Cliche red herrings against libertarianism

Discussion in 'Libertarian' started by Cherea, Jul 1, 2013.

  1. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
  2. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    I'll get to your following post later, but I wanted to respond a bit on this.


    No, Soviet Russia never achieved a communism per Marxist theory. They had the ideal of communism. True Communism is a society that lives in a communal state, and it is achieved after Socialism has shaped people into a state of mind where such a utopian ideal can be achieved, then another revolution must take place, doing away with the socialist state. The Soviet Union never achieved any sense of the communist ideal. No country at all has ever achieved this.


    I agree that both members of congress (in this case I am not referring to the political body (or institution) of congress) should have a say in the matter.

    But no matter how you paint it over, such as "I am defending the infant's right to live," you are placing your belief system on others. For example, there are aboriginal tribes in Australia where the women go off into the bush to have their baby. They are accompanied by, what we would call a midwife. But part of her duty is to examine the baby and determine if it is healthy enough to live. If she does not think it is, than she kills it on the spot, even before the mother has a chance to see the baby. You might say that this is very wrong, but this is their custom. It is based on their belief system. In their eyes, the baby was meant to go back to the dream time, as maybe it is not the babies time to be here. Or, you might argue that this is different. Or make an excuse that it would make sense because life in the bush would be very hard for a crippled or mentally retarded child.

    But it is not that different. because everyone faces different problems, sees the world from a different reality, shaped by their own unique life history, psychological make up, and problems they must face.

    Too many people do not face up to the implications of their beliefs. Whether abortion is right or wrong, if you support anti-abortion legislation, than you are supporting government control over individual choice. There is a big difference between an anti-abortion campaign that teaches pregnant women the choices she has, or helps her find an alternative, versus, an anti-abortion campaign that seeks to legally take away the ability for women to have abortions.

    As a libertarian you want to limit government involvement. OK that's fine. But then you want to pick and choose where government will take control---so there we go, we added in a few laws. But let's say your libertarian buddy says, "ok, I'll let you have that, but I think we should have laws that make sure that liquor stores and bars are closed early, because I see drunk driving and alcoholism as a real problem. Then his libertarian buddy says, Yeah, but, we need more control over what meats pass as edible, and should have a government arm to control that... and it goes on and on. Pretty soon your limited government is just as big as the one it replaced.

    Do you see the problem with saying, I want a limited government, and then saying, but I support this legislation because of my moral and ethical beliefs... You can paint it however you want, but if you sincerely believe that it is not forcing your beliefs onto others, you are only lying to yourself (or at least deceiving yourself).


    I am sorry for your loss---but I know there are women, who have had abortions that would respond, "You may think you went through the grieving process, but that life that was lost wasn't growing inside of you. There is no way you could have felt the loss that we did."

    In truth, neither I, nor they, understand the grieving you went through. That is the problem about subjective experience. Nor can you understand the grieving any of them went through. But by the same token, neither you or I can understand the unique struggles and issues an individual, or couple, facing the question of abortion is going through.



    And you still believe that all liberals are the same. I'm merely pointing out that your opinion that everyone should take responsibility for their own actions, and that when they cannot, the negative domino-effect results of those actions, are not your responsibility and therefore you are against a safety net that might cost you in taxes and so forth, is the exact attitude of many of my conservative friends who are GOP or even tea party types.



    Yet you think government should also act to police abortions and stop them. Somehow I don't think abortions make up that big of a percentage of births to effectively limit population, maybe we could check the statistics on that. Having the choice to abort is a freedom, in that you are free to choose. No one is holding a gun and telling you that the next 3 babies must be aborted. On the other hand, if the government is telling you that you cannot have that choice, than it is a loss of the freedom of choice.


    I am not saying all conspiracy theories are rubbish. But there is way too much crap out there.



    Yes, and corporate America is clearly against raising labor costs. As are the conservatives. The liberals are the only ones fighting to raise minimum wage, and they are clearly speaking out about the disparity between income levels.


    In such a scenario, if you can't eat it, drink it, or use it to heal sickness, in a total collapse where abstract values are meaningless, a bar of gold, or a chain of gold, will have as much value as a piece of paper. If food, water, and medicine are in high demand---people won't want gold anymore than they would want a piece of paper.




    Hmmm... I would hate to see what they are forcing me to do, and how they are controlling my life, including when I lived in Japan, the Philippines, etc...


    Amazing, world domination could be achieved so easily----create a panic and then trick the whole world into submission overnight. Why didn't Hitler, Tojo, and Napolean think of that?

    Ohhhh... wait a minute---all those countries have governments that want to rule over their own people. Oh yeah, I just remembered that a recent poll was reported on by BBC that says that 60% of the people polled around the world feel that America is the biggest threat to global peace... Suddenly it seems that Hitler, Tojo, and Napolean had a better chance the way they were doing it...

    Politically, economically, and culturally, there is no one-size-fits-all.

    ...OR, it is a mess, because each country is different, and faces different liquidity problems and advantages, have different business and economic risks, different work ethics, and each country faces its own unique economic problems. For example, the Germans have a totally different work ethic, propensity to save, concept of fiscal responsibility, and understanding of a bureaucracy that is too big (and therefore a waste of taxpayer resources), than Greece. Therefore you cannot force the same monetary policy on both Greece and Germany without running into serious problems sooner or later. This is the very problem I spoke of in 1986.

    But why do you continue to say that "they" are printing money endlessly. And who is counterfeiting money? Did someone steal the plates and the paper from the mint and are printing money secretly in their basement?

    If what you are saying was true (ignoring the counterfeit part), that the government was printing money non stop to excess without any rhyme or reason, then inflation would truly be hyperinflation----but it isn't. Interest rates would sky rocket. And the money supply would grow as if it was caught in an exponential rise, or at least like a stock market index in its last over-exuberant rise to a top. But that isn't happening either.

    You can fool a lot of people. You can fool a lot of investors. But one thing you can never fool is the bond market. For example, even in 2006 and 2007, when everyone was running around borrowing, loan brokering, buying bad debt, issuing credit cards to people with no credit, and so on---completely oblivious to the problems looming ahead---the yield curve of the bond market was telling everyone, 'WTF are you guys doing?' And no one could see the problems. Everyone was saying, this must be an anomaly because everything is fine. We are experiencing a unique situation because the stock market has remained bullish for so long. But the truth was, the yield curve was right----it is always right. And right now, the yeild curve is not telling us that the government is printing money too fast, or that the FED is creating money too fast. You can see that for yourself. You can also check what the money supply is doing for yourself---there are many sources for that.

    But alarming everyone that the dollar is going to collapse, and that our greedy counterfeiting government is printing money like crazy madmen, is a great way to sell newsletters, and how-to-get-rich books, and gold futures, and gold. Financial conspiracies make big money for the unscrupulous, just as the government conspiracies do for those people.

    I could very easily do the same thing---and sell my newsletter and make a killing. But my conscience would never let me do that (and my newsletter is free).
     
  3. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    Being liberal does not equate to being a democrat---so yes I am liberal and independent. I equate being liberal to being progressive. Not all liberals want to take away guns---and actually, not all democrats want to take away guns either.


    Well, we have those laws in place already, and they don’t prevent problems. Case in point would be the credit crisis. We can point to all kinds of reasons why it happened---but the one reason that stands out above all the others, is the laissez-faire removal of the Chinese Wall that prevented brokerage firms from doing banking business, and banks from doing banking business. Brokerage firms had been fighting for years to have access to the monstrous banking assets---and be able to be truly full service where customers could right checks off of their accounts and so forth. Banks wanted access to the huge profit that was to be made off of riskier brokerage assets, and the huge fees from investment banking, such as underwriting, and so forth. (This is one area where Ron Paul kind of confuses things into a double standard where banks end up even more restricted and left to eke out a bear bones existence on nothing more than banking fees).

    Enron was the very first case of things to come. The government was pretty harsh on the brokerage firms involved, the banks who were involved, such as Citibank, claimed, “Oh, we didn’t know that was wrong…” and got a light slap on the wrists. But like I said, it was a predictor of things to come----the same banks, and the same brokerage firms had taken the experiments of creative debt learned in Enron, and changed it into a whole new game that took advantage of a world of investors, and enabled Americans, Europeans, and others to take on damaging levels of debt.

