I said if we had a tyrannical government. By the way, State Nullification was advocated by the founders specifically to safeguard the Constitution. You really need to read your history. I have no idea how you think that this is the same as stealing from your neighbor.
As far as the word tyranny is concerned, is it tyranny to lock up people indefinitely without trial? What about torturing people? Assassinating people? FDR locking up the Japanese? Going to war and murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people in other nations?
There are quite a few things that our government has done and is continuing to do that certainly qualifies as tyranny, at least for some people. Wouldn’t you want people resisting such abuses of liberty any way they can?
Of course we should tax them. I am criticizing the lefty idea that we should tax the rich disproportionally as “punishment” for making money. It doesn’t make any sense. Taxes should be low for everyone.
I won’t go from 1850 because the Fed didn’t exist then. If you bought a cow for $5 in 1913 (the year the Fed was created), in todays dollars that would be $110.11.
It leads to higher prices, but after a while. Not immediately. The increase in the money supply obviously leads to a weaker dollar and reduced purchasing power. Your savings are eroded. There is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy.
It benefits the political class and corporate cronies in that they have access to new money before the prices rise. Don’t you see the problem there? They get the money when it has real value. After they spend the money into the economy, by the time it circulates to the poorest and most vulnerable the prices have risen and the money has less value. Therefore wealth (true wealth) is transferred to the wealthy. By focusing on prices this fact is hidden from most people. This is a primary reason for the continuing gap between rich and poor.
Beyond that, it contributes to the creation of malinvestment and bubbles through bad information being available to investors. It creates the ability for bankers to create complex instruments like derivatives to make money on the phony fractional reserve banking system.
The Austrian School emphasizes the soundness of the monetary system in the creation of true free markets. During both Reagan and Thatcher, the move to “freer” markets was very misleading because sometimes a “partial” change can be worse than no change at all. For example Reagan cut taxes, a “part” of libertarian philosophy no doubt, with the emphasis on low tax burdens. But without cutting spending or dealing with the fundamental problems in the banking systems the deficits ballooned and we had more problems related to that. Also, IF we have corporatism and a banking system such as ours, I would argue that we need certain government regulations because the natural market regulations are being subverted.
So, if we had truly free markets we could have a low inflation rate, sound money, separation of government and business and a balanced budget. If we simply adopt one or two ideas and neglect the others, it doesn’t work in the way its supposed to. Government grew DRASTICALLY under Reagan and spending didn’t shrink under Thatcher. Yes, they both had elements of free market thinking but neither truly reformed the system in a way which would allow markets to function the way they truly should. Their defenders would say they couldn’t do this or that because there was too much resistance by the vested interests. Maybe. But the truth is that neither provided anything close to the ideal of free markets and small government that the Austrian economists envision.
I think the last several posts have pointed out exactly what is wrong with this thread(and most of your other ones). You post a multi-page screed consisting of many points, and since nobody really wants to post multi-page responses to all your points they usually respond to a very limited number of them. You then wait until a great number of responses have been posted, then respond to a a number of them in a row, each response in a separate post, then you step back for a while. There remains a number of posts you haven’t responded to yet, to which are added responses to your first batch of responses. You let these pile up for awhile, then you continue from where you left off with yet another multi-post run that only gets to some of the responses to some of your points, causing the pile to get even higher, then you step back yet again to let the pile increase even more.
There is no possible way to hold a debate in a format such as this.
Hey, the OP hasn’t responded to a question I asked way up at the top. And have posted in his other threads.
What is jrodefeld’s actual education in economics? He may have read a bunch of books by his Austrian heroes, but he really needs knowledge of the entire discipline if he wants people to take him seriously. I’m all for autodidactism, but his lofty disdain ought to be backed up by a couple of real degrees.
Can you cite any “lefty” who avocates taxing the rich as “punishment”?
I’ll save you a round of 7-paragraph screeds: No, you can’t. At the end of a few such screeds, you’ll finally concede that that example gibberish resulted from your exasperation, or some such, dealing with the stupid economists you find at SDMB!
jrodefeld, do you agree your quoted statement was silly nonsense? (Just a one-word Ye/No response to this, please, not another 7-paragraph screed.)
