Wow, that’s twice we’ve agreed in this thread.
Oh wow. “Watched some documentaries”.
Rather than just looking for information that confirms your belief system, why don’t you look for stuff to the contrary? Read the works of the many, many, many historians who have utterly debunked it at every level. In fact some of the most popular ‘FDR let Pearl Harbor happed’ crowd has out and out lied to make a political ‘point’. Stinnett is probably the most famous, and the biggest misrepresenting douche out there.
No, not really. A few cranks and others but the overwhelming amount of evidence is that the Japanese caught us with our pants down. Most historians, who know how to look at bodies of evidence and not just snippets, realize this claim for the crap that it is. I have yet to find a real expert on WW2 who actually buys into this stupid paranoid theory.
Once again, another example of your poor evaluation of evidence.
Here’s the problem, stated as concisely as I can manage.
You say, “these were a few websites I listed off the top of my head”.
Can you understand (1) that your audience has a problem with the choice of these websites? (2) why the problem exists?
It’s as if I were to argue a point, and then cite to, free republic, or stormfront, or whatever. Regardless of whether or not there was “truth” in the message, the message is wrapped in shit. Can you understand why I, for one, will discount any such link out of hand?
jrodefeld, we’ve told you over and over again to stop with these enormous quotes (that last one was 4,200 words split into two posts) and to pay attention to the forum rules. You are not allowed to call another poster “a pathological liar” in this forum. The registration agreement requires you to pay attention to staff instructions if you want to keep posting here. If you continue to ignore the rules and the moderators you do not have much time left on this site. Is that clear?
So then you’ve changed your definition of inflation yet again. Early in the thread, I challenged you to explain why you believed that hyperinflation was occuring when prices were actually stagnant. You responded by quoting this incorrect definition of inflation from Ludwig von Mises: “What people today call inflation is not inflation, i.e., the increase in the quantity of money and money substitutes, but the general rise in commodity prices and wage rates which is the inevitable consequence of inflation.” So you’ve specifically said that rising prices are not a necessary part of inflation; now you’ve backtracked. As others have pointed out, you don’t seem to have a grip on the fact that your previous posts remain on the board so that we can all see it plain as day whenever you try to weasel out of your previous statements.
That said, you been shown the definition of inflation from six dictionaries. Inflation means rising prices, not an increase in the money supply. Are you yet willing to admit to being wrong?
How does that one work again? By definition the poor have less money than everyone else, so it follows logically that they’re going to borrow more often, regardless of what the financial base is. If you say that the “poor would have very little debt”, isn’t that basically the same as saying that no one would lend them the money they need to get houses, cars, and other necessities?
Consider my grandparents. In 1960 they built a beach house in San Diego for eighteen thousand dollars. In 1992 they sold it for almost a million dollars. The inflating price of that house was their ticket from poverty to riches. If we followed your economic ideas, their house would still be worth eighteen thousand dollars. Actually, if we followed your economic ideas and strangled the money supply, they probably wouldn’t have gotten a loan for the original house in the first place.
Well now that you’ve admitted that I wouldn’t be able to have a house in your ideal system, let’s go back to the question I’ve asked twice before. Why do you want to take away my house and the houses owned by millions of others? (I’d wager more money on your failure to answer, but frankly that doesn’t seem to achieve anything towards getting answers._
When we have an inflation rate of 3%, the prices of groceries goes up 3% and my salary goes up 3%, so I’m spending the same percent of my income on groceries. As for your continued fretting about people on fixed incomes, it’s true that they’d be very slightly hurt by a healthy level of inflation, but why should we plan the entire economy around the needs of such a small group? Far better to lobby for raises tied to inflation.
All that those articles do is repeat the “fixed income” bugaboo again. I’ve already tackled that.
Actually it does. It’s not tied to inflation by law, but Congress raises it from time to time so in real terms it stays either steady or goes up. [url=“Oregon State University”]As you can see from this graph, real value of the federal minimum wage is almost twice as high now as 70 years ago. Further, many states and cities have a minimum wage higher than the federal. So add this stinker about the minimum wage to the long list of your talking points that have been debunked.
The article’s complaint about the CPI is that the government is constantly changing the set of items in the market basket that it uses. But changing the market basket makes sense, since the items that Americans buy change over time. If anything, the market basket should be updated more often. The charge that the government drops items from the market basket to cover up rising prices is absurd and the article provides zero sources or examples to back it up. I note, without surprise, that like most of the articles on mises.org that one has few or no footnotes that would allow be to double-check its claims with a reliable source. Why do you suppose that is?
And what justification do you offer for that, pray tell? I’ve got an income after taxes of about $2,500 per month and a mortgage payment of $956 per month. At the moment I can make the payment without trouble. The only way that I could lose my house without losing my job is if there was deflation, and you’ve already said that deflation would be a good thing. Therefore you want me to lose my house, and the for millions like me to lose theirs. To try squeezing out of this dilemma by saying that we’re all going to lose our houses anyway is flatly false. Try again.
Again, here’s the flaw in your whole argument. You keep acting as if debt is automatically bad, but debt is what allows our current standard of living. Nearly everyone buys houses, cars, and college educations by going into debt because that’s the only way they can do it. If, as you say, you eliminated most debt by instituting sound money, then very few people would be able to have houses, cars, or college educations. (If you’re a libertarian you’re presumably also opposed to government subsidies and tax breaks for these things.) A healthy level of debt is good, and once we have that healthy level of debt, a healthy level of inflation is also good.
By the way, in responding to my posts, you seem to have skipped over #818, where I call you to defend your statements about the gold standard.
If you thought this over you would discovery why this point is bullshit. First of all, WE CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WORKING CONDITIONS IN OTHER COUNTRIES! We can support free markets here and reduce poverty at home. Globalization has changed things somewhat. But what you fail to understand is that India and China are doing much better than they used to and many over there are happy for the opportunity to work in conditions we would object to.
Plus, we don’t really defend free markets in this country anymore. Based only on the standard of living of the poorest, a nation with a vibrant market economy has a working class that is doing much better than any socialist or communist nation. That is the fact of the matter.
What you are objecting to is the idea that there will still be an income gap between the rich and the (relatively speaking) poor. How can this not be so? And why is this inherently wrong? The point is how high the standard of living is for the poorest.
If the rich get wealthy through entrepreneurship and risk taking, they provide value for others and get paid what they are worth. The more entrepreneurs and honest businessmen there are, the more wealth is created and the better everyone is doing.
Like you’ve said, poverty is a relative thing. Poverty in America is nothing compared to the problems for the poor in other nations.
No system will be perfect. But do you really think a system of authoritarian government is better for society and can eliminate poverty better than free enterprise and capitalism?
For its faults free market capitalism is far better for the disenfranchised that socialism and authoritarian governmental interference.
Note that what I am talking about is not Corporatism, like we have today. Free markets are a long ways away from what we currently have.
You didn’t suggest. You told us those sites were the only valid places to get your news. You also informed us which news sources were utterly untrustworthy. This is all part of your orginal 3 page manifesto on the very first page of this thread.
Do you not see anything wrong with telling people that only certain places are valid sources of news, then saying that you don’t agree with everything there? You’re tacitly admitting that your source is an opinion piece, since you can’t agree or disagree with facts.
You tell us that only certain sources of news are trustworthy. Someone points out that there’s a lot of crazy ass shit coming out of those sources. You tell us that you didn’t mean* all* of it was trustworthy. But you still insist that they’re to be trusted. You can’t have it both ways though.
I think it doesn’t matter. You’ll just tell me (well, Ron Paul will tell you and then you’ll tell me) that the audit was not performed correctly or that the whole thing was covered up. Much like the Birthers, I don’t think there is any proof that would be acceptable. So why should anyone waste time and money trying?
Who would you trust to do the audit of Fort Knox, jrodefeld?
Who? Who can heed his country’s call?
Ron Paul He can audit gold!
Of course we can. If, for example, we passed laws (and seriously enforced them) that only products made by workers working under certain minimum standards of treatment could be sold in this country, that would put a lot of pressure on the companies that want to sell us stuff to do things our way. When we accept any product regardless of how badly the workers are treated on the other hand, we encourage a race to the bottom; we actually punish any employer who wants to treat his workers better.
Except that’s hardly the only or even the most common way to get rich, and just because wealth is being created doesn’t mean that any of it goes anywhere but into the bank accounts of the wealthy.
Considering your definition of “authoritarian”, yes. I’m not interested in living in a giant version of Somalia.
Ah, the standard libertarian line. Nothing is ever the fault of the free market, and no matter how free the market is it’s never free enough.
I just knew there was a major issue we were overlooking in our foolish focus on the economy, terrorism and suchlike. How could we have been so blind?
What’s going on with all that gold? Have the big bankers who just happen to be Jewish stolen it and substituted aluminum bars for the real thing 
as part of their scheme to destabilize the economy not to mention dumping aluminum into our water supply and vaccines :eek: to turn us into a drooling pack of Alzheimer’s-afflicted zombies :smack: who can no longer reproduce 
while funneling vast riches to Israel? :mad:
It all becomes clear, or would if I wasn’t stoned on aluminum.
I will ask, if the sanctity of the gold in Fort Knox is in such question, how on earth can we be confident that any private Joe off the street will be able to keep the gold backing his lasermoney secure? Surely if the government can pilfer it’s own pockets, then anybody else can borrow against themselves as well, making all paper money as ‘worthless’ as fiat money, and reducing us once again to having to weigh out gold shavings to buy a candy bar (a notion that jrodefeld mocked without explaining how his system differs from it).
I’ll just add this question to the prior list of seven questions about RonPaulian monetary systems that I asked and jrodefeld has yet to answer.
I would pay good money to have Ron Paul be given a box of #2 pencils, a notebook, and instructions not to come out until he had counted it all.
And a scale. Wouldn’t do for the man to count painted lead bricks. Make him lift every single one and weigh it!
You can, if, by your economic policies, you help to prop it up. Countries do not have firm effect borders, especially in economics. You can’t just follow the citizenships, you have to follow the paper trail. And if, for example, your economic policies mean that you have many corporations (or, indeed, the government) finding that the most cost-effective way of doing business is by having poorly-paid workers abroad do it, then shockingly enough you’re going to find that a lot of countries are interested in doing that business. Now, i’m not claiming that full responsiblity lies with one party or another. But partial? Certainly.
JRod, thank you for confirming my impression that you can’t (or won’t) understand the true historical standing of nullification. Nothing in the article you quoted in Posts #914 & #915 contradicts my tight little summary in Post #906. Nothing in the article you quoted contradicts the longer summary in the three Wikipedia articles I linked, except the Wiki articles go on to explain the trial balloon element of my summary. I’m not going to debate this with you. As I said, I put out the information for the benefit of other participants in the thread whose recollection might have gotten rusty. If someone else wants to pick up on the issue, they are of course free to do so.
The ‘Truth of the Matter’ is that…it matters NOT what Form of Government, nor geographical area, nor educations, nor supremacy of Military Might nor primary Philosophy,the FIGHT is ALWAYS (and in every courntry) against those most ruthless versus those most congenial to sharing.
Those driven and devoted to ‘having MORE’ (more Influence, more Power, ,more Money) than most…will do whatever needs to be done to attain their goals.
It happens in every Country in the World.
The United States included.
Ascendancy matters to Them.
Power matters to Them.
Wealth matters to Them.
CONTROL over human lives and productivity matters to Them.
And this is the thing we must remember: “THEY” must keep their populations ‘Productive.’
That includes YOU and ME.
In EVERY country of the World; Under every form of Government in the World…the GOAL is to keep the “MASSES” productive, useful, keep the populace feeling jingoistic and dedicated to a defined area of loyalty…
Whether it be RELIGIOUS or GEOGRAPHICAL or ECONOMICAL or TRIBAL … the GOAL is to keep the stupid, effing MASSES producing WEALTH for the few.
We keep laughing about the ‘Serfs’ and the ‘Lords’ in ‘Old’ novels and ‘Old’ history - but we are STILL living it.
Ayn Rand, and Rand Paul and ALL others who preach ‘Social Darwinism’ are the perfect tools for these errant philosophers.
Under their philosophies, we ALL have average IQ’s, no congenital difficulties, parents who loved us and educations to train us.
The simpletons.
I am SICK of jingoistic simpletons.
ACROSS the World!!
WAKE UP.
Well, they don’t use aluminium, they use tungsten to make counterfeit bullion.
But on a more serious note: Thanks for the good laughs, Jackmannii. I hope the mods don’t ban Jro; he’s a candidate for Doper with Most Entertaining Threads! It will be fun to hear details about how the lefty Jews spirited the gold out of Fort Knox, and what they spent the money on. Forging birth certificates? Adding poisons to vaccines? I like to imagine it was one heckuva sex orgy! 
…if only for the sake of consistency.
In the case of Andrew Wakefield, the doc who wrote a Lancet article attacking the safety of the MMR vaccine, the motivation appears to be cold, hard cash: He got paid 40,000 pounds from lawyers preparing an MMR lawsuit.