Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 567 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 131
  1. #76
    9000+ PirateGlen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    San Diego CA
    Posts
    9,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Death's Chill View Post
    I'd say smarter people tend to be paranoid in this day and age.

    Agree or disagree with Ron Paul, that's fine. There are some things I disagree with him on too, like adoption, and cutting income tax right away. However, he's by far better than any other candidate, republican or democrat.

    That's another issue, the two party system. Some people will vote for Romney, simply to make sure Obama is out. It's stupid. Romney IS Obama. It's the same damn status quo. More war, more printed money, more handouts, etc..

    Sigh. I really wish I was ignorant of all of this economic and political turmoil. It is very hard to be relaxed and happy when you're convinced the major power of the world is about to collapse in on itself.
    Only because you are paranoid and you think you're smart. Romney and Obama are not the same. It's like complaining that candidates are the same because they agree on murder. They just don't agree with you do they're the same. You ARE ignorant. That's the problem. You've constructed a fictional world to feel paranoid about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reigngod View Post
    Deductive reasoning has noing to do with logic. In fact deductive reasoning is illogical. Go define logic and come back to the discussion an educated man.

  2. #77
    11,000+ Death's Chill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    11,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apex Vertigo View Post
    Paranoid? No. Cautious and skeptic, maybe. But people too often confuse skepticism with intelligence and think if they become a skeptic they become intelligent, which just isn't the case.
    Semantics.

    I am apprehensive and scared by the current regime, as are many.

    In your opinion. I don't think his solutions are altogether sound.
    Okay, but if you actually think Obama, Romney or Gingrich have a better plan, I don't know what to say.

    That's how it works in a modern democracy... if we had 2 parties with radically different ideas for how the country should be run, alternating between the Gold standard and paper money every 4 years we'd be in for some real hell. It's the same all over the western world, the only place you'll see something like you seem to want to see is in developing democratic countries which teeter on collapse.
    What the hell is the point of two parties if they are the same? Their positions switch all the time anyways that I don't even know what each party even stands for.

    I don't care about parties. I look at each candidate individually, weigh the pro's and cons, and see who comes out on top. The party they are affiliated with makes NO difference whatsoever.

    Don't lament out-loud about how you're just so informed and ahead of the curve that it unnerves you, you sound like a jackass.
    Replace know, with believe then.

    Also, I hope I'm wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateGlen View Post
    Only because you are paranoid and you think you're smart. Romney and Obama are not the same. It's like complaining that candidates are the same because they agree on murder. They just don't agree with you do they're the same. You ARE ignorant. That's the problem. You've constructed a fictional world to feel paranoid about.
    Let me rephrase, the end result of them winning will be the same. Complete collapse.

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateGlen View Post
    The slightest degree of scrutiny will tell you where the government/corporate pressure is. The only thing scientists love more than being right is proving other scientists wrong. They would love nothing more than to debunk the whole thing, the fact is they can't. You... once again are basing your opinion on ignorance.



    If you think Obama is status quo compared to Bush, you're an idiot.
    I already listed how things have gotten worse since Obama came into office, which you ignored. I didn't compare him to Bush. Bush was not as articulate, and passed the Patriot act, so Obama is slightly better. It doesn't matter. They are mild differences at best. It's basically the same crap in a different package.
    Last edited by Death's Chill; 04-12-2012 at 07:34.


    Yummy.

  3. #78
    9000+ PirateGlen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    San Diego CA
    Posts
    9,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Death's Chill View Post
    Let me rephrase, the end result of them winning will be the same. Complete collapse.
    It's like you're TRYING to prove my point. "If I don't get my way the world will collapse." Your paranoia is worse than I thought.

    I already listed how things have gotten worse since Obama came into office, which you ignored. I didn't compare him to Bush. Bush was not as articulate, and passed the Patriot act, so Obama is slightly better. It doesn't matter. They are mild differences at best. It's basically the same crap in a different package.
    And I demonstrated how things have gotten better since Obama took office... which you ignored. You have a religious opinion of the world, facts cannot intervene.
    Last edited by PirateGlen; 04-12-2012 at 08:04.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reigngod View Post
    Deductive reasoning has noing to do with logic. In fact deductive reasoning is illogical. Go define logic and come back to the discussion an educated man.

