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

[Kiber]

@jrodefeld

Well apart from the specific claims of the economists at UCLA, even if a recovery took longer, why should the economy be allowed to re balance itself, liquidate bad debt and find an equilibrium? That should be obvious that preventing this process will drag out the inevitable.

Well - if we did nothing, the economy would re balance itself, liquidate bad debt and find an equilibrium. The problem is that the new equilibrium would be way lower than it was before the rebalancing occured. So not my ideal outcome. But in fact, that’s what we saw during the great depression. For 4 years after the crash, the government cut spending and balanced the budget - outcome: economy continues to tank. Although I suppose that in your world, it’s just rebalancing, coming to equilibrium.

@jrodefeld

And why did the recovery only happen when, after WWII, the spending was cut two thirds and the taxes were cut one third? What if we pursued these polices a decade earlier?

It didn’t. Recovery started in 1933, 4 years after the crash. From 1933 to 1937, the recovery kept on . . . . .well, recovering. Then in 1937, fiscal conservatives convinced FDR to cut spending and the economy tanked again. This set back the recovery by years, and wasn’t reversed until spending increased again in 1939. I’d post graphs and data for you - but first, I’ve already done that, and second - I don’t think you’d read it anyway.

@jrodefeld

Surely you can see that the length of the Depression is not exactly a point in FDR’s favor.

No - I can’t. I can’t because I’ve looked at the data. I’ve posted the data. I’ve posted links to the data. I’ve described the data. Hell - I’ve sauted the data in a nice red wine reduction. I’ve lead the data to water AND made it drink. The one thing I haven’t done, apparently, is gotten you to look at it.

@jrodefeld

What about the Depression of 1920-21? The government did nothing and a robust recovery happened in less than a couple of years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI

What is your opinion of this? How come my theories worked in practice and yours created a fifteen year catastrophe? Do the facts matter to you?

What??? You want me to watch a 50 minute youtube video - created by the Limited Government Institute??? Surely you don’t honestly expect me to take that as an unbiased source, do you? I’m sorry, but if you can’t make your points yourself, in a couple paragraph post, then why should I bother. I’m not about to waste an hour wading through that video to try and figure out what your argument is.

[Algorithm]

@jrodefeld

These all sound very accurate to me. The rest could easily happen. The gist of what he said is very accurate.

Do you understand that, in 2002, Ron Paul predicted the draft would be reinstated?

Do you understand that, since 2002, the draft has not been reinstated?

Do you understand how the prediction that the draft would be reinstated is thus not accurate?

Thus, do you understand that, when you said this:

@jrodefeld

All his prediction about current economic conditions, the wars overseas and the failure of Keynesian theories has been spot on.

you were wrong?

Further, do you understand that saying event X “could easily happen” is not the proper way to determine a prediction that says: “event X will happen” is spot on?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@jrodefeld

The meaning of that quote was, in my experience, much of the modern left holds a view that all wealth must be created at the expense of someone else. There is a degree of envy the endeavors to take away from the rich who make more money “than they need”. I am saying that this is childish. If people make money honestly, they deserve the money they earn because they have provided that level of value to others.

Can you entertain the notion that the free market does not distribute income equitably or even economically efficiently.

I can make all sorts of arguments about the freemarket’s ability to distribute income equitably.

For teh argument on efficeincy, I would point to the perverse pay incentives provided to the folks who traded credit default swaps and packaged mortgages. It was very good at incentivizing more credit default swaps and more mortgage securitizations but it was ultimately very destructive to the economy.

I think it is hard to defend how much some peopel are paid and how little others are paid. For example I could construct an economy where teachers get a percentage of all the future earnings of their students. It would incentivize the best and brightest into becoming teachers and I wonder if this is any worse than our system which incentivizes so many really bright hard working people into becoming investment bankers.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@jrodefeld

@Fear_Itself

And who makes the law?

The people through the Constitution. And, this may drive the Atheists crazy, but the truth is the founders harped on God given rights so much because they DIDN’T trust the people. They did believe the document was divinely inspired.

Wait. What!!! Divinely Inspired? I think I’m going to need a cite for the fact that the founding fathers thought the Constitution was divinely inspired. The document that apportioned by giving states credit for 3/5ths of a person for every slave and one for every freeman.

Seriously dude. The road to serfdom was not the third tablet of the ten commandments. It talked about some pretty extreme statist conditions.