    Now some of this was outright fraud, but far more was simply assuming that someone else was checking and monitoring the risk---every bit of it was people being taken advantage of. Laws against bribery, fraud and destroying other people’s property aren’t going to cut it very well here.

    Nor are they going to cut it when the wealthy takes advantage of the poor---usually legally. Treating corporations as individuals is a victory for laissez-faire business interests---but it enables corporations to legally take advantage of people---and without any of the consequences that befall human individuals. Your answer is overly simplistic and unrealistic. What else can you give me?



    Unfortunately most of those who are on welfare---despite what right wing propaganda wants you to believe---do not want to be on welfare. In other words, they would prefer to have decent jobs---they do not see themselves as lost cases that will forever be dependent on welfare.

    But then we are in a period of excessive economic displacement. And Ron Paul after all would have us all believe that in an economy without any Fed, and a gold-based currency would never have such excessive economic displacements (just like it was in the 1800’s------that is the 1800’s as they existed on Candy Mountain, or some other mythical place).

    Once you do away with the Federal government welfare system, how would you deal with such cases of excessive economic displacement? You don’t seriously think that States today could handle the current situation---that is not realistic. Consider hurricanes as an example---without the Federal government, hurricane ravaged States cannot deal with the destruction and the weather induced crisis that literally immobilizes local rescue efforts and the cost of rebuilding. This is a common right wing argument---look at Governor Christie and how he spoke about big government and then did an about face praising Obama right before the election as he helped his state with the hurricane disaster and clean up. Can you give me something better and more realistic than this?


    Under the current situation, with so many people still out of work and so many people struggling, the private sector’s contribution towards helping those who cannot afford food and other basics, is unbelievably small when compared to that of the Federal government. I forget the actual numbers, but I can locate them if you don’t believe me. It would be impossible for the private sector to make up the difference. Didn’t you read in that same paragraph or the one after it, that it is very hard to get donations. Tonight is another night like the one I wrote the question on----only colder----I can assure you that on the North and South Dakota Reservations tonight, there will be people freezing to death. I don’t see anyone raising their hands to offer monetary help in this thread… There are certainly some who want to help---but they don’t have the money or resources, and people are freezing to death right now (it is 3:30 am in the Dakotas as I write this right now).

    But funny coincidence about this---all those conservative people who are always saying, “I don’t want my tax money to go to helping those damned welfare dependents! Their families and churches and charities should do that!” They also don’t feel a moral obligation to help others. Obviously they don’t because charities and other organizations are providing so little in terms of helping others, and because there are so many needy people. It is just two sides of the same coin---a coin called greed. I am making an assumption here on people’s character---but this is what I have observed based on this argument over using taxes to help the needy. Along with the reality of people who are suffering now. To use the example of the Indians again----they certainly do help family members as much as they can. But they certainly don’t have the wherewithal to prevent those from dying tonight. Often times people die in the same rooms as the family members that are exhausting their own resources to help their elderly and invalids and doing everything they can to help each other.

    In Denver, this is the coldest night of the winter so far. Wind chills are expected to get as low as -25. The government isn’t helping the homeless? There are plenty of homeless people that will survive the night here in Denver thanks to government assistance. And what about those people who do not have families?

    Once again---do you have something more realistic than this? How many people in your community that are down on their luck have you consistently fed, compared to how many people welfare has fed? (Did you feed any?)



    The statements are not contradictory because I did not say anything about the Fed printing money. I said that I will give you that the US is manipulating the dollar---by that I mean in the foreign exchange markets. In reality the US Dollar is one of the stronger currencies out there----you see this every time we let up on the US imposed pressure down on the Dollar. It is globally recognized by foreign investors that the US is still the prime location for investment. That has been expressed over and over by global investors going back into the last century (the 1990’s) but even more so since 2008. You also see this in the capital inflows and the strength of the US market.

    Unfortunately, interest rates are exceptionally low for numerous reasons right now, including as a tool to both stimulate the economy and to keep the dollar low. In fact part of its purpose is to stimulate spending and discourage saving---because the velocity of money is so low (I guess you didn’t read that part in the 2nd or 3rd part of my comment). But it hasn’t done that very well, because the velocity of money has remained so low----that’s because economic crisis such as the Credit Crisis create a lot of fear---and that is what leads to depressions-----did you read that part?

    I’ll come back to the inflation bit later. But this argument is as old as the first Gold Bugs, and it has not really been very accurate in terms of predictions. This argument is always being made, and yet the inflation, devaluation, and economic crisis is not always being felt. Today’s inflation levels is no where near where the people that have been making this argument since 2008 think it should be----in fact we have seen very little inflation since 2008.

    Anyway---it is getting late----I will come back to the rest tomorrow or so.
     
  4. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    I don't think it'll work, nor do I think that's what America needs. People can have communal living, but this works best in smaller groups. For example, a town or village can decided the share their wealth, but for the rest of society,you're not gonna get a doctor to go to school 8 years, and make the same amount as his secretary. It doesn't work in practice; No one would waste their time in college. Secondly, you still have the problem of the government appropriating the finances, and being in control of what they use, and what they share.



    I don't think it's different either- I think it's a primitive and deadly practice, (in both scenerios.)




    I'm not infringing on anyones Rights (as there is no Constitutional Rights to 'choice.') All I am saying, is it's illegal to kill someone; Yet, these doctors crack open little babies skulls, and throw living babies in a bucket to die. It's an inhumane and, disgusting practice.






    I said- I think the role of government should be to protect life, liberty and, property- and that's it. Life is life, and no, I'm not talking about 'sperm' and 'eggs' I'm talking about living infants.




    I don't believe all Liberals are the same, but their generalized political beliefs,and the majority of liberals I've met, are counter-productive to a truly fair end goal.They want to push their will, far more than I do.

    (I know what you say you believe, but you define yourself a Liberal)

    I openly admit I lean to the Right, but, that doesn't make me GOP or tea party, and I resent the insinuation; I would've voted for Barney the Dinosour, before I voted for Obama or Romney. They're two sides of the same coin; Romney wrote "ObamaCare," and neither of them follow the Constitution!


    As far as not liking taxes; I don't like how the government wastes our money. I said, right away I wouldn't abolish foodstamps, I would just make it a state issue at first. Without all the military spending and corporate financing, we'd actually be able to pay off our debt, and live within our means. A lot of Liberals agree with cutting the military spending, but they only want to do that, so they can expand the humanitarian spending.

    But because Nixon suspended the transfer of gold, he offered middle eastern countries military protection in exchange for taking our dollar. So we need to keep the military-industrial complex rolling, if they only want humanitarian spending.

    Again, there is no such thing as the freedom to choice, at least not in the Constitution. Women use the use that a fetus is dependent on them, but if you think about it, children are too. Should it be illegal to kill a newborn, or a 5 year old kid? If you think about it, children are dependent till 18 years old, that's not an excuse for murder. I think it's just easier for people, cause they're not treating it as a child.

    http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html

    That means around 1 out of 4 pregnant women get an abortion. Definitely enough to be a population deterrent.



    It's not corporate America, but the government itself. We relied on them to "fix" minimum wage, yet, the average American is making what we were in the 70's. I think Liberals put too much faith in the government taking care of this stuff, then you say you're 'fighting' for it. We wouldn't have to fight if we had consumer awareness and employee's who insisted on a fair wage.
    Like government, corporations can't run without our support. All it takes to shut down Walmart, banks etc. is to stop doing business with them.


    That's not true. Gold and silver would skyrocket in value, within a day of the dollars collapse. Cause it is real money, and it has real value and uses.


    That has nothing to do with the fact that we are losing our sovereignty. Look at Desert Storm- The UN gets us into wars for the purpose of controlling the planet.

    That's because we're a nation of war. We bully the world, that's probably why we're the treat to "peace." But our government is corrupt, and would be even without wars. I personally don't like the spying, losing our constitutional rights or, expanding the government. All of which is the Liberal idea to get us out of this mess- a situation that IMO would cause a bigger mess.

    I'm very surprised to hear a Liberal say this. (I know you're 'independent minded,') but liberals typically believe in government control, in many aspect of our lives.



    The FED promised to print a trillion dollars, last year alone. we've had QE 1 through 4, now they're starting QE indefinitly.

    It might as well be some guy printing it in his basement- instead, it's a group of banks who give trillions to overseas banks and countries. We could've paid off our debt, and awarded the people some tax money back, if we had all the money they've used to "bailout" banks!