  4. #79
    11,000+ Death's Chill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    11,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateGlen View Post
    It's like you're TRYING to prove my point. "If I don't get my way the world will collapse." Your paranoia is worse than I thought.
    Not the world, just the USA.

    And I demonstrated how things have gotten better since Obama took office... which you ignored. You have a religious opinion of the world, facts cannot intervene.
    No. The first thread we ever seriously debated on still holds me as the last one to post, having listed several things that are far worse, unemployment, the debt, people on food stamps, etc... things are not better.


    Yummy.

  5. #80
    9000+ PirateGlen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    San Diego CA
    Posts
    9,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Death's Chill View Post
    Not the world, just the USA.
    Good. Then stay in Canada.

    No. The first thread we ever seriously debated on still holds me as the last one to post, having listed several things that are far worse, unemployment, the debt, people on food stamps, etc... things are not better.
    Yes. Information cannot penetrate your religious opinion. You have a conspiratorial belief that they are falsifying inflation based on your personal shopping habits. Habits so bad that I can find better deals from Amazon.com for cereal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reigngod View Post
    Deductive reasoning has noing to do with logic. In fact deductive reasoning is illogical. Go define logic and come back to the discussion an educated man.

  6. #81
    11,000+ Death's Chill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    11,223

    Default

    I am staying in Canada, and the inflation rate being faked or not makes no difference. A 2 or 3% inflation rate over a few decades is a serious fucking hit to savers and retired people. It's fucking horrible.

    Oh, right, you think savers should be penalized. You're insane.


    Yummy.

  7. #82
    9000+ PirateGlen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    San Diego CA
    Posts
    9,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Death's Chill View Post
    I am staying in Canada, and the inflation rate being faked or not makes no difference. A 2 or 3% inflation rate over a few decades is a serious fucking hit to savers and retired people. It's fucking horrible.

    Oh, right, you think savers should be penalized. You're insane.
    Only if they save in currency. Let me know when you get a real education.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reigngod View Post
    Deductive reasoning has noing to do with logic. In fact deductive reasoning is illogical. Go define logic and come back to the discussion an educated man.

  8. #83
    11,000+ Death's Chill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    11,223

    Default

    You should be able to save in currency.

    You should not permanently get returns that are better than investing, but you should not be penalized for it.

    That's the whole point. Risk vs reward. Investing returns much more, but it's far more risky.

    Also, retired folks depending on a pension, or social security get royally fucked too.

    It's boderline fucking evil to say savers should have a penalty. You can argue against a neutral slate, low interest but no inflation. I'd still disagree, but at least that's a bit reasonable.
    Last edited by Death's Chill; 04-12-2012 at 13:35.


    Yummy.

  9. #84
    8000+
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    US - Texas
    Posts
    8,420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Death's Chill View Post
    Semantics.

    I am apprehensive and scared by the current regime, as are many.
    I feel like you might not know what the word semantics means.

    Okay, but if you actually think Obama, Romney or Gingrich have a better plan, I don't know what to say.
    Really? You think that if someone disagrees with the opinion that we should abandon our entire economic system (returning to a commodity based system and trashing 100+ years worth of progress) while returning a huge amount of civil authority to state governments, that somehow that is the more logical option? It seems obvious that the fastest way to cause a "complete collapse" would be to reverse everything in the span of 4 years, nothing now indicates that the doomsday you speak of is coming.

    What the hell is the point of two parties if they are the same? Their positions switch all the time anyways that I don't even know what each party even stands for.

    I don't care about parties. I look at each candidate individually, weigh the pro's and cons, and see who comes out on top. The party they are affiliated with makes NO difference whatsoever.
    They are mildly different, on issues that have still yet to be decided in the country. For issues that have been decided, such as the role of the judiciary, our standard of currency, our type of democracy, etc etc, they are the same. Like I said before, that's how it is in every 1st world country. Your idea of what it should be is more in line with 3rd and 2nd world countries who have yet to consolidate their democratic regimes, like countries in the Arab Spring or in post-soviet regimes, which span from slow consolidation to potential societal collapse. The point of a 2 party system is to set the stage for an argument between 2 contrasting opinions on a variety of issues, it's not meant to pit one fundamentally different ideal of government against another. How do you not understand that switching from an RP type of government from an Obama/Romney one every 4 to 8 years (if we're lucky it's just those 2, you seem to want a brand new system every time) would be catastrophic for the country?