And when you do agree it was silly nonsense, Will you understand why your requests to be treated as a serious thinker aren’t working for you here?
Bravo, JRod! Thank the good Lord someone around here will stand up to the riff-raff with their “opinion” that “satire” can be used in debate to highlight “pompous” statements and reveal the speaker to be “a faintly ridiculous bag of hot air.”
After your stern warning, I certainly shall never post in this thread again.
Wait, what? I just did? Oh my stars and garters – I’m mortified!
Its the increase in money supply. Period. Rising prices are the result of inflation. The creation of new money creates the persistent tendency for prices to rise. Its the action of money creation that causes inflation.
Are you trying to be cute or something? I say that the conventional definition of inflation is rising prices and you say no, its the “tendency” for prices to rise? Well, if prices don’t rise, the government says we have no inflation.
Either way, thats wrong. Prices tend to rise over time due to persistent money creation. Before prices rise the true inflation (increase in money supply) causes all sorts of problems in the economy which current government statistics and establishment economists don’t take into account.
No, I’m quote other authors work because it seems clear that most of you will not actually click on any of the links I post. If I paste some relevant passages into this thread, some of you may read it. I have actually done this very little, but some other artists are far better at articulating certain points than I am. Quoting somebody is not violating intellectual property rights.
Actually no. You are right in a way that we have democratic processes in this country and we are also a republic. But, in a Republic government is limited by laws and restricted to certain delegated functions. Unless the Constitution is amended, government is not allowed to do certain things no matter how many people want it to.
In a direct democracy, people can blindly vote their own self interest, which frequently violates the liberties of others. This leads to progressive loss of liberty over time and lends itself to the creation of authoritarian government.
Don’t you see the difference? Those who want a certain massive government program always can claim “a majority of the people want this”, even though that is irrelevant in a Republic. The founders were very distrusting of the people. They didn’t believe that 51% of the country would usually make the right and didn’t believe in mob rule.
The founders advocated a small, Constitutionally limited federal government with specific delegated functions. That is what they wanted. Obviously, what we have today is the polar opposite of that. Now, every violation of liberty can be justified by quoting a poll that shows a slim majority supporting the law or government program. Don’t you see the danger there?
This is actually a profoundly important point to make. You should watch this short Youtube video on the subject:
We want government ruled by law. That is the best form of government devised in history.
That article hardly refutes this claim and actually gives credence to the notion that many could easily come to that conclusion based on an evaluation of the facts. You should read the book Lies the Government Told You by Judge Napolitano. He devotes an entire section to Pearl Harbor. Another great book is The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable. Read more about it here:
So you are claiming that industrialization provided no benefits to the population at larger? Are you kidding me? I am NOT saying that there is absolutely no need for government to intervene at all or provide any help for people. Nor am I saying that different government policies in the 19th century couldn’t have improved matters somewhat. I AM saying that a mostly phony version of history is peddled to denigrate free market capitalism and that is completely ridiculous. In any system there will be poverty and problems. Hell, I could easily write about all the poverty and problems we have today and blame our current government policies for the problems. People in record numbers were lifted out of poverty during the industrial revolution. If you pick out a few cases of greedy businessmen acting badly, that does not take away from the greater facts that America was being built into the greatest nation on earth through the engine of free enterprise and entrepreneurship. Some more on this:
You desperately need to have a broader understanding and more critical look at the history of the period.
Well, in point of fact, this isn’t really true. Lots of people historically have been forced to work, for poor or even zero wages. Even if we remove chattel slavery from the discussion, economic slavery remains. Until the government protected wage earners, business could pay whatever the poorest, most hardship ridden segment of the population could be given, even when that wage was below life sustaining levels. Workers who became too sick or weak to continue to work could always be replaced by others, willing to take whatever was offered to eek out an existence, the alternative being receiving nothing at all. How can people refuse to work for “less than a fair amount” when the alternative to “less than a fair amount” is zero?
The idea of wage earners holding out for whatever the competitor is paying reminds me of an old (very old) joke. A woman goes to the butcher and asks “How much is your ground beef?” The butcher answers “Twenty cents a pound.”
“Outrageous!” the woman replies, “Schmidt down the street has it for ten cents!”.
“Well why don’t you go buy it from Schmidt then?” the butcher asks.
“Because he doesn’t have any more!”
“Well, when I don’t have any more, I sell it for five cents a pound”, the butcher declares.
Why would I work for Company A at $2 when Company B pays $8? Because Company B isn’t hiring!
If you mean these amazing change in human nature whereby those who have will be self motivated to share equitably with those who have less, and will pay livable wages when they could get away with paying less, and will reduce their own profit margins to do so, in contrast to all of history under every different economic and social system that human animals have ever tried – if you really believe this will be true tomorrow, in the bright new Libertarian Gold Standard world you want to bring us, I remain unconvinced by your rhetoric and unimpressed with your authorities. And I don’t want your newsletter.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, in a vibrant economy where all markets have plenty of competition and many jobs are available, the notion that large segments of the population would be “forced” into slave labor by a certain single corporation with no hope is downright laughable. I’m not saying there is never exploitation, but the examples of it would be very limited. The entire country would have so much wealth that poverty would be very low. Companies have to be competitive. They cannot abuse their workers and hope to remain viable.
What is your view of the notion that the minimum wage laws frequently destroy jobs and cause previously employed people to be laid off? The facts indicate such.
There is always a price that certain jobs are worth. If we raise the minimum wage, low skilled jobs are eliminated from the economy. You know, when I was 11 I had a bike route. I made about $200 a month. That was a lot of money for an 11 year old. The point is that there is always a segment of the population who will be willing and glad to do very basic menial jobs for low wages. Teenagers, recent immigrants and others may want to offer their services for less than minimum wage. They are forbidden by law to do such. Just as it wasn’t exploitation to pay me only $200 a month for a couple hours a day of work, it isn’t exploitation to allow people the option of very low skilled jobs that are paid what they are worth.
Now, machines are used because employers are forbidden from providing these low level jobs to people nowadays.
You seem to have an unyielding faith in government to solve these problems and to promote “equality” and justice, but I would prefer to have the choice of various businesses who try to persuade me to buy their product and who I can choose to work (or not work for). In a free economy the consumer is king and people get wealthy by providing value for others.
It would take quite a bit to undo the myths that you take as gospel about the “evils” of the market and the “benevolence” of government. You have to do that on your own. You can start by reading the Austrian literature. Once you understand how markets really work and the way in which history has been rewritten to benefit the establishment, you will see the light.
You are right that the first quote was incorrectly attributed to Franklin. I made a mistake. The second quote has been linked to many, many reputable websites so I would hesitate to say that it is incorrect. None of this really matters though. I have actually read the Federalist and Antifederalist papers. I have read the Jefferson Papers and Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. I distinctly know the views of the founders. If you pick two erroneous quotes that have been commonly mis-attributed, it hardly dispels my larger point.
The founders advocated limited Constitutional government, property rights, sound money (defined as a weight in Gold), States rights, and a non interventionist foreign policy (don’t engage in wars, except in self defense).
So, the facts speak plainly that the founders were libertarians. If I pick out a mis-attributed quote, it hardly debunks my larger point. After making more than a hundred replies, a small error or oversight is bound to happen.
You know at this point I am going to ask you to study economics a little. There is not too much more that can be said.
But how about this: Does the DEBT concern you at all? That we have bought prosperity on a credit card?
Secondly, the improvement in technology and progress is made despite government policy, not because of government policy. Also, much of our wealth is due to productivity in other countries, rather than our own. If we stayed on a gold standard and resisted the urge to regulate the economy like crazy the wealth we would have today would be double or triple what it is today.
See, you have a horribly faulty understanding of the Constitution. The Constitution is not a list of prohibitions. It is an express list of delegated functions to the federal government. If a function is not expressly delegated, the government cannot do it, no matter what. What would lead you to believe that the founders ever had the intention of writing in the Constitution everything they were AGAINST?
Everything not expressly authorized in the Constitution is by default prohibited from doing and left to the States and to the people.