    The interest rate has a newer system to decide what it is, according to the old "GDQ"(I believe that's the name,) the interest rates are much higher.

    Bernanke gave away 16 trillion dollars, without us knowing. They are printing constantly, and all you gotta do is pay attention. I know that it takes some money for the printing to hurt us, at first there's a positive reaction when money is being printed.

    But, it does create inflation. Prices going up on regular items are inflation. And this is caused by the debasement of money and credit. The higher prices are making it even harder for the middle class to live, and it doesn't help people who save either.


    Fiat money always ends, and, many time causes collapses. Look at the price of oil- it has tripled in it's price, it went from $30-$100, but if you look at the price of oil to gold, it has stayed flat. That is the cost of inflation, and it's making it difficult for people to live, and the only reason minimum wage is a topic of debate.
     
  5. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    Many do, and that's enough for me. The elite who talk about this, often have guns themselves. Including Mayors in Bloombergs group. They want to take away our power to self defense, but, they would yield all the power and troops with guns in the end.


    They would if they were being used. They're not used because government and the corporate elite, are tied up in one big knot.

    Banks have always been corrupt. They only have 1/3rd of the money they pretend to have, and they stockpile our money and profit off of us, yet need MORE of our money to prevent collapsing. They are deceptive and dishonest. If you ask me, their system is a fraud, and should be tried. If I told you I'd hold your money for you, then ran off and spent it, my guess is you'd be pretty ticked.

    It is not. A majority of these businesses are getting away with serious corruption. Businesses can't wage war on their own, or steal money from the people and use it as their own, or, get bailouts instead of going under.

    I see the real problem for what it is, a few elite control the whole system. But the problem is because they're paying the government, they are also above the law. And that's the problem. They should be subject to the same laws as us.

    Do you have a link? or some statistics?

    I said I wouldn't abolish foodstamps right away, but, you're missing the entire point that people do abuse the system, and make mistakes. In my system, people would be free to take drugs if they please. But, why should one very hard working individual, be paying for a crackhead who justs wants to sit around and smoke crack? You are responsible for your own actions, and that's because it's not the taxpayers responsibility to take care of everyone, it's their own.


    We had fiat money at that time too. Bankers would hold peoples gold, and give them a "gold slip," they started to realize people didn't come back in for their gold, so they started using it and producing more gold slips than gold. It is this scam that started modern banks and, the reason the economy collapsed. Gold is stable.

    The states could so handle it. It's the people who pay the money anyway. We don't need a giant federal government program (controlled by Goldman Sachs) to take care of everyone in the country. Firstly, people have a moral obligation to help people; and, Conservatives give more to charity and to help people, than Liberals. Secondly, if the government didn't waste so much of our money, there would be more money to go around. The legalization of drugs would create tons of jobs, and allow people to get help. This will help the poor areas of this country where young black people are arrested twice as much as whites for drugs.

    I don't think this is realistic. This is wasting our hard-earned money, for something insurance companies should be responsible for, when so many people are struggling already. To me, insurance on the tax payers back, is less realistic than getting insurance if you live by the ocean.


    Conservatives give more to charities than Liberals--

    http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/castingstones/2008/04/conservatives-give-more-to-cha.html

    It's not that we don't want to help the needy, but, all this contributes to this huge government system that has been so destructive of our Rights. There is other ways to get that money, and if people had more money, more would go to charities and, get into the economy. Also, a lot of people abuse the system and use foodstamps and government insurance to live, despite the fact they are able-bodied and eligible for work.



    That's not even a fair comparison, and now you're just being a jerk. I have fed homeless people, I took one guy to a snack machine and bought him a few things, and I bought some crackhead lady a 12" Subway sandwich. I help people when I can, but no I don't consistently feed anyone, I'm struggling to buy my own food.

    "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for life." The government is merely making these people dependent on government help, and, wasting far more money in the process. You need to think the Government programs such as these require vast funding just to pay the employees and keep it going. Not to mention Federal Government employees make a disgusting amount of money. The Federal Government is the biggest problem in this country and the biggest treat to our freedom.



    We are the world reserve currency, but we are losing that too. Some countries are backing away from the dollar, and making their reserve currency other currencies.


    Idk if I did, I may had missed it. The interest rate is kept artificially low,
    I’ll come back to the inflation bit later. But this argument is as old as the first Gold Bugs, and it has not really been very accurate in terms of pr but when prices go up, that is inflation. Just looking at prices, it's obvious the government isn't being truthful about inflation rates. It cost me 13$ for Oreos, a 2 liter of off-brand soda, and, a box of graham crackers!
    That's the cost of inflation.




     
  6. fraggle_rock

    fraggle_rock Member

    Messages:
    1,202
    Likes Received:
    557
    Actually, the reason the study got that result is because they included people giving money to their own churches/communities, which includes salaries and buildings (probably before telling those lazy poor people to get a job and stop stealing their tax money).

    http://www.gospelpolitics.com/debunking-the-conservatives-give-more-to-charity-myth.html

    Liberals are more likely to give to the poor, sick and needy... while conservatives are more likely to give to themselves/things from which they directly benefit-- such as summer camps/amenities for their own children.

    How much do you want to bet they included the Koch brothers 'charitable' donations to the global warming denialist groups which spread lies and anti-science while putting tiny band aids on all of the problems that the Kochs are causing, mostly so that they can qualify for special tax status?

    I would also have to wonder if they included wealthy private schools/universities, which is actually where the majority of the conservative uber-rich's 'charitable' donations go... basically, they're giving their kids scholarships/a nice place to go to school and improving their public image at the same time.
     
  7. scratcho

    scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,485
    Likes Received:
    14,730
    Stp="a lot of liberals agree with cutting the military spending, but they only want to do that so that they can increase the humanitarian spending." Why those pricks!!! Disgraceful.
     
  8. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    We're spending too much money- that's the reason this government is failing. To say you don't want to spend military spending, but you want humanitarian spending, is firstly impossible- because our dollar is based off of the military protection we give to oil-yielding countries. You would have to fix the debasement of currency, otherwise, keep policing the world with our military for your humanitarian spending- which still goes in the opposite direction.

    secondly, we're 17 trillion dollars in debt, and our spending has DOUBLED every year since 2001, if you think we can keep doing this (for humanitarian spending or not) you're obviously not informed enough to be discussing how we're gonna fix these problems, but that's the elephant in the room liberals don't want to talk about.
    Giving to your own community is giving. And btw, it said Liberals give to more "secular oganizations" That doesn't mean the poor and needy. Secondly, look into the "study" you are displaying as fact- first of all, the deducted the differences in how much they make, and religious spending- and they still turned out that Liberals and Conservatives give the same (despite the changes.)


    This means they support governmental intervention, and they're insisting (like many of you liberals) anyone who doesn't, doesn't care about the poor, and nothing can be further from the truth.

    I don't like the government "redistributing" wealth, because they take money from people who really need it, to give it to other people who expect it, yet do nothing to earn it. Then, we have to pay employees, and we have to pay Goldman Sachs to make cards.

    Liberals have this notion that no one except the government can help these people, and it's very short-sighted and wasteful. And like I said to scratchco, when you support this stuff you support the status quo


    Libertarians especially care about the poor, and I've mentioned ways that that's so, including ending the drug war (which is just an excuse to arrest and harass black people.


    It's not worth talking to you leftists, you always take 1 thing out of a page to "one-up" me, or prove me wrong- and you're just wasting my time.

    I'd rather be catching up on the Simpsons, than talking to closed minded Liberals all the time. You think you're open minded- but you throw any opposing views in the "Republican" catagory, and don't even try to understand the point behind it.
     
  9. scratcho

    scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,485
    Likes Received:
    14,730
    Yeah, well--within the scope of capitalism---Mountain Valley Wolf schooled you big time , but you'll never know it. I believe capitalism should and WILL disappear sooner or later. Not many see it that way, of course. What we have now will just continue FOREVER and EVER!! Horse-cock. Gets to be 10-15-25- billion people with the coming water wars, food wars, Mad max scenarios, gated enclaves for those with private armies to kill any riff-raff that get too close---those who are able to think will think---"what the fuck were those people thinking?" Doesn't matter if I'm believed here or not---it's ALL--ALL OF IT - stalling tactics and like most other situations that occur slowly, disaster after disaster will be ignored and come WAAAY to soon for any survivors.
     