    Replace know, with believe then.

    Also, I hope I'm wrong.
    I feel pretty confident that you are, given you are fairly open about being ignorant of U.S. history, fundamental statistical and economic principles, and the role of political parties in politics.

    Let me rephrase, the end result of them winning will be the same. Complete collapse.
    Can you set an approximate date for this complete collapse?

    EDIT: What, if anything, do/did you study in college? I'm wondering if you follow the trend many libertarians here have of not having any education outside of highschool and preferring to educate themselves solely from internet articles you link with each other.
    Last edited by Apex Vertigo; 04-12-2012 at 13:58.

  10. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apex Vertigo View Post
    Can you set an approximate date for this complete collapse?
    Somewhere between now and the inevitable moment such a thing might occur.
    Wisdom Of Bots
    1, then tired, do not forget to smile; be anxious, but also pay attention to tone; no matter how tough, do not forget to adhere to; No matter how tired, but also love yourself.
    But we are jet modified and not faint-hearted of difficulties

  11. #86
    11,000+ Death's Chill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    11,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apex Vertigo View Post
    I feel like you might not know what the word semantics means.
    No. I say paranoid, you say cautious & skeptic. The meaning of paranoid in that context is what you said. Cautious & skeptic. There's no need to debate what I meant when out of the context you can clearly see I'm not talking about the exaggerated sense of the word.

    People are a bit too literal sometimes. I tend to use words that have the most impact, if not for their full meaning.

    So, to rephrase because it's evident this way of chatting online is less effective (I'm used to doing this in real life debates and it works much better there). I just mean that I am very anxious over the coming years, and that I definitely am scared things will spiral out of control.

    Really? You think that if someone disagrees with the opinion that we should abandon our entire economic system (returning to a commodity based system and trashing 100+ years worth of progress) while returning a huge amount of civil authority to state governments, that somehow that is the more logical option? It seems obvious that the fastest way to cause a "complete collapse" would be to reverse everything in the span of 4 years, nothing now indicates that the doomsday you speak of is coming.
    We went off the gold standard in 1971 so I'm not sure what you're talking about, 100+ years of progress... but our standard of living has gone down. If it were not for the relatively easily made technology we all have, we'd be feeling the pain much more. It's an amazing system. We consume and consume but we're blinded by so many cool gizmo's that we are content enough to let a system that has failed horribly, keep failing.

    You people keep spouting on progress and the state of things. Things are worse than they were 4 years ago. Like they are worse four years before four years ago. Every term is the same, worse, worse worse. More inflation, less production, more debt, greater deficit.. more unemployment, more people on food stamps, more wars, more bases overseas, aggressive deployment of our naval forces, gas is skyrocketing (but getting cheaper on a gold and silver standard) etc...

    This system has failed, and it is gradually getting worse. Of course, eventually I believe it will have a compounding, spiral effect.

    They are mildly different, on issues that have still yet to be decided in the country. For issues that have been decided, such as the role of the judiciary, our standard of currency, our type of democracy, etc etc, they are the same. Like I said before, that's how it is in every 1st world country. Your idea of what it should be is more in line with 3rd and 2nd world countries who have yet to consolidate their democratic regimes, like countries in the Arab Spring or in post-soviet regimes, which span from slow consolidation to potential societal collapse. The point of a 2 party system is to set the stage for an argument between 2 contrasting opinions on a variety of issues, it's not meant to pit one fundamentally different ideal of government against another. How do you not understand that switching from an RP type of government from an Obama/Romney one every 4 to 8 years (if we're lucky it's just those 2, you seem to want a brand new system every time) would be catastrophic for the country?
    Of course, switching between two radically different types of government every half decade or 8 years would be very, very bad. But if that happened it would be the fault of the voters. At least the option of choice would be there. All we have now is a mock democracy. Ya, we have the choice to vote, but what the fuck is the point when all the candidates are essentially the same. None of them are good. They're all bad. There are only shades of grey. Some are slightly better but only in comparison to each other

    It's ridiculous, and it angers me beyond belief when I ask democrats if they considered Ron Paul when they say they want an honest politician, and they tell me they don't even know who he is because they don't consider Republicans. Fucking morons.



    I feel pretty confident that you are, given you are fairly open about being ignorant of U.S. history, fundamental statistical and economic principles, and the role of political parties in politics.
    Good, we both hope I'm wrong. Maybe hoping it enough will make it true, time will tell.

    Can you set an approximate date for this complete collapse?

    EDIT: What, if anything, do/did you study in college? I'm wondering if you follow the trend many libertarians here have of not having any education outside of highschool and preferring to educate themselves solely from internet articles you link with each other.
    I don't have rich parents. In fact, I have more money than both my parents and my step dad combined. So I didn't go to college. Only way to do that would be to take out debt, which is something I vehemently opposed. I will do it the correct, sane and responsible way, save up money, then go. Paid for by me, not anyone else.

    Also, I've yet to determine what I'd really want to do, if anything. I don't know of any passions or natural talents that far outstrip any of my other interests & abilities yet, so there'd be no point in going.

    As long as you check your sources, the internet is far, far more useful for learning most things than school. There are exceptions. I would say for very hands on jobs, that require very precise knowledge that's harder to translate online, like medical & engineering fields, formal school is better. But theoretical jobs like economics, that one can learn on their own. It's not hard. Austrian economics removes the clutter from the current economic model of trying to forecast things with charts and stats (that are often not calculated correctly or deliberately altered by biased economists or government influence) and just looking at and considering human behavior.

    I feel that's a more sound principle. Observe people, observe how they act and behave, and you will get a very clear picture of the economy. Austrian Economics is almost a sub-field of Psychology. Of course it's more than that, but I find it interesting when things mesh that you wouldn't really think would.

    Tell me this, do you think our trading scam is going to ever collapse on us? The scam, of course, is trading cotton & linen for products of far greater value and use from other countries. We get their stuff, and they get something that will only be useful to wipe their asses with. It's one of the most elaborate and grandiose scams ever committed in human history.

    We're an island that is being given excess products from other islands and in return we give them shit. Beautiful. Works well so far. It just won't last. And since we make nothing, you can see how it not lasting is a rather serious issue.

    As for when it occurs, it depends how fast the Federal reserve keeps printing money, and how high the budget deficit goes. We're at 1.5 trillion now, I can imagine a future with a 2 trillion deficit and at that point, at most we'd have a few years imo.

    I don't think it'll take that long, but trying to give an exact date is impossible. I'm not a prophet, I can only tell you that what we're doing now is not a sustainable model.

    I will keep saying this, it's a win // mild win for me, whatever happens. I'm in Canada, our issues exist but they are not as bad as the USA. We actually make some stuff, and while we print money it's not in such a wild fashion. When the USA kinks, that's more oil for us. We also don't have nearly as high a debt. Also, I'll be able to gloat, so there's that.

    The only alternative is that I'm wrong, and the country is cool, in which case, awesome; less pain & torment in the future (canada will still be affected just not as much as the usa).

    So keep debating with me, I find it fun when things are kept civil which you seem to do. If I lose, I'll be happy.
    Last edited by Death's Chill; 04-12-2012 at 14:29.


    Yummy.

  12. #87
    8000+
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    US - Texas
    Posts
    8,420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Death's Chill View Post
    We went off the gold standard in 1971 so I'm not sure what you're talking about, 100+ years of progress... but our standard of living has gone down. If it were not for the relatively easily made technology we all have, we'd be feeling the pain much more. It's an amazing system. We consume and consume but we're blinded by so many cool gizmo's that we are content enough to let a system that has failed horribly, keep failing.
    "We" ? Canada went off it at the same time? And yea we went off the gold standard in 71, just saying a lot of things Libs propose are antiquated concepts, seeking to abolish progress and solutions to old problems than to create new solutions. And our standard of living has gone down? I guess that's hard to qualify with all the technological booms we've had but I would argue that a culture and system that allows for that kind of consistent innovation is hardly a bad thing. It has only started to fail recently and has shown signs of improving. Things got bad, but they didn't get horrifically bad, you could argue it'd be instantly worse if we adopted a lot of RP's policies and I have several times.

    You people keep spouting on progress and the state of things. Things are worse than they were 4 years ago. Like they are worse four years before four years ago. Every term is the same, worse, worse worse. More inflation, less production, more debt, greater deficit.. more unemployment, more people on food stamps, more wars, more bases overseas, aggressive deployment of our naval forces, gas is skyrocketing (but getting cheaper on a gold and silver standard) etc...
    Worse than they were 4 years ago is relative (rate of change and all that), and you can only say "Things were wors in 2008 than in 2004" because that's when the crisis occurred... so obviously. But 4 years before that? And 4 before that? We were doing pretty damn well for a while, had a surplus, we were at our peak, so it hasn't been a downward slide since we went off the gold standard and started our current form of government (which I'd argue started in the late 40s). I'll agree with you on the foreign policy bit, I'm not a fan of our current foreign policy either.

    This system has failed, and it is gradually getting worse. Of course, eventually I believe it will have a compounding, spiral effect.
    No, it hasn't, it stumbled but for the most part it's still working and that much is obvious by the fact that our standard of living remains so high. When it really fails we'll all be painfully aware of it. Besides, "this system" is a really vague term, it'd help if you qualified it by saying how it has failed, why you think a complete collapse is coming and how, and why you think what ever you think is better. It's easy to just lump everything the current administration does as "the system" and say "it has failed" but we don't really make any progress by being so incredibly vague and absolute and it feels fairly unintelligent to speak in such a way.

    Of course, switching between two radically different types of government every half decade or 8 years would be very, very bad. But if that happened it would be the fault of the voters. At least the option of choice would be there. All we have now is a mock democracy. Ya, we have the choice to vote, but what the fuck is the point when all the candidates are essentially the same. None of them are good. They're all bad. There are only shades of grey. Some are slightly better but only in comparison to each other
    The option of choice is there... just not enough people have picked it. If 50 percent of people decided they wanted a radically different government, they could vote for it, they just haven't. Not enough, at least. That's what you get for living in a democracy, your desired choice isn't desired by a large enough group of people, tough luck. It's not a conspiracy, it's not a failure of the system (unless you are advocating for a more European style of government, which I'd support for a few reasons), it's just your ideas aren't popular at the mainstream level.

    It's ridiculous, and it angers me beyond belief when I ask democrats if they considered Ron Paul when they say they want an honest politician, and they tell me they don't even know who he is because they don't consider Republicans. Fucking morons.
    Well, uninformed people will be uninformed. I 'considered' RP for a while but in the end I don't think I'm able to accept a lot of his policies even if I value having an honest/consistent politician.
    As long as you check your sources, the internet is far, far more useful for learning most things than school. There are exceptions. I would say for very hands on jobs, that require very precise knowledge that's harder to translate online, like medical & engineering fields, formal school is better. But theoretical jobs like economics, that one can learn on their own. It's not hard. Austrian economics removes the clutter from the current economic model of trying to forecast things with charts and stats (that are often not calculated correctly or deliberately altered by biased economists or government influence) and just looking at and considering human behavior.

    I feel that's a more sound principle. Observe people, observe how they act and behave, and you will get a very clear picture of the economy. Austrian Economics is almost a sub-field of Psychology. Of course it's more than that, but I find it interesting when things mesh that you wouldn't really think would.
    Eh... not really. You are so easily led to believe in misinformation and conform to your own confirmation bias. At least in college you interact with a lot of people with varying views and can hear studied opinions on the topic while getting an informed, full picture of the topic. On the internet it's all very selective, you see what you want to see, you confirm the half-baked opinions you held in your teens, you rationalize in your head that everything you read is legitimate if it fits your view. I don't think the internet is any sort of substitute, it's a good tool but it's not in any way comparable. I see it all the time here, people arguing about Austrian economics, history, statistics, you name it, and they just don't have the full picture. And then when you try to show them that there are plenty of areas they just don't know because they were never forced to take the time and really learn the information, they play it off as bias or inaccurate or what ever they want to see because they never had to learn the proofs, they never had to sit there and get every single detail. See, what you see as "clutter" I see as hours and hours of learning, understanding, reasoning and eventually through all of that it makes sense. Austrian economics seems really popular here among people who never had to learn how the current system works and that's because it doesn't involve mathematical models, it's just something that is very appealing to counter-culture internet kids at first glance because it appeals to their particular gut feelings about things. Unfortunately, there is no system on the internet to show someone why their original opinions, no matter how uninformed they are, are just wrong.

    Tell me this, do you think our trading scam is going to ever collapse on us? The scam, of course, is trading cotton & linen for products of far greater value and use from other countries. We get their stuff, and they get something that will only be useful to wipe their asses with. It's one of the most elaborate and grandiose scams ever committed in human history.

    We're an island that is being given excess products from other islands and in return we give them shit. Beautiful. Works well so far. It just won't last. And since we make nothing, you can see how it not lasting is a rather serious issue.
    This is insanely simplistic and inaccurate way of looking at it. I have class soon and I have to start walking but I'll try to explain this away when I return. But, trade is a scam? Come on man... you can't really think that makes any sense, right? Econ. 101.
    Last edited by Apex Vertigo; 04-12-2012 at 23:44.

  13. #88
    10,000+ Long term follower
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pZombie View Post
    That would be stupid, because he goes on to explain how almost all networks used the same people to do the polling and much more..
    Irrelevant.

    Sample size is not important. A sample need only be representative; once you reach that critical threshold, increasing the size changes nothing.

    This guy is an idiot and his credibility is worthless; I don't see how he could 'explain' anything to anyone.

    Even if the sample was not sufficiently 'representative', he doesn't make that argument, he just wants more people polled. Even if exit polls are less than reliable (remember Florida), he doesn't make that argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrBungle View Post
    If 3/4 of all the money spent on defense was diverted into education funds, public school would be dirt cheap
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack_Sparrow View Post
    99% of human resource offices are paid for by grants (non-tax dollars).

  14. #89
    11,000+ Death's Chill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    11,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apex Vertigo View Post
    "We" ? Canada went off it at the same time? And yea we went off the gold standard in 71, just saying a lot of things Libs propose are antiquated concepts, seeking to abolish progress and solutions to old problems than to create new solutions. And our standard of living has gone down? I guess that's hard to qualify with all the technological booms we've had but I would argue that a culture and system that allows for that kind of consistent innovation is hardly a bad thing. It has only started to fail recently and has shown signs of improving. Things got bad, but they didn't get horrifically bad, you could argue it'd be instantly worse if we adopted a lot of RP's policies and I have several times.
    It's because the system itself is beyond it's own means. It cannot sustain itself. Keynesian economics is fucking BRILLIANT in the short, even moderate terms. It only falls apart after a lot of time has past. Decades. If done in moderation, maybe even centuries. But it will fail, and because we've overdone it (I say "we" because I'm a dual citizen nor referring to Canada sorry for the confusion) we will pay the price sooner. The stimulus package delayed it, but made it worse when it does eventually come.

    Worse than they were 4 years ago is relative (rate of change and all that), and you can only say "Things were wors in 2008 than in 2004" because that's when the crisis occurred... so obviously. But 4 years before that? And 4 before that? We were doing pretty damn well for a while, had a surplus, we were at our peak, so it hasn't been a downward slide since we went off the gold standard and started our current form of government (which I'd argue started in the late 40s). I'll agree with you on the foreign policy bit, I'm not a fan of our current foreign policy either.
    Well see the above comment. The economic system we employ works very well in the short term, it's just not sustainable. In the short term, it absolutely destroys Austrian economics because there's lots of growth because people are borrowing and lending like crazy, people take risks because the government protects against a lot of the consequences of those risks, etc.. so yes. It's good in the short term, but collapses in on itself.

    It's like we as a nation got our first unlimited black credit card, and guess what, we didn't handle it responsibly in the least. We racked up a ton of debt, we did things we shouldn't because it felt good in the moment, and now that it's time to pay, we whine and moan and try to put it off for later.

    Even worse, the Fed is trying to cheat its way out of debt by inflating the economy, reducing the burden of debt but screwing people who try to save, and retired people, and poor people.

    No, it hasn't, it stumbled but for the most part it's still working and that much is obvious by the fact that our standard of living remains so high. When it really fails we'll all be painfully aware of it. Besides, "this system" is a really vague term, it'd help if you qualified it by saying how it has failed, why you think a complete collapse is coming and how, and why you think what ever you think is better. It's easy to just lump everything the current administration does as "the system" and say "it has failed" but we don't really make any progress by being so incredibly vague and absolute and it feels fairly unintelligent to speak in such a way.
    I've been saying it for a while now when debating with PG, but I can repeat the key points.

    We have excessive debt, now above our GDP. We import, and barely export anything. We are a nation of consumers that do not produce anything, instead depend on the charity and // or stupidity of other countries to provide for us. In return for their products, we give them cotton and linen currency that we are constantly devaluing through inflation. Oh, and we pay for a lot of that stuff we import with money borrowed from the people who are importing to us. I mean, that's fucking comical.

    We have a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit. Have you ever tried to picture what that even looks like? Can anyone truly even comprehend how much money that is? That's a lot to have in debt, period; but we're racking that much up every single year... If your friend came up to you and told you he's spending 1.5 times more money than he earns, would you consider him intelligent or even sane? I wouldn't. I would consider him a fiscally irresponsible teenager living beyond his means in order to satisfy his meaningless urges and desires. You want to have something? Awesome. Save up and buy it with real capital.

    Furthermore, we still have about 100k troops in Afghanistan fighting for no reason; in fact, making things worse & stirring up more hatred towards the USA. I'm sure as soon as the CIA fabricates "evidence" that Iran has a nuke, we'll be at war with them next. After that, we'll probably head over to Syria, or North Korea, I'm not sure yet. That is, if we are even around by then. Eventually there's a good chance that after our economy collapses and we can't support a military anymore, someone else will invade us. Although that's a more far fetched situation, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened.

    We have massive inflation in healthcare and education because of governmental influence. Government guarantees lots of student loans. People are encouraged to go to college, everyone is, regardless of their interests, capabilities, financial situation or intelligence. It's the thing to do. So, it's partly a social issue and partly a governmental issue. I can tell you, if people stopped to go in such great numbers, and government did not provide easy loans; schools would have to reform and compete not just for quality but price.

    Medicine is influenced by insurance along the same measure. Insurance will pay, so why bother reducing rates? Look at eye surgery, and dentistry. Especially here in Canada, prices for those are falling rapidly, because insurance doesn't cover it. There's no free pill, insurance should be reserved for extreme situations, not routine things. Unless you want hospital provided aspirin to cost 50 bucks a pill.

    Oh, and of course, the government continues to pressure on the internet, because they're being lobbied to by Hollywood. It's a sad, sad joke. Government is simply a tool for the corporate elite to make more money, because they have so much influence (government that is).

    Big government is horrible. Big corporations, while not perfect, are much better (because people can destroy a big corporation by simply not buying what they offer). But the worst possible situation, the situation we have now? Big government, in bed with big business. And big banks are the most perverted sluts you can imagine. They make kinky requests and the government caves in.

    Oh but who am I kidding... everything is just peachy.

    The option of choice is there... just not enough people have picked it. If 50 percent of people decided they wanted a radically different government, they could vote for it, they just haven't. Not enough, at least. That's what you get for living in a democracy, your desired choice isn't desired by a large enough group of people, tough luck. It's not a conspiracy, it's not a failure of the system (unless you are advocating for a more European style of government, which I'd support for a few reasons), it's just your ideas aren't popular at the mainstream level.
    They are not popular because they are not pretty. No one wants to bear the burden of truth because it's too heavy. They'd rather be lied to, told everything is fine, and that they will get even more cool free shit if they elect X over Y. It's fucking pathetic, and if America falls I won't place all the blame at the people at the top, because it's painfully obvious there are many people who actually voted for these tools.

    Well, uninformed people will be uninformed. I 'considered' RP for a while but in the end I don't think I'm able to accept a lot of his policies even if I value having an honest/consistent politician.
    I can absolutely understand you not accepting all his policies, but I simply don't understand. Who the hell else is there? There is no one even close to his integrity, honesty and consistency. No one who is obviously in this to fight for US. That's never been the case, not since JFK.

    Eh... not really. You are so easily led to believe in misinformation and conform to your own confirmation bias. At least in college you interact with a lot of people with varying views and can hear studied opinions on the topic while getting an informed, full picture of the topic. On the internet it's all very selective, you see what you want to see, you confirm the half-baked opinions you held in your teens, you rationalize in your head that everything you read is legitimate if it fits your view.

    I don't think the internet is any sort of substitute, it's a good tool but it's not in any way comparable. I see it all the time here, people arguing about Austrian economics, history, statistics, you name it, and they just don't have the full picture. And then when you try to show them that there are plenty of areas they just don't know because they were never forced to take the time and really learn the information, they play it off as bias or inaccurate or what ever they want to see because they never had to learn the proofs, they never had to sit there and get every single detail. See, what you see as "clutter" I see as hours and hours of learning, understanding, reasoning and eventually through all of that it makes sense.

    Austrian economics seems really popular here among people who never had to learn how the current system works and that's because it doesn't involve mathematical models, it's just something that is very appealing to counter-culture internet kids at first glance because it appeals to their particular gut feelings about things. Unfortunately, there is no system on the internet to show someone why their original opinions, no matter how uninformed they are, are just wrong.
    This is why I don't just read articles, I listen to many debates constantly on the subject between two different viewpoints, to try and get a broader perspective. If I don't understand something, I look it up. The internet is boss like that.

    I'm not saying debating in real life doesn't have its merits, it does. I love it. I have discussions with a few people in the condo I work at regularly, it's almost a weakly thing. It's fun, and I've actually had my opinion changed a few times on some things. But this is the case too, online. This is why I still come to this forum and a few others. because I want my position to be challenged. In this case, I WANT to believe I'm wrong; because believing I'm right when that belief implies the potential end of an entire country makes me...very uneasy.

    As to your point, that there's no system to show why someone is wrong online, I ask you, why not? You can show me anything. graphs, mathematical proofs, articles, documents, whatever you can in real life, and more. So show me why you think Austrian economics are wrong. Why does deductive logic and reasoning fail?

    This is insanely simplistic and inaccurate way of looking at it. I have class soon and I have to start walking but I'll try to explain this away when I return. But, trade is a scam? Come on man... you can't really think that makes any sense, right? Econ. 101.
    The first rule of a bargain, you have to have something of value. We do not. We have Cotton and Linen, and it loses its value with every passing second. Trading that for physical, useful products? Guess who's getting the short end on that deal.


    Yummy.

  15. #90
    9000+ PirateGlen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    San Diego CA
    Posts
    9,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Death's Chill View Post
    You should be able to save in currency.

    You should not permanently get returns that are better than investing, but you should not be penalized for it.

    That's the whole point. Risk vs reward. Investing returns much more, but it's far more risky.

    Also, retired folks depending on a pension, or social security get royally fucked too.
    You have to plan for inflation with your pension. Social security scales with inflation.
    http://www.ssa.gov/oact/COLA/latestCOLA.html

    By your own argument in favor of a gold standard, you can get it at any time by merely using your currency to purchase gold. It's really that simple. You can be on any standard you want merely by converting your currency to whatever the fuck standard you want.

    It's boderline fucking evil to say savers should have a penalty. You can argue against a neutral slate, low interest but no inflation. I'd still disagree, but at least that's a bit reasonable.
    People that save in currency are not using it for the intended purpose. If you want to use something that it's not designed for, you should have a penalty. There's no way to achieve 0 inflation and 0 deflation. Between the two, inflation is much better for anyone that's not rich as fuck. You have no idea what is reasonable because you are ignorant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reigngod View Post
    Deductive reasoning has noing to do with logic. In fact deductive reasoning is illogical. Go define logic and come back to the discussion an educated man.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •