the biggest nation that does not let its currency float is Communist China.

No, in fact Hellestal did not “refute” the notion that the Austrians explained the Great Depression. Mises predicted the crash of 1929 and Keynes lost his personal fortune in it! Doesn’t that tell you something?

You talk about the “stability” for a couple decades following the great depression, but what about the debt? If we are comparing the 19th century to the 20th, what about the devaluation of the dollar? What about the number of wars we engaged in? The number of minor downturns, or market corrections, is immaterial compared to the cumulative debt and devaluation of the currency and the balancing (or lack of) of the budget.

Government does have strong control of our currency. I favor a gold standard to reduce that power. Then I want private currencies to circulate as well. I WANT a free market in banking, which we don’t have today.

If you think a system of honest money is socialistic in any way, you are crazy.

[jrodefeld]

@TriPolar

@jrodefeld

Non of my facts have been refuted. You haven’t contributed much yourself, by the way. Instead of hiding behind the posts of others, why not take on my OP yourself?

First, I haven’t been hiding. I haven’t been paying attention to this thread. I just skimmed through numerous posts where your facts were refuted. Facts are not numbers. Facts are the provable statements requiring quantification and qualification. When you cite a number as a fact, such as the price of gold in some year, and attach it to your opinions or philosophies, it is no longer a fact.

Let me demonstrate:

Fact: 1+1=2
Not Fact: 1+1=2 so we should return to the Gold Standard

I’m not going to bother addressing the rest of your non-facts. The time I’ve spent reading your OP and your responses has been wasted already. It’s easier to refute your logic. I’ll return in a few days to do that.

Okay, when you do, I’ll refute your responses.

[jrodefeld]

@Captain_Midnight

Some thoughts:

I think there is room for a third political party out there, but it would take a lot of work by some dedicated people, plus it would have to rely on defections of already known politicians who are sick of the system as is. The so called “tea party” is basically a schism of the Republican party. Problem is that the Tea party movement is leaderless.

I remember Sarah Palin addressing their convention in Nashville. Two mistakes there. For one, it took place in Nashville. When people think of Nashville, they think of country music and hicks. Southern idiots with gunracks, whiskey bottles flying out the back with the 15 year old pregnant wife cooking breakfast barefoot listening to Tammy Wynette between hits of Crystal Meth. However, she is a Rhodes Scholar next to Sarah Palin. Having Sarah Palin there really lacked credibility. Then she wrote her speech on her hand. Classic move. At least Alvin Greene brings his well worn and page torn out Mead spiral scholar tablet when he does a show. But that is not here nor there.

I believe that there is a “whacko” factor considering third party candidates. They are mainly seen as too radical or too weird to even contemplating voting for. A lot of times there are many eccentric and colorful people running as a third party candidate who perpetuate all third party candidates being nuts.

I love the meaning but do not like the word “libertarian”. Most people do not get the word. It sounds like ‘liberal’ or even ‘lesbian’, or something else than what it is. Some Libertarians are basically anarchist whack jobs who do not believe in any kind of government control whatsoever. No need for a driver’s license, car tags, my land is my land. I will pay for the services I use, etc. Some of these people support that the airspace over their property is theirs and think that all airlines violating it needs to pay a fee. (No shit, look it up.)

The “throwing away” your vote bit is a bit bullshit. I don’t like the Republicans and Democrats. What am I supposed to do? Stay home or vote for a third party candidate who I know is going to lose? Everyone on the left hates when Ralph Nader runs because basically they claim that he steals votes from the Dem. candidate. Well, for myself, I would much rather vote for Nader over bullshit artists like Gore, Kerry and Obama anyday. I am against Universal Health Care, but I know that Nader would call out the medical community, drug companies, insurance companies and profiteers of the medical racket instead of protecting them. I vote Libertarian. Libertarian candidates get about 400,000 votes versus the 69 million who voted for Obama.

I dislike Jesse Ventura because he was someone who could have done an excellent job in Minnesota as governor, served two terms and help foster a new political movement. But Jesse fucked it up. He got a big head and called himself “The Mind” and made ridiculous interviews and speeches, saying once that he wish he was some woman’s underwear or whatever. Then the clown , AS GOVERNOR, was a WWF announcer.:smack: Jesse didn’t want to go for another term, basically because he knew that he would lose and made some lame excuse about his family or something like that. Whatever. He made all third party people look bad.

(Jesse, if are out there and want to kick my ass, PM me and we’ll set it up.)

Ross Perot is an another good example. When he first announced he was going to run, he was first in the polls. Then the fame of him as a candidate wore thin, he went a bit nuts and decided to call it quits because someone was spying on his daughter’s wedding. The Perot people went WTF? and scattered. Perot after a month of doing nothing and his ugly daughter still married decided to run again. Unfortunately he did not have the momentum like before, although he won 18% of the vote.

Perot started the “Reform Party” and opened it up to whoever wants the nomination. A Colorado Governor named Richard Lamm decided to go for it, but he was quickly shut down by Perot. It was like one of those times when you see someone you don’t like but are being polite and tell them upon leaving, “Hey, let’s have lunch sometime.” thinking to be rid of the annoyance, to only see him at your door the next day with a picnic basket.

Perot would not run in 2000, which left the Reform Party in the hands of goofballs of all stripes, from Pat Buchanan, Angela Davis (yea, that big haired 70’s Commie black guerilla chick.), and some idiot from Iowa who ran a Maharashi school. The Reform Party was rudderless with people of all political stripes trying to hijack the thing (the old joke, a Neo-Conservative, a Hippie and a Black Female Commie walks into a bar…)

Concerning this “tea party” business. It is almost all white. Which is fine. The Mexicans have Al Reza and Atzlan, the blacks have all their groups and this badly named movement is made up of mostly white people. Since it is mostly all white people, the powers that be in the media have dubbed these people “teabaggers” and racists, KKK and all that other garbage.

Whites are tired of moving and living two hours away the city because the city is too violent to live in. Whites are tired of all these illegal hispanics and paying them benefits and welfare. Whites are being pushed aside and many of them are pushing back, which is racist. A black or hispanic group doing the same thing would be celebrated as “diversity” by the media. Even today, fluff issues like gay marriage, Lindsey Lohan and some English cunt throwing a cat in a garbage can gets more play than telling us the truth about foreclosures, lost jobs, who is getting rich off our misery and where the fuck our jobs went.

The Tea Party seem to be leaderless at this time, basically co-opting the Republican Party instead of trying to strike out on their own. The problem is that the Republicans and Democrats have the cards stacked against independent candidates, or even candidates which buck the “party line” (like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, men of the opposite side of the galaxy politically).

Obama should be some CEO of some business somewhere, coming home to his anonymous wife and their two bratty kids, spending the weekend in the Hamptons. He was going to do that, actually. Some twerp told him he should go into politics. Well, to that guy, once I am finished with Jesse, your next!

I like Jesse Ventura too, but I know he would never be viable for higher office. No shame in voting third party. I voted for Nader in the last election.

[jrodefeld]

@Der_Trihs

@Captain_Midnight

Concerning this “tea party” business. It is almost all white. Which is fine. The Mexicans have Al Reza and Atzlan, the blacks have all their groups and this badly named movement is made up of mostly white people. Since it is mostly all white people, the powers that be in the media have dubbed these people “teabaggers” and racists, KKK and all that other garbage.

They have pretty well demonstrated that they are full of racists. And they themselves named themselves Teabaggers. Perhaps if they weren’t such a collection of fanatics, thugs, idiots and bigots other people might be less inclined to gloat over how they picked such an insulting name for themselves. As it is, tough.

@Captain_Midnight

Whites are tired of moving and living two hours away the city because the city is too violent to live in. Whites are tired of all these illegal hispanics and paying them benefits and welfare. Whites are being pushed aside and many of them are pushing back, which is racist. A black or hispanic group doing the same thing would be celebrated as “diversity” by the media. Even today, fluff issues like gay marriage, Lindsey Lohan and some English cunt throwing a cat in a garbage can gets more play than telling us the truth about foreclosures, lost jobs, who is getting rich off our misery and where the fuck our jobs went.

Oh, the poor victimized white man. :rolleyes:

Oh, and as it happens I’m a white man. With Hispanic neighbors, who have yet to kill and eat me or whatever it is you think such people do.

Look, Der Trihs, I am calling you out now. If you claim to know how racist, uneducated and white trash the people who make up the Tea Party are, you had better tell us how many rallies you have attended and people you have talked to. Because unless you have first hand experience with dealing with grassroots these movements, you are talking out of your ass.

[jrodefeld]

@Fear_Itself

@jrodefeld

We have tried that. Try getting anyone in Washington to read the Constitution, let alone bothering to amend it. If we have an out of control, and I would even say tyrannical government, the ability to change the system through normal means disappears.

No, you have tried it, but could not get enough support to effect the change you want. You are like the guy who hates the free market because he cannot afford a flat screen TV; you are not owed the change you seek simply because you want it it. You have failed to convince enough people your ideology is just. As the minority opinion, you are not entitled to the change you seek. That is how a republic works.

Wrong. In a Republic the government is confined to certain delegated powers. People cannot vote away the rights of a minority. If a time comes, and people cannot protect their liberties through the election of two very similar parties, then it is the duty of the people to resist in any way they can. Civil disobedience and State nullification of unconstitutional laws is a good start. If the people vote to lock up all Hispanics for no reason, it is still tyranny. People should rise up and resist by any means necessary.

[jrodefeld]

@Fear_Itself

@jrodefeld

This is an ignorant comment. Of course there is a difference between peacefully protesting government and violating someones property rights.

So you stealing from the commons is a noble expression of liberty, but me eating your vegetables is violating your property rights. You really need to stop digging, you are not gaining any converts to your cause with your hypocritical application of an intellectually bankrupt ideology.

Civil disobedience is used to combat serious infringements on human liberty. Does stealing the food of a law abiding citizen seem comparable? Get it straight.

You know who valiantly applied the libertarian principle of civil disobedience in fighting tyrannical laws? Rosa Parks. Would you like to denigrate Rosa Parks as well?

An individual wanting to protect the money he earns and prevent it being stolen from him is not “stealing from the commons”. It is protesting an unconstitutional tax. The people resisting the government is as American as apple pie. Thats whats supposed to happen. If its peaceful resistance that is the best kind of resistance.