PDA

View Full Version : News: Ron Paul demolishes more assholes



Justinian
01-27-2009, 19:21
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k92fTDReHg

I'm interested to see what you pseudo-intellectual Keynesians think of this.

Just kidding. You're wrong, so there's no use being interested.

Killuminati
01-27-2009, 19:23
Um, the sad part is none of those who argue for monetary expansion, bailouts, and any other kind of government spending usually don't know where those ideas originated from.


Also, what I found interesting is how all of them were crowded around listening to the guy as if his ideas should be taken seriously. Sort of a new thing when it comes to the media.

Kuruptix
01-27-2009, 19:50
Man, now he is getting some coverage. Where was the coverage during presidential election.

DocGonzo
01-27-2009, 21:30
i saw this one this morning...and i find you ruse of the term "demolishes" truly hilarious

yes, Dr Paul was adamant about his position, but a few things here

one - he outright states that he knows he will "never have his perfect society" - thus acknowledging somewhat the futility of a utopian dream...no matter the flavor

two - he clearly states his desire to do away with all federal taxes and agencies, as well as his statements to remove ourselves from any and all foreign affairs...but when asked how to pay for the functions that would be left...he wanted to lay off all things on the states, besides the military...then skips over how to pay for the military/intelligence functions with no federal income

three - much of his position revolves around his thinking that all functions should be the realm of the states, with them somehow sharing the burden of national items like highways without the Fed...again this neglects the reality that the states are pretty much broke/in debt and have NO funds for what thye already cover with their own tax structures and Fed dollars coming in....so how will they pay for all these new responsibilities?

four - when asked for a solution, by the supply side Wall Street commentator, definitely not any kind of Keynesian, Dr Paul dodged at first...stating again what he would NOT do...when asked what he would do...there was NO answer besides to let everything fail....asked specifically about the auto industry, he stated that they should be helped out..by private funds...when pointed out to him that no one was offering private funds he stated "then there is no value there"

this flies in the face of objective fact in many of these instances...there IS value, but no one is willing or able to provide those kinds of investments at this time when the financial markets are in such disarray...not any kind of problem with Dr Paul's point here...just the actual facts of reality

in short, i can understand where Dr Paul is coming from, and he has a lot of good things to say...but in this interview he offers NO solutions other than let it fail and do away with taxes and somehow the states and market will fix everything after the collapse

this was "demolishing"?

do watch the video and decide for yourselves, imo

Warhawk
01-27-2009, 21:33
The title to this thread promised x rated debauchery. False advertisement.

Lindorn
01-27-2009, 21:36
I'm glad you post all of the RP and Peter Schiff videos. They are always quality. I'll respond to Gonzo's post when I get home from class.

Vessol
01-27-2009, 21:37
/worship RP
/thread

Justinian
01-27-2009, 21:40
i saw this one this morning...and i find you ruse of the term "demolishes" truly hilarious

yes, Dr Paul was adamant about his position, but a few things here

one - he outright states that he knows he will "never have his perfect society" - thus acknowledging somewhat the futility of a utopian dream...no matter the flavor

Who cares? This just proves he isn't insane. Reaching much?


two - he clearly states his desire to do away with all federal taxes and agencies, as well as his statements to remove ourselves from any and all foreign affairs...but when asked how to pay for the functions that would be left...he wanted to lay off all things on the states, besides the military...then skips over how to pay for the military/intelligence functions with no federal income

The point is that the military/intelligence go away for the most part. Intelligence especially. The CIA is a big no-no in most libertarians' eyes. Intelligence, sure. CIA, no. What's wrong with that? Scared we're going to be attacked willy-nilly by terrorists if we don't have Mommy Government there to protect us wittle kiddies? I, for one, am willing to take the chance.


three - much of his position revolves around his thinking that all functions should be the realm of the states, with them somehow sharing the burden of national items like highways without the Fed...again this neglects the reality that the states are pretty much broke/in debt and have NO funds for what thye already cover with their own tax structures and Fed dollars coming in....so how will they pay for all these new responsibilities?

The States are broke/in debt now, yes. It's the policies that the supply-siders and Keynesians advocate, however, that has brought us to this point, i.e. debt-financing as opposed to capital financing. We are living on top of a giant, upside-down pyramid of debt, and it's going to collapse. Might as well swallow the pill sooner rather than later.


four - when asked for a solution, by the supply side Wall Street commentator, definitely not any kind of Keynesian, Dr Paul dodged at first...stating again what he would NOT do...when asked what he would do...there was NO answer besides to let everything fail....asked specifically about the auto industry, he stated that they should be helped out..by private funds...when pointed out to him that no one was offering private funds he stated "then there is no value there"

this flies in the face of objective fact in many of these instances...there IS value, but no one is willing or able to provide those kinds of investments at this time when the financial markets are in such disarray...not any kind of problem with Dr Paul's point here...just the actual facts of reality

There is no value outside of an orderly bankruptcy and the liquidation of assets to allow competent people to pick up where they left off. There is no value in the common stock of the automakers, the banks, and anyone "receiving" a bailout simply because all of the value is in the preferred stock (guess who got that? :P)


in short, i can understand where Dr Paul is coming from, and he has a lot of good things to say...but in this interview he offers NO solutions other than let it fail and do away with taxes and somehow the states and market will fix everything after the collapse

this was "demolishing"?

do watch the video and decide for yourselves, imo

You say he offers no solutions, then you go on to say what his solution is: let it collapse. It's a gigantic bubble built on the false promises of the central government (i.e. Federal Reserve Notes). It's a Ponzi scheme unlike any that has ever been seen before. It is doomed to failure. We might as well let it fail now rather than prolong the agony.

That's as good a solution as I can see.

tallefred
01-27-2009, 21:45
The title to this thread promised x rated debauchery. False advertisement.

Wow I loled so fucking hard...

DocGonzo
01-27-2009, 21:58
Who cares? This just proves he isn't insane. Reaching much?

nope, stop projecting, infant




The point is that the military/intelligence go away for the most part. Intelligence especially. The CIA is a big no-no in most libertarians' eyes. Intelligence, sure. CIA, no. What's wrong with that? Scared we're going to be attacked willy-nilly by terrorists if we don't have Mommy Government there to protect us wittle kiddies? I, for one, am willing to take the chance.

are you the child who is still in school and asked on Forumfall for advice about your first girlfriend breaking up with you?

when your balls drop and you do a tour in the military, get back to me...until then you apparently know jack shit on this topic, rendering it impossible to explain objective reality in the 21st century to your fantasy filled mind....and remember, i was speaking out against the Iraq invasion before it even started, so don't confuse me with the neocon hawks

but you figure how much and what it takes to keep a ballistic missile sub going, not to mention thousands of ICBMs...or the entire Marine corps, and then ask an adult why we have them




The States are broke/in debt now, yes. It's the policies that the supply-siders and Keynesians advocate, however, that has brought us to this point, i.e. debt-financing as opposed to capital financing. We are living on top of a giant, upside-down pyramid of debt, and it's going to collapse. Might as well swallow the pill sooner rather than later.

supply siders does not equal Keynesians...the two are pretty much polar opposites as far as i know...and while i agree in principle to the point you and Dr Paul make here...swallowing that "pill" is a catastrophe beyond your imagination if left alone...it would make the Depression look like sunday school

what's the best answer...fuck if i know, folks smarter than me better figure it out...together, rather than bickering over ideology...and you better pray to all you hold holy they do


There is no value outside of an orderly bankruptcy and the liquidation of assets to allow competent people to pick up where they left off. There is no value in the common stock of the automakers, the banks, and anyone "receiving" a bailout simply because all of the value is in the preferred stock (guess who got that? :P)

yeah...start with the financials that got truckloads of millions, until the banking and financial industry collapse and the toxic assets they hold are valued correctly, nothing else matters does it?



You say he offers no solutions, then you go on to say what his solution is: let it collapse. It's a gigantic bubble built on the false promises of the central government (i.e. Federal Reserve Notes). It's a Ponzi scheme unlike any that has ever been seen before. It is doomed to failure. We might as well let it fail now rather than prolong the agony.

That's as good a solution as I can see.

you truly have no fucking clue what "collapse" would mean...and no...letting things fail is not a solution...it is a result, learn2english

Floyd
01-27-2009, 22:03
Why did that one guy think Ron Pauls perfect society involved the dude sitting on the beach being served drinks by robots. Is that how most people see libertarians or was that guy talking about his own perfect society?

Killuminati
01-27-2009, 22:06
Why did that one guy think Ron Pauls perfect society involved the dude sitting on the beach being served drinks by robots. Is that how most people see libertarians or was that guy talking about his own perfect society?

Probably a little of both, but he acknowledges our country is built on credit not capital.

DocGonzo
01-27-2009, 22:11
Probably a little of both, but he acknowledges our country is built on credit not capital.

it been built on fiat...not even credit, and gambling (wall street) rather than actually making value added products via industry

THAT is where you have to start, put Americans back to work making things and Americans buying them rather than cheap shit imports of dubious quality

until we shift from gambling to making, then no progress can truly be made, imo

shphoenixgr
01-27-2009, 22:13
i pretty much agree with doc here.

After hearing the interview i was kinda meh. he didn't really offered a viable solution apart from 'letting it burst'. And no, anyone sane and with a little clue about economics can tell you why this is certainly not viable.

although the economic crisis hasn't hit my country as bad as it has usa i'm pretty certain that a bunch of competent people that know their shit and actually run this economy are trying to deal with it. The real question though is: those people, who only care for their personal gain, will they gauze the short term money that they can get out of this situation (because money doesn't disappear, it always goes somewhere) to be better than 'saving' (lessening the impact of) the economy or not? I hope for the 2nd, but really, i'm clueless.

Rourke
01-27-2009, 22:14
I wish Ross Perot was President. He was funny. Plus he was kinda cool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfMW3xYhitQ

Slypieguy
01-27-2009, 22:15
it been built on fiat...not even credit, and gambling (wall street) rather than actually making value added products via industry

THAT is where you have to start, put Americans back to work making things and Americans buying them rather than cheap shit imports of dubious quality

until we shift from gambling to making, then no progress can truly be made, imo

The "gambling" as you love to call it stems from the credit Killuminati was referring to.

Killuminati
01-27-2009, 22:16
it been built on fiat...not even credit, and gambling (wall street) rather than actually making value added products via industry

THAT is where you have to start, put Americans back to work making things and Americans buying them rather than cheap shit imports of dubious quality

until we shift from gambling to making, then no progress can truly be made, imo

Fiat money while bad, isn't what allows for an expansion of the money supply through the tampering of interest rates.

Slypieguy
01-27-2009, 22:16
i pretty much agree with doc here.

After hearing the interview i was kinda meh. he didn't really offered a viable solution apart from 'letting it burst'. And no, anyone sane and with a little clue about economics can tell you why this is certainly not viable.


Really? Besides the fact that we would go through some tough times that our generation has never seen before, why don't you tell us why it isn't viable? Spoiled little shits won't be able to eat 4 big macs a day, o shi.

Killuminati
01-27-2009, 22:17
Lol, "anyone with a clue about economics." Yes, because subsidizing failure through bailouts means that it would solve all problems.

kiasta
01-27-2009, 22:19
Man, now he is getting some coverage. Where was the coverage during presidential election.

It was online where nobody important goes.

shphoenixgr
01-27-2009, 22:25
Really? Besides the fact that we would go through some tough times that our generation has never seen before, why don't you tell us why it isn't viable? Spoiled little shits won't be able to eat 4 big macs a day, o shi.

you fail too hard to realize that the closing down of major industrial POI of a country will not only mean that countless families will starve (as in die from hunger) but also that it would stir the international money away for good. You fail to realize that economy nowadays is world based and not country based and that you need this revenue. You fail to realize that it's much easier to 'keep a customer' than to convince a customer that you have failed before to try you again. You fail to realize what depression means and you think it means 4 mac's /day.

Now, shutting down the economy, even for one day will stir and frighten so many people that it will take decades for said economy to be able to stand in it's feet again and that's only an IF it ever stands again.

go troll somewhere else and stop having tunnelvision.


Lol, "anyone with a clue about economics." Yes, because subsidizing failure through bailouts means that it would solve all problems.

i never said that. My answer was 'i don't have a fucking clue'. What i know is that shutting dow forcefully the industry will be a disaster.

Rourke
01-27-2009, 22:28
you fail too hard to realize that the closing down of major industrial POI of a country will not only mean that countless families will starve (as in die from hunger) but also that it would stir the international money away for good. You fail to realize that economy nowadays is world based and not country based and that you need this revenue. You fail to realize that it's much easier to 'keep a customer' than to convince a customer that you have failed before to try you again. You fail to realize what depression means and you think it means 4 mac's /day.

Now, shutting down the economy, even for one day will stir and frighten so many people that it will take decades for said economy to be able to stand in it's feet again and that's only an IF it ever stands again.

go troll somewhere else and stop having tunnelvision.



i never said that. My answer was 'i don't have a fucking clue'. What i know is that shutting dow forcefully the industry will be a disaster.

/looks through a paper towel roll. Seems like fun if you ask me. Riots and fear ftw?

DocGonzo
01-27-2009, 22:31
Fiat money while bad, isn't what allows for an expansion of the money supply through the tampering of interest rates.

sorry if i was unclear...we are talking about two separate things here

to my way of seeing it, the problems of boom/bust bubbles originated in 74 when Nixon took our money off the wheat backed standard and into pure fiat currency

let's just agree right now that the Fed, as is currently structured, is an abysmal failure...only the gov't itself should be able to print/value/back currency in our single currency system...not some board of bankers that our government borrows "cash" from at interest

i also have issue with fractional banking (since it's only 10% holding required, that leaves 90% fictional leverage and to me, one of the sources of the problem)

hope that helps clarify...but i stand by my position about "gambling" and "making"

EDIT: as for "tough times"

tell it to folks in the north after said "collapse" who would be out of their homes in a winter...folks out west who would have no water pumped to them from out of state...internet down, electricity sometimes, if you are lucky...food supplies collapse

too many take far too much for granted and have no fucking clue what such a collapse would really mean, imo

shphoenixgr
01-27-2009, 22:36
/looks through a paper towel roll. Seems like fun if you ask me. Riots and fear ftw?

heh funny as it sounds, I had more than a couple of people asking a commerce manager of bank whom i trust completely (when the news of banks going bankrupt in irrelevant countries i.e. not mine) if they should withdraw their money out of the bank for safety...

note now, none of the banks here has any major problem and only 1 really needed the help from the state.

All this was caused by the fear spreading of the news. IF you provoke such a crowd to withdraw the money from their banks in tandem it would mean a collapse of the bank system as it is now, since on average they have ~10-15% of it readily available and nowhere near the 100% that they should have...

is it right or wrong? it doesn't really matter, what it matters is that if such a thing happens it would shut down the economy for good.

Spinewire
01-27-2009, 22:36
The title to this thread promised x rated debauchery. False advertisement.
i frowned then scrolled up to read the title again, then laughed... alot.

Rourke
01-27-2009, 22:40
heh funny as it sounds, I had more than a couple of people asking a commerce manager of bank whom i trust completely (when the news of banks going bankrupt in irrelevant countries i.e. not mine) if they should withdraw their money out of the bank for safety...

note now, none of the banks here has any major problem and only 1 really needed the help from the state.

All this was caused by the fear spreading of the news. IF you provoke such a crowd to withdraw the money from their banks in tandem it would mean a collapse of the bank system as it is now, since on average they have ~10-15% of it readily available and nowhere near the 100% that they should have...

is it right or wrong? it doesn't really matter, what it matters is that if such a thing happens it would shut down the economy for good.


Ever notice how bad the media is for making the situation WAY worse? It's all they are harping on right now. ALL DAY. It's not helping.

If you went on the news and said "The economy is getting SO MUCH better!!" People seriously would start spending again. I guaranteee it.

shphoenixgr
01-27-2009, 22:42
Ever notice how bad the media is for making the situation WAY worse? It's all they are harping on right now. ALL DAY. It's not helping.

If you went on the news and said "The economy is getting SO MUCH better!!" People seriously would start spending again. I guaranteee it.

i don't disagree with that. but really, the condition is not getting any better. if anything, this year is said to be much worse for commerce than last year...

Killuminati
01-27-2009, 22:45
sorry if i was unclear...we are talking about two separate things here

to my way of seeing it, the problems of boom/bust bubbles originated in 74 when Nixon took our money off the wheat backed standard and into pure fiat currency

let's just agree right now that the Fed, as is currently structured, is an abysmal failure...only the gov't itself should be able to print/value/back currency in our single currency system...not some board of bankers that our government borrows "cash" from at interest

i also have issue with fractional banking (since it's only 10% holding required, that leaves 90% fictional leverage and to me, one of the sources of the problem)

hope that helps clarify...but i stand by my position about "gambling" and "making"

EDIT: as for "tough times"

tell it to folks in the north after said "collapse" who would be out of their homes in a winter...folks out west who would have no water pumped to them from out of state...internet down, electricity sometimes, if you are lucky...food supplies collapse

too many take far too much for granted and have no fucking clue what such a collapse would really mean, imo


Well, the the boom & and bust cycle can be well traced far before Bretton-woods or getting off any standard. In fact fiat money + legal tender laws have been a plague of this world for much of history. You can find many examples like french Asignats(French Revolution), German Marks (1920s), and more that I don't have at the top of my head.

Also, yes, fractional reserve simply put is fraud. Also, if I were to make the constitutionalist case against the Fed, I could point out Article I says that only gold & silver is legal tender.


Yes, a collapse wouldn't be a good situation. Except we will continue to keep making the same mistakes if we don't stop doing what has already been proven wrong. I don't see how investing in failed companies will make any average person well-off but that's just me.

Dimgo
01-27-2009, 22:46
Im the one who thinks all this mess is caused 90% by the media, media made a HUGEEEEEEE drama about it and everyone just got desperated then media says "CRISIS IS AFFECTING EVERYONE EVERYONE IS GOING CRAZY" of course you made it affect everyone, you caused all the drama...

Rourke
01-27-2009, 22:47
i don't disagree with that. but really, the condition is not getting any better. if anything, this year is said to be much worse for commerce than last year...

I know..it's because eveyone is in lockdown mode for fear of the END of Times.

All this started with that giant Gas Spike, and then the retards that started losing thier homes they bought for way over the market value.

We had a major glut on homes in MA in 07'. Seemed EVERYONE was trying to flip homes for insane prices. Here we are 2 years later. (of course this was going on for longer, but 07' was the peak I think)

I bet 25% of our new customers lost thier homes in 08'. Never buy a 200K house for 400K. It doesn't work.

Dimgo
01-27-2009, 22:47
Ever notice how bad the media is for making the situation WAY worse? It's all they are harping on right now. ALL DAY. It's not helping.

If you went on the news and said "The economy is getting SO MUCH better!!" People seriously would start spending again. I guaranteee it.
Yes, if the media just stayed quiet nothing of this mess would have happened

Rourke
01-27-2009, 22:48
Im the one who thinks all this mess is caused 90% by the media, media made a HUGEEEEEEE drama about it and everyone just got desperated then media says "CRISIS IS AFFECTING EVERYONE EVERYONE IS GOING CRAZY" of course you made it affect everyone, you caused all the drama...

I agree. It's really out of control now. People just went kooky over nothing. We are causing our own problems now.

Rourke
01-27-2009, 22:50
Yes, if the media just stayed quiet nothing of this mess would have happened

Well..people still would of lost thier houses that over-paid. My wife and I backed out of a house deal in like 05' because I was convinced it was WAY over-priced. We would of lost it had we gone in for it.

The realtor was pushing HARD too.."Oh...in a year..you can re-finance!!" Bullshit when there is no equity.

Justinian
01-27-2009, 22:51
supply siders does not equal Keynesians...the two are pretty much polar opposites as far as i know...and while i agree in principle to the point you and Dr Paul make here...swallowing that "pill" is a catastrophe beyond your imagination if left alone...it would make the Depression look like sunday school

what's the best answer...fuck if i know, folks smarter than me better figure it out...together, rather than bickering over ideology...and you better pray to all you hold holy they do

I do not trust folks smarter than me, mostly because I don't believe they're all that much smarter than me. You can place your faith anywhere you want; I place mine in economics.

That said, you're repeating things that you've heard from the very same people who two years ago said everything was peachy keen, i.e. "it will be catastrophic beyond proportions." To be brief, you're wrong. Look at the history of recessions in the United States and you will see that before the Fed took power (and even shortly after), the more the government stayed out, the more orderly and mild were the recessions. The New Deal took place over the entire course of The Great Depression. Do you honestly believe it was just coincidence? That The New Deal itself wasn't what prolonged the Depression here in the States? Delusional, sweet nipples. That's what you are.

If you really want to get into it about economic history and theory, we can do so. I guarantee that you will get curb-stomped by me and my Ancap/Libertarian compatriots.


yeah...start with the financials that got truckloads of millions, until the banking and financial industry collapse and the toxic assets they hold are valued correctly, nothing else matters does it?

you truly have no fucking clue what "collapse" would mean...and no...letting things fail is not a solution...it is a result, learn2english

Wrong again, sweetness. Their failure is a direct result of government intervention. More government intervention will only prolong the failure and disallow the orderly liquidation and redeployment of the capital still in place (psst: capital means factories and shit, not stock prices).

Justinian
01-27-2009, 22:51
Yes, if the media just stayed quiet nothing of this mess would have happened

I love the facetiousness.

Chankeen
01-27-2009, 22:54
I do not trust folks smarter than me, mostly because I don't believe they're all that much smarter than me.

Usually I find that people who do trust "folks smarter then me" are just finding an excuse to be lazy.

Justinian
01-27-2009, 22:54
Lol, "anyone with a clue about economics." Yes, because subsidizing failure through bailouts means that it would solve all problems.

But Killuminati, please explain to me why this isn't the best solution! I mean, I really can't put my head around it. If this is the best solution, why doesn't the government just print and hand out $1,000,000 for every man woman and child in the country? If we're going to spend $1T, why not make it $5T if it's such a good idea?

Rourke
01-27-2009, 22:55
Usually I find that people who do trust "folks smarter then me" are just finding an excuse to be lazy.

Media. I blame CNN for EVERYTHING. I really do.

Justinian
01-27-2009, 22:55
Media. I blame CNN for EVERYTHING. I really do.

People have the choice to turn that bullshit off. I blame you.

Rourke
01-27-2009, 22:59
People have the choice to turn that bullshit off. I blame you.

Why, I spend my money willy nilly. Can't take it with you after all. You think 75% of Americans aren't living thier life by what the TV tells them? Your silly.

Justinian
01-27-2009, 23:01
Why, I spend my money willy nilly. Can't take it with you after all. You think 75% of Americans aren't living thier life by what the TV tells them? Your silly.

I don't, so who cares? I practice what I preach. If people want to watch TV, let them watch it. I can't change their minds, so I'll just do what I have to do.

Therefore, blaming you is just as arbitrary as blaming the talkin' box.

DocGonzo
01-27-2009, 23:04
I do not trust folks smarter than me, mostly because I don't believe they're all that much smarter than me. You can place your faith anywhere you want; I place mine in economics.


so..no one is smarter than you?

how's that girlfriend problem of yours? stop being an arrogant child, imo

you place faith in economics?

and which economic hypothesis is that? can you quantify it? verify it by experimentation?

i doubt it, no matter how lofty/educated/well meaning the so called "economist" is...it's all theory, far too complex for anyone to truly understand until AFTER it happens

you regurgitate quite a bit of the theory you place your faith in...i skipped it because all it says is ""blah blah blah, i'm a dirty whore"....sound an dfury, signifying nothing but the pet theories of some academic

which is all ANY "economist" is...some academic

red ink/back ink....actual supply and demand....once you get past these basics things get fucked up

the problem now is how to fix what thieves and liars and gamblers have broken...spare me the rest of the bullshit, since time and again you demonstrate you have no clue outside of school

enough from me, i don't pretend to have answers either...i just have a really good bullshit detector and right now i need to put on my hip waders and shave with Ockham's Razor

Killuminati
01-27-2009, 23:04
But Killuminati, please explain to me why this isn't the best solution! I mean, I really can't put my head around it. If this is the best solution, why doesn't the government just print and hand out $1,000,000 for every man woman and child in the country? If we're going to spend $1T, why not make it $5T if it's such a good idea?

If I get a check, I'll promise to save it at least. More than I can say for those bankers cruising the beaches.

Edit: also, concerning theory, it is suppose to be separated from reality. However, it gives us the ability to properly analyze facts and find cause & effect relationships with things when observing human action.

Rourke
01-27-2009, 23:06
I don't, so who cares? I practice what I preach. If people want to watch TV, let them watch it. I can't change their minds, so I'll just do what I have to do.

Therefore, blaming you is just as arbitrary as blaming the talkin' box.

I don't get your point? So your solution to get people out the fear factor is to do what? Hope Obama leads the way? Wait for free checks from Uncle Sam?

Maybe if everyday the morning news wasn;t a fucking drag, people would feel better? It is a thought. Nothing more. Just a thought.

DocGonzo
01-27-2009, 23:08
I don't get your point? So your solution to get people out the fear factor is to do what? Hope Obama leads the way? Wait for free checks from Uncle Sam?

Maybe if everyday the morning news wasn;t a fucking drag, people would feel better? It is a thought. Nothing more. Just a thought.

yeah, cuz it's CNN's fault all thos epeople are out of jobs in the last 6 months...

damn them

ok...now i'm really done wiht the thread...i just couldn't resist poking the stupidity with a stick one last time, troll that i am

Floyd
01-27-2009, 23:09
yeah, cuz it's CNN's fault all thos epeople are out of jobs in the last 6 months...

damn them

ok...now i'm really done wiht the thread...i just couldn't resist poking the stupidity with a stick one last time, troll that i am

Does anyone else read the small words and hear it as whispering?

rwp80
01-27-2009, 23:09
i frowned then scrolled up to read the title again, then laughed... alot.

You, Sir, have just made this thread worth more than all the dollars in my pocket.

I don't have any dollars, so let's just say that you are Win.

Killuminati
01-27-2009, 23:11
Does anyone else read the small words and hear it as whispering?

I think that was sorta the point. Or maybe he was grumbling to himself.

Rourke
01-27-2009, 23:13
yeah, cuz it's CNN's fault all thos epeople are out of jobs in the last 6 months...

damn them

ok...now i'm really done wiht the thread...i just couldn't resist poking the stupidity with a stick one last time, troll that i am

That isn't at all what I meant. Ok...get all economic on me. Go ahead. All I know is when I meet my customers everyday, I always hear things like " Isaw this on the news", "I saw that on the news" A LOT of people decide what they do by what they hear imo.

Never said shit about how it affected people jobs, but when people stop spending, it certianly causes lay-offs.

Slypieguy
01-27-2009, 23:19
you fail too hard to realize that the closing down of major industrial POI of a country will not only mean that countless families will starve (as in die from hunger) but also that it would stir the international money away for good. You fail to realize that economy nowadays is world based and not country based and that you need this revenue. You fail to realize that it's much easier to 'keep a customer' than to convince a customer that you have failed before to try you again. You fail to realize what depression means and you think it means 4 mac's /day.

Now, shutting down the economy, even for one day will stir and frighten so many people that it will take decades for said economy to be able to stand in it's feet again and that's only an IF it ever stands again.

go troll somewhere else and stop having tunnelvision.


Lol, you seem to be the one with tunnel vision. Letting failures like GM crumble would absolutely not result in the doomsday stories that their COEs try to paint. Do you think their assets would just decay to nothing, all their employees would be out of work, and all the market share they once had in the auto industry would just disappear? Healthy car companies would trim the fat and take over more efficiently. Sure not everyone would get their job back at a new Toyota or Honda plant, but many would. You are spouting generalizations and clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Attau
01-27-2009, 23:30
If there are losers in the economy... there are winners. No?
Lets let the winners have the spoils of victory you fucking wowbie carebears.

shphoenixgr
01-27-2009, 23:42
Lol, you seem to be the one with tunnel vision. Letting failures like GM crumble would absolutely not result in the doomsday stories that their COEs try to paint. Do you think their assets would just decay to nothing, all their employees would be out of work, and all the market share they once had in the auto industry would just disappear? Healthy car companies would trim the fat and take over more efficiently. Sure not everyone would get their job back at a new Toyota or Honda plant, but many would. You are spouting generalizations and clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

...or the industry would be move somewhere healthier and cheaper.. you know, the things you want to avoid right?....

stop thinking like usa=economy. usa is just a part of economy and americans of all people should know that by now that major industries of them are being moved outside their borders.

the auto-industry from usa would disappear, NOT the auto-industry. The point is to convince potential buyers with supporting that particular branch that HAPPENS to be in usa. If they see only fail in there just once you need to provide severely more incentive just so that they will look again.

tunnel vision is a reference to your stoic belief that local economy is real economy.

Vaalsha
01-27-2009, 23:44
I dont want to read the whole thread but I will point something out.
1. Regulation is necessary to stop a disastrous unstable boom and bust cycle like europe had in the 1700 and 1800s because of its completely unregulated market.
2. Ron paul didnt say where we would get the money from. It seems to me he is prepared to stop all forward progress in america.
3. Letting the companies fail would result in a huge mess of a depression. 25% unemployment, how will you afford food? How will you keep your home when there is no money at all flowing?
4. The fact is we are so entrenched in our current government model it would take some time to reform it, not anything we can do now withought causing a disaster.

*O ya and the title is idiotic*

Rourke
01-27-2009, 23:46
I dont want to read the whole thread but I will point something out.
1. Regulation is necessary to stop a disastrous unstable boom and bust cycle like europe had in the 1700 and 1800s because of its completely unregulated market.
2. Ron paul didnt say where we would get the money from. It seems to me he is prepared to stop all forward progress in america.
3. Letting the companies fail would result in a huge mess of a depression. 25% unemployment, how will you afford food? How will you keep your home when there is no money at all flowing?
4. The fact is we are so entrenched in our current government model it would take some time to reform it, not anything we can do now withought causing a disaster.

*O ya and the title is idiotic*

We need more chickens. Chickens and corn. Homes can be made from corn stalks, Fuel from corn, and chips. And everyone likes chicken.

I just solved the Country's problems.

/takes a bow.

Slypieguy
01-27-2009, 23:51
...or the industry would be move somewhere healthier and cheaper.. you know, the things you want to avoid right?....

stop thinking like usa=economy. usa is just a part of economy and americans of all people should know that by now that major industries of them are being moved outside their borders.

the auto-industry from usa would disappear, NOT the auto-industry. The point is to convince potential buyers with supporting that particular branch that HAPPENS to be in usa. If they see only fail in there just once you need to provide severely more incentive just so that they will look again.

tunnel vision is a reference to your stoic belief that local economy is real economy.

Lol really? Is that why Toyota/Honda and friends have been opening factories here in the last decade or so? Yea, I'm sure they would have zero interest in some liquidated Ford/GM assets... :bang:

And I don't know where the hell from any of my posts you get the idea that I think USA=economy. I'm fully aware of the globalized economy we are in and still transitioning into even more so.

Spineless_DoO
01-27-2009, 23:53
I dont want to read the whole thread but I will point something out.
1. Regulation is necessary to stop a disastrous unstable boom and bust cycle like europe had in the 1700 and 1800s because of its completely unregulated market.
2. Ron paul didnt say where we would get the money from. It seems to me he is prepared to stop all forward progress in america.
3. Letting the companies fail would result in a huge mess of a depression. 25% unemployment, how will you afford food? How will you keep your home when there is no money at all flowing?
4. The fact is we are so entrenched in our current government model it would take some time to reform it, not anything we can do now withought causing a disaster.

*O ya and the title is idiotic*

1) Not looking to the nanny state central gov to take care of everything is the answer. Regulation results in more money and huge agencies that cant find there way out of a paper bag

2)Ron said it a few times. Let bad debt take care of its self and run its course. Stop spending trillions outside of our borders. Not basing our entire fiscal system around a private bank with fake money is key.

3)If there is going to be a depression its already on the way. Basic understanding of how the federal reserve system works would lead anyone with the ability to tie his/her shoes to the same conclusion. Again its the root of the problem. Doing more of the same shit that causes the current problem is not going to solve those problems. Kill it at the root.

4) Again the dissaster is already here. We are just waiting for the center of the storm to fly over DC. The point RP is trying to make is doing more of the same shit that has failed now and for thousands of years of history is not going to make that storm any better. If anything it will last longer.

Vaalsha
01-27-2009, 23:54
Reason honda toyota plants are here is because americans buy there cars and its easier to manufacture them here then to ship them from overseas to america. Thats the reason.

Slypieguy
01-27-2009, 23:55
Reason honda toyota plants are here is because americans buy there cars and its easier to manufacture them here then to ship them from overseas to america. Thats the reason.

Yea, and if GM/Ford were suddenly gone, do you reckon they would need to up production a tad bit? :idea:

AlexanderWolffe
01-28-2009, 00:01
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k92fTDReHg

I'm interested to see what you pseudo-intellectual Keynesians think of this.

Just kidding. You're wrong, so there's no use being interested.

That one panel talkig head was like "where are we going to make up foer the revenue from income taxes"

When it's confirmed every cent of income tax money collected goes to the private banekrs to pay off the interest on the loans of money to the US government from the private bankers.

Rourke
01-28-2009, 00:09
Reason honda toyota plants are here is because americans buy there cars and its easier to manufacture them here then to ship them from overseas to america. Thats the reason.

Another reason American car companies are getting porked is because they lose money on each car made, quite a bit. The union deal we have in the US is pretty awful for the Car mfgr's.

The employees should of thought about taking a pay cut for a while and rethinking the Union deal, but that is a old issue, and a foregone conclusion now.

Honda and Toyota had better models btw, and they ran forever, barring the cheap-shit metal they used of course.

SSguy
01-28-2009, 00:24
Lying to people and telling them theres no problem is not going to help anything, it just makes them spend money and end up in a shithole because they did not cut down spending and wound up getting hit with hard times. Thats dispicable, you guys should be hanged for even suggesting the media start lying to people about companies having financial problems and not even covering it.

If there was a plague spreading through out the nation, killing thousands of people a day, would you want them to play that down too like its nothing?


Lol, you seem to be the one with tunnel vision. Letting failures like GM crumble would absolutely not result in the doomsday stories that their COEs try to paint. Do you think their assets would just decay to nothing, all their employees would be out of work, and all the market share they once had in the auto industry would just disappear? Healthy car companies would trim the fat and take over more efficiently. Sure not everyone would get their job back at a new Toyota or Honda plant, but many would. You are spouting generalizations and clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

How many? How would those people losing jobs effect the market?
How many other companies like GM need to "trim the fat" and lay off even more employees? How would that effect the market.

Its one big giant dominos effect. 10-20 thousand workers being layed off from one company, while another 10 thousand are being layed off from another company, while 60 thousand are being layed off by yet another company, while one company goes from net worth of 140 billion to 60 billion.....it all piles up, regardless of you wanting to believe it will or not.

When giant companies fall, they fall hard, and the crap that they cause by falling helps ensure they do not get back up.

Letting everything fall to pieces hurts a ton of innocent people who have had nothing to do with the bullshit. Our current market is not perfect, its not the solution to economics, and until we are all robots doing predicatble things no market will ever be, so no, there may not always be a rebirth from a market crash. For all we know we could easily turn into several third world countries, god knows we have enough bigotry against our current president for one w/o a crash.

Pretending the market will ALWAYS fix itself, and that we could never become a cesspool of a country to the piont where we are a third world nation with high unemployment, disease, inflation, etc etc is just sheer ignorance and piss poor knowledge of the subject.

Slypieguy
01-28-2009, 00:29
hurts a ton of innocent people who have had nothing to do with the bullshit.

I'm just gonna point out the irony here

Justinian
01-28-2009, 00:31
Lying to people and telling them theres no problem is not going to help anything, it just makes them spend money and end up in a shithole because they did not cut down spending and wound up getting hit with hard times. Thats dispicable, you guys should be hanged for even suggesting the media start lying to people about companies having financial problems and not even covering it.

If there was a plague spreading through out the nation, killing thousands of people a day, would you want them to play that down too like its nothing?



How many? How would those people losing jobs effect the market?
How many other companies like GM need to "trim the fat" and lay off even more employees? How would that effect the market.

Its one big giant dominos effect. 10-20 thousand workers being layed off from one company, while another 10 thousand are being layed off from another company, while 60 thousand are being layed off by yet another company, while one company goes from net worth of 140 billion to 60 billion.....it all piles up, regardless of you wanting to believe it will or not.

When giant companies fall, they fall hard, and the crap that they cause by falling helps ensure they do not get back up.

Letting everything fall to pieces hurts a ton of innocent people who have had nothing to do with the bullshit. Our current market is not perfect, its not the solution to economics, and until we are all robots doing predicatble things no market will ever be, so no, there may not always be a rebirth from a market crash. For all we know we could easily turn into several third world countries, god knows we have enough bigotry against our current president for one w/o a crash.

Pretending the market will ALWAYS fix itself, and that we could never become a cesspool of a country to the piont where we are a third world nation with high unemployment, disease, inflation, etc etc is just sheer ignorance and piss poor knowledge of the subject.

Do you think capital comes out of no where? Do you think workers will not find a more productive use for their labor after the fallout effects? Are you that goddamn scared? I am not afraid to suffer a little for a few years in exchange for a more vibrant, productive economy. I'm sick and tired of the scared little boys and girls who are afraid of it being allowed to run my life. Sick and tired of it.

I'm also not afraid to stay here and talk until I'm blue in the face and people start to wake up.

There is nothing to be afraid of. Please stop pissing on the corpse that is the American Republic.

Spineless_DoO
01-28-2009, 00:37
Lying to people and telling them theres no problem is not going to help anything, it just makes them spend money and end up in a shithole because they did not cut down spending and wound up getting hit with hard times. Thats dispicable, you guys should be hanged for even suggesting the media start lying to people about companies having financial problems and not even covering it.

If there was a plague spreading through out the nation, killing thousands of people a day, would you want them to play that down too like its nothing?



How many? How would those people losing jobs effect the market?
How many other companies like GM need to "trim the fat" and lay off even more employees? How would that effect the market.

Its one big giant dominos effect. 10-20 thousand workers being layed off from one company, while another 10 thousand are being layed off from another company, while 60 thousand are being layed off by yet another company, while one company goes from net worth of 140 billion to 60 billion.....it all piles up, regardless of you wanting to believe it will or not.

When giant companies fall, they fall hard, and the crap that they cause by falling helps ensure they do not get back up.

Letting everything fall to pieces hurts a ton of innocent people who have had nothing to do with the bullshit. Our current market is not perfect, its not the solution to economics, and until we are all robots doing predicatble things no market will ever be, so no, there may not always be a rebirth from a market crash. For all we know we could easily turn into several third world countries, god knows we have enough bigotry against our current president for one w/o a crash.

Pretending the market will ALWAYS fix itself, and that we could never become a cesspool of a country to the piont where we are a third world nation with high unemployment, disease, inflation, etc etc is just sheer ignorance and piss poor knowledge of the subject.

I think you are missing the point. The idea is to stop making the same fatal mistakes that got us here. What the current administration is doing is creating massive debt. You cant pay off debt with more debt. You need something of value. Bailouts do not create value. They creat inflation and bad debt. We all know this

I would be mindfull when talking about the racism against the current president. After all the majority of the country did vote for him. People are to fast to ignore the fact that Obama is against equal rights. He highly favors programs that cater to minorities. Ever try being white and getting assistance? I would say the biggot card is in Obamas camp. Its pretty much how he got elected. Guilt anyone?

SSguy
01-28-2009, 01:03
I think you are missing the point. The idea is to stop making the same fatal mistakes that got us here. What the current administration is doing is creating massive debt. You cant pay off debt with more debt. You need something of value. Bailouts do not create value. They creat inflation and bad debt. We all know this


What mistake did we make to cause the great depression?? We let it happen, that was the mistake.

They also slow the collapse and give companies and people the time they need to reduce in size. You enjoy seeing hundreds of employes in a line walking out of the building they use to work in?

Its bad either way, but its better to deal with it slowly than to let it all crash and burn.

Sadly, only some of us seem to know this, the others are foaming at the mouth screaming "OMG GOVERNMENT!!! BAAAAAD!!!!!" while some are fapping at the idea of living in a mad max world and don't realize they aren't going to become some sort of super legendary survival hero and will most likely get stabbed and robbed or die of starvation.




I would be mindfull when talking about the racism against the current president. After all the majority of the country did vote for him. People are to fast to ignore the fact that Obama is against equal rights. He highly favors programs that cater to minorities. Ever try being white and getting assistance? I would say the biggot card is in Obamas camp. Its pretty much how he got elected. Guilt anyone?

First....you have any idea how the fuck polls work? Majority of the fucking country does not mean lopsided votes. An entire electoral vote could be decided bythe difference of a few thousand people.

Second, America has a lot of people. Majority of people are idiots. Lot and idiot don't mix well.

Third, The fuck does that have to do with anything?? That just furthers my argument for a civil war (Racism being a driving factor) being plausible along with a market crash.....

Also, being white and having a hard time getting assistance has been around longer than Obama....jesus its been what? a week? since the guy took office and you people are already placing racism against whites thats bee naround for years prior on him.

Dimgo
01-28-2009, 01:10
while some are fapping at the idea of living in a mad max world and don't realize they aren't going to become some sort of super legendary survival hero and will most likely get stabbed and robbed or die of starvation.



I dont know why but im laughing hard at this

Killuminati
01-28-2009, 01:14
I dont know why but im laughing hard at this

I just facepalm.

SSguy
01-28-2009, 01:23
I'm just gonna point out the irony here

Yeeeah.....because average joe who just lost his job because one divison of his company drove it into bankruptcy reeeaaaaly had something to do with it.
Lets not forget when bankers knowlingly make greedy rate increases on mortages that wind up making people default(hoping thye default on cars and Credit cards first) its totally not their fault, its the fault of the guy who just got fired from kmart because they need to reduce spending.

Oh, I see total irony there.

But I'm going to go ahead and guess that you made a failure of reading comprehension, shouldn't expect any less from forumfall. Yes, these people not pissing their money away ognorantly like nothing is happen doesn't help the market no fall down, but its not their fault for the start of the collapse, and you sure as hell can't blame them for being cautious of the future...well, I'm sure you can, and probably will, but you're a retard so it doesn't matter.


Do you think capital comes out of no where? Do you think workers will not find a more productive use for their labor after the fallout effects? Are you that goddamn scared? I am not afraid to suffer a little for a few years in exchange for a more vibrant, productive economy. I'm sick and tired of the scared little boys and girls who are afraid of it being allowed to run my life. Sick and tired of it.

No, I don't think many will, but I'll make it nice and simple for you.

Massive part of the market crashes with bad assets = credit freeze
Credit freeze = less people to spend money they dont have and pay it off slowly and later
Less debt for people = less spending
less spending = less profit, no profit, or redlining
All 3 = less jobs, even less spending
less jobs = less spending, less payments being made, less debt being retrieved, less credit being given out
less jobs = more unemployed
All the crap above = no job creation.

Do you think jobs magically pop out of CEO's asses? Where do they get the money to open up new businesses if no one will give out loans?

As for the rest, LOL @ a few years........You have no idea of how big of a crash this can easily be.

Don't mistake bravery for stupidity, you aren't afraid because you do not fully grasp out global economy and how bad the market is right now.

Not being afraid of it running your life? Holy shit.....teenage angst rebellion against parents much?



I'm also not afraid to stay here and talk until I'm blue in the face and people start to wake up.


What are you.....10? Jesus, why don't you just tell us you're gonna hold your breath until we agree with you?

How's highschool going with your first girlfriend Mr. Invulnerable know it all?


There is nothing to be afraid of. Please stop pissing on the corpse that is the American Republic.

I put money on saying 50% of america now goes to work not knwoing whether or not they are going to have a job being a ballpark figure, and a generous esitmate.

Also, come pay my bills, then tell me I have nothing to fear.

SSguy
01-28-2009, 01:25
I dont know why but im laughing hard at this


I just facepalm.

This is forumfall, you honestly don't think its true that theres a bunch of people here begging for that lifestyle?

Just look at Matriel, for gods sakes his answer to a power company, in a world without government etc, charging more than majority of people can pay or pretty much most of what they earn, is to grab two of his friends and his shotgun and go attack them....

It was a serious answer too.

Killuminati
01-28-2009, 01:30
This is forumfall, you honestly don't think its true that theres a bunch of people here begging for that lifestyle?

Just look at Matriel, for gods sakes his answer to a power company, in a world without government etc, charging more than majority of people can pay or pretty much most of what they earn, is to grab two of his friends and his shotgun and go attack them....

It was a serious answer too.

Good for them?

Rourke
01-28-2009, 01:38
Good for them?

/facepalmed.

Morar
01-28-2009, 01:43
Are you that goddamn scared? I am not afraid to suffer a little for a few years in exchange for a more vibrant, productive economy.

That's because you have never really suffered in your life. You're just full of the most blatant shit.
I'm half willing to go promote the same fucked up ideologies you do and help you get your way, just to see you suffer, cry and moan while life slowly leaves your crippled body as you starve.

Fucked up bitch.. nothing to be afraid of.. maybe leave your candy world and take a look at places where libertarians had their way. Take a look at Russia, China and all those wonderful South American countries. Go there and stay there you moron.

Rourke
01-28-2009, 01:47
That's because you have never really suffered in your life. You're just full of the most blatant shit.
I'm half willing to go promote the same fucked up ideologies you do and help you get your way, just to see you suffer, cry and moan while life slowly leaves your crippled body as you starve.

Fucked up bitch.. nothing to be afraid of.. maybe leave your candy world and take a look at places where libertarians had their way. Take a look at Russia, China and all those wonderful South American countries. Go there and stay there you moron.

Young people always have lame ideals that they grow out of unless they have a silver spoon in thier mouth. We all did when we were young.

Shyhalu
01-28-2009, 01:54
there is nothing to be afraid of. Please stop pissing on the corpse that is the american republic.

hey guys!!!!!!!! Its all ok, a 16 year old is telling us theres nothing to be afraid of!!!!!!!!!1 its gonna be alright!!!!!!!!! Hes some sort of super genious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lindorn
01-28-2009, 02:03
First off, I agree with Gonzo and those who said that Paul didn't really offer much of a viable solution to the problem. The truth is he does have solutions, but he's never been good at voicing him. One of the things that I think contributed, nominally or otherwise, to his marginalization during the primaries. He is an excellent idealist and he really does have an answer for almost anything, but he fails often with his communication skills.

That being said this is one of the best interviews I've ever seen involving him, not because it was the end all be all of the monetary crisis, but because he was actually treated with respect and taken seriously by his interviewers. For those that followed Ron Paul through the primary, you'll know that is a HUGE step for him and a huge step for the media and america.


it been built on fiat...not even credit

Fiat IS credit in the monetary system of today. Fiat manifests itself 10 times over as credit...that's the entire conundrum. Remember that for every dollar the FED prints the banks can use 10 imaginary dollars.

As for needing to do a tour in the military before you can speak on intelligence, military, or foreign policy matters, that's silly. Let's not attack other people's experience. That is juvenile and illogical. Attack their viewpoints and the facts they use or do not use to support them. Using someones persona and everything that encompasses it to bludgeon them is fallacious and unfair.

Ron Paul never said his perfect world was "not possible". He said "I realize my perfect society won't come around easily". Your assessment that he inferred a Utopian society is not possible, regardless of the validity of such a statement had it been made, is incorrect and misrepresentative of what the man said.

That being said you are correct, he didn't really offer any solution. The reason he doesn't offer a solution is because there is no solution from Dr. Paul's platform that can be said in a soundbite, and unfortunately his entire platform has revolved around awareness of the evils of todays economic and political system. Rarely does anyone care enough to ask him what his solutions are.

He did say that we must liquidate the debt and bring real market value into the economy again. Truthfully if you take the non-Keynesian viewpoint, you accept that nothing can be accomplished until this happens. It's silly for him to ramble about his dream world as long as the FED exists, as long as there is an income tax, and as long as banks can loan out 10x as much imaginary money as the FED prints every day. He's right in that this is the first step we have to take and nothing else can be done until it's taken.

His failure to verbalize that is a common flaw for Dr. Paul in his communication methods, but if you read his writings you'll start to see the holes filled in where he fails in TV interviews.

EDIT: By the way Justinian. Overall good points, I just wish you'd be less of an ass while conveying them lol.

Slypieguy
01-28-2009, 02:39
Yeeeah.....because average joe who just lost his job because one divison of his company drove it into bankruptcy reeeaaaaly had something to do with it.
Lets not forget when bankers knowlingly make greedy rate increases on mortages that wind up making people default(hoping thye default on cars and Credit cards first) its totally not their fault, its the fault of the guy who just got fired from kmart because they need to reduce spending.

Oh, I see total irony there.


I see it went totally over your head.

Killuminati
01-28-2009, 02:47
Fucked up bitch.. nothing to be afraid of.. maybe leave your candy world and take a look at places where libertarians had their way. Take a look at Russia, China and all those wonderful South American countries. Go there and stay there you moron.

This takes the cake for stupidity.


Young people always have lame ideals that they grow out of unless they have a silver spoon in thier mouth. We all did when we were young.

Yah, keep listening to NPR and TV for ideas on how to solve problems.

tsalin
01-28-2009, 02:56
the title of this thread sounds like it would be an awesome parn0

Vanno
01-28-2009, 04:36
I'm about at my wits end with these infantile rubes and their "he offers no solution" mantra. They can't grasp the simple reality that the only solution to an overheated marked is to let it cool. Asset destruction occurs anytime prices are propped up; asking what to do about it is akin to asking how to stop the Sun from shining.

Rourke
01-28-2009, 04:38
I'm about at my wits end with these infantile rubes and their "he offers no solution" mantra. They can't grasp the simple reality that the only solution to an overheated marked is to let it cool. Asset destruction occurs anytime prices are propped up; asking what to do about it is akin to asking how to stop the Sun from shining.

THIS is what I have been saying all along!!! sheesherz!

Forumfall has solved the world's problems once again.

Lindorn
01-28-2009, 04:59
I'm about at my wits end with these infantile rubes and their "he offers no solution" mantra. They can't grasp the simple reality that the only solution to an overheated marked is to let it cool. Asset destruction occurs anytime prices are propped up; asking what to do about it is akin to asking how to stop the Sun from shining.

Come on man, you've been around here long enough to know that you should expect this sort of thing when people are bitching about Dr. Paul. Truthfully the man is next to bullet proof on every issue, so the only things they have left to attack him with are infantile in nature.

If you see people bashing on Ron Paul, generally their arguments are either a total farce or they just resort to ad hominems and strawmen. It's pretty much religious at this point.

Rourke
01-28-2009, 05:01
Come on man, you've been around here long enough to know that you should expect this sort of thing when people are bitching about Dr. Paul. Truthfully the man is next to bullet proof on every issue, so the only things they have left to attack him with are infantile in nature.

If you see people bashing on Ron Paul, generally their arguments are either a total farce or they just resort to ad hominems and strawmen. It's pretty much religious at this point.

I concur!! Ad harmonies!! religion!! Ross Perot!!

PirateGlen
01-28-2009, 05:33
Also, yes, fractional reserve simply put is fraud. Also, if I were to make the constitutionalist case against the Fed, I could point out Article I says that only gold & silver is legal tender.


I don't see how it can be fraud if they're not deceitful. It's not like the banks are pretending not to loan it out.

As for your constitutionalist argument: it fails because the section you're referring to is powers prohibited to the states. Whereas:

"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;" is an explicit power of congress.

Killuminati
01-28-2009, 05:44
I don't see how it can be fraud if they're not deceitful. It's not like the banks are pretending not to loan it out.

As for your constitutionalist argument: it fails because the section you're referring to is powers prohibited to the states. Whereas:

"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;" is an explicit power of congress.

Yes, and I pose this question. Does the congress have the power to do any of those things currently or has that power been given to some, aye.. uh, independent agency?

Justinian
01-28-2009, 06:07
I'm about at my wits end with these infantile rubes and their "he offers no solution" mantra. They can't grasp the simple reality that the only solution to an overheated marked is to let it cool. Asset destruction occurs anytime prices are propped up; asking what to do about it is akin to asking how to stop the Sun from shining.

well-said. This should take care of that idiot who was arguing with me earlier.

Justinian
01-28-2009, 06:14
What mistake did we make to cause the great depression?? We let it happen, that was the mistake.

What the hell are you talking about? Stop repeating things you hear on TV. In fact, turn off the TV. Also, stop saying "we". Fuck.

What mistakes were made? The chief among them was the expansion of the money supply by the newly created Fed. See: Recession of 1920-21 for how a normal recession plays out. See: The Great Depression for how a recession plays out with massive government intervention. See: Your dick shriveling after being talked in circles by everyone on this message board.


They also slow the collapse and give companies and people the time they need to reduce in size. You enjoy seeing hundreds of employes in a line walking out of the building they use to work in?

Its bad either way, but its better to deal with it slowly than to let it all crash and burn.

Nothing will crash and burn. Stop being a scared little baby.


Sadly, only some of us seem to know this, the others are foaming at the mouth screaming "OMG GOVERNMENT!!! BAAAAAD!!!!!" while some are fapping at the idea of living in a mad max world and don't realize they aren't going to become some sort of super legendary survival hero and will most likely get stabbed and robbed or die of starvation.




First....you have any idea how the fuck polls work? Majority of the fucking country does not mean lopsided votes. An entire electoral vote could be decided bythe difference of a few thousand people.

Second, America has a lot of people. Majority of people are idiots. Lot and idiot don't mix well.

Third, The fuck does that have to do with anything?? That just furthers my argument for a civil war (Racism being a driving factor) being plausible along with a market crash.....

Also, being white and having a hard time getting assistance has been around longer than Obama....jesus its been what? a week? since the guy took office and you people are already placing racism against whites thats bee naround for years prior on him.

Shhhhhhhh... be still, little baby. You'll be okay, okay? Stay calm for Momma Government.

PirateGlen
01-28-2009, 06:18
Yes, and I pose this question. Does the congress have the power to do any of those things currently or has that power been given to some, aye.. uh, independent agency?

Congress is empowered to delegate their powers to different agencies by the "necessary and proper" clause. In the same way the IRS is empowered to collect taxes on behalf of congress.

Justinian
01-28-2009, 06:24
Congress is empowered to delegate their powers to different agencies by the "necessary and proper" clause. In the same way the IRS is empowered to collect taxes on behalf of congress.

Do us all a favor and quote the necessary and property clause.

Lindorn
01-28-2009, 06:27
In the same way the IRS is empowered to collect taxes on behalf of congress.


errr. There is no law on the books anywhere, including in the constitution, empowers the IRS to do anything, including collect taxes. There is a constitutional ammendment allowing for the levy of an income tax, but it discusses no such organization and there is no framework for such a thing to exist. And that doesn't even touch on the fact that SCOTUS declared the ammendment improperly ratified....not to mention unconstitutional.

EDIT: I take some of that back sorry. I just reread some of the old 16th ammendment shenanigans and I don't have any hard evidence to say it wasn't properly ratified. As of right now it seems it was based on all of the evidence.

SSguy
01-28-2009, 06:45
What the hell are you talking about? Stop repeating things you hear on TV. In fact, turn off the TV. Also, stop saying "we". Fuck.


I say we because I am an American? Wow dude....Thats sad that I have to explain that.



What mistakes were made? The chief among them was the expansion of the money supply by the newly created Fed. See: Recession of 1920-21 for how a normal recession plays out. See: The Great Depression for how a recession plays out with massive government intervention. See: Your dick shriveling after being talked in circles by everyone on this message board.

Ever think that expansion of money supply is akin to the expansion of debt supply? No, of course not, right?



Nothing will crash and burn. Stop being a scared little baby.


I take it the Great Depression never happened in your lala land eh?
Because I'm sure thats what was said back then too.


Its not about it crashing and burning, its the fact its possible and becoming more possible as more and more businesses lay off mass amounts of workers.




Shhhhhhhh... be still, little baby. You'll be okay, okay? Stay calm for Momma Government.

Unlike you, some of us have jobs to lose.
And hey.....like I said, pay my damn bills, then tell me I've got nothing to worry about, until then shut the fuck up because we have plenty to worry about. People are losing homes and jobs en masse.

Slypieguy
01-28-2009, 06:48
EDIT: I take some of that back sorry. I just reread some of the old 16th ammendment shenanigans and I don't have any hard evidence to say it wasn't properly ratified. As of right now it seems it was based on all of the evidence.

I've heard a good case for why it wasn't properly ratified, don't know if it was accurate though.

SSguy
01-28-2009, 06:51
I'm about at my wits end with these infantile rubes and their "he offers no solution" mantra. They can't grasp the simple reality that the only solution to an overheated marked is to let it cool. Asset destruction occurs anytime prices are propped up; asking what to do about it is akin to asking how to stop the Sun from shining.

Letting it cool is not throwing it out. Letting everything fall apart while people run around in mass panic is throwing it out, supporting businesses while they downsize is letting it cool.
From what I've read so far, Paul would let it crash to the ground.

Just because we disagree with Ron Paul on some issues, does not mean we are retards or are blatently slandering him.

Its understood that asset destruction is going to happen, I don't think I've yet see anyone argue that its not and or shouldnt. The problem is the pace at which it happens.

Bosemann
01-28-2009, 07:06
errr. There is no law on the books anywhere, including in the constitution, empowers the IRS to do anything, including collect taxes. There is a constitutional ammendment allowing for the levy of an income tax, but it discusses no such organization and there is no framework for such a thing to exist. And that doesn't even touch on the fact that SCOTUS declared the ammendment improperly ratified....not to mention unconstitutional.

EDIT: I take some of that back sorry. I just reread some of the old 16th ammendment shenanigans and I don't have any hard evidence to say it wasn't properly ratified. As of right now it seems it was based on all of the evidence.

What is Title 26 all about then?

Killuminati
01-28-2009, 07:21
Congress is empowered to delegate their powers to different agencies by the "necessary and proper" clause. In the same way the IRS is empowered to collect taxes on behalf of congress.

I knew this would eventually be brought up, except then fiat money is the main issue. There are a ton of legal tender cases which shed light on this issue. Those cases as far as I'm concerned just shows the nature of government and its arbitrary use of power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Tender_Cases

Also, the problem with this whole debate is the way of thinking. This whole debate in fact reminds me of this youtube clip...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yAyQV8gOjo

Vanno
01-28-2009, 07:21
Letting it cool is not throwing it out. Letting everything fall apart while people run around in mass panic is throwing it out, supporting businesses while they downsize is letting it cool.
From what I've read so far, Paul would let it crash to the ground.

Just because we disagree with Ron Paul on some issues, does not mean we are retards or are blatently slandering him.

Its understood that asset destruction is going to happen, I don't think I've yet see anyone argue that its not and or shouldnt. The problem is the pace at which it happens.

Letting it cool means not intervening by propping up prices resulting in a distortion of the market which makes a recovery take longer, and could potentially ruin our currency.

A crashing to the ground simply will not happen if we just let the market play out. Government getting preferred stock is not a sound way to get capital flowing into problem sectors. The pace at which it happens is entirely irrelevant, and interjection on behalf of pace is going to cause unintended consequences that are far more frightening than a recession.

losinglife
01-28-2009, 07:21
am i the only one who heard everyone in the interview laughing at him the whole time? Noone was listening to what he was saying or taking it seriously.

Killuminati
01-28-2009, 07:28
am i the only one who heard everyone in the interview laughing at him the whole time? Noone was listening to what he was saying or taking it seriously.

I think you're just use to hearing that from all the other RP videos.

PirateGlen
01-28-2009, 08:10
errr. There is no law on the books anywhere, including in the constitution, empowers the IRS to do anything, including collect taxes. There is a constitutional ammendment allowing for the levy of an income tax, but it discusses no such organization and there is no framework for such a thing to exist. And that doesn't even touch on the fact that SCOTUS declared the ammendment improperly ratified....not to mention unconstitutional.

EDIT: I take some of that back sorry. I just reread some of the old 16th ammendment shenanigans and I don't have any hard evidence to say it wasn't properly ratified. As of right now it seems it was based on all of the evidence.

http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title26/26-20.0.1.1.2.1.2.1.html


(a) General. The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner has general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxes imposed by any law providing internal revenue. The Internal Revenue Service is the agency by which these functions are performed.

Anything else would be in title 26.

PirateGlen
01-28-2009, 08:46
I knew this would eventually be brought up, except then fiat money is the main issue. There are a ton of legal tender cases which shed light on this issue. Those cases as far as I'm concerned just shows the nature of government and its arbitrary use of power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Tender_Cases

Also, the problem with this whole debate is the way of thinking. This whole debate in fact reminds me of this youtube clip...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yAyQV8gOjo

But fiat money is not illegal. You're better off making a policy based argument against fiat money rather than one based upon the legality of fiat money. And I'm not sure fiat money is your issue so much as what is done with fiat money.

PirateGlen
01-28-2009, 08:47
I've heard a good case for why it wasn't properly ratified, don't know if it was accurate though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_Sixteenth_Amendment_argume nts

This includes a number of cases where the courts reject the tax protester's arguments.

losinglife
01-28-2009, 13:43
I think you're just use to hearing that from all the other RP videos.

lulzpudding... its possible

Justinian
01-28-2009, 13:53
Letting it cool is not throwing it out. Letting everything fall apart while people run around in mass panic is throwing it out, supporting businesses while they downsize is letting it cool.
From what I've read so far, Paul would let it crash to the ground.

Just because we disagree with Ron Paul on some issues, does not mean we are retards or are blatently slandering him.

Its understood that asset destruction is going to happen, I don't think I've yet see anyone argue that its not and or shouldnt. The problem is the pace at which it happens.

See: The Great Depression by Murray Rothbard for a thorough critique of this "I'm scared mommy" argument.

Sabbathius
01-28-2009, 14:27
The folks questioning him need to learn how to let a person speak and not interrupt him at every step. And the woman just says "Yeeeah" every once in a while and nothing else, which is just hilarious.

SSguy
01-28-2009, 15:04
See: The Great Depression by Murray Rothbard for a thorough critique of this "I'm scared mommy" argument.

If you don't have some degree of fear for our future, you are a retard. But thats already been shown throughout the thread. Let me know when you get out of highschool and are out of the "i know everything because im invulnerable" mindset.

See: Mass panic => Mass bank runs

Do you even have a job?



A crashing to the ground simply will not happen if we just let the market play out. Government getting preferred stock is not a sound way to get capital flowing into problem sectors. The pace at which it happens is entirely irrelevant, and interjection on behalf of pace is going to cause unintended consequences that are far more frightening than a recession.

A lot of businesses doing a lot of lay offs and facing bankruptcy they can not get out of, especially the large ones, is not crashing to the ground??
Considering the laws of economics can not take mass panic into account, the pace at which is happens is VERY relevant. I can't wait till we start seeing bank runs and have people saying "its all ok!".

The "market" is manmade, not some perfect law of the universe. It can not account for everything, can not fix everything, and does not magically correct itself.....In fact, half of america being out of jobs and homes would be considered the "right path" of the market right now, which is deplorable.

Give me some sound proof that it wont come tumbling down because logic is against you.

Credit freeze
Huge stock drops
Huge amounts of jobs lost
Big businesses filing for bankruptcy
Other countries not doing that great either

AIG going down would easily be 140 thousand jobs gone worldwide
GM going down is easily another 80?
MTA is having problems too

I don't understand what the hell goes through the minds of you people, people who get fired or layed off don't magically get another job.

Sabbathius
01-28-2009, 15:07
...people who get fired or layed off don't magically get another job.

It's not that they can't. There's plenty of jobs as a warehouse or farmhand, harmburger flipper, Walmart greeter, etc. They just won't be making $36 an hour like they did working in the auto industry, and maybe that $36 an hour is why the industry is really broke, but there are certainly jobs out there.

When push come to shove, they can join the army, French Foreign Legion, etc., in a police state an individual will be sure to have employment when joining military or law enforcement.

AmonDominus
01-28-2009, 15:11
You US nublets should of put Ron Paul as president. By force if possible.

Justinian
01-28-2009, 15:23
You US nublets should of put Ron Paul as president. By force if possible.

well, seeing as how this flies in the face of everything RP talks about, no.

Justinian
01-28-2009, 15:33
If you don't have some degree of fear for our future, you are a retard. But thats already been shown throughout the thread. Let me know when you get out of highschool and are out of the "i know everything because im invulnerable" mindset.

See: Mass panic => Mass bank runs

Do you even have a job?

I work as a paralegal at a successful personal injury firm. We just expanded! So much for the shitty economy.

I'm not talking about thinking I'm invulnerable. What I'm talking about is not being so deathly afraid of some hardship that I allow people to control me/my money. I do not willingly hand over the reins to my life. You do.

See: Ben Franklin's quote on liberty, security, etc.


A lot of businesses doing a lot of lay offs and facing bankruptcy they can not get out of, especially the large ones, is not crashing to the ground??
Considering the laws of economics can not take mass panic into account, the pace at which is happens is VERY relevant. I can't wait till we start seeing bank runs and have people saying "its all ok!".

I agree, but I don't see how this is a criticism of what the good doctor or I say. People like you will be saying "It's all okay if we just continue to bail them out" until the bitter end. I, on the other hand, have at no point said that it will be okay. I'm not saying it'll be rainbows and gumdrops. I'm just prepared to face the hardship associated with a massive liquidation of malinvestments and the subsequent return to a productive economy. It's your thinking that got us to where we are now - people with your ideas have been managing the economy this entire time, and now you expect people like me to trust you to fix it? Are you kidding me?


The "market" is manmade, not some perfect law of the universe. It can not account for everything, can not fix everything, and does not magically correct itself.....In fact, half of america being out of jobs and homes would be considered the "right path" of the market right now, which is deplorable.

Here we disagree considerably. It's a shame, but you need to be exposed to some economic theory outside of the little box college courses (and subsequently popular opinion) construct. I seriously and earnestly urge you to check out Human Action by Ludwig von Mises to see how the market is, in fact, an immutable law associated with humanity.



Credit freeze
Huge stock drops
Huge amounts of jobs lost
Big businesses filing for bankruptcy
Other countries not doing that great either

AIG going down would easily be 140 thousand jobs gone worldwide
GM going down is easily another 80?
MTA is having problems too

I don't understand what the hell goes through the minds of you people, people who get fired or layed off don't magically get another job.

No, they don't. More productive uses for their labor has to first come about. This is a process and it doesn't magically happen, you are correct. However, your option is equally as destructive: runaway inflation, zombie corporations, and a long, protracted recession which merely serves to spread the pain around rather than allow the orderly liquidation of assets in certain regions and the subsequent recovery.

Like I've been saying: you're a scared little boy.

Morar
01-28-2009, 15:53
This takes the cake for stupidity.


Kek, true story? You're probably totally aware that financial aid to those countries was coupled to them employing completely free market approaches.

Yes, that's right. Everything a libertarian could ask for has been applied there: Completely free market, next to no social services, minimal government spending (with the exception of military and police force).

And why did the rest of the cake not follow (being that everyone's oh so free and oh so happy)? Because it's a completely retarded approach doomed to fail.
Look at Russia almost twenty years after the unregulated market approach was pushed through.. the numbers of people living in absolute poverty has quadruppled, the number of people going hungry has more than doubled compared to 1988 (or maybe it was the other way around, I can't be arsed to look it up as you're oh so wise and know better to begin with).
They're also back to assassinating political journalists and opposition members and the like, because obviously the libertarian approach works so well that everyone is as happy as can be.

I don't know how anyone can be so delusional to seriously expect freedom to come along with a political and economic system that begs for civil unrest, which either has to be answered with force and repressions (as it happened in Russia and so many other countries which were forced to open up their markets in order to receive financial help from the IMF) or leads to chaos, which is (opposed to what some people may think) definitely not a good thing in a country that relies on nuclear power. It takes quite some organization to keep those reactors running and stable, you know, and Tschernobyl gave a pretty good hint that it is desirable to keep them stable.
And yes, chaos is inevitable if you have absolutely no social security net. Or wait, is that answered with laissez-faire as well? Is everyone owning a gun the answer to it all? Yes! People will shoot eachother till there's only a handful left, and that handful can easily be accomodated! YAY! *clap clap*

Seriously.. the whole ideology is retarded to the point where it really makes no sense to even talk about it. It's been proven that it doesn't work. It doesn't.
It didn't work in any of the countries where it was applied. Yes, those countries had problems to begin with, but now they're worse off than before. It didn't work.
Hundreds of thousands of people died in the process, which can be directly related to the effects of said laissez-faire strategy on an economic level and the oppressions which were needed to keep said system in place.

It's no less moronic to follow this ideology than it is to proclaim Stalin, Mao or the Red Khmer were really good guys at heart and it all would have worked out - eventually.

Justinian
01-28-2009, 16:12
Kek, true story? You're probably totally aware that financial aid to those countries was coupled to them employing completely free market approaches.

Yes, that's right. Everything a libertarian could ask for has been applied there: Completely free market, next to no social services, minimal government spending (with the exception of military and police force).

And why did the rest of the cake not follow (being that everyone's oh so free and oh so happy)? Because it's a completely retarded approach doomed to fail.
Look at Russia almost twenty years after the unregulated market approach was pushed through.. the numbers of people living in absolute poverty has quadruppled, the number of people going hungry has more than doubled compared to 1988 (or maybe it was the other way around, I can't be arsed to look it up as you're oh so wise and know better to begin with).
They're also back to assassinating political journalists and opposition members and the like, because obviously the libertarian approach works so well that everyone is as happy as can be.

I don't know how anyone can be so delusional to seriously expect freedom to come along with a political and economic system that begs for civil unrest, which either has to be answered with force and repressions (as it happened in Russia and so many other countries which were forced to open up their markets in order to receive financial help from the IMF) or leads to chaos, which is (opposed to what some people may think) definitely not a good thing in a country that relies on nuclear power. It takes quite some organization to keep those reactors running and stable, you know, and Tschernobyl gave a pretty good hint that it is desirable to keep them stable.
And yes, chaos is inevitable if you have absolutely no social security net. Or wait, is that answered with laissez-faire as well? Is everyone owning a gun the answer to it all? Yes! People will shoot eachother till there's only a handful left, and that handful can easily be accomodated! YAY! *clap clap*

Seriously.. the whole ideology is retarded to the point where it really makes no sense to even talk about it. It's been proven that it doesn't work. It doesn't.
It didn't work in any of the countries where it was applied. Yes, those countries had problems to begin with, but now they're worse off than before. It didn't work.
Hundreds of thousands of people died in the process, which can be directly related to the effects of said laissez-faire strategy on an economic level and the oppressions which were needed to keep said system in place.

It's no less moronic to follow this ideology than it is to proclaim Stalin, Mao or the Red Khmer were really good guys at heart and it all would have worked out - eventually.

This was good for a laugh. You're from the UK, so your opinion on all things economics doesn't count anymore. It's ironic - your country was once the most liberal/libertarian of them all, applying Adam Smith's theories to everything and becoming the most powerful nation on the face of the planet. How are you guys these days? ;)

Morar
01-28-2009, 16:15
This was good for a laugh. You're from the UK, so your opinion on all things economics doesn't count anymore. It's ironic - your country was once the most liberal/libertarian of them all, applying Adam Smith's theories to everything and becoming the most powerful nation on the face of the planet. How are you guys these days? ;)

Unfortunately I am not from the UK. Your assumptions fail just as horribly as your political agenda.

Edit: On a second note.. it's also very interesting that you do not only see exploiting colonies and selling slaves as a legit way of becoming prosperous, but in fact find it desirable. Just goes to show, really..

lafayette
01-28-2009, 16:25
Lets see, banks and mortgage companies in some cases forced, but mostly lured into loaning money to people who couldn't afford to pay it back, threw easy money, low interest (Federal Reserve) and a government guarantee to cover any losses these companies may take.

Thus encouraging these companies and banks to loan trillions of dollars they didnt have, threw a fractional reserve ponzi sceme.

In turn driving up housing prices threw the roof and allowing millions of America idiots to use the illiusionary equity in their new homes to buy tons of shit they couldn't afford, like more houses, Cadillac esclades and 140'' plasma tvs!

It had to be that evil free market that doesnt exsist, surely more government is the answer!

I mean, clearly the way we fix the problem of too much debt, too much spending, too much money printing and too much government intervention is with more debt, more spending, more printing and more intervention.

The system DOES NOT WORK, ITS BROKE! We need to let is fail, is it going to hurt? Yes.

Its like being dragged under water by a big ass weight tied to your foot, all we are doing is trying to swim harder to stop from downing, and the government is adding more weight with every new solution, solutions from the same people who got us into this mess, you know, the guys that didn't see this coming.

Of course cutting the weight loose is out of the question.




I hope everyone enjoys their depression!

Justinian
01-28-2009, 16:27
Unfortunately I am not from the UK. Your assumptions fail just as horribly as your political agenda.

Edit: On a second note.. it's also very interesting that you do not only see exploiting colonies and selling slaves as a legit way of becoming prosperous, but in fact find it desirable. Just goes to show, really..

My bad. I rescind it.

You do, however, sound like a Western European hippie who thinks that socialism is the way to prosperity, or at the very least, that capitalism doesn't work.

I'm not talking about the morality behind what the UK did. Economic theory has nothing to say about ethics, morals, etc, only how things work. Similarly to physics which passes no value judgments on how things work, it simply describes them.

I don't agree with slavery on principle, but that has nothing to do with what made the UK a powerhouse. Unfortunately, it was more on the mercantilism side of the spectrum.

And for the record, I have no political agenda. I'm only concerned with economics.

Justinian
01-28-2009, 16:30
Lets see, banks and mortgage companies in some cases forced, but mostly lured into loaning money to people who couldn't afford to pay it back, threw easy money, low interest (Federal Reserve) and a government guarantee to cover any losses these companies may take.

Thus encouraging these companies and banks to loan trillions of dollars they didnt have, threw a fractional reserve ponzi sceme.

In turn driving up housing prices threw the roof and allowing millions of America idiots to use the illiusionary equity in their new homes to buy tons of shit they couldn't afford, like more houses, Cadillac esclades and 140'' plasma tvs!

It had to be that evil free market that doesnt exsist, surely more government is the answer!

I mean, clearly the way we fix the problem of too much debt, too much spending, too much money printing and too much government intervention is with more debt, more spending, more printing and more intervention.

The system DOES NOT WORK, ITS BROKE! We need to let is fail, is it going to hurt? Yes.

Its like being dragged under water by a big ass weight tied to your foot, all we are doing is trying to swim harder to stop from downing, and the government is adding more weight with every new solution, solutions from the same people who got us into this mess, you know, the guys that didn't see this coming.

Of course cutting the weight loose is out of the question.




I hope everyone enjoys their depression!

Boom, headshot. Finally someone's making sense!

I like the analogy of a breakup with a girl/boyfriend. Neither of you really want to leave all that much, but you recognize at least subconsciously that you really need to be apart. It's hard, but eventually you get over it and just move on.

It's time we break up with the government. It'll be hard on the kids, but it has to be done for everyone's long-run sake.

Morar
01-28-2009, 16:47
My bad. I rescind it.

You do, however, sound like a Western European hippie who thinks that socialism is the way to prosperity, or at the very least, that capitalism doesn't work.

I'm not talking about the morality behind what the UK did. Economic theory has nothing to say about ethics, morals, etc, only how things work. Similarly to physics which passes no value judgments on how things work, it simply describes them.

I don't agree with slavery on principle, but that has nothing to do with what made the UK a powerhouse. Unfortunately, it was more on the mercantilism side of the spectrum.

And for the record, I have no political agenda. I'm only concerned with economics.

The one thing that really makes me pitty you, despite the fact that I despise everything you stand for, is that you are - with all probability - serious with this statement.

Economic theory has as much to do with science as astrology does. I have no idea how they managed to educate you and were able to feed you that much shit at the same time.
Economic models deal with distributing available resources. How you want to distribute available resources is a political question. Therefore economy = politics.
Economy is NOTHING besides just that.

Any person trying to sell it as science should be shot on the spot, because he still did not read one decent history book that somehow involves the last century.

If you want to read something interesting, try "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein. For all I care see it as liberal propaganda. She gives source material for pretty much every sentence, so you can simply read up yourself.

I just don't know how they managed to keep you from any book that would make you see sense (or who "they" are, for that matter).

Ion_StormH
01-28-2009, 16:53
The best answer to "less or more" regulation is quite easy:

Create a stable, lawful and transparent framework for the market, including the real and financial economy. If control is needed, use indirect means as promoted by monetarism.

Justinian
01-28-2009, 16:56
The one thing that really makes me pitty you, despite the fact that I despise everything you stand for, is that you are - with all probability - serious with this statement.

Economic theory has as much to do with science as astrology does. I have no idea how they managed to educate you and were able to feed you that much shit at the same time.
Economic models deal with distributing available resources. How you want to distribute available resources is a political question. Therefore economy = politics.
Economy is NOTHING besides just that.

Let's just agree to disagree, then. You have not read Human Action, you refuse to get a second opinion, so let's just leave it there. I disagree so vehemently with the sheer and utter nonsense of this paragraph that we cannot have serious dialogue on the topic.


Any person trying to sell it as science should be shot on the spot, because he still did not read one decent history book that somehow involves the last century.

If you want to read something interesting, try "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein. For all I care see it as liberal propaganda. She gives source material for pretty much every sentence, so you can simply read up yourself.

I just don't know how they managed to keep you from any book that would make you see sense (or who "they" are, for that matter).

EDIT: Naomi Wolf (not Klein, my bad, but the same thing applies) was recently interviewed by Lew Rockwell, but it turned more into her saying "oh my gosh, you are so right....... how did I miss this for so long?"

www.lewrockwell.com ; They believe in economics as a science, by the way.

Morar
01-28-2009, 17:01
Call me slow, but I find no interview of her on that page. I found one article directly concerning a book of her, and one that mentions her at the side in one paragraph.

Edit: Aah, alright. I had not read that in time. But I'm not sure how the same thing could apply to her if, in fact, it doesn't? And I'll have to assume it doesn't as long as you can't prove that she was turned into a libertarian by argumentation.

Killuminati
01-28-2009, 17:05
Morar, that is precisely your problem. You have put faith in those who do not use science to make cause & effect assumptions about history. All historians that you feel proud of reading are not people that should be taken seriously since they only examine things in history and show cause & effect relationships where there wasn't any. The sole reason for this is they are not scientists. In fact I can't understand how someone could actually speak about how economics is a dismal science for being political, while putting faith in historians.

Economics is not political. The use of statistics can somethings be political because there are always unknown variables that aren't taken account of sometimes. Economics is the science which allows for the observation of human action.

Justinian
01-28-2009, 17:07
Call me slow, but I find no interview of her on that page. I found one article directly concerning a book of her, and one that mentions her at the side in one paragraph.

Edit: Aah, alright. I had not read that in time. But I'm not sure how the same thing could apply to her if, in fact, it doesn't? And I'll have to assume it doesn't as long as you can't prove that she was turned into a libertarian by argumentation.

She was a liberal yahoo who wrote a bunch of books. A lot of people were expecting fireworks in the interview (it's under Podcasts (http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/download.php?filename=2008-10-30_058_americas_slow_motion_fascist_coup .mp3)), but instead, she started asking Lew all the questions and was swayed by what he said. There was no arguing, just her asking Lew a bunch of questions and him calmly answering, then her saying "man, you are so right."

Justinian
01-28-2009, 17:08
Economics is the science which allows for the observation of human action.

This. I'm not talking about college economics where everything is based on statistics and adjustments and a bunch of bullshit invented by bored mathematicians.

I'm talking about this quote.

holychicken
01-28-2009, 17:09
I didn't realize that Ron Paul was so well hung. . .and promiscuously gay. Interesting.

Morar
01-28-2009, 17:15
Morar, that is precisely your problem. You have put faith in those who do not use science to make cause & effect assumptions about history. All historians that you feel proud of reading are not people that should be taken seriously since they only examine things in history and show cause & effect relationships where there wasn't any. The sole reason for this is they are not scientists. In fact I can't understand how someone could actually speak about how economics is a dismal science for being political, while putting faith in historians.

Economics is not political. The use of statistics can somethings be political because there are always unknown variables that aren't taken account of sometimes. Economics is the science which allows for the observation of human action.

1. I never claimed Naomi Klein was a scientist. She's a reporter to my knowledge. I never claimed she was a scientist, either.
How you know which scientific history books I did or did not read is beyond me.

2. I fail to understand your argumentation. You say history is an inaccurate science - and I agree.
You also say economics are a not political AND an inaccurate science, and that their main justification (which would have to be statistics) can be political due to unknown variables. Did that sum it up?

I'm really unsure what you're trying to tell me there.

One question that remains, though, is why - if economy is really a science, and human behaviour so easy to calculate - do we not live in an utopian world, yet? After all that should not be so hard to do, right? You know the formula, you know how humans act and react.. should be way easy?
Unfortunately it's not.

Justinian
01-28-2009, 17:20
1. I never claimed Naomi Klein was a scientist. She's a reporter to my knowledge. I never claimed she was a scientist, either.
How you know which scientific history books I did or did not read is beyond me.

2. I fail to understand your argumentation. You say history is an inaccurate science - and I agree.
You also say economics are a not political AND an inaccurate science, and that their main justification (which would have to be statistics) can be political due to unknown variables. Did that sum it up?

I'm really unsure what you're trying to tell me there.

One question that remains, though, is why - if economy is really a science, and human behaviour so easy to calculate - do we not live in an utopian world, yet? After all that should not be so hard to do, right? You know the formula, you know how humans act and react.. should be way easy?
Unfortunately it's not.

No. Humans act in their own, rational self-interest. What that means to each human changes from moment to moment, even within the same human. Value scales are constantly shifting and changing. Therefore, there is no use trying to predict what people will do, only how they do it. There is a huge difference. One is prognostication and pseudo-science, the other is very much a rigorous science grounded in observation and fact.

For instance: why is it that gold's marginal value is so much more than iron's? It doesn't matter to the construction company - iron is much more valuable to them because it provides them with opportunities for work, etc etc. To the jeweler, iron is worthless. You can try and predict what one or the other will do given their predisposition, but that's not economics. Economics deals only with how these people act here and now, at this very instant.

The "economics" you're referring to you correctly equate with astrology. It is not, however, the correct theory of economics.

Killuminati
01-28-2009, 17:22
1. I never claimed Naomi Klein was a scientist. She's a reporter to my knowledge. I never claimed she was a scientist, either.
How you know which scientific history books I did or did not read is beyond me.

2. I fail to understand your argumentation. You say history is an inaccurate science - and I agree.
You also say economics are a not political AND an inaccurate science, and that their main justification (which would have to be statistics) can be political due to unknown variables. Did that sum it up?

I'm really unsure what you're trying to tell me there.

One question that remains, though, is why - if economy is really a science, and human behaviour so easy to calculate - do we not live in an utopian world, yet? After all that should not be so hard to do, right? You know the formula, you know how humans act and react.. should be way easy?
Unfortunately it's not.


Any person trying to sell it as science should be shot on the spot, because he still did not read one decent history book that somehow involves the last century.

I was mainly speaking about this part. I wasn't questioning Klein's merit.


Also, you have to understand there are many different schools of Economics. The main ones I was arguing against was the so called "value-free" utilitarian economists.

In fact you brought up a good point. That's why I prefer Austrian Economics over Neo-classical economics. I don't believe that we can calculate human behavior and find perfect solutions. I believe the former is more accurate since it allows for the explanation of cause & relationships through economic laws.

Morar
01-28-2009, 17:27
No. Humans act in their own, rational self-interest. What that means to each human changes from moment to moment, even within the same human. Value scales are constantly shifting and changing. Therefore, there is no use trying to predict what people will do, only how they do it. There is a huge difference. One is prognostication and pseudo-science, the other is very much a rigorous science grounded in observation and fact.

For instance: why is it that gold's marginal value is so much more than iron's? It doesn't matter to the construction company - iron is much more valuable to them because it provides them with opportunities for work, etc etc. To the jeweler, iron is worthless. You can try and predict what one or the other will do given their predisposition, but that's not economics. Economics deals only with how these people act here and now, at this very instant.

The "economics" you're referring to you correctly equate with astrology. It is not, however, the correct theory of economics.

So economy is a science that allows you to observe how humans act at the very moment. It does not allow you to make a prognosis how they will act in the future.

That's very interesting, because I was under the impression that Libertarians and Friedmanites were quite clearly stating, that IF we cut down government spending and let market reign surpreme, effects x, y and z would inevitably lead to everyone being super happy and everything would, eventually, be alright.

If economic science does not allow you a prognosis, you can no longer claim that free markets would function better than communist, socialist or regulated markets.

Justinian
01-28-2009, 17:34
So economy is a science that allows you to observe how humans act at the very moment. It does not allow you to make a prognosis how they will act in the future.

That's very interesting, because I was under the impression that Libertarians and Friedmanites were quite clearly stating, that IF we cut down government spending and let market reign surpreme, effects x, y and z would inevitably lead to everyone being super happy and everything would, eventually, be alright.

If economic science does not allow you a prognosis, you can no longer claim that free markets would function better than communist, socialist or regulated markets.

Libertarians =/= Friedmanites. He's a central bank/fiat money guy.

Cutting down spending and allowing the liquidation of debt is just common sense. If you're an individual with a lot of debt that you need to pay down, and your solution is to go into more debt, you have some serious financial issues.

I believe freedom works. Everyone might not necessarily be "super happy", but at least they'll be free to decide how they can best go about becoming so. All human action is aimed at eliminating some uneasiness. The less free people are, the less choices they have to eliminate this uneasiness. Seems to me that this makes people a lot less happy.

Morar
01-28-2009, 17:55
Libertarians =/= Friedmanites. He's a central bank/fiat money guy.

Cutting down spending and allowing the liquidation of debt is just common sense. If you're an individual with a lot of debt that you need to pay down, and your solution is to go into more debt, you have some serious financial issues.

I believe freedom works. Everyone might not necessarily be "super happy", but at least they'll be free to decide how they can best go about becoming so. All human action is aimed at eliminating some uneasiness. The less free people are, the less choices they have to eliminate this uneasiness. Seems to me that this makes people a lot less happy.

See, but that's really a philosophical issue that turns into a political one as soon as you're talking about implementation. And once you include an economic agenda, it inevitably becomes a political factor.

If you want to discuss the underlying philosophical structure.. well, it doesn't work.
That is due to the fact that many individual needs directly collide with collective needs.

Just take a look at the American energy consumption. You'd think in our current situation, it would be our highest priority to preserve resources (especially those needed for energy production).
It isn't. To the individual it's much more important to preserve the living standard, and for the individual that happens to be a politician and wants to be re-elected, the same holds true.
Once the individual realizes that resources just ran out and living standard is dropping rapidly and decides to make it the priority to preserve resources for the future.. well.. they're already gone.

To rely on people knowing what is good for them in a mid- to long-term perspective is just treading very, very thin ice.

If anything, we need a lot more regulation of every aspect of life and economy.. but then we run into the same wall again: The person who regulates will have his own best interest in mind...

See, I don't deny it is the case; I only say: It is not good.

Justinian
01-28-2009, 18:11
See, but that's really a philosophical issue that turns into a political one as soon as you're talking about implementation. And once you include an economic agenda, it inevitably becomes a political factor.

If you want to discuss the underlying philosophical structure.. well, it doesn't work.
That is due to the fact that many individual needs directly collide with collective needs.

Just take a look at the American energy consumption. You'd think in our current situation, it would be our highest priority to preserve resources (especially those needed for energy production).
It isn't. To the individual it's much more important to preserve the living standard, and for the individual that happens to be a politician and wants to be re-elected, the same holds true.
Once the individual realizes that resources just ran out and living standard is dropping rapidly and decides to make it the priority to preserve resources for the future.. well.. they're already gone.

To rely on people knowing what is good for them in a mid- to long-term perspective is just treading very, very thin ice.

If anything, we need a lot more regulation of every aspect of life and economy.. but then we run into the same wall again: The person who regulates will have his own best interest in mind...

See, I don't deny it is the case; I only say: It is not good.

You seem to be sliding towards libertarianism :) I agree mostly with what you said here.

Our only difference at this point is that I do not, and never will, believe that the State is the best apparatus through which to have a prosperous economy. I believe this because of my particular studies and the conclusions I came to (obviously). "The person who regulates will have his own best interest in mind." Now you're getting into what the Founding Fathers hoped to avoid: a strong central government which allows a privileged elite to make all the decisions, as ultimately they will be acting in their own interests first and foremost, and everyone else second.

In the free market, cooperation and social compassion is voluntary. Again, it's a general rule that what people do voluntarily is much more powerful than what they are forced to do by dictate.

I'm not talking about a utopian society. I'm not talking about everyone having everyone they want at all times. In fact, I'm talking about just the opposite: reality. It's my belief that once resources begin to vanish, the individuals acting in a free market will come up with something new to replace the old, outdated ways of consumption. That's the creative destruction principle, which is not being allowed to work right now.

Freedom works. Capitalism works. All we need is a little faith in ourselves as human beings.

Rilman
01-28-2009, 18:14
Wow, I'm in shock,

an American presidential candidate thats got some sense.

Why the fuck did you all vote for the black guy ??

Jezrith
01-28-2009, 18:15
Wow, I'm in shock,

an American presidential candidate thats got some sense.

Why the fuck did you all vote for the black guy ??

It would have been racist not too...

Rilman
01-28-2009, 18:15
double post, carry on, nothing to be seen here.

:)

Killuminati
01-28-2009, 18:20
Wow, I'm in shock,

an American presidential candidate thats got some sense.

Why the fuck did you all vote for the black guy ??

Cuz we splooged when we heard him say, CHANGE.

Ion_StormH
01-28-2009, 18:49
No. Humans act in their own, rational self-interest. What that means to each human changes from moment to moment, even within the same human.

Just one question here - Do you adhere to the idea of the "economic man", i.e. a human being always informed about all aspects of economics, always 'mathematical'* rational, etc.

--
*I don't have a better term here. 'Mathematical' rational would be rationality not connected to other psychological and biological foundings about human beings, for example how we behave towards family, friends, loose relationships etc.

Justinian
01-28-2009, 18:58
Just one question here - Do you adhere to the idea of the "economic man", i.e. a human being always informed about all aspects of economics, always 'mathematical'* rational, etc.

--
*I don't have a better term here. 'Mathematical' rational would be rationality not connected to other psychological and biological foundings about human beings, for example how we behave towards family, friends, loose relationships etc.

Everyone acts in their own self-interest. The Buddhist who self-immolates, while I would never do that, is still making his decisions in the exact same way that I would. He puts together a value scale, decides what is best for what he believes to be true, and acts accordingly.

Most men do not know physics, but they know what will happen if they throw something up in the air. Similarly, most men do not know praxeology or economics, but they know what will happen if they spend all their money or get a bad deal on something.

Emotion obviously plays into it, but all it serves to do is strengthen or weaken certain value judgments. You love your mother, so you would do things for her that you wouldn't do for any jackass on the street. Some people wouldn't.

Killuminati
01-28-2009, 19:04
Just one question here - Do you adhere to the idea of the "economic man", i.e. a human being always informed about all aspects of economics, always 'mathematical'* rational, etc.

--
*I don't have a better term here. 'Mathematical' rational would be rationality not connected to other psychological and biological foundings about human beings, for example how we behave towards family, friends, loose relationships etc.

The problem is the word "rationality" or "rational" isn't explicitly used when economists say that. It doesn't mean that economists assume rationality on the part of the individual all the time. What it means is it studies the means in which they reach an end. Basically studying the goals of humans and why they act this way. It is the explanation of why choices are made and not to criticize the goals of that human being, but merely to observe it.

human beings are spontaneous. A human being when he enters a super market doesn't choose the best way to spend his money on two particular goods.

Ion_StormH
01-28-2009, 19:07
Everyone acts in their own self-interest. The Buddhist who self-immolates, while I would never do that, is still making his decisions in the exact same way that I would. He puts together a value scale, decides what is best for what he believes to be true, and acts accordingly.

Most men do not know physics, but they know what will happen if they throw something up in the air. Similarly, most men do not know praxeology or economics, but they know what will happen if they spend all their money or get a bad deal on something.

Emotion obviously plays into it, but all it serves to do is strengthen or weaken certain value judgments. You love your mother, so you would do things for her that you wouldn't do for any jackass on the street. Some people wouldn't.

Well, that isn't a straight answer but maybe my question was a bit too unprecise too. I was asking myself whether your "rational self-interest" was refering to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****_oeconomicus .

Edit: You know, I really hate it that you're not allowed to spelled h o m o on this board. *sigh* That's what the **** in the link are.



human beings are spontaneous. A human being when he enters a super market doesn't choose the best way to spend his money on two particular goods.

Well, I agree with you - I'm long convinced that the "economic man" is not able to include different sociological, psychological and biological findings. Because of this, it's separated from reality to me.

I always like to use one experiment.

Two persons not seeing each other are told this: The first person is allowed to divide 100 dollars on both persons, just as he wishes. The second person is allowed to veto the first person's decision, in which case both persons will not get any money at all.

The probability for the first person to choose something along the lines of 60/40 or 50/50 was fare higher than the - mathemtically most rewarding - sum of 99/1.

This wasn't due to some good-hearteness, but because maximising profits was mostly likely to happen with a roughly equal share, because it minimised the other person's objection, who would be more likely to "punish" their partner when the latter was being too greedy.

Justinian
01-28-2009, 19:10
Well, that isn't a straight answer but maybe my question was a bit too unprecise too. I was asking myself whether your "rational self-interest" was refering to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****_oeconomicus .

Edit: You know, I really hate it that you're not allowed to spelled h o m o on this board. *sigh* That's what the **** in the link are.

I figured that out by context.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. To expend the least amount of effort for the greatest gain. Where I may differ from this slightly, though, is that each man makes his own decision as to what is the least amount of effort and what the greatest gain is.

Everyone I know matches that description. Nobody wants to have to work hard. Some people do, but for them, it's not like work for us.

EDIT: There is no such thing as an irrational decision. All human action is necessarily rational since human beings are rational at base. Rational vs. irrational is a value judgment that you pass on another person.

Jarkovii
01-28-2009, 19:29
I would love to say something here, except this isn't a committee that can have influence on proper reformation.

So to those that may, just may, have a chance at a seat somewhere in office. Good luck.

For those that don't or won't, please vote.

I feel the need to add that Government was created by the people, for the people. When the Government fails the people then it is the peoples duty to repair, overthrow or replace. The Government cannot fix itself with out the will of the people.

Ion_StormH
01-28-2009, 19:32
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. To expend the least amount of effort for the greatest gain. Where I may differ from this slightly, though, is that each man makes his own decision as to what is the least amount of effort and what the greatest gain is.

The problem I do have with this description is not that people aim at maximising a gain. To me, the how is not correctly described with this theory, i.e. to me it's not "gain the most possible" but "gain the most probable".

Maybe I understood the economic man wrong alltogether, but to me, it is, as you said, the greatest possible gain with the least effort. I always combined this with a short-term decision, aka "If I chose to do A1, I will aquire 10 units. If I chose to do A2, I will aquire 15 units. 15 is more than 10, this is why I will chose A2."

This excludes the fact though that a person might not know of option A3, which would result in 20 units. Or other factors, such as the high probability (biologically founded, here: increasing the possibilites of survival of a genetic pool nearly identical to one's own. Some call it altruism.) of a person chosing A1 due to the fact that a sibling could gain 20 units of choosing A2, even if the sibling will not be able to share any of the 20 units.

The problem I see with the economic man here is that it seem to isolate each individual as a single unit, while each individual actually is influenced by others (thus also the individual's decision, which then are not entirely its own). In this system, even actions not the most profitable for the isolated individual, but most profitable for an individual connected to other individuals are possible.


Everyone I know matches that description. Nobody wants to have to work hard. Some people do, but for them, it's not like work for us.

Well, by including the exception, you're stating that the hundred percent validity does not hold true.

Which is exactly what I'd say is correct as well, since economics to me is closely linked to other fields of science, especially the sociological and biological sciences. Thus, a great amount of antipositivism is inserted.

I'm not stating that mathematical observations aren't entirely impossible, but I would doubt the fact that a clear-cut prediction is not possible, rather than probabilities.


EDIT: There is no such thing as an irrational decision. All human action is necessarily rational since human beings are rational at base. Rational vs. irrational is a value judgment that you pass on another person.

That's why I chose the 'mathematical' in front of rational - It's the same as with good or evil. To me, these terms are mere human valuations of positive/negative.

Kailas
01-28-2009, 19:50
My only reservation is that he said that states should be responsible for interstate roads and bridges, I think that's wrong, the precedent from the beginning was that if anything involves multiple states and isn't settled privately between the state governments, it's the fed's job. I mean there's like 50 famous court cases to support that. Interstate roads could not be decided on a state by state basis, people would argue about every little thing, who pays for what, who puts infrastructure into what, et cetera.

And frankly, at this point, cooperative federalism has taken an iron hold, to the point where some states, including california, even though they're in horrible debt, are still funding government programs that only help other states. If we had none of those programs California wouldn't be in debt because for every dollar a Californian contributes only .75 cents gets invested in California from the feds, and they have to make up the difference.

We're socialists. We have income redistribution and the feds govern everything. Ron Paul wants to make us capitalists again, and that would certainly profit me, being affluent and from an affluent state (most affluent, in fact). But as it is we're going to ride the roller coaster into hell trying to cater to (for the Democrats) the poor and (for the Republicans) the super rich. And unless we ease up more on the middle/upper-middle class by ending socialism for corporate losses and subsidies for people who spend unwisely, we're going to ride that roller coaster straight into the ground. Because let's face it, new money is what makes the country wealthy. Not old investor's money, not poor people who pay no taxes, but new business owners, professionals and the other progressive citizens who actually create and contribute.

I think he kind of acknowledged that in his next point, though, which was that the infrastructure money we spend on Iraq could be better spent on our own. So uh... RP '12?

Justinian
01-28-2009, 19:50
The problem I do have with this description is not that people aim at maximising a gain. To me, the how is not correctly described with this theory, i.e. to me it's not "gain the most possible" but "gain the most probable".

Maybe I understood the economic man wrong alltogether, but to me, it is, as you said, the greatest possible gain with the least effort. I always combined this with a short-term decision, aka "If I chose to do A1, I will aquire 10 units. If I chose to do A2, I will aquire 15 units. 15 is more than 10, this is why I will chose A2."

This excludes the fact though that a person might not know of option A3, which would result in 20 units. Or other factors, such as the high probability (biologically founded, here: increasing the possibilites of survival of a genetic pool nearly identical to one's own. Some call it altruism.) of a person chosing A1 due to the fact that a sibling could gain 20 units of choosing A2, even if the sibling will not be able to share any of the 20 units.

Yep. Praxeology, like any science, has an ultimate given - that is, the individual. There is no explaining it - that's for psychology to do.

Think, too, that there could be option A4, which is 10 units, but 50 units later, as opposed to option A2 which is 15 units now, but only 30 units later.


The problem I see with the economic man here is that it seem to isolate each individual as a single unit, while each individual actually is influenced by others (thus also the individual's decision, which then are not entirely its own). In this system, even actions not the most profitable for the isolated individual, but most profitable for an individual connected to other individuals are possible.

I'm of the opinion that only a very select few humans have ever come up with original ideas. The rest of us are just compounding on the knowledge and decisions of our ancestors. Like I said above, the ultimate given is the individual human being. Everything else is a consequence of that constant.



Well, by including the exception, you're stating that the hundred percent validity does not hold true.

Which is exactly what I'd say is correct as well, since economics to me is closely linked to other fields of science, especially the sociological and biological sciences. Thus, a great amount of antipositivism is inserted.

I'm not stating that mathematical observations aren't entirely impossible, but I would doubt the fact that a clear-cut prediction is not possible, rather than probabilities.

I differ here slightly in that I think the "real" economics is not at all related to sociology and biology. While all three of them are part of our collective logos, they're very distinct branches. Economics deals exclusively with human action on the individual, conscious level. Sociology aims to explain everything using larger units (which, in my opinion, is mostly self-reinforcing nonsense), and biology deals with... well... biology. Maybe one day everything human will be explained by biology, i.e. all the minor, intricate, tiny relationships amongst the cells in our brains/bodies all make up who and how we are, but we're not there yet.




That's why I chose the 'mathematical' in front of rational - It's the same as with good or evil. To me, these terms are mere human valuations of positive/negative.

Yeah. I can swing with that. "Calculating" man would also work.

Justinian
01-28-2009, 19:52
My only reservation is that he said that states should be responsible for interstate roads and bridges, I think that's wrong, the precedent from the beginning was that if anything involves multiple states and isn't settled privately between the state governments, it's the fed's job. I mean there's like 50 famous court cases to support that. Interstate roads could not be decided on a state by state basis, people would argue about every little thing, who pays for what, who puts infrastructure into what, et cetera.

And frankly, at this point, cooperative federalism has taken an iron hold, to the point where some states, including california, even though they're in horrible debt, are still funding government programs that only help other states. If we had none of those programs California wouldn't be in debt because for every dollar a Californian contributes only .75 cents gets invested in California from the feds, and they have to make up the difference.

We're socialists. We have income redistribution and the feds govern everything. Ron Paul wants to make us capitalists again, and that would certainly profit me, being affluent and from an affluent state (most affluent, in fact). But as it is we're going to ride the roller coaster into hell trying to cater to (for the Democrats) the poor and (for the Republicans) the super rich. And unless we ease up more on the middle/upper-middle class by ending socialism for corporate losses and subsidies for people who spend unwisely, we're going to ride that roller coaster straight into the ground. Because let's face it, new money is what makes the country wealthy. Not old investor's money, not poor people who pay no taxes, but new business owners, professionals and the other progressive citizens who actually create and contribute.

I think he kind of acknowledged that in his next point, though, which was that the infrastructure money we spend on Iraq could be better spent on our own. So uh... RP '12?

Good post! I agree whole-heartedly.

Lindorn
01-28-2009, 20:02
My only reservation is that he said that states should be responsible for interstate roads and bridges, I think that's wrong, the precedent from the beginning was that if anything involves multiple states and isn't settled privately between the state governments, it's the fed's job.

Be careful though, he didn't say he thinks interstate roads should be handled by the states. His exact words were that he thought "most roads and highways" should be handled by state funding and not by the umbrella of federal government. RP is aware of the interstate clause and generally takes the same side as you do on it.

Killuminati
01-28-2009, 20:02
Methodological individualism, a component of praxelogy allows for the understanding that individuals themselves make choices. It doesn't matter why a choice is made, just that it is acknowledged that a group of people is made up of many individual choices.

Morar
01-28-2009, 20:03
You seem to be sliding towards libertarianism :) I agree mostly with what you said here.

It's my belief that once resources begin to vanish, the individuals acting in a free market will come up with something new to replace the old, outdated ways of consumption. That's the creative destruction principle, which is not being allowed to work right now.

Freedom works. Capitalism works. All we need is a little faith in ourselves as human beings.

'cut the quote a bit short, I hope you'll forgive me.

I'm glad you said "seem", because fact of the matter is I'm as much an environmentalist at heart as I've always been, with a romantic affinity for Marx.

And well.. you share the belief that people will simply come up with a solution with a few of the most intelligent and educated people I know.
Unfortunately this is unlikely to the point where you can simply neglect it. That's due to the fact that our society is heavily dependant on certain resources (oil and uran being arguably the most important) which are unbelievably hard to replace. And once they run out, they're exactly the resources we are missing to come up with an alternative.
Ergo once they're out and the big scream of "WHAT NOW?!" goes up, it's already too late. Then you are caught in a steady and irrevocable decline, because you lack the sheer possibility to implement the solution, even if you find one.
Starts with infrastructure being limited due to a lack of oil, once uran runs out we cannot keep it up any longer, and from there it's "poof".

We feel pretty confident because our countries and societies have managed to survive for a couple of hundred years or so, but historically spoken that's nothing.
If you take a look at some of the old civilizations that have existed for 2000 years and more, just to suddenly vanish from the surface of the earth due to resource shortage, you get an idea what we're in for.

Ion_StormH
01-28-2009, 20:05
Yep. Praxeology, like any science, has an ultimate given - that is, the individual. There is no explaining it - that's for psychology to do.

Yes, I agree here.


Think, too, that there could be option A4, which is 10 units, but 50 units later, as opposed to option A2 which is 15 units now, but only 30 units later.

And then the person would have to know about it, the probability has to be correct ..


I'm of the opinion that only a very select few humans have ever come up with original ideas. The rest of us are just compounding on the knowledge and decisions of our ancestors. Like I said above, the ultimate given is the individual human being. Everything else is a consequence of that constant.

Well, I was more refering to the direct implications of individuals always interacting with others. The "loner" is a concept not really suitable for 99.9% of the world's population, which is why I think economic theories shouldn't be based on it.


I differ here slightly in that I think the "real" economics is not at all related to sociology and biology. While all three of them are part of our collective logos, they're very distinct branches. Economics deals exclusively with human action on the individual, conscious level. Sociology aims to explain everything using larger units (which, in my opinion, is mostly self-reinforcing nonsense), and biology deals with... well... biology. Maybe one day everything human will be explained by biology, i.e. all the minor, intricate, tiny relationships amongst the cells in our brains/bodies all make up who and how we are, but we're not there yet.

Nevertheless, unless you're again talking of an abstract economic participant, human behaviour is ultimately influenced by our biology and psychology, our social and cultural links etc. All these things take influence on our decision-making process, which is why excluding them could lead to false assumptions.

I agree that great parts of sociology is simply superfluous, but not everything. That would be modern art with animals. :lmao:


Yeah. I can swing with that. "Calculating" man would also work.

Yes, that's a term which could be used to describe the rationality of the economic man. Even though I don't agree with the theory. :D


Methodological individualism, a component of praxelogy allows for the understanding that individuals themselves make choices. It doesn't matter why a choice is made, just that it is acknowledged that a group of people is made up of many individual choices.

I'm goint to have a look at it. :)


That's due to the fact that our society is heavily dependant on certain resources (oil and uran being arguably the most important) which are unbelievably hard to replace. And once they run out, they're exactly the resources we are missing to come up with an alternative.

Well, I do not know about uran, but oil is mostly used industrially in plastic and rubber. Advancements in biotechnology can easily replace oil as a component there, taking natural oils as a substitute which require 'only' fertile ground and fertilisers.

And if the Dutch can grow strawberries, we can get some land to harbour these plants too.

In addition to that, the green technology sector is ever expanding (now!) and I'd be surprised if nobody wants to cash into being the one who's going to supply the world economy with their new wonder-material.

This might also be true for genetically enhanced wood which could even replace stone or steel in architecture, since wood is a quite flexible but still durable material.


Ergo once they're out and the big scream of "WHAT NOW?!" goes up, it's already too late. Then you are caught in a steady and irrevocable decline, because you lack the sheer possibility to implement the solution, even if you find one.

I think the oil baron in Texas who's trying to build the world's biggest wind farm, covering all of the US's South West didn't care to wait until it's too late?

He's also going to make some serious money when the need for green energy gets more widespread.


We feel pretty confident because our countries and societies have managed to survive for a couple of hundred years or so, but historically spoken that's nothing.
If you take a look at some of the old civilizations that have existed for 2000 years and more, just to suddenly vanish from the surface of the earth due to resource shortage, you get an idea what we're in for.

Still, there hasn't been too many differences between a forge in the 18th century and one in ancient Egypt.

Now compare that to our skies during the beginning of the 20th and the 21st century. There be airplanes.

Killuminati
01-28-2009, 20:07
'cut the quote a bit short, I hope you'll forgive me.

I'm glad you said "seem", because fact of the matter is I'm as much an environmentalist at heart as I've always been, with a romantic affinity for Marx.



See, here's the thing though. When left to the commons the environment is destroyed simply because there is no ownership. The tragedy of the commons allows us to understand that "all things when left in the wild will be used and abused to the point of destruction." Understanding that fact and the obvious correction for it (Property rights) allows for a world where there is less destruction for our environment.

Zurvan
01-28-2009, 20:09
Really good discussion in this thread guys. I was always into history growing up and I see a lot of parallels between the great depression and what's happening today economically. Needless to say that doesn't auger well for everyone.

Justinian
01-28-2009, 20:21
'cut the quote a bit short, I hope you'll forgive me.

I'm glad you said "seem", because fact of the matter is I'm as much an environmentalist at heart as I've always been, with a romantic affinity for Marx.

And well.. you share the belief that people will simply come up with a solution with a few of the most intelligent and educated people I know.
Unfortunately this is unlikely to the point where you can simply neglect it. That's due to the fact that our society is heavily dependant on certain resources (oil and uran being arguably the most important) which are unbelievably hard to replace. And once they run out, they're exactly the resources we are missing to come up with an alternative.
Ergo once they're out and the big scream of "WHAT NOW?!" goes up, it's already too late. Then you are caught in a steady and irrevocable decline, because you lack the sheer possibility to implement the solution, even if you find one.
Starts with infrastructure being limited due to a lack of oil, once uran runs out we cannot keep it up any longer, and from there it's "poof".

We feel pretty confident because our countries and societies have managed to survive for a couple of hundred years or so, but historically spoken that's nothing.
If you take a look at some of the old civilizations that have existed for 2000 years and more, just to suddenly vanish from the surface of the earth due to resource shortage, you get an idea what we're in for.

I agree for the most part with this, but an assumption of yours (whether or not you know it) is that old companies and old consumption methods aren't allowed to pass by the wayside before it becomes a problem. I'm of the opinion that the only feasible way for this to happen is by force, i.e. the Federal Government in contemporary America. It's exactly what we see happening. Huge subsidies to oil companies, gas-powered cars (via the car manufacturers), etc.

The government cannot mandate which way production "should" go. It's better left to the individuals acting in a society to do it of their own volition. It's hard to argue that in a group of 300 million+ people, there won't be one who decides that there's a better way of doing things. If that person isn't stifled, he/she will be able and capable of making a new business.

Ion_StormH
01-28-2009, 20:26
Really good discussion in this thread guys. I was always into history growing up and I see a lot of parallels between the great depression and what's happening today economically. Needless to say that doesn't auger well for everyone.

You know, I'm German, young, cynical about our government ... maybe I won't get accepted into art school but become an Austrian citizen instead!

Then you all should beware ... but wait. I've got two balls and don't like uniforms.

So I guess I can't be TheLittleDictator². :(




The government cannot mandate which way production "should" go. It's better left to the individuals acting in a society to do it of their own volition. It's hard to argue that in a group of 300 million+ people, there won't be one who decides that there's a better way of doing things. If that person isn't stifled, he/she will be able and capable of making a new business.

Actually it's 6 billion, considering that a man in rural China might have a good idea. Which is nigh impossible, but then again, it could happen and spread ... :P

fcwedd
01-28-2009, 20:28
the federal reserve...

Morar
01-28-2009, 20:29
See, here's the thing though. When left to the commons the environment is destroyed simply because there is no ownership. The tragedy of the commons allows us to understand that "all things when left in the wild will be used and abused to the point of destruction." Understanding that fact and the obvious correction for it (Property rights) allows for a world where there is less destruction for our environment.

Right.. that's why China's leading the environmental movement.. wait.. nevermind.

Slypieguy
01-28-2009, 20:40
Right.. that's why China's leading the environmental movement.. wait.. nevermind.

rofl, I think Morar has established beyond a reasonable doubt that he is full of fail.

Morar
01-28-2009, 20:46
I agree for the most part with this, but an assumption of yours (whether or not you know it) is that old companies and old consumption methods aren't allowed to pass by the wayside before it becomes a problem. I'm of the opinion that the only feasible way for this to happen is by force, i.e. the Federal Government in contemporary America. It's exactly what we see happening. Huge subsidies to oil companies, gas-powered cars (via the car manufacturers), etc.


I'm just guessing you phrased that a bit wrong, or I'm having issues with my reading comprehension again.. I'll simply assume you mean if left unchecked (without government interference), companies with backward ideas will simply die.
Unfortunately it's not the case. We could've been building hybrid cars since the 1950s, and knew it would be an issue by 1980 at the latest.. and now, 30 years later, car companies are slowly considering to maybe build a car like that, or two.

Now just take a look at the scale of the problem.. it's ridiculous. If you simply let things go their way, people will always choose, as you've said yourself, the way with the least effort to the biggest gain relation.

And developing completely new ideas and concepts is the exactly opposite direction. That's where you have to invest first and might, just might, have some sort of positive result at the end.
I'm not saying that there are no people thinking this way, but they're few, and both time and human nature are working against them in perfect harmony.

So instead of going all free market in hopes that those people might start companies, be successful in a decade or two, and then start changing things for the better another 15 years later..
It might be better to put those people into positions of power within the government and start making changes NOW.

Justinian
01-28-2009, 20:49
I'm just guessing you phrased that a bit wrong, or I'm having issues with my reading comprehension again.. I'll simply assume you mean if left unchecked (without government interference), companies with backward ideas will simply die.
Unfortunately it's not the case. We could've been building hybrid cars since the 1950s, and knew it would be an issue by 1980 at the latest.. and now, 30 years later, car companies are slowly considering to maybe build a car like that, or two.

Mmhmm, mmhmm, all fair points... how long has the government been subsidizing car companies and the oil industry again?


Now just take a look at the scale of the problem.. it's ridiculous. If you simply let things go their way, people will always choose, as you've said yourself, the way with the least effort to the biggest gain relation.

And developing completely new ideas and concepts is the exactly opposite direction. That's where you have to invest first and might, just might, have some sort of positive result at the end.
I'm not saying that there are no people thinking this way, but they're few, and both time and human nature are working against them in perfect harmony.

So instead of going all free market in hopes that those people might start companies, be successful in a decade or two, and then start changing things for the better another 15 years later..
It might be better to put those people into positions of power within the government and start making changes NOW.

Not interested. It's been tried, it doesn't work.

Justinian
01-28-2009, 20:50
rofl, I think Morar has established beyond a reasonable doubt that he is full of fail.

yeah, it's pretty sad, but at least he's staying civil.

Morar
01-28-2009, 20:53
Mmhmm, mmhmm, all fair points... how long has the government been subsidizing car companies and the oil industry again?


Yes, but WHY has the government been doing that? Out of sheer altruism, or because they wanted less money to spend on other projects?
Or possibly because industry has gotten a very interesting influence over the government by a) bribing and b) threatening to move shit knows where if they do not get benefits blown up their behinds?

And now your solution is to let them run completely unchecked, without even the marginal control government can exact at the moment? That's a pretty surefire way to change things for the better, obviously.

Justinian
01-28-2009, 20:57
Yes, but WHY has the government been doing that? Out of sheer altruism, or because they wanted less money to spend on other projects?
Or possibly because industry has gotten a very interesting influence over the government by a) bribing and b) threatening to move shit knows where if they do not get benefits blown up their behinds?

And now your solution is to let them run completely unchecked, without even the marginal control government can exact at the moment? That's a pretty surefire way to change things for the better, obviously.

Mmhmm, mmhmm, it would seem that way if you're assumption is that the government needs to have as much power as it already has. Let's assume what I do for a moment. Let's assume that the government doesn't have so much power that it's worth the car companies' while to "influence" (read: buy) them as their own personal monopoly on force. What then? If they can't expropriate our resources through the government, what then? Do you think that maybe the consumers would be free to decide what they want made, and that entrepreneurs could step up to fill in these voids?

I don't know about you, man. In one breath, you say that the companies buy the government. Fine. Let's get rid of the power of the government which makes it cost-effective for them to do so. Is that really so bad?

Morar
01-28-2009, 20:59
I don't know about you, man. In one breath, you say that the companies buy the government. Fine. Let's get rid of the power of the government which makes it cost-effective for them to do so. Is that really so bad?

It is if you know what happens next. As I said, go and read a book about it. You won't believe me if I tell you, so it's pretty pointless to begin with.

Justinian
01-28-2009, 21:03
It is if you know what happens next. As I said, go and read a book about it. You won't believe me if I tell you, so it's pretty pointless to begin with.

and how, O wise sage, do you know what happens next? I read a lot of books about it before I started reading libertarian theory. I don't agree with it anymore. Simple as that.

I read articles daily on economics from all kinds of sources, from www.lewrockwell.com to the NY Times.

How can you possibly argue that taking out the government's power will prevent people from wielding that power against the entire society? It'll take away their power to help people too, obviously, but frankly, I think we're better off.

Shyhalu
01-28-2009, 21:09
So economy is a science that allows you to observe how humans act at the very moment. It does not allow you to make a prognosis how they will act in the future.

That's very interesting, because I was under the impression that Libertarians and Friedmanites were quite clearly stating, that IF we cut down government spending and let market reign surpreme, effects x, y and z would inevitably lead to everyone being super happy and everything would, eventually, be alright.

If economic science does not allow you a prognosis, you can no longer claim that free markets would function better than communist, socialist or regulated markets.



Cutting down spending and allowing the liquidation of debt is just common sense. If you're an individual with a lot of debt that you need to pay down, and your solution is to go into more debt, you have some serious financial issues.


Denial at its best.
People aren't rational and common sense isn't common.

But its great that you base you arguments for the future on a system you claim can't predict it. :)


Wow, I'm in shock,

an American presidential candidate thats got some sense.

Why the fuck did you all vote for the black guy ??

I voted for him after seeing Ron Paul wasn't going to get anywhere and figured it was better to ensure Obama than McCain.

Morar
01-28-2009, 21:15
and how, O wise sage, do you know what happens next? I read a lot of books about it before I started reading libertarian theory. I don't agree with it anymore. Simple as that.

I read articles daily on economics from all kinds of sources, from www.lewrockwell.com to the NY Times.

How can you possibly argue that taking out the government's power will prevent people from wielding that power against the entire society? It'll take away their power to help people too, obviously, but frankly, I think we're better off.

I've said it about a billion times in at least 5 different topics already: It's not like it has not been tried before, and each and every single time the effects were abyssmal.
The only thing that never worked out was cutting back on government's power, because people went rampant on the streets when they could no longer afford food and their children starved.

There's nothing to "agree" with here, it's fact. If you choose not to believe it, then there's shit all I can do about it. So don't come to me asking questions if you don't want to hear the answer.

Justinian
01-28-2009, 21:15
Denial at its best.
People aren't rational and common sense isn't common.

But its great that you base you arguments for the future on a system you claim can't predict it. :)

I'm not arguing for the future. I'm arguing for right now.

You say people aren't rational - what you're saying is that you aren't rational.

You say common sense isn't common - what you're saying is that, statistically speaking, you have no common sense.

Do you really believe that?

I, on the other hand, have a little faith in humanity. What I don't have faith in is the institutions that humanity comes up with, i.e. the government.

Justinian
01-28-2009, 21:16
I've said it about a billion times in at least 5 different topics already: It's not like it has not been tried before, and each and every single time the effects were abyssmal.
The only thing that never worked out was cutting back on government's power, because people went rampant on the streets when they could no longer afford food and their children starved.

There's nothing to "agree" with here, it's fact. If you choose not to believe it, then there's shit all I can do about it. So don't come to me asking questions if you don't want to hear the answer.

Oh, shit. I just realized I'm being trolled. Well-played, Morar.

Morar
01-28-2009, 21:23
Oh, shit. I just realized I'm being trolled. Well-played, Morar.

I called you all sorts of names the whole time through, and you realized by that statement, that I'm trolling you? You're either extremely slow and revelation hit you a little late, or you simply refuse every information that somehow does not fit into your tidy little arrangement that goes something like this: Libertarianism is teh win!

PirateGlen
01-28-2009, 22:57
Now you're getting into what the Founding Fathers hoped to avoid: a strong central government which allows a privileged elite to make all the decisions, as ultimately they will be acting in their own interests first and foremost, and everyone else second.

...

Freedom works. Capitalism works. All we need is a little faith in ourselves as human beings.

What a crock of shit. That's why they only had one portion of one branch of government directly elected by the people?

How convenient that we need to have faith in the ignorant masses but not elected officials. How about we take faith out of the equation.

SSguy
01-29-2009, 02:39
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090128/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy

I rest my case. Market may not be crashing and burning, but stuff like this makes worrying about it more justified.

And this is with the abortion of a bailout....to be honest they should have just bought up the bad assets instead of shares, the credit would have thawed out because bankers wouldn't be worried about who has shit for assets and who has the good ones.

wertyn
01-29-2009, 02:40
i love the game tennis

Justinian
01-29-2009, 02:49
What a crock of shit. That's why they only had one portion of one branch of government directly elected by the people?

How convenient that we need to have faith in the ignorant masses but not elected officials. How about we take faith out of the equation.

Thanks, Mr. Hamilton.

Senators were appointed by State legislatures. Imagine that! Caring about your State legislature!

Stax
01-29-2009, 02:58
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k92fTDReHg

I'm interested to see what you pseudo-intellectual Keynesians think of this.

Just kidding. You're wrong, so there's no use being interested.
Wow!!! I just fell in love with Ron Paul even more. He's friggin totally bad ass! He smacked down every single one of those stupid-typical big government tards. LOL, good video.

PirateGlen
01-29-2009, 03:23
Thanks, Mr. Hamilton.

Senators were appointed by State legislatures. Imagine that! Caring about your State legislature!

Your ad hominem still fails to account for the simple fact that the founding fathers were not anti-elitist. Federalist 10 is a good read on the subject.

StainlessSteelRat
01-29-2009, 03:43
i saw this one this morning...and i find you ruse of the term "demolishes" truly hilarious

yes, Dr Paul was.....snippy snip snip..........fers NO solutions other than let it fail and do away with taxes and somehow the states and market will fix everything after the collapse

this was "demolishing"?

do watch the video and decide for yourselves, imo

He says to do away w/ income tax. Not all taxes. You cut expenses and foreign aid/foreign military spending. This does not mean withdraw from foreign affairs.

Don't chicken little just to find cause w/ his positions.

Yes, when pushed he essentially says let 'em fail which I agree with. And if there was value, private investors would invest. The financial market has nothing to do w/ investing in manufacturing. Yes, I exagerate a little by saying 'nothing'. The point is, if there was true value in the big 3 (and there is) people will invest. Junk bonds, derivatives, over leveraged financial houses tumbling will not negate the existence of this true value nor will it negate the potential gains to be made by investing in something of true value like manufacturing.

Tilf
01-29-2009, 04:20
he hit the nail on the head when he said that the problem stems from america's continued efforts to be a world empire. A 1,000,000,000 dollar a year empire and a high school teacher only gets 36,000 a year? I wonder why our education is garbage:rolleyes:.

Bridges and roads are crumbling. The value of the dollar is decreasing as we speak. And we're fighting a war for the sake of expansion, so that the rich can get even richer. What percentage of that trillion I wonder is actually spent improving this country?

The funniest part is that if it was possible for people to cooperate fully, money wouldn't even be necessary. This planet has more than enough resources for everyone to live in luxury, they simply need to be consumed responsibly. 90% of unwanted jobs could be automated (i'm talking robots making burgers hear) And the important jobs would be filled by those who have a passion for that job, rather than those who know the right people.


Our current system rewards greed, and in so doing stops the development of technology as well. The relationship between the automotive industry and the oil industry which has directly stopped the development of alternate fuel sources is a fantastic example.

oh and just to clarify, he didn't say utopia was unattainable, he just said we couldn't attain it right away.

tl;dr = Resource economy ftw.

oh and quoted for truth

You cut expenses and foreign aid/foreign military spending. This does not mean withdraw from foreign affairs.

SSguy
01-29-2009, 04:45
Yes, when pushed he essentially says let 'em fail which I agree with. And if there was value, private investors would invest.

You forget the actual risk factor, and the future and current percieved risk factor, which are currently playing quite heavily in investment. Also, once again, economics is not perfect, nor is the market.

Silverhandorder
01-29-2009, 04:49
I stopped at page 4. All in all I am happy to see people who previously were Keynesian talking like Austrians. I guess the more we argue the idiot crowd that won't see reason the more smart people wake up. :D

Lindorn
01-29-2009, 05:29
The funniest part is that if it was possible for people to cooperate fully, money wouldn't even be necessary. This planet has more than enough resources for everyone to live in luxury, they simply need to be consumed responsibly. 90% of unwanted jobs could be automated (i'm talking robots making burgers hear) And the important jobs would be filled by those who have a passion for that job, rather than those who know the right people.

Oh christ not again. The fact that anyone....and I mean anyone...forms their world view based upon one of the crappiest documentaries ever made. One of those speculative, pretentious, unbased, pieces of shit films ever conceived....makes me a sad panda.

Zeitgeist is so dangerous because it taps into a lot of very factual information and then leads its viewers to an off the wall, border-line retarded line of thinking.

Vanno
01-29-2009, 06:11
^ He is right though, scarcity is one of the biggest myths ever perpetrated on humanity.

Justinian
01-29-2009, 06:15
Your ad hominem still fails to account for the simple fact that the founding fathers were not anti-elitist. Federalist 10 is a good read on the subject.

Alexander Hamilton was the queen mother of the elitists. Thomas Jefferson and company were not.

Justinian
01-29-2009, 06:16
he hit the nail on the head when he said that the problem stems from america's continued efforts to be a world empire. A 1,000,000,000 dollar a year empire and a high school teacher only gets 36,000 a year? I wonder why our education is garbage:rolleyes:.

Bridges and roads are crumbling. The value of the dollar is decreasing as we speak. And we're fighting a war for the sake of expansion, so that the rich can get even richer. What percentage of that trillion I wonder is actually spent improving this country?

The funniest part is that if it was possible for people to cooperate fully, money wouldn't even be necessary. This planet has more than enough resources for everyone to live in luxury, they simply need to be consumed responsibly. 90% of unwanted jobs could be automated (i'm talking robots making burgers hear) And the important jobs would be filled by those who have a passion for that job, rather than those who know the right people.


Our current system rewards greed, and in so doing stops the development of technology as well. The relationship between the automotive industry and the oil industry which has directly stopped the development of alternate fuel sources is a fantastic example.

oh and just to clarify, he didn't say utopia was unattainable, he just said we couldn't attain it right away.

tl;dr = Resource economy ftw.

oh and quoted for truth

I generally agree here IFF by "our current system" you mean the government-controlled and -regulated one.

Tilf
01-29-2009, 06:57
Oh christ not again. The fact that anyone....and I mean anyone...forms their world view based upon one of the crappiest documentaries ever made. One of those speculative, pretentious, unbased, pieces of shit films ever conceived....makes me a sad panda.

Zeitgeist is so dangerous because it taps into a lot of very factual information and then leads its viewers to an off the wall, border-line retarded line of thinking.

hey now. I don't take Zeitgeist as the be all end all. I know certain aspects of the film contain... "adventurous" logic. But there are facts in the film, and it did introduce me to the idea of a resource based economy.

could it work?
i can't know for sure, but consider the limitless amount of waste, of not only resources but potential, that our economy creates.

For a hypothetical example, say some kid is born poor, and isn't one of the few who bothers to do well enough in the joke that is the American education system to get a scholarship and a free ride to college. He ends up flipping burgers his whole life. Look at the same kid in a resource economy. First of all the term poor, wouldn't be applicable. He could go to college if he so chose, he could do countless productive things which he never would have had the realistic opportunity to do in our system. He could also sit around the house all day and wait to die, like plenty of welfare leeches are doing right now. The difference would be, that although plenty of people would sit on their ass, it wouldn't hurt anybody else directly the way that same action (or lack of it) does in our current system.

Resource waste is an even bigger problem, and a much more obvious one:

Hemp. that is all.


The final objective for any businessperson in our system is profit, whereas the objective in a resource economy would be progress. That thought alone makes the system desirable to me. There would be far less WoW clones for example...

Does the concept have flaws? Sure. It could be exploited, just like communism can be exploited by the people in power. But it is still very interesting to talk about, and since the film advocated Ron Paul i felt it was relevant to the thread.

PirateGlen
01-29-2009, 06:58
Alexander Hamilton was the queen mother of the elitists. Thomas Jefferson and company were not.

That's nice, but still irrelevant to the accuracy of your historical reconstruction.

PainlessDeath
01-29-2009, 07:23
He did offer a solution: let the market decide the value of the pieces and buy it up. We might not like the pain involved with that approach, but it is a solution.

My biggest problem and the seemingly last hurdle, is the lack of confidence I have in the court system. If you remove regulations, there will be companies that game the system (illegal activity). When they get caught, I just don't have the confidence that they will have to pay for their crimes.

I'm working on it Libers, just not there yet. :)

Silverhandorder
01-29-2009, 15:26
hey now. I don't take Zeitgeist as the be all end all. I know certain aspects of the film contain... "adventurous" logic. But there are facts in the film, and it did introduce me to the idea of a resource based economy.
I watched the first Zeitgeist (regrettably very loosly based in reality) only, I don't remember them mentioning resource based economy there, so could you explain what that is.


could it work?
i can't know for sure, but consider the limitless amount of waste, of not only resources but potential, that our economy creates.
In a capitalist economy some one who can make profit out of recycling waste would do so. Historically greatest damage done to environment was due to government allowing individuals to do that. No private individual would do that to his own land.


For a hypothetical example, say some kid is born poor, and isn't one of the few who bothers to do well enough in the joke that is the American education system to get a scholarship and a free ride to college. He ends up flipping burgers his whole life. Look at the same kid in a resource economy. First of all the term poor, wouldn't be applicable. He could go to college if he so chose, he could do countless productive things which he never would have had the realistic opportunity to do in our system. He could also sit around the house all day and wait to die, like plenty of welfare leeches are doing right now. The difference would be, that although plenty of people would sit on their ass, it wouldn't hurt anybody else directly the way that same action (or lack of it) does in our current system.

I am not sure you realize this but that is how things work now. Even with socialism slowly creeping in the foundation of liberty still exists in this country. Opportunity for a burger flipper is a plenty.

He can easily work two or 3 jobs like flipping burgers to save up money. City colleges take anyone who would pay or has prospect of paying. Student loans are readily available. Now some of these are byproducts of socialism. Had the government regulation and tax money did not give monopoly to city colleges and student loans in many cases we would see the exact same system(if not better) in fully capitalist system.

After measly 2-4 years he can have a job that pays triple of what his burger flipping job does. Basically so not to go on describing a made up life, the individual is responcibly for his own life and he knows how to run it better then any government welfare agency.

This leads us to the fact that there will be people who are so lazy, so incompetent or just plain unlucky that nothing goes the way they planned. My answer to this is the fact that these people are present even under socialism and the only thing that you can do is to realize that you sacrificing progress and a better standard of living to help an insignificant margin.


Resource waste is an even bigger problem, and a much more obvious one:

Hemp. that is all.

Again I will wait for you to describe resource based economy. I fear that what you will describe will be some level of government involvement in the economy.

If I am right then I would point you to historical records to show you how government creates far more waste of resources then free enterprise.


The final objective for any businessperson in our system is profit, whereas the objective in a resource economy would be progress. That thought alone makes the system desirable to me. There would be far less WoW clones for example...
Profit and progress are tied together very closely. Profit is byproduct of progress. So if a person wants to make a profit he would have to make something better then others around him. That is progress.

Now WoW clones come from a consumer that has become incompetent. With so much crap being taken care of government people are to a small degree making bad decisions because they no longer do what is necessary to research their product.

Even then WoW clones crash and burn fast. Progress also comes from trial and error. There are times that research wastes a lot of resources and yields nothing.

Does the concept have flaws? Sure. It could be exploited, just like communism can be exploited by the people in power. But it is still very interesting to talk about, and since the film advocated Ron Paul i felt it was relevant to the thread.

From the little snippets I got so far it sounds a lot like the broken system we have in place now. There are now politicians who think they know better then the people and make laws to limit some resources or develop others.

StainlessSteelRat
01-29-2009, 17:05
he hit the nail on the head when he said that the problem stems from america's continued efforts to be a world empire. A 1,000,000,000 dollar a year empire and a high school teacher only gets 36,000 a year? I wonder why our education is garbage:rolleyes:.

Your post was fine except for pulling the 'underpaid' teacher mumbo jumbo....

Watch Stossel's 20/20 show on education in America.

(btw, average teacher pay in Boston, MA is 65k which pro rates to 86.6 yearly; starting pay is 35-40 pro rated to 46.6-53.3 yearly)

StainlessSteelRat
01-29-2009, 17:07
You forget the actual risk factor, and the future and current percieved risk factor, which are currently playing quite heavily in investment. Also, once again, economics is not perfect, nor is the market.

I didn't forget anything. I'm not talking about 'investments'. I'm talking about captial investment. Buying things of value (like a plant w/ machinery which can be used to make cars).

StainlessSteelRat
01-29-2009, 17:16
That's nice, but still irrelevant to the accuracy of your historical reconstruction.

You always try and use particular/individual views of select founding fathers to attempt to discredit anyone making a point referencing 'the beliefs of the founding fathers'. It is quite humourous but fails.

It is obvious to everyone that when people refer to the beliefs of the founding fathers, they are refering to the only source of information that actually represents their synthesized aggregate view, something they all agreed on, the Costitution.

No one is attempting to lump them all in one big vat of unified beliefs. The Constitution is all we have, however, that represents their common (compromised) view.

So, it's not reconstructionist at all to refer to them in that manner. Only you, seeking to be contrarian, seems to feel some obligation to bring up specific individual views which may or may not be true; either way they are irrelevant.

Justinian
01-29-2009, 17:21
You always try and use particular/individual views of select founding fathers to attempt to discredit anyone making a point referencing 'the beliefs of the founding fathers'. It is quite humourous but fails.

It is obvious to everyone that when people refer to the beliefs of the founding fathers, they are refering to the only source of information that actually represents their synthesized aggregate view, something they all agreed on, the Costitution.

No one is attempting to lump them all in one big vat of unified beliefs. The Constitution is all we have, however, that represents their common (compromised) view.

So, it's not reconstructionist at all to refer to them in that manner. Only you, seeking to be contrarian, seems to feel some obligation to bring up specific individual views which may or may not be true; either way they are irrelevant.

Get your Grade A, Top Shelf Ownage here! We got Ownage for ya, right here, come on down!

/town crier voice

Silverhandorder
01-29-2009, 17:57
You always try and use particular/individual views of select founding fathers to attempt to discredit anyone making a point referencing 'the beliefs of the founding fathers'. It is quite humourous but fails.

It is obvious to everyone that when people refer to the beliefs of the founding fathers, they are refering to the only source of information that actually represents their synthesized aggregate view, something they all agreed on, the Costitution.

No one is attempting to lump them all in one big vat of unified beliefs. The Constitution is all we have, however, that represents their common (compromised) view.

So, it's not reconstructionist at all to refer to them in that manner. Only you, seeking to be contrarian, seems to feel some obligation to bring up specific individual views which may or may not be true; either way they are irrelevant.
While I do agree for the most part I see no problem using the views of the individuals who's views are also represented in the constitution. As in I would not give much credit to Hamilton's views as we all know that they were largely rejected. However some one like John Adam or Thomas Jefferson I would not shy away to look within their speeches to help me understand what they meant when they wrote in the constitution.

As in rejecting the idea that the constitution is for every generation to interpret. It is to be interpreted in the generation that wrote it. Ideas are eternal.

Just to throw in my .02 c

StainlessSteelRat
01-29-2009, 18:04
While I do agree for the most part I see no problem using the views of the individuals who's views are also represented in the constitution. As in I would not give much credit to Hamilton's views as we all know that they were largely rejected. However some one like John Adam or Thomas Jefferson I would not shy away to look within their speeches to help me understand what they meant when they wrote in the constitution.

As in rejecting the idea that the constitution is for every generation to interpret. It is to be interpreted in the generation that wrote it. Ideas are eternal.

Just to throw in my .02 c

I'm not suggesting that individual views can not be used to discuss various points but when people refer to 'the founding fathers', it's clear that the common ground/compromise of their individual views is what the poster is refering to.

I'm pretty sure most people here know that they didn't agree on everything.

PirateGlen
01-29-2009, 18:20
You always try and use particular/individual views of select founding fathers to attempt to discredit anyone making a point referencing 'the beliefs of the founding fathers'. It is quite humourous but fails.

It is obvious to everyone that when people refer to the beliefs of the founding fathers, they are refering to the only source of information that actually represents their synthesized aggregate view, something they all agreed on, the Costitution.

No one is attempting to lump them all in one big vat of unified beliefs. The Constitution is all we have, however, that represents their common (compromised) view.

So, it's not reconstructionist at all to refer to them in that manner. Only you, seeking to be contrarian, seems to feel some obligation to bring up specific individual views which may or may not be true; either way they are irrelevant.

If you weren't so busy nutcupping your libertarian brethren you might realize I referenced the original constitution. And not the strawman individual that you claim. The same constitution that provides for the government at all levels besides the house of representatives to be at least one step away from the people. This isn't the view of one person, it's what you had with the original constitution.

Nice try.

PirateGlen
01-29-2009, 18:23
While I do agree for the most part I see no problem using the views of the individuals who's views are also represented in the constitution. As in I would not give much credit to Hamilton's views as we all know that they were largely rejected. However some one like John Adam or Thomas Jefferson I would not shy away to look within their speeches to help me understand what they meant when they wrote in the constitution.

As in rejecting the idea that the constitution is for every generation to interpret. It is to be interpreted in the generation that wrote it. Ideas are eternal.

Just to throw in my .02 c

Funny that you would chose two people who didn't even attend the constitutional convention.

StainlessSteelRat
01-29-2009, 18:29
If you weren't so busy nutcupping your libertarian brethren you might realize I referenced the original constitution. And not the strawman individual that you claim. The same constitution that provides for the government at all levels besides the house of representatives to be at least one step away from the people. This isn't the view of one person, it's what you had with the original constitution.

Nice try.

Sorry, but it's a general theme of any of your posts attempting to dispute 'founding father' based points. It's nothing specific to this thread.

"The same constitution that provides for the government at all levels besides the house of representatives to be at least one step away from the people"

I would like to hear you explain this.

PirateGlen
01-29-2009, 18:39
Sorry, but it's a general theme of any of your posts attempting to dispute 'founding father' based points. It's nothing specific to this thread.

"The same constitution that provides for the government at all levels besides the house of representatives to be at least one step away from the people"

I would like to hear you explain this.

The people only directly elected representatives to the house. Senators were chosen by their legistlature, the president by the electoral college, and the judiciary appointed by the president.

I dispute the founding fathers based points when they have no basis in reality, but have been distorted to fit their ideology.

If you want to use the founding fathers as some higher source of constitutional law, you can't just accept the ones you agree with.

Silverhandorder
01-29-2009, 19:15
The people only directly elected representatives to the house. Senators were chosen by their legistlature, the president by the electoral college, and the judiciary appointed by the president.

I dispute the founding fathers based points when they have no basis in reality, but have been distorted to fit their ideology.

If you want to use the founding fathers as some higher source of constitutional law, you can't just accept the ones you agree with.

Are you stupid? Anyone can look and see if the constitution is not being followed.

We do take all of them into account. By far the large majority (90%) uphold your views through their speeches and decisions.

StainlessSteelRat
01-29-2009, 19:32
The people only directly elected representatives to the house. Senators were chosen by their legistlature, the president by the electoral college, and the judiciary appointed by the president.

Senators 'were' chosen? I'm rusty here, I'll admit, but has something changed? Do we not vote for them directly now? Was it not always this way?


I dispute the founding fathers based points when they have no basis in reality, but have been distorted to fit their ideology.

Actually, more often than not, you will pick out a founder that disagrees w/ the constitutional position that is being defined as a 'founding fathers' belief.


If you want to use the founding fathers as some higher source of constitutional law, you can't just accept the ones you agree with.

That's not the point. People use the phrase 'founding fathers' to describe the published and legal expression of their combined/compromised beliefs which is the Constitution. It has nothing to do w/ what they individually believe. The fact that you will pick an individual's belief to contradict someone using the phrase 'founding fathers' as representative of their combined/compromised/expressed beliefs is just humourous and flawed.

If you read the constitution, you will see that the 'founding fathers' were AGAINST a strong central gov't. The fact that some of them were FOR a strong central gov't does not negate the fact that the end result of their combined input was a weak central gov't. Hence the notion that the 'founding fathers' were opposed to a strong central gov't.

Kailas
01-29-2009, 19:58
The founders who penned the constitution, Madison and Hamilton, were pro-federalism, a middle ground between unitarianism (strong central gov't, a position very few, if any, to my knowledge, supported) and confederacy (just an alliance between small sovereign nations) which had a number of supporters. Patrick Henry, for example.

Madison and Hamilton and the other Federalists were basically arrayed against the confederates, and made a lot of concessions to them. The Bill of Rights, for instance, was a confederate document meant to limit the constitution and therefore the centralization of government.

Stainless has it right, the founders had a lot of varying opinions, ranging from basically the Union and the Confederacy's ideals circa the 1860s, but no one was espousing a monarchy or even a strong central group. The goal was "the strongest central government possible without infringing on the social liberties of the state governments". AKA Dual federalism, which is what we had until the 1930's. When someone says "the forefathers thought *blank*" what they really mean is that "the forefathers settled on *blank*." The manifestation of those plans and opinions being the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

/history lesson

Silverhandorder
01-29-2009, 20:02
Senators 'were' chosen? I'm rusty here, I'll admit, but has something changed? Do we not vote for them directly now? Was it not always this way?

Senators were elected by state legislature. That should have stayed the bs we have now is congress 2.0.




Actually, more often than not, you will pick out a founder that disagrees w/ the constitutional position that is being defined as a 'founding fathers' belief.
Thats true I laughed when he brought Hamilton as an example.

Justinian
01-29-2009, 20:41
Senators 'were' chosen? I'm rusty here, I'll admit, but has something changed? Do we not vote for them directly now? Was it not always this way?



damn dude, seriously? 17th amendment. Direct election of senators.

StainlessSteelRat
01-29-2009, 20:54
damn dude, seriously? 17th amendment. Direct election of senators.

I said I was rusty....... I'm old and senile; haven't studied this shit for decades.

Bosemann
01-29-2009, 21:26
You always try and use particular/individual views of select founding fathers to attempt to discredit anyone making a point referencing 'the beliefs of the founding fathers'. It is quite humourous but fails.

It is obvious to everyone that when people refer to the beliefs of the founding fathers, they are refering to the only source of information that actually represents their synthesized aggregate view, something they all agreed on, the Costitution.

No one is attempting to lump them all in one big vat of unified beliefs. The Constitution is all we have, however, that represents their common (compromised) view.

So, it's not reconstructionist at all to refer to them in that manner. Only you, seeking to be contrarian, seems to feel some obligation to bring up specific individual views which may or may not be true; either way they are irrelevant.

I find it ludicrous that the phrase "beliefs of the founding fathers" somehow refers to the Constitution. You point out yourself that is was just that , a compromise. So if someone feels inclined to reference the Constitution, do that, but the beliefs of the founding fathers were extremely varied as you point out.

StainlessSteelRat
01-29-2009, 23:18
I find it ludicrous that the phrase "beliefs of the founding fathers" somehow refers to the Constitution. You point out yourself that is was just that , a compromise. So if someone feels inclined to reference the Constitution, do that, but the beliefs of the founding fathers were extremely varied as you point out.

Well, seeing as how a group of people can best be described based on their group effort/output, the phrase can only mean that. That and documents don't have beliefs.

In essence, the phrase really means: "based on the final version of the Constitution, the beliefs of the founding fathers used for the basis of creating the country are". It's just much easier to type: "the beliefs of the founding fathers".

So, while it may be ludicrous, it's generally quite obvious what the person means. I was merely pointing out the flaws in citing the individual beliefs of specific founders as rebuttals to this usage (ludicrous or not).

PirateGlen
01-29-2009, 23:37
Senators 'were' chosen? I'm rusty here, I'll admit, but has something changed? Do we not vote for them directly now? Was it not always this way?

Actually, more often than not, you will pick out a founder that disagrees w/ the constitutional position that is being defined as a 'founding fathers' belief.

That's not the point. People use the phrase 'founding fathers' to describe the published and legal expression of their combined/compromised beliefs which is the Constitution. It has nothing to do w/ what they individually believe. The fact that you will pick an individual's belief to contradict someone using the phrase 'founding fathers' as representative of their combined/compromised/expressed beliefs is just humourous and flawed.

If you read the constitution, you will see that the 'founding fathers' were AGAINST a strong central gov't. The fact that some of them were FOR a strong central gov't does not negate the fact that the end result of their combined input was a weak central gov't. Hence the notion that the 'founding fathers' were opposed to a strong central gov't.

It's clear you don't know what's going on. I didn't cite a single person as support. I cited the constitution. You're still continuing this battle against this strawman argument, when I did not reference any single person as support. It was actually Justinian that just labeled me Hamilton because I follow the evidence based on the constitution rather than whatever fits into my ideology.

PirateGlen
01-29-2009, 23:39
Thats true I laughed when he brought Hamilton as an example.

Now you're just making things up. I suppose it makes it really easy for you that way, though.

Jackhammer
01-29-2009, 23:42
i saw this one this morning...and i find you ruse of the term "demolishes" truly hilarious

two - he clearly states his desire to do away with all federal taxes and agencies, as well as his statements to remove ourselves from any and all foreign affairs...but when asked how to pay for the functions that would be left...he wanted to lay off all things on the states, besides the military...then skips over how to pay for the military/intelligence functions with no federal income

three - much of his position revolves around his thinking that all functions should be the realm of the states, with them somehow sharing the burden of national items like highways without the Fed...again this neglects the reality that the states are pretty much broke/in debt and have NO funds for what thye already cover with their own tax structures and Fed dollars coming in....so how will they pay for all these new responsibilities?

do watch the video and decide for yourselves, imo


Okay... your number 2. He said reduce federal taxes pay attn.

your number 3. He said cut government spending... pay attn.

I think you fell off the back of the bus before he began to speak.

Bosemann
01-30-2009, 00:21
Well, seeing as how a group of people can best be described based on their group effort/output, the phrase can only mean that. That and documents don't have beliefs.

In essence, the phrase really means: "based on the final version of the Constitution, the beliefs of the founding fathers used for the basis of creating the country are". It's just much easier to type: "the beliefs of the founding fathers".

So, while it may be ludicrous, it's generally quite obvious what the person means. I was merely pointing out the flaws in citing the individual beliefs of specific founders as rebuttals to this usage (ludicrous or not).

A general description of a group based on their what they've accomplished is one thing. But assigning specific beliefs to a group based a single contentious document is another.

Using the short phrase "the beliefs of the founding fathers" implies some sort of general consensus among the founding fathers about whatever is presented after said phrase. When its not true about most of them, it seems reasonable to point out the founding fathers that did not agree with said statement.

And again they all agreed to the final version of the Constitution, but that does not mean one should try to "group" all their beliefs conveniently as "this" or "that" which is exactly what the phrase "the beliefs of the founding fathers" tries to do.


Now you're getting into what the Founding Fathers hoped to avoid: a strong central government which allows a privileged elite to make all the decisions, as ultimately they will be acting in their own interests first and foremost, and everyone else second.

How is it obvious with this statement that "Founding Fathers" refers to:

"based on the final version of the Constitution, the beliefs of the founding fathers used for the basis of creating the country are"

SnowMiser
01-30-2009, 00:37
It is simple economics...Called the "Buisness Cycle"
Companies and people circulate money among themselves and other companies. The money goes from individuals...to companies, to the goverment, back to individuals, and etc.

The second the money goes overseas ( Out of the country's cash circulation), the "buisness cycle" of that dollar ends, and returns as forigen products and services.

One way that no one talks about , is the "Made in America" product tags that used to be on our products years ago. So people would know if they bought that product, the money would stay in america.

Just my opinion. And no, Im not an american elitist, I'm simply giving my hypothesis on this economic problem.

StainlessSteelRat
01-30-2009, 00:44
A general description of a group based on their what they've accomplished is one thing. But assigning specific beliefs to a group based a single contentious document is another.

Contentious? Not if you take it at its word(s).


Using the short phrase "the beliefs of the founding fathers" implies some sort of general consensus among the founding fathers about whatever is presented after said phrase. When its not true about most of them, it seems reasonable to point out the founding fathers that did not agree with said statement.

Well, that's just it. It's not a 'consensus among the founding fathers' that follows. It's the beliefs built into the Constitution by the founding fathers. If some of the founders are so far distant from those beliefs to make this usage so offensive, maybe they shouldn't be considered part of the founders. /shrug


And again they all agreed to the final version of the Constitution, but that does not mean one should try to "group" all their beliefs conveniently as "this" or "that" which is exactly what the phrase "the beliefs of the founding fathers" tries to do.

It's not a grouping of their individual beliefs. It is the grouping of beliefs that were chosen/agreed upon no matter the source. Why are they called founders? What is the basis of this 'founding'? The end result of their founding is the beliefs as laid out in the Constitution; hence beliefs of the founding fathers. I agree it's not proper syntax but once again, the point is that we all know the intention so to nitpick based on the differences really is flawed. History is written by the winners. Would you prefer: "the beliefs of the founding fathers that won"? ;)

StainlessSteelRat
01-30-2009, 00:45
It's clear you don't know what's going on. I didn't cite a single person as support. I cited the constitution. You're still continuing this battle against this strawman argument, when I did not reference any single person as support. It was actually Justinian that just labeled me Hamilton because I follow the evidence based on the constitution rather than whatever fits into my ideology.

I'm not going to re-read the entire thread. Maybe someone else did it first this time but as I said in my last post, you do it all the time and my post does not refer solely to this thread. The exception proves the rule, no?

Justinian
01-30-2009, 01:42
It's clear you don't know what's going on. I didn't cite a single person as support. I cited the constitution. You're still continuing this battle against this strawman argument, when I did not reference any single person as support. It was actually Justinian that just labeled me Hamilton because I follow the evidence based on the constitution rather than whatever fits into my ideology.

I don't even remember what prompted me to say it. Something about elitism, of which Hamilton was the most famous proponent. He constantly spoke about the ignorant masses, blah blah, whatever (paraphrasing and rambling).

I don't agree very much with the Constitution, but it's the best thing we have. What I disagree with more is the ignoring of it that happens on a daily basis.

PirateGlen
01-30-2009, 01:46
I'm not going to re-read the entire thread. Maybe someone else did it first this time but as I said in my last post, you do it all the time and my post does not refer solely to this thread. The exception proves the rule, no?

If by "it" you mean correcting false understandings of history, then yes I do do it quite a bit. I wouldn't have to if it didn't occur so often. Maybe you'd prefer I leave you all to bask in the warmth of your ideology, secure from the dangers of reality, and free to concoct whatever world is consistent with what you believe.

PirateGlen
01-30-2009, 01:52
I don't even remember what prompted me to say it. Something about elitism, of which Hamilton was the most famous proponent. He constantly spoke about the ignorant masses, blah blah, whatever (paraphrasing and rambling).

I don't agree very much with the Constitution, but it's the best thing we have. What I disagree with more is the ignoring of it that happens on a daily basis.

You'll find that probably most libertarians think the masses are ignorant. How else could they vote mainstream if they were not?

Bosemann
01-30-2009, 05:28
Contentious? Not if you take it at its word(s).



Well, that's just it. It's not a 'consensus among the founding fathers' that follows. It's the beliefs built into the Constitution by the founding fathers. If some of the founders are so far distant from those beliefs to make this usage so offensive, maybe they shouldn't be considered part of the founders. /shrug



It's not a grouping of their individual beliefs. It is the grouping of beliefs that were chosen/agreed upon no matter the source. Why are they called founders? What is the basis of this 'founding'? The end result of their founding is the beliefs as laid out in the Constitution; hence beliefs of the founding fathers. I agree it's not proper syntax but once again, the point is that we all know the intention so to nitpick based on the differences really is flawed. History is written by the winners. Would you prefer: "the beliefs of the founding fathers that won"? ;)

You're trying to assign a very specific meaning to the beliefs of the founding fathers. Tell me why it's so obvious that your interpretation is the generally accepted one; is there some scholarly basis or some generally accepted terminology that I'm missing here? I see no reason to assume that whenever someone uses a phrase similar to 'the beliefs of our founding fathers' it automatically refer some vague idea of the 'beliefs that the Constitution represents' (which is itself a contentious issue).

As for the the phrase 'founding fathers' itself, it actually refers to more than just the signers of the Constitution anyways. It refers those individuals who played leading roles during the Revolutionary War in helping to establish our nation. ie signers of the Declaration of Independence and others too. Which again begs the question, how can your very specific definition be this 'obviously' accepted definition by everyone.

The point I'm trying to make here is people try to take some vague notion of the beliefs of our founding fathers and apply it to whatever their personal whims might be and its ridiculous at times.

StainlessSteelRat
01-31-2009, 06:04
The point I'm trying to make here is people try to take some vague notion of the beliefs of our founding fathers and apply it to whatever their personal whims might be and its ridiculous at times.

Well, most of the time it's not vague. Only those that try to incorrectly interpret the Constitution would ever call it 'vague'.

Of course, if personal whims are the issue, then it's ridiculous. Again, though, respond as such and not by bringing to bear the specific belief of a specific founder. ;)

autumn
01-31-2009, 11:19
My only reservation is that he said that states should be responsible for interstate roads and bridges, I think that's wrong, the precedent from the beginning was that if anything involves multiple states and isn't settled privately between the state governments, it's the fed's job. I mean there's like 50 famous court cases to support that. Interstate roads could not be decided on a state by state basis, people would argue about every little thing, who pays for what, who puts infrastructure into what, et cetera.

The first interstate roads were actually created by private organizations. The first government interstate highways were collaborations between States and had nothing to do with the federal government.

States are still responsible for interstate highways and bridges. The federal government just gives them funding.

antihero-zero
01-31-2009, 13:00
Notify me when Ron Paul wrestles the Crypt Keeper in Celebrity Death Match. In the meantime, stop with the 'drinking of the Ron Paul koolaid;' please, for the love of Baby Jesus.

Bosemann
01-31-2009, 15:34
Well, most of the time it's not vague. Only those that try to incorrectly interpret the Constitution would ever call it 'vague'.

Of course, if personal whims are the issue, then it's ridiculous. Again, though, respond as such and not by bringing to bear the specific belief of a specific founder. ;)

You've yet to prove that 'beliefs of our founding fathers' automatically references the constitution. It has a much more obvious, normal definition simply by looking at it.

You tried to reference the definition of founding fathers as relating to the constitution and I showed you it relates to more. Ignoring my points and just repeating your yet unproven ones is pointless.