  10. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,778
    Likes Received:
    13,798
    I'm going to have to agree here. Why should I have to finance someone else's stupidity. I live in one of the original 13 colonies and I'm tired of all these other young upstart "states" sucking off the teat of our bounty.
    If you're stupid enough to live in Tornado Alley, don't come to me looking for a handout. Florida is a fricking peninsula sticking out into a hurricane zone. California is a desert, why should I give them my money. Same for Las Vegas, who builds a city in the middle of the desert? Just looking for a Federal handout.
    And don't even mention Texas, a bunch of cowboy A-rabs who couldn't even stop the Mexicans from taking them over so they had to run to us for protection (bailout).
    Then there's Minnesota. Hello! Anyone here from Minnesota? I didn't think so. Somebody made that one up. Doesn't exist. Just an invention to get Federal farming funds.
    Then there's the south, every year I have to rebuild all their expensive beach houses. Just shut up down there, we kicked your ass at Gettysburg once, we'll do it again. I have one word for the South...SHERMAN.

    So in conclusion, anyone south of the Mason Dixon line or west of Penn's Woods can go suck an egg. I'm tired of supporting you bunch of loosers.
    Go buy your own insurance and leave us alone.
     
  11. Gongshaman

    Gongshaman Modus Lascivious

    Messages:
    4,602
    Likes Received:
    998
    :2thumbsup: ;)
     
  12. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    Once again---I disagree. You have a very reductionist view of what liberals are. Granted I also say things about conservatives---but I try to specify it as the GOP and/or tea party, unless it is something that fits the definition of conservative. But I am partly to blame too for continuing to argue liberal vs conservative.


    That’s exactly how all you conservatives answer… (I’M JOKING!)

    Seriously, medicare is part of the problem but it is only a part of the problem. The government and medicare did not make prices go up. They only contributed to the problem. I lived in Japan for around 15 years. The Japanese have a big government, they also have national healthcare. The 15 years was not 15 years straight, because I include the time when I was a college student in Japan, and the last years I lived there I went to and from the Philippines---all together it was around 15 years of living there. But it was a period of time that spanned a little over two decades. Never did I see medical costs go up there. I would not call their medical system the best, because doctors themselves made extra money by pushing medicines for the pharmaceutical companies----but they certainly had good medical care, and it always cost me the same.

    Obama care is not the answer to our problem. But it is an attempt, and it is an attempt to limit prices, and answer to some of the glowing problems in the current situation that we do have. Our biggest problem is one of collusion between insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, HMO’s and other big money interests in the healthcare industry. Even doctors themselves are not benefitting from the problem.

    Healthcare is a large part of our government deficit. But if healthcare or government subsidies alone brought the costs of healthcare higher, than there would be no other players in the game providing funding. I cannot say with 100% certainty that there are no health insurance providers in Japan outside of the government---I have never heard of any, I was never offered another health insurance provider as a student, when I worked for a Japanese brokerage firm, and when I worked at Shearson Lehman. I know that my first wife’s family (Japanese) never had any other provider, nor anyone that I know of. I never saw any sign of another kind of coverage at a doctor or a hospital, in fact I was never even asked about coverage, or how would the bill be paid. I never saw any advertising of it---and I watched Japanese advertising because I always got a kick out of it. I have a lot Japanese magazines, and a few newspapers, and I would bet you $100 that I could go through them and never find a single advertisement for health coverage. This includes in the actual insurance company advertisements—which are all about auto insurance, life insurance, and pensions.

    Japan is facing problems with health insurance---it that they have an aging population---there are far more seniors than there are young people. But the cost of going to the doctor never went up all of the years I lived there. And don’t assume that Japanese are less greedy than Americans---greed and corruption is rampant in Japan.


    I cannot speak out about college tuition because I do not know. But since my son is starting college, it seems to me that there are also a lot of private sector providers of student loans and grants, and insurance plans that provide for college and so forth. As far as healthcare---see my previous answer.

    But I will agree that there are arguments in economics that government subsidies do have a tendency to raise prices. They artificially disrupt the supply and demand dynamics. But they do not pay endless amounts of money (if they did, then you would not have cases of medicare and Medicaid fraud being investigated, and stopped, such as Tenet Healthcare a few years back. But it is overly simplistic to blame this all on the government---America has the most expensive healthcare in the world. Yet there are plenty of countries with nationalized health insurance with very affordable healthcare.


    I have heard this argument so many times---there are so many things wrong with this concept that I don’t even know where to begin. First, let me say that, unfortunately you are right---it did contribute to the transfer of wealth to the top 1%.

    But as I have pointed out already, if the tarp bill was voted in on the first vote---we would have spent far less money and would have better attacked the real problem---the psychology of the market place.

    Would it have been better to give the money to the public then? The first problem is the risk that it actually provides stimulus. You may remember that everyone who filed taxes during the credit crisis did receive a stimulus check, but most of that money was tucked into a bank---because: “…things were going to get much worse,” as everyone believed. The stimulus money provided negligible stimulus---the velocity of money barely changed. $20,000 of course would be a different story. Most likely people would spend a good portion of it, but then again maybe not enough.

    The next problem is that of inflation. If every citizen in the United States suddenly had $20,000 to spend, and they did spend it, what do you think that would do to supply and demand? You can bet the money that does end up as disposable would be spent pretty quickly (for the same reasons that most people who win the lottery are usually broke within the first year or two). Of course this is the idea. But, $20,000 would certainly create a classic case of inflation. The bad thing is the unknown risk that it would provide only a temporary stimulus, after which everyone would return to their pre-stimulus mentality, velocity would settle back down, but the economy would continue with a truly devalued money supply and higher prices. But unfortunately it would not counter the effects of the worse problems.

    The worse problems involve what happens to the banks. Yes---if it was some local bank, then you are certainly right. In fact there were quite a few banks that closed their doors during the credit crisis. Some of them were pretty big, like Washington Mutual. But these were not the banks that needed the bail outs. Instead it was the institutions that were too big to fail.

    In 2007 and 2008 we didn’t even know the full implications of what it meant to be too big to fail---and unfortunately there are still a lot of people that do not know the implications. The actual seriousness of this issue came from an unexpected source---a study done in Switzerland in, I believe, 2010, but possibly 2009. I should have some links on this study which I shall dig out for you (I have written about this before on Hipforums). But basically this economic research group in Switzerland was trying to create a computer model of the business relationships between global multinational corporations. They looked at ownership, cross-shareholdings, and revenue streams of all of the multinational corporations around the world. What they discovered was quite a surprise, but in retrospect it is a natural end result to successful capitalism. There was a core group of multinational corporations that was made up of maybe 3,000 to 4,000 companies (I forget the exact number) they directly or indirectly control almost all of global revenues. But then within that group is about 1,200 companies, a super-group, that own directly or indirectly 80% of all the global revenues. Together they form a tight-knit weave of mutual ownership through cross-shareholdings.

    Now before you go and start thinking that this is a major conspiracy, I will say that it was not created by design. It is the result of a natural evolution. If you are in charge of investing your large multinational company’s capital and you put it into a bunch of small companies clearly ignoring what used to be known as the Prudent Man’s Rule, you will probably miss out on your big bonus, and possibly even your job. Instead you will invest prudently and put it into other big stable companies, with steady, and hopefully growing revenue streams. They will probably be well diversified, also with multinational sales, which is why they are so stable and not subject to economic downturns and country risk involving individual countries and currencies. Your predecessor did the same thing the your predecessor’s predecessor did the same thing and so forth. The same thing was happening at all these other companies. Gradually as they all earned a growing chunk of you, you owned a growing chunk of them, and everyone grew.

    So what would happen if one of these companies failed? In 2007 – 2008 we theorized what it meant in terms of our domestic economy, we certainly suspected what it meant in terms of the global economy, and that is why we called them, ‘too big to fail.’

    There were those who questioned what would truly happen if one of them failed. When Lehman Brothers was on the verge of failing, the Bush administration decided to experiment and see what would really happen. Today a lot of those government officials like to deny that they just let Lehman fail. The problem is that the speeches and discussions were very public. Anyway, when Lehman Brother’s collapsed, it almost destroyed the global credit markets----I have already written---I believe it was my response 3 of 3, of how serious this was. We dodged the bullet in many ways with Lehman Brothers.

    These companies have all grown bigger since then. A number of them have grown smaller. I have written up several possible scenarios involving a failure with these companies. Scratcho may be interested to know that I seriously believe that a failure among a couple of these companies could very likely mean the end of Capitalism. None of these companies, such as Apple, or Bank of America, or Credit Suisse, or Shell, should be considered American, or Swiss, or Dutch, or any other sovereignty any longer. And Americans, or Germans, or British, or Swiss, or whoever no longer face a domestic question of whether or not to let these companies fail, because it is now an obligation to the world to save them.

    If one of these companies fail, it is hard for a bank or other company to replace them. No bank, for example, has been able to replace Lehman Brothers in various regards, for example, the 7 Day Credit market is still dead, and people are still holding debt from that market that can never really be sold. All they can do is wait till maturity---much of it is 50 years or more away because it wasn’t really 7-day debt, but rather long term debt that could be re-auctioned every week. I already wrote how serious that was.

    A failure, or especially a couple of failures, could potentially cause this super-group of 1200 companies to implode, creating a 'real' global economic melt-down. The domino effect could hit global treasury markets and everything else. We have never faced a problem like this before.

    Yet you still think that we could avoid bailing out these companies. That $20,000 isn’t going to do anyone much good as the global economy collapses. Remember, the Great Depression actually started in Europe. We Americans thought that if we maintained an isolationist policy that we would avoid the economic problems. But then there is the domestic impact that the failure of these companies creates. What part of too big to fail do you not get?

    Yes there was corruption within these banks. There were certainly cases of misuse of tarp funds. These banks certainly played their part in the creation of the credit crisis----but no they weren’t the lone evil villains that created the credit crisis---but that is a whole new post in itself---the real question is, who didn’t play a role in the creation of the credit crisis?

    Now as far as buying out the competition---that was nothing like Microsoft buying up any company it saw as a threat to any tiny piece of its business strategy, or any tiny piece that it wanted to add to its business strategy until the government split it up. Instead it was an issue of stronger banks buying up, and usually saving smaller banks that were struggling. Would you have preferred that these other banks be left to fend for themselves, requiring additional bail out funds, and upon failure, more FDIC insurance money to be paid out to account holders that would lose their money in the failed bank, and the risk of bank runs. The banks that were actually failing during the crisis were after all bringing into question the limits of how far the FDIC could go to protect account holders. (Not to mention the problem of whether big companies should be able to buy smaller companies in a laissez faire world that Libertarianism promotes---this seems akin to our constitutional freedom of religion---yet until the 1970’s it was illegal for Native Americans to worship or participate in the ceremonies of their own spiritual beliefs).

    Then there is the point that Tarp money was not just to bail out banks, There were insurance companies, auto companies, and so forth. In addition all the Tarp money (as far as I know, if not, then almost all) has been paid back to the US government at a profit---I repeat----at a profit. In other words, we as taxpayers, made good money through Tarp.

    Which brings up another problem---if Tarp was simply given away to every American as $20,000 each, instantly creating inflation and devaluing the dollar, and allowing both the US and global economy to freefall----how would we as taxpayers ever get any of that money back----not to mention, get it back at a profit?

    You also mention that the banks never lent the money as they were supposed to. Unfortunately, bankers, who do have a prudent side to them---never do lend out money in such serious financial crisis, because----suddenly every loan looks risky. But why would this be a problem for you? You, after all, seem to like Ron Paul---who believes that banks should not lend at all. They should only keep the money safe. He then recommends having an alternative risk-based industry where people who want to risk their money for an appropriate return could put their funds. Of course---in a credit crisis, why would anyone put their money in such an institution. Ron Paul has no understanding of investor psychology and the impact that limited lending has on aggravating a financial crisis. Such a concept is just as naïve as the answer you have given on how the TARP should have been handled.



    No, I did not see that on C-Span. I saw it on CNBC on the day those hearings took place.

    Have you ever gone through the actual report when the CPI is released? It is fairly detailed. It is not based on 1 or 2 items. It does not, for example, track the cost of an ear of corn and say, “Oh my, it has gone up 9%----we have a 9% inflation rate.” If it did then we would have a serious problem of assessing the actual problem. Do you understand why meat, corn, and any product which (damaging to our health) now uses corn syrup has probably gone up in price, and why that has nothing to do with the value of the dollar, or the actual inflation rate?

    The CPI is made up of a basket of products and services and tracks, and reports, all of them. The WPI (Wholesale Price Index) is the same. Both of these are transparent enough that any bona fide and legitimate economic think tank, or research group, domestic or foreign investment bank, investment boutique (especially those that specialize in shorting or betting against a rising market or security), or even a graduate student working on a thesis (or even an undergraduate student) could verify. And these represent two separate indices that could be checked against each other, because the CPI generally tracks the WPI. If these claims of lying to the people were ever proved to be true, it would create a very serious scandal, and be a serious blow of trust in America and its viability to the investing public and to global investors, and would seriously raise doubts over such things as the true value of treasuries and so on and so forth.

    If the official numbers really are wrong, why doesn’t someone come out and prove it? People are losing trust in our government because they are falling for lies like this perpetrated by people trying to sell newsletters and push their pseudo-economics to sell gold, not to mention the tea party, and the GOP.

    Yes, prices have gone up---but not overall. There are specific reasons why specific costs have gone up. The fact that they are going up is inflationary, but the fact the CPI remains relatively low, means that even with such inflationary forces, overall inflation is being kept in check.

    You obviously are not old enough to remember what real inflation is. Let me give an example, in the early 70’s McDonald’s had a commercial that claimed you could get a hamburger, fries, and Coke, for 4 people for a dollar and get money back----of course, the money you got back was just a dime---but you could feed a family of four for 90 cents. Then came hyperinflation in the late ‘70’s and into about 1982. In 1982, prices at McDonald’s were a lot closer to where they are now. I spent much of the 1980’s and 90’s overseas. I came back to the US to stay for the most part in 1996. From 1996 till now the dollar menu at McDonald’s has changed very little. Recently the French fries have been taken off and cost a little more, but I can still get a double burger (McDouble) for a dollar. It is now 2014.

    In 1981 and 1982, inflation was so high that interest rates---the actual cost of money, peaked at a point where you could buy a 30 year zero coupon Treasury Bond with a face value of $1,000,000 for a little over $7,000. In other words---if you would have invested a little over $7,000 (i.e. lent it to the US government), 30 years later, in 2011 or 2012, the US Government would have paid you back $1,000,000. If you don’t believe me, then go to your local Public Library, pull up a few Wall Street Journals, and see what the 30-Year Zero Coupon Bonds were trading for. Then you might compare them with today----though you already know that interest rates are low.

    In fact---it is today’s low interest rates that are really hurting people living on fixed incomes. It is the severe disparity in wages between the very rich and everyone else that is hurting the middle class and the poor.

    Now as for Ron Paul, I’ll answer that on the next question.



    What a Utopian idea---that big money in a society where government is small enough to leave business alone would not take advantage of all those other businesses. The presumption here is that big business—big money does not have power to take advantage of others, when there is no government to bribe and keep in their pocket. I still don’t understand how the laissez-faire smaller government structure of libertarianism, which implies fewer laws to limit business, would also have stronger laws to prevent business from using its resources to take advantage of others---this seems contradictory to me.

    For example, the law that prevented banks from going after investment banking profits, and investment banks from going after banking assets and business, was impeding the business growth of both banks and investment banks---meaning that it was anti-laissez-faire. However, as soon as those laws were lifted and banks and investment were free to do business unimpeded, that they quickly created a situation where everyone went debt crazy and wanted to buy houses to flip, and refinance their own house, and pizza delivery boys were selling loans, or flipping houses, etc. etc. etc. and then no one was checking risk because everyone assumed that someone else was. Then when everything blows up---then all of a sudden banks are evil, and the government is deceptive and out to enslave all of us, and everyone forgets their own part they played in this massive money game.

    And it seems to me that big money, doesn’t need big government to take advantage of anyone smaller. It still seems that they could do as much damage, if not more, under a system that gives greater freedom to do business, with a smaller government, and therefore a smaller regulatory oversight. You still haven’t convinced me, I’m sorry to say. It is still the same idealistic stuff that is like any other utopianist ideologue.

