Cliche red herrings against libertarianism

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

  1. rusty_apache

    rusty_apache Guest

    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    9
    I just spent way too long reading this conversation...

    For decades I've railed against the party in power, because to some extent they are both corrupt. They have the whole good cop/bad cop scenario down pat. However for the first time in my life I find myself defending this President because of the rabid, fiction based attacks on him. The "right" remains silent on his biggest violations of trust because those are policies they tend to agree with. So there is never REALLY any productive discussion just a lot of bickering about what goes on in the privacy of our bedrooms, marriages and uterus'.

    I have to say that in all of your well written and thought out explanations, you always seem to reliably return to the most valid point of all.
    The conspiracy theories and the media's diversionary tactics that keep Americans infighting only allows the elites to tighten the noose around the neck of the middle class even tighter.

    I believe America could be great again if we adopted the correct balance of conservative and progressive ideas. For that to happen we will have to learn to drop the extraneous issues of social morality and get on to the business of economic morality. The Elites want nothing but to increase quarterly earnings at all costs. No matter HOW many "lazy takers" have to starve. The question is how do impoverished Serfs afford the goods and services that cause there to be quarterly earnings in the first place? Reducing America to 3rd world status has great short term profits, but for how long?

    I also understand the libertarian principle of rewarding a single woman with increased benefits for every child produced only creates an incentive to have many more. Conversely, reducing the wages of the workers creates a disincentive to have more children. If we extrapolate that for several generations the Working class will be greatly outnumbered in short order. What our neoconservative "friends" always seem to forget is a living wage would far reduce "entitlement" spending because contrary to the propaganda, most Americans would work if given a job. Especially one with a 1st world wage.

    I'm a late model baby boomer that worked hard and "built it myself"...... but NOT in a vacuum. I would not own my home and properties outright, while still being debt free, if I had been born in Somalia.


    You are vastly smarter than I am in economics. We need somebody like you to convince the Elites that bringing the 3rd world up to our standards is more profitable, and more SUSTAINABLE in the long run. Or convince working Americans that we have to unite in order to regain control of our Representative Republic.

    This same thing happens over and over and over.... will we be smart enough to stop it this time?

    "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
    - Thomas Jefferson
     
  2. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    Nothing in particular other than without this discussion I probably wouldn't have thought of labeling myself as that evil Wall Street Banker type---tongue in cheek wise--------


    Rusty Apache----I enjoyed your post too.

    Before I continue to answer your posts, let me approach the issue of gold a different way.

    You are convinced that its value will be preserved much better than the dollar would be in the event of a monetary or economic crisis. Gold has such a strong cultural and historical value that plays out in investor psychology that you are probably right, in the short term, gold could potentially jump in a crisis situation, depending on the significance of the situation. But as far as providing actual value as a medium of exchange, gold is very limited and outdated.

    Back in the late 70’s or early 80's while reading that book--I can't think of the title--Ron Paul mentions the author in his book----something like, How to Prepare for the Next Monetary Crisis----something in the book got me to thinking and I pulled out an Encyclopedia (I believe it was the Encyclopedia Britannica---that was years ago) and looked up inflation. It had a graph of Global Inflation and a history of global inflation that went back into the 1200's, or 900’s or earlier as I recall.

    It was pretty interesting how price inflation has risen steadily in an exponential curve upwards since around the 1500's - 1600's. The reason why according to the encyclopedia, is the discovery of gold in South America. Until then, inflation was very low, if any. Gold and silver was typically the medium of exchange, especially in the Western world. But there was only so much gold and it was mined and retrieved as best that man in the known world of the times was able to do. Gold reserves probably grew in line with population growth, and gold therefore was a suitable means of exchange----even though it was largely only used by the wealthy.

    The discovery of gold in the new world however produced a large new supply. As gold was shipped back to Europe, global price inflation suddenly took off. Then mining technology grew, new mines and gold rushes appeared, and so forth. But all this additional gold, including the development of new sources, had an overall effect of rising inflation on a global basis all the way up to when Industrial Age activities took over replacing gold as a factor (since new sources were not being developed as they once had been). This is a bit different from the classic definition of inflation---a literal increase in a nation’s money supply, so it was not the kind of inflation that the Swiss Gold bugs referred to when speaking of individual (and fiat) currencies. Though the result was based on largely the same dynamic, with the same results—the increase in gold supplies acted like an increase in any other monetary medium with an increase in prices. This is an aspect of inflation that the Swiss Gold Bugs chose not to examine for obvious reasons. (Ok, if you didn’t catch the obvious---it didn’t fit in with the marketing plans of the Swiss Banks, and there goals to hold the gold of the world’s wealthy.)

    Why do I bring this up? Not to make the point that gold creates inflation----today, with limited reserves, if we were to use it to back currency, it would create the opposite and more serious effect of creating deflation and force a declining money supply upon a growing population.

    No—my point is one of value—I didn’t quite catch the full implication back then when I was younger, but I did realize that gold is no different than any currency, whether paper or not, because it is the same as what happens with the abundance of money: the more there is the less value it has. All of these gold bugs insist that we need a gold standard to keep the dollar in check, because without it, there will be too much money, and the money will drop in value (i.e. it will take more money to buy goods). But the same is true for gold, as the world’s gold supply increased, things became more expensive, in other words, when gold (e.g. pieces of eight) was the global currency, prices still went up.

    When you truly understand inflation, there is no real surprise here. The encyclopedia focused on the increase in gold, but did not even consider some of the other factors I have brought up in this thread, such as the increase in population (which was small until about 1900) and the growth of the global economy.

    But here is the thing. Gold only has the abstract value we place onto it. There is no real value, and because it is abstract it is always relative.

    In a serious situation where demand for food and medicine skyrockets, gold will surely be deemed worthless. But how about a different situation where, as predicted by all the gold bugs, the dollar collapses, but somehow things are not so serious (or at least not yet) where there is a mad rush for food and medicine. Could gold replace the dollar as a medium of exchange? Well---let me just check my bank account for all the Krugerands I have. Oh wait---I don’t see a section for krugerands, or any other kind of gold coin. In fact I don’t have a single gold coin. I do have a gold wedding band---it is 23 kt. (I bought it when my wedding band was stolen and gold was very cheap, and I thought, ‘why not have the real thing?’ I still have a 24 kt. baht chain. It is a small and one of the first ones that my wife gave me. All the others I sold when gold was at its peak. I can always go back to Denver’s little Chinatown area and buy new ones---they set the price at the 10:00 am Denver time price of gold, but we only keep them as jewelry (always careful to wear them in a way that if they come undone (as they sometimes do from the very soft gold, that they will fall into a tucked in shirt, so we won’t lose them).

    The thing is, we no longer use pieces of 8; Krugerands are not widely circulated in America, nor any other gold coin, nor are there enough gold coins in the world to provide a viable money supply for Americans, let alone the rest of the world; very few people even know what a baht chain is, and of those that have them, they usually wear them as jewelry (after all no one here needs to wear gold jewelry to bribe a border official, or prevent pirates or bandits from running off with your daughter, or simply to buy a bed for your family for the night as you are escaping a war-torn battle zone that during brief periods of peace serves as your homeland); neither gold foil, gold bars, gold nuggets, nor even gold jewelry serves much purpose as a medium of exchange—so if this monetary crisis did happen, how would gold keep its value, and even serve as a medium of exchange?

    Those days are long gone. It wouldn’t take long for people to realize in a monetary crisis that gold cannot be a viable medium of exchange. It would simply be another metal. Plain and simple: the value placed on gold is just as abstract as the value placed on paper money. The concept that gold must be more valuable than paper money is simply an existential illusion. When gold is used to back paper money, we simply place the abstract value of paper money to gold, which creates the illusion of gold as having a ‘hard’ value---only because it is the reference point. (But even then gold fluctuates in value which made managing the gold standard difficult). In the post-gold standard economy with the US as the primary economic superpower we find the exact same dynamic sans gold. Fiat currencies collapsed against the US Dollar as if the US Dollar was the gold standard. Without the gold standard, gold fluctuates against the dollar and it has gone both up and down. If gold was backed by yellow-cake (Uranium) then uranium would become the reference point and gold would fluctuate against uranium, and uranium would appear to be the hard asset (and the argument would go that uranium is more valuable because there is less of it, and when coal and gas are gone it will be the primary source of power (yeah—I know that argument is so 1970’s but as an example…)). How do we know that gold has such a fleeting abstract value as if it too is just another currency just like paper money? Because when the new world---a whole new source of gold---was discovered, the influx of continuously growing global gold reserves resulted in an exponential growth in global inflation.

    The value of gold is simply determined, like anything else that we humans place value on, by supply and demand. This has clearly been demonstrated by the course of the gold market after the end of the gold standard. Part of this demand is the result of market psychology. Gold has had a beautiful run over the past few years because of this market psychology. The value placed on anything via market psychology is a perceived value.

    Let me tell you about another perceived value---tulips in the tulip bubble of the 1600’s during a peak of the Dutch economy. The tulip had just been introduced and it was immediately prized by gardeners, collectors, lovers, and any other person that might like flowers. Prices started growing and before long took off, gaining the attention of all kinds of speculators. Pretty soon, the bulb of a Viceroy brand of tulip, for example, hit prices as high as 4,150 guilders. This was at a time when a skilled craftsman, for example, earned an annual salary of 300 guilders. People argued that there were only so many of them, and that it took so long to grow them, and it depended on climate and growing seasons, and their beauty and smell were beyond anything else in earthly floral pleasures and everyone everywhere wanted them… How could the value ever go down? But then one day a delivery boy got hungry and had no food. He was supposed to deliver the tulips to a buyer who had paid for them, but instead he started eating them. This silly event quickly pointed out to everyone concerned, how fleeting this perceived value placed on flowers actually was, and prices plummeted-----the first recorded bursting of a financial bubble.

    Likewise—how long would gold last as a valuable medium of exchange when people suddenly discover that there is no way to use it viably as a medium of exchange?
     
  3. scratcho

    scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,486
    Likes Received:
    14,733
    Very informative, MVW. I've always said--nothing jumps up from