I am going to assume that there are some posters here who have never bothered to read road to serfdom because they simply can’t be bothered to read the whole thing because they think they already know what it says.

here is a grossly abridged illustrated version of the concepts in the book depicted in 18 cartoons:

The Road to Serfdom | Mises Institute

I read this book in college and it seemed relevant because the Soviet Union was still alive and well back then. Anyone that thinks that the road we are travelling puts us in danger of that sort of government (or worse nazi germany), I think you’ve got a screw loose.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@jrodefeld

@Fear_Itself

Does the Constitution authorize the Congress to levy taxes and spend that revenue?

Yes, but if you say that that allows the government to spend that money on ANYTHING, you are dead wrong. The Constitution allows the collection of revenue through taxes to fund the expressly limited functions delegated in the Constitution.

No more than that.

Well, not ont ANYTHING but pretty much anything. The one hand, the supreme court has about two centuuries of jurisprudence on the commerce clause, on the other hand, you’ve read books and you know stuff.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@jrodefeld

@Algorithm

Do you see how that methodology could never come to any conclusion other than “Ron Paul can see the future?” We’re getting mighty close to self-parody here.

Okay, looking at that list, I will point out the things that HAVE come true:

OMFG he really is trying to say that Ron Paul is an oracle.

These all sound very accurate to me. The rest could easily happen. The gist of what he said is very accurate.

The GIST of what he said is very accurate? The rest COULD happen?

You really think it took a libertarian to predict that Bush was going to invade Iraq in 2002, or that people would die in the war?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Fear_Itself

@jrodefeld

We wouldn’t have those kinds of economies.

What is to prevent it? Good intentions? Feudalism is the ultimate culmination of the free market you envision. Those who do not own property become the economic slaves of those who do. Submit to your liegelord, or starve. Having done away with all the regulations that limit ‘consensual’ agreements, there can be no other outcome. Desperate, starving people will submit to slavery, and property owners will perpetuate the system that keeps the poor powerless, because it is in their economic interest.

Of course, eventually, the poor rise up with the power of sheer numbers, drag the property owners into the streets and burn tires around their necks. That is how your vision of liberty always ends.

Well that is the problem with pure capitalism. Capital tends to concentrate and as capital extracts more and more of the value of production, the rich get richer and the rest can only hope to tread water.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@jrodefeld

No, bailing out the banks was not necessary.

Are you frikking kidding me? I don’t like bailing out the culprits any more than you do but we were on the verge of global financial collapse. There were grain shipments rotting in port because the banking system was starting to fail.

There were runs on perfectly healthy banks because people lost faith in their banks.

I think its very easy to criticize necessary evils in hindsight.

THIS MARKET CORRECTION HAS TO OCCUR!!

Yeah but not all at once and not when the global financial system is teeetering on the edge.

As painful in the short term as a market correction may be, it is far better to have it now that later or destroy the dollar through endless printing of money.

A market correcdtion back then mgiht not have been merely painful, it might have been fatal.

Read this:

http://mises.org/daily/542

You know these ideas have been around for nearly a century. I’ve looked at this stuff in college, it was taught right alongside Keynes, marxism and monetarism. And it fell into the marxist camp more than anything in that it was a counter-ideological economic philosophy, but it was in fact ideological.

The unemployment numbers are immaterial. The issue is allowing the market correction to occur and the liquidation of bad debt. There was high employment during WWII and war is never good for the economy. You haven’t addressed the point I made about the Depression of 1920-21 in which government pursued a hands off approach and we experienced a prompt recovery. My policies have clearly worked in practice but yours have not.

Holy re-writing history batman.

Actually it increased steadily. The issue is the linking to gold. Until the breakdown of the bretton woods agreement in 1971, there was a limit to the creation of money. After that point the deficits and national debt skyrocketed. But as the Austrians could tell you, that is the inevitable conclusion of central banking and interventionist economics. The Fed has existed for one hundred years and you point to a mere fifteen-twenty year period of moderate success as far as the debt is concerned? Thats not a very good track record.

Government would not be controlling prices and the market. You are really confused here. I can only suggest you spend some time reading about sound money to understand these issues.

Not that you have very much credibility but your insistence on the gold standard is hurting your credibility. Do you understand why we dropped the gold standard?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@jrodefeld

@tomndebb

Not until you provide scientific evidence of what constitutes “too many.” Possibly. It tends to depend on the amount of money they spent on R&D plus testing vs how much they can recover through sales. Can you provide actual details of companies “making a bundle” off vaccines (along with evidence that money made from low-cost vaccines, (if there are any) is not used to offset the expenses of drugs for cancer, etc.?
Do you have any examples of such? (Preferably from someone other than Jenny McCarthy or the quacks she tends to cite.)
This might possibly be true, but then, what are your guidelines for diseases against which we are ordering massive vaccinations that are unlikely to be encountered? (In my experience, we do not vaccinate against rabies, for example, except those people who are going to work for extended periods with wild animals with known vectors, (e.g., bat researchers). Similarly, vaccines against Typhoid and similar diseases are routinely offered to people traveling to world locations where such diseases are prevalent and are not generally administered (or even offered) to people staying in the U.S.) Is your hypothetical based on anything that actually occurs in the real world?)

You know, I don’t really want to get into the vaccination thing on this thread. It is more a matter of opinion and personal preference. I have read a number of articles by doctors and scientists warning about the negative effects of long term vaccinations. I may link to some here at another point. But its perfectly fine if you believe in vaccines. I just have a problem when the government is mandating I do ANYTHING in relation to my personal health care. I should still have some choice in the matter. If the government can inject anything into my arm, then I am not free.

That is how I look at it.

What if corporations can inject anything into the air that you breathe? Are you free then?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@jrodefeld

There is none so blind as those who choose not to see.

Ain’t that the truth.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@jrodefeld

@Fear_Itself

So why have none of those grievous tyrannies been overturned by the Supreme Court? It’s not like all of these things happened in a vacuum. You have so little faith in the Constitution, you cannot accept that the system could possibly right a wrong within the process provided by the Constitution, so the only recourse is nullification and civil disobedience.And yet you think it is impossible for either a majority in Congress, the President, or at least five members of the Supreme Court to figure out.

Okay, all wars since WWII have been unconstitutional. I know this because the constitution says, “Only Congress can declare war”. Is there something I am missing here? Congress hasn’t declared war since WWII.

On that and numerous other issues our government breaks the Constitution and the Supreme Court allows it to occur. This means THEY are failing in their job.

Did you miss the congressional act that gave the executive the authority to use force in Iraq?

[begbert2]

@jrodefeld

@begbert2

I don’t suppose you noticed that your second quote utterly discredited the first one? We don’t need to legalize contradicting currencies, because -guess what?- They’re already legal. You can’t make your new junk look like an impersonation of US coins (they should also not be similar enough in size and shape to fool vending machines), but if you don’t do that, you can sell and accept trade of anything that anyone is willing to barter with you. This is already true. To bad that Ron Paul is too ignorant of economics, the market, and reality to realize this, as you yourself just proved (with a cite!).

Or perhaps your/his problem is that the US hasn’t forced all vendors to accept gold and silver as legal tender? You want to buy a candy bar with a gold coin? How small a coin? If I wanted to run a garage sale, would I have to have a precisely accurate scale to weigh your gold shavings? What foolishness.
I will also note that nothing in what you posted even attempted to refute anything I said. No possible explanation for this is complimentary to you. Though they do make the balls you show in coming in and claiming that I lack understanding of competing currencies especially ironic. Excrutiatingly so.

When come back (and you apparently will), do try and bring less fail. And quote people with less fail too.

The point was, and I should have made this more clear, that competing currencies ARE illegal. That doesn’t stop some people from doing it anyway. The fact that some people have so little faith in the dollar that they would ignore the law and use competing currencies gives credence to my larger point about the economy.

But yeah, the point is competing currencies ARE illegal. These small town experiments are very small scale and infrequent because otherwise the participants get arrested. The point is that despite government prohibitions, a sufficient demand creates an underground market for things that are desired.

We need to repeal legal tender laws. Don’t ever claim that Ron Paul doesn’t understand economics. That shows the level of ignorance you possess. Read more on the subject of competing currencies and legal tender laws.

Ron Paul is a fucking delusional moron. (Unless he’s a poster on this board, in which case he’s a charming and erudite individual who is merely wrong about lots and lots of things.)

Regardless.

Please quote the federal law that says that barter is illegal, if you manage to pay your taxes anyway?

Please quote the federal law that says that using foreign currency is illegal? (Note that foreign currency is used to purchase american currency all the time in large, conspicuous quantities.)

Because, in case you can’t guess, I think that you are completely dead wrong here, and so is the Ron Paul you rode in on. If you disagree, back it up. With actual quotes of law, not uninformed libertarian opinions about what the law might be saying.
I will also note that, par for the thread, you have utterly failed to answer several points I made. Specifically: “Or perhaps your/his problem is that the US hasn’t forced all vendors to accept gold and silver as legal tender? You want to buy a candy bar with a gold coin? How small a coin? If I wanted to run a garage sale, would I have to have a precisely accurate scale to weigh your gold shavings? What foolishness.”

"I will add, for all this competing currency stuff, do you want to respect the government’s right to not accept your competing currencies when you pay your taxes? Just because you’re willing to accept payment in live chickens doesn’t mean the government wants them.

This is, of course, assuming that you don’t just want the government and police and courts and the like to work for you for free. Which it wouldn’t surprise me to hear you say. Heck, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that you hope to use this “competing currency” business as a way to dodge taxes – it wouldn’t surprise me at all."

You also haven’t answered the fact that foreign currencies are already competing currencies, explicitly, or explained why their existence isn’t good enough for you. Or why you think that your competing currencies would be any different than them - do you intend to be mired in currency exchange markets and refusals to accept non-preferred currencies, and see that as a feature? Or do you believe that such things will not possibly occur, because in magical bullshit Ron Paul land competing currencies don’t function like competing currencies do?
I believe you haven’t answered these points because you can’t - they show unambigously that this gold thing is utterly absurd and that adding more competing currencies won’t do anything that international currencies don’t already do. And that people who still push for them anyway have no clue whatsoever of what they’re talking about.

[jrodefeld]

@Procrustus

Whatever the case, I hope I was able to shine some light in the darkness to light the way to truth and liberty.

nope. May I suggest that you may “see the world differently” in 10 to 20 years. “In youth we learn; in age we understand.” Marie Ebner von Eschenbach

Probably not. I’m sure I will change, but in ten to twenty years I will likely look back on a horrendous period of social unrest and economic ruin precipitated by Keynesian economics and out of control spending. Hopefully, by that time we have recovered from catastrophe and are able to establish an economic and social system that has more respect for human liberty.

Maybe you have simply grown cynical and feel the need for authoritarian intervention. You have been convinced that free economies and voluntary association is “not practical” given the complexity of the world.

Whatever the case, when it becomes very clear in five or ten years that the Austrians were correct in their predictions and concerns I hope you will be willing to learn from the experience.

[Algorithm]

@jrodefeld

Whatever the case, when it becomes very clear in five or ten years that the Austrians were correct in their predictions and concerns I hope you will be willing to learn from the experience.

Unfortunately, it seems quite likely that you’ll not learn from the experience when, in five or ten years, the Austrians are proven incorrect in their predictions and concerns.

You probably won’t even realize their predictions are wrong, considering how stubbornly you hold to the belief that “Ron Paul was spot on” even with faced with specific, inarguable proof that his predictions are incorrect.

[Procrustus]

@jrodefeld

Maybe you have simply grown cynical and feel the need for authoritarian intervention. You have been convinced that free economies and voluntary association is “not practical” given the complexity of the world.

Whatever the case, when it becomes very clear in five or ten years that the Austrians were correct in their predictions and concerns I hope you will be willing to learn from the experience.

I have no stake in “authoritarian intervention,” nor does it exist in my life. I’m living pretty free from government intrustions, thank you very much. I’d like the seat belt laws repealed and the 18 year old drinking age reinstated. But, overall, I’m feeling pretty free.

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

jrodefeld, you sound a lot like a guy I worked with. Good guy, really nice, smart guy, but pretty damned closed minded about some of these things.

[ITR_champion]

@jrodefeld

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.

Oh ho.

I believe that you’ve promised, many times, to respond to every question and criticism addressed to you in this thread. Now it seems that you’ve decided to chuck that promise out the window. Why am I not surprised?

Oh, wait a minute, I just figured out why I’m not surprised. The reason I’m not surprised is that I predicted in my first post (#168) that you would eventually chicken out and stop responding to my posts. My prediction has come true, unlike, say, those of Ron Paul.

But how about this: Does the DEBT concern you at all? That we have bought prosperity on a credit card?

I’m a little bit worried about the national debt but not much. Sure, it’s big, but naitonal debts are always big. Sure, we face large shortfalls in the future, but those can be eliminated through minor changes such as raising the retirement age and trimming benefits for the richest quartile. Bottom line is that worrying about the national debt at this moment would be like the people of Pakistan worrying about a drought thirty years in the future. You’ve got to focus on the current crisis, which is the risk of a deflationary spiral.

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.

Oh really? Are you going to give me any reason why I should believe this? (On top of all those other cites that you owe me from previous posts in this thread and from previous threads?

[Kiber]

@jrodefeld

Probably not. I’m sure I will change, but in ten to twenty years I will likely look back on a horrendous period of social unrest and economic ruin precipitated by Keynesian economics and out of control spending. Hopefully, by that time we have recovered from catastrophe and are able to establish an economic and social system that has more respect for human liberty.

Tell me about it - the 80’s were a crazy time, that’s for sure. Thankfully, the Austrio-Libertarian 90’s were able to rescue us from our long Keynesian Nightmare - if only for a short time.

[Merijeek]

@Least_Original_User_Name_Ever

jrodefeld, you sound a lot like a guy I worked with. Good guy, really nice, smart guy, but pretty damned closed minded about some of these things.

The last one I worked with had plans (handed down from his uncle) for the entire family to move to Finland once Obama declared martial law.

Apparently Finland must be on the gold standard or something.

-Joe

[jrodefeld]

@Voyager

@jrodefeld

You know, I don’t really want to get into the vaccination thing on this thread. It is more a matter of opinion and personal preference. I have read a number of articles by doctors and scientists warning about the negative effects of long term vaccinations. I may link to some here at another point. But its perfectly fine if you believe in vaccines. I just have a problem when the government is mandating I do ANYTHING in relation to my personal health care. I should still have some choice in the matter. If the government can inject anything into my arm, then I am not free.

That is how I look at it.

And the government doesn’t. But the government is perfectly within its rights to not allow unvaccinated children into classrooms and by doing so put other children at risk. Plus, your level of medical knowledge leaves something to be desired.

Well, I’m not a doctor. I never claimed to be. Unlike economics and history, medicine is not my area of expertise. However, there are many doctors who have written extensively about the potential dangers of over vaccination of our children. There is a Medical Industrial Complex in this country that does not speak for most doctors, yet directs most national policy decisions.

What is your view about mandatory mental health screening in public schools? Should I have the right to not have my child placed on Ritalin? Where does it end? First government creates a situation where people are dependent on government help or assistance in one way or another, and then says to receive this assistance you need to take this vaccine or ingest this pharmaceutical drug. You claim there is choice, but there really isn’t a choice for most people.

Also, don’t pretend that all of these drugs and vaccines are preventing the outbreak and spread of very serious disease. Some maybe are. The most are unnecessary and refusing the vaccination will not pose a significant risk to those around you.

How could you not see how such a centrally managed medical system could be subject to abuse? Even at the expense of the health of the public at large?

If, in fifteen to twenty years people start having all kinds of horrible health problems that they didn’t have before, who’s to say the two generations of children brought up with (effectively) hundreds of mandatory vaccinations didn’t contribute to the development of severely compromised health in later life?

In case you doubt the validity of such concerns, look through these links:

http://www.vaccinetruth.org/doctors_against_vaccines.htm

Forced Vaccinations = Crimes Against Children

A few quotes you may be interested in:

“If children receive all recommended vaccines, they will receive 2,370 times the “allowable safe limit” for mercury in the first two years of life (as if there is such a thing as a “safe” amount of a toxic poison). Yet, even after Congressional hearings instigated by Congressman Dan Burton (whose own grandchild became autistic after receiving vaccines) resulted in the FDA requesting (not ordering) vaccine manufacturers to remove this toxic heavy metal from their products, mercury is still present in many vaccines.”

-Rebecca Carley, M.D

**“Ever since mass vaccination of infants began, reports of serious brain, cardiovascular, metabolic and other injuries started filling pages of medical journals.” In fact, pertussis vaccine has been used to induce encephalomyelitis, which is characterized by brain swelling and hemorrhaging" **

-Viera Scheibner, PhD

http://www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/against_natural_processes.htm

http://www.whale.to/a/howenstine.html

'When Friends Ask Should Children Be Immunised, My Answer Is No' By James Le...

So, when you claim that the concerns about vaccinations are simply hysteria peddled by Jenny McCarthy, you display your own close mindedness and ignorance. There are massive numbers of doctors who are coming out against vaccinations and speaking about the number of dangerous side effects and health risks associated. Many of these vaccines are given to prevent fairly harmless diseases and illnesses of childhood. Many are concluding that the risk is simply not worth it.

Don’t ever claim that there isn’t valid scientific argument and serious medical doctors who oppose vaccination.