    Why does Dr. Paul’s donations not come from bankers and lobbyists and others? Hopefully because they are smarter than that. I joined in this thread because you said that liberals don’t understand true economics. I hoped to have a true and meaningful discussion on economics and Libertarianism, which might give me a new insight, or at least a clue as to how we will economically advance to a new level of society.

    This is my response to your next post as well, which has a video I didn’t even bother to watch. I am not saying this to be mean, and I apologize if you think highly of him. But I tried to give Dr. Paul a chance.

    He claims to like economics so much that he studies it in his free time. But then he tries to make a point by quoting Hans Sennholz, about the Fed, when he said it was, “the most tragic blunder ever committed by Congress… A new institution was born that was to cause, or greatly contribute to, the unprecedented economic instability in the decades to come.” (End the Fed, p. 23). The implication here is that the 1900’s was filled with decades of unprecedented economic instability---in other words, as if the business cycle was worse in the 1900’s than it was in the 1700’s and 1800’s. The only thing that comes close to the instability that was found in those previous centuries, was the Great Depression, which was all of one decade, and it wasn’t worse, other than the fact that our economy was bigger.

    On the next page, Ron Paul goes on to say that, “The claim is that the Fed would protect the financial system against inflation and violent swings in market activity.” I would expect that any economist, including anyone who claims to be enthralled with economics so much that they constantly study it, would at the very least understand that the Fed was created to prevent the ravages of deflation, and that the idea of controlling inflation was simply a subsequent icing on the cake. Especially someone who spends so much time talking to Fed officials.

    On Page 7, he writes that stopping the Fed would put an end to the business cycle, inflation, and build prosperity for all Americans. Yet not once in the whole book does he ever explain how this amazing thing would happen. It’s as if stopping the Fed would create this magical mystery realm where unlike anytime prior in World History, businesses would collectively always grow, without ever creating too much demand for their product, where people would never make too much money, and therefore the economy would never overheat, or run into bottlenecks of any kind, and where everyone would make money and be happy, and obviously the stock market would forever grow without any need to correct or pull back, but yet no one would ever start buying too much because they would all be satisfied to have their money grow continuously forever. And of course there would never be any greed, or fear, and everyone would live in their castle’s and live happily ever after…

    To see what happened before the FED, just look at the chart I provided in the post before the last one.

    Then, in a later chapter, he actually praises deflation as a good thing, citing the falling cost of technology as an example (p.39 of, My Intellectual Influences). He actually says, “So I do not believe deflation is a threat. In fact, we would be so lucky to face such a ‘threat’!” I simply could not believe what I was reading. Why does technology go down in price? Not because of deflation, but because of several things, mainly: 1.) the expensive R&D, marketing and other costs are eventually covered; 2.) Growing market demand is created, providing growing sales; 3.) Increased demand enables increased production which results in economies of scale; 4.) Profit incentives drive the creation of increased efficiencies in production, marketing, and so forth; 5.) Competition develops which drives pricing down.

    Ron Paul actually says that inflation is the real problem. Any economist should be able to tell you how wrong this is. Deflation is definitely more destructive than inflation. I have already written about the ravages of deflation. Let me know if you need me to repeat that.

    I could go on for some time about Ron Paul. Every page he writes that I have read contains misinformation, mistakes, incorrect assumptions, or amazing and unexplained claims. He has no understanding, for example, of the implications of the Gold Standard. He claims to be close to Greenspan---perhaps Greenspan should have explained this to him. Ron Paul also tells us who his influences are----not surprisingly, the pseudo-economics of a number of Gold Bugs.

    Therefore any economics argument that is backed by Ron Paul, I won’t take the time to even consider.
     
  13. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    What would you rather? A world where government runs all the businesses and appropriates all of our money? You don't even understand the conversation, and of course you side with the Liberal, even though he's endorsing government bailouts, corrupt banks and, the extensive government that has caused this problem.

    Capitalism is the only system that has caused a middle class- it wasn't government that did that.

    You're part of the problem, and I hope you know it one day, but my hopes are a little high for humanity and civility, so I doubt it.

    What are you talking about? Are you saying you think there's some kind of government conspiracy? Careful, you might get kicked out of liberalism
     
  14. fraggle_rock

    fraggle_rock Member

    Messages:
    1,202
    Likes Received:
    557
    You don't even seem to understand how life works.

    If you had no money, but the government provided you with absolutely everything you could possibly want any time you wanted it, do you think that you would be oppressed?

    I know it's pointless trying to talk about actual history with you because you just keep throwing out unsubstantiated claims about lower taxes helping the economy (completely absurdly wrong in every conceivable way).

    [​IMG]


    Despite what the Koch brothers want you to think, it was actually the labor unions that caused the true middle class.

    Early capitalism was responsible for the slave trade, colonialism, empires, and both world wars. Industrialization brought in a few changes but the vast majority of people were still extremely poor. It wasn't until the labor unions arrived that people began being able to afford decent lifestyles for themselves.

    The decline of unions mirrors the decline of the middle class perfectly:

    [​IMG]

    So thanks to Reagan and the free market ideological influence on government for the past 30 years, you can either belong to a union and not have a job, or you can not belong to the union and forego a livable wage.

    Government is responsible for this only insofar as it has chosen to weaken itself and surrender its power to the free market... which has allowed the corporations to revert to their 'true' selves from the era of worker exploitation/slavery.
     
  15. scratcho

    scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,485
    Likes Received:
    14,730
    25="you don't even understand the conversation". I wasn't referring to any of the political/money games that are or have been played. Not present day conservatism. Not liberalism or any other 'ism'. I was talking about --and i'll paraphrase--" humans fiddled while the earth burned." Within the context of 'modern economics' as is played now, MVW and FR have it right,IMO. Agrarian societies are disappearing in the service of buying products made from limited resources. This WILL have to end. Along with stock markets, banks, money and the rest of the trappings of the ridiculous money games that are rigged, obfuscatory and exclusionary. The present system is what drives those who are able to buy and have and those who wish they were able to buy and have. That created desire drives it ALL and this cannot go on forever. I realize that this "startling" concept is way ahead of the coming MAJOR changes that we as humans--the determining force in the value relegation of usable but limited resources, will not strike a note here. So go on back to the discussion of liberals-conservatives and the money games. If I haven't made an understandable point--that's on me. Too early to point this out, I suppose. Let's just keep on as we are. All is well and will remain so. Uh-huh.
     
  16. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    But you see, StpLSD25, the extensive government part is where you have to come in----because I don't really want a big government, I do not want excessive legislation, I do not want a police state...

    There are periods of excessive economic crisis where I can see no other way but to pursue government bailouts. History is full of too many examples where without them, depression and long-term economic repression result. History has cases, including the one we just experienced, where bailouts have saved the economy from collapsing too deeply and enabled a more rapid recovery.

    Not all banks are corrupt, but corruption is a part of human nature and it exists in all industries----except for auto repair---yes you can always trust an auto mechanic to steer you right and not take advantage of you... (Like the mechanic the other day that saved me hundreds of dollars by giving me blinker fluid for my blinkers at half price, and replaced the rectabular excursion bracket without any charge for labor. Then he wound my tires on tighter for me (by twisting them backwards---boy who would have known they needed that?). Not to mention that he discovered that the last idiot that did my brakes, put the left pads on the the right tires and the right pads on the left tires. It only cost me $3500 for all of that...). Seriously, the dynamic of capitalism is a dynamic of human emotion and psychology, greed, fear, hope, disappointment, are all a part of that. The invisible hand naturally gives corruption an environment to fester and grow in capitalism.

    My words may be harsh to you---but I was hoping you would have some strong arguments, or perhaps something that might get me to thinking of a liberal small government structure. I certainly hoped you would not be trapped in the pseudo-economics of Ron Paul, and the gold bugs.

    And this to me is the danger of political pop culture that is so enthralled with conspiracy theories and overly simplistic arguments of monetary doom and one world governments. People waste so much time with that crap that no one bothers to ask the true questions or search for the true solutions that will upset the status quo, and carry man to a higher level. True there are conspiracies. I myself doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy. I can tell you a shocking thing or two about the CIA in the Philippines---and I know they are true because they were told to me by a close female friend who does not tell stories, and she broke up with her American boyfriend who took very good care of her financially even though she didn't want or need his money, but he was an operative for the 'Company', which meant nothing to her until she discovered what he was doing for the Company, and as a doctor who saves lives, she could not bring herself to be with him any longer.

    It is like political pop culture fills everyone's heads with useless bullshit so that they stray way way off the track and therefore debilitating any chances of meaningful social change. I'm not the sharpest tool in the toolbox, there are many things I do not know, but what I do know I try to know very well. As a hippie I am always questioning and challenging, including my own beliefs. But when it comes to political pop culture, I feel like Kierkegaard complaining about the fake meaningless lives of the public, or Nietzsche speaking of the decadent mindless status quo (how was it he referred to the masses?)

    StpLSD25----I have yet to answer your last post or two. But I have provided you with some very real problems. Ron Paul won't be able to answer or resolve such problems in a realistic way. The economic history of our country will tell you that. I apologize if I sound derogatory at times. But I urge you to find real answers to those problems. If you do, then you will have some meaningful dialogue to promote Libertarianism. Even if I do not agree with you, perhaps from your arguments I can provide a liberal perspective that also represents a smaller government. After all, as the noted 20th Century Philosopher, Isaiah Berlin, claimed, it is the shaky equilibrium between the right and left that keeps Democracy alive. We have problems when this equilibrium strays too far to one direction or the other.

    Scratcho has a somewhat Malthusian view of our future. I think we have two choices, and that it is the resolution of the Post-Modern Crisis that will determine which way we go---on the one hand, it would be Scratcho's path as we use up our limited resources, and greed and fear consume us, as we stuggle to survive in an increasingly polluted and poisoned environment. On the other hand, I believe the other path is one of a continued survival of mankind, but it requires a new unifying truth to our culture---a source of meaning to both our culture (which is now a global culture) and our lives as individuals. It must be multiplistic and not reductionist (reflecting the new diversity of modern life).

    I see it as emphasizing the subjective over the objective, politically you could refer to this as the individual over the masses or the government.

    But how do we resolve these serious problems? StpLSD25, are you up to the job?

    I told you the situation as it exists---what I ask of you is to think out of the box----give us something new
     
  17. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    Good post. Though I question if the Union Membership argument is actually a reflection of a deeper philosophical trend---one of greed, and an acceptance of the false promises of trickle down economics...

    Just as the rise of the unions accompanied post-World War II demographic changes that also helped give rise to prosperity and the Middle Class.
     
  18. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    No, I don't. I know what Liberalism is, and I highly disagree with their premises. Every time I say I disagree with liberalism, I always get told I'm wrong; But, when I ask how I'm wrong, Liberals can't explain it better than "not all of us believe that," or, they'll say "I don't support everything that obama does" when they support Obama.

    Liberals do believe in expanding government, and wasting other peoples money, and that should be proven by their desire for tax-payer funded pre kindergarten, health insurance and collage grants. These things cost us money, but make the government and their buddies money. To Liberals, no one should have any power or freedom, except government.

    Ok, but we're not talking about Japan- we're talking about the American Government; Even their guys who 'track waste' waste our money.


    I don't see it as an attempt to do anything for the people, except rip them off by forcing them into buying insurance.

    Granted, there will be a few competitors, but, he's effectively putting several out of business. This doesn't help the medical-industrial complex we have that you mentioned, I think it will only heighten it..

    Obama is placing the bill for elderly Americans, on younger Americans like me. Idk why Liberals oppose private monopolies, but support government monopolies. I mean think about it- people used to be able to pay their medical bills out-of-pocket, and they used to be able to work and pay their way through college. Neither of these things are feasible now that the government is involved.

    There are other grants and loans, given by various places. But my point is that no one can pay their way through college, unless they're filthy rich.

    That's the thing about the Federal government- everything is expensive. I mean, think about it- the White House was claiming they pay 100k per roll of toilet paper; Is like they're wiping their ass with 100 bills!


    I'll just never see it as the Government's job to save failing businesses, and I don't think it's the taxpayers responsibility.

    People would've spent most of that. I don't think many people ever had 20 grand to just spend on themselves, unless they were one of the fairly wealthy people. But, in turn, much of it would've ended up in those banks and companies anyway, and that would've really stimulated the economy, much,much better than this.


    I don't understand how the two are related. You think because supply and demand it will raise prices. That's not printing money, so how would that devalue it? I don't literally support giving it to the people, but, it would have been much better than giving it to failing banks.
    Like you said, there were other banks like Washington mutual, and others before TARP. We created a super-power bank, allowing a few to buy up all their competitors. My last bank account was Washington Mutual, cause I don't trust those cons anymore: They charge you for having a bank account and, the bank of America actually fired people, and stopped giving out loans after receiving the bailout money.

    Not only that, but Bernanke secretly printed and paid money to a bunch of different banks aswell-- 16 TRILLION dollars worth.


    I just don't believe it's the taxpayers responsibility to pay them back. If anything, one of them should've saved some money when they did have it, to insure they wouldn't go under. It's like the government is cheating at a game of monopoly. Their buddies go bankrupt, and in turn, they give them a bunch of money, to keep them in the game. It's not fair to us little guys, who pay a good chunk of our paycheck into taxes every week. Those bankers think they own the country and the world, just because they've falling into wealth, and oohhh say the "Rockefeller" name.



    Again, I don't believe that. It's just picking winners and losers. What about the middle class who is struggling to pay taxes. They may be seen as a slight burden to the rich, they are a huge burden to the working class, that wouldve been middle class just 1-2 decade(s) ago.



    That's the whole thing about supply and demand though, people support the companies they want. Sometimes, businesses with good products or services go under, but that is a possibility any business owner faces, and I still don't think it's right for the taxpayer to get businesses out of dept, or lift them from the dead. Personally, I would've kept that WaMu account, before I switched to chase-- so maybe there was other reasoning behind it, and we need to let the market play it's role.

    I don't believe that. If they were too big to fail, they shouldn't have. Malinvestments, waste and, risky assets- shouldn't be at the expense of the taxpayer. In real capitalism, if a business fails it fails, and no one is 'too big to fail.'

    I think you're using fear tactics by trying to make me agree with you, but, I just don't. The middle and working class pay alot of money into the system, and they are the ones who could've actually used that bailout money, instead it went to prop up failing banks and businesses.


    I don't think the government should be bail them out either way. I personally don't like banks, I think their system is based on fraud and forgery. I know they only keep a small percent of the money they pretend they have 'on hand.' I don't think it should be on the taxpayer to keep industries like that alive, when the whole system is based on lies and theft.


    (Not to mention the problem of whether big companies should be able to buy smaller companies in a laissez faire world that Libertarianism promotes---this seems akin to our constitutional freedom of religion---yet until the 1970’s it was illegal for Native Americans to worship or participate in the ceremonies of their own spiritual beliefs).
    [/QUOTE]


    Idk what you're talking about- Idk who Laissez Faire is. So idk how it went from business to religion.. But I support any religion people want to follow- if they want to ingest peyote or LSD, idc, I don't think the government should choose for that individual.


    Do you have a link for that? I found one that said we've almost broke even, but nothing that said we're totally paid back, or that they're paying interest on it. Moreover, more businesses would've taken their place, and it would've been fine.

    I don't think they should've let themselves run that dry. They were giving loans who anyone who would ask-- that's a risk, they should've known, and did more to protect their ass.

    I didn't say they were supposed to, I'm just saying the taxpayer kept their lights on, and in turn, they fired us, stopped lending and, took 5-6 years to pay us back. (money that will never get to the middle/working class, only the VERY rich like them, or the poor who many are unwilling to work.


    Actually, stock brokers like you are the one's using Fake Economics; true economics are based on supply and demand, and the free market. You're insisting that everything is fine, and we should trust the elite to protect us both from security threats and, economic peril- and I don't believe either of these lies.

    No one is falling for anything- when you have an open mind, and you realize the government has: passed all these tyrannical laws, declared the homeland a "battlefield," banned the Constitution for 2/3rds of citizens (who live on the coastline, and, spied on people who support 3rd party candidates, it's just common sense that something is going on. It seems people who support Obama, or had high hope for him, just can't accept that he's just another Bush.


    There's an old CPI that is much higher though. And inflation is high,I dare you to ask regular Americans if prices are high- and I'm sure most of them will say yes. Prices of gas, oil and, coffee, reflect that hidden inflation.

    It's not a fair comparison, because the burgers used to be much bigger, so did the value frys. And you know, the 70's is when we came off of the gold standard- just saying.



    They're kept artificially low, which will cause problems in the future. The middle and working class are struggling, and insane taxes are a big part of that. Most people could really use an extra $200 a week, this will help them more than the government could, by making some elaborate program, that would just waste $200 on a day of paying their janitor. Seriously, the US government wastes money!


    It's a tad more contradictory to support: a government entirely bribed by the corporate elite, bailouts for the corporate elite, totalitarianism and crony capitalism that provides special benefits to the 0.1%, and the Military industrial complex- Then, turn around and say you're against them.

    I'm the one offering an alternative to that system. There would be no change in a Liberal society. We already have bribery laws, law against fraud etc, so we just enforce them.

    That is not true. They wouldn't be able to get us into wars for profit, they wouldn't have bailouts to fall back on and, they wouldn't get government benefits. Look at the Military-industrial complex, the government is creating these monster businesses, by favoring the elite like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs- they are able to bribe the president and congress, but it'd be nearly impossible if their was a congress in each state, instead of one all-powerful federal government. It is not idealistic. It's probably gonna be a pain in the ass to fix all these problems, but, the most important thing to me is that the government is following the Constitution- and they're not, so, we're obviously headed into tyranny.


    You joined for little old me? :hat:

    The problem is, we have fundamental differences in the way we perceive the role of government. You seem to think the government should be a soft money cushion for the very rich and very poor to fall back on. You claim to want to help the middle class, but there's nothing in Liberalism which does that. That is why I say both parties are going in the same direction, and it doesn't matter anymore who we pick.


    But anyway, so, you're a liberal who understands and worked in economics. That doesn't mean I have to agree, or that you're inherently right. I believe these practices is exactly what's robbing the middle class, and I don't think bailing out or helping the elite is helping the middle class.

    His point is though, that you can't just fabricate money. Gold has been money for thousands of years, I mean it's a true currency metal. Fiat money on the other hand, always caused problems- Rome mixed their real gold with fake gold, allowing them to spend more, but also causing a huge rise in prices. I believe this contributed significantly to their collapse; If you look at England, when they devalued sterling 14% in one day, prices went so high, they couldn't even pay their garbage disposal workers. But, we somehow believe this isn't going to happen to us, because we got this whole economic system controlled by private bankers. When they give out 500 billion or 16 trillion to overseas banks, that devalues our dollar which is based on nothing but bad assets and debt. The whole system is a lie, and it's on the verge of collapse because of that. You think it's stable, because when they print more money, it stabilizes it for awhile but, at some point it's all gonna fail. When people realize that even if we gave the Federal Reserve all there paper bills back, we would still owe them money, then, you realize we're all just debt slaves.


    The Federal Reserve Note is basically as valuable as a monopoly note; unless you have some attraction to the federal reserves paper. But seriously, it's just insane- first of all, where did all of our gold go? Is that the second time the government stole our gold, or was that the fed?

    Moreover, their playing god with something that can be so simple.. You act so serious about the current system- but economics is just trading. People used to trade with goats, weed, gold, silver- things with value. All I'm saying is the dollar has no value, and therefore, we shouldn't use it, or owe the federal reserve for using it.
     
  19. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    Before continuing, I thought I would share this. It kind of applies to this discussion in a fun way. (I changed my name to MVW to preserve the anonymity this forum provides).

    Some of you know that I am finishing up a book and class on Technical Analysis and Contrarian Investing/Trading that I am selling on the web and so forth. The book is titled, 'The Worm Will Turn (or, Using charts to trade or invest like a pro).' The book is a complete class in itself, for example, at the end of each chapter is a quiz over that chapter. Of course, some of it is tongue in cheek. As an example, the quiz to the first chapter simply asks, "Who is the greatest and most spectacular analyst and market technician of the 20th Century, and how much did he charge you for this class?" I decided that at the end of the book it will have to have that part that completes every book------a segment about the author. Here is what I wrote (the first paragraph is a bit boring):

    ABOUT THE AUTHOR

    MVW has spent somewhere around 36 years in the stock market, most of that as a professional. Inspired by Gomez Addams of the Addam’s Family, he was the first foreigner to become a registered Stock Broker at a Japanese brokerage firm in Japan when he worked for Yamatane Securitites. He then became a securities analyst and Assistant Vice President at Shearson Lehman, which then acquired E.F. Hutton to become Shearson Lehman Hutton. In the fall of 1988, he predicted when and at what level the Tokyo Stock market would peak at the end of 1989. In June of 1989 he left Shearson to start a small investment company, Rising Dragon Investments & Holdings, Inc in Manila, Philippines with his second wife. In 1996 he returned to the states and then worked for Charles Schwab & Co. Inc, for almost 15 years. There he spent most of his time helping active traders, including teaching them how to read charts and trade.

    But did you see how full of himself this guy is? I mean, what an egotistical prick! Did you see that quiz he made us take at the end of the first chapter? Come on now—the greatest analyst and market technician of the 20th Century? I never saw him appear on CNBC sharing his market wisdom for the world to hear.

    Apparently he has written articles for the Kansai Time Out, The Kyoto Journal, and even wrote a column for the English version of the Mainichi Daily News for several years, until his Compliance Department at Shearson decided it was a conflict of interest. He also was interviewed by the Japanese economics publication, Toyo Keizai, in regards to his prediction of the peak of the Japanese Stock Market. But really—the greatest and most spectacular analyst and market technician of the 20th Century?

    Yeah, maybe he did spot all those market turns. But why wouldn’t he? He was a market insider, for Christ’s sake. They know all that stuff—that is why it is such a scam! And did you catch that part where he let slip the bit about the secret quantum computer that allows the 1% to see the future when they invest and trade? Yep—it was right there in black and white, I quote, “Nor is there some special quantum computer that whips out charts for a secret group of members of the infamous 1%, which shows data from tomorrow or next week.” Surely this egotistical Robber Baron is in cahoots with the Rothschilds and the Morgans I bet he is even against the Gold Standard! Oh wait—he is!

    His friends tell me that he isn’t really like that, he is actually quite humble. Yeah, right! So who wrote this book then, his alternate ego? Apparently, they say, he currently works as the Vice Chairman and the Treasurer of the White Horse Creek Council, a non profit that protects and promotes traditional cultural and spiritual values of Native Americans. Word has it that if you have a bona fide tribal ID he will send you this book for free. But how do we know these people are even his friends? He probably paid a bunch of random people to say that stuff.

    And did he make you sign some kind of disclaimer before taking his course? What’s up with that? Right?

    He currently lives in Colorado with his trophy wife, a Filipina and former TV and movie actress in Japan. Boy, I bet she blames him for ruining her career by bringing her to the rugged wilds of Denver, Colorado. …and their youngest son. Children? Oh man, I bet they turned out to be monsters? What kind of father could this guy be? And don’t get him started about his first wife. Geeeze! That’s a long boring story, about Japan and something about fraudulent signatures, and someone breaking into his Tokyo condo, or something...

    He is currently working on three books, something about resolving the Post-Modern crisis. So what? Now he also bills himself as the greatest philosopher of the 21st Century? Oh wait, I am right, he seems to think that he is continuing the work of the German Existentialist, Martin Heidegger. He preaches that Modern Culture needs to find meaning, a new unifying truth, in order for mankind to survive, but it must be one that avoids the trappings of reductionist thinking and utopianism—a triumph of the subjective over the rationalist objective. Well whoopety doo! He isn’t going to make me give up my Post-Planter culture ethics and Industrial Age way of thinking.

    And he even has the gall to make rules for us to follow, Rules like, “Rule #5 Don’t make assumptions.” Or, “Rule #16 It’s only worth what someone else will pay for it.” Hey! You aren’t the boss of me!

    He also sends out his own Newsletter, The Rebel Wolf Formation. He says its purpose is to spot market turns and demonstrate technical analysis as the markets move. Rebel wolf? What kind of a name is that? Oh yes—he insists that he is a staunch contrarian. And a hippy! …well he is a baby boomer, but I bet anything he is part of the problem—you know—those wealthy evil Wall Street bankers! I bet he knows who really killed JFK!

    --Mortimer Festivus III (a.k.a. MVW)
     
  20. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    Idk what that has to do with my reply to your post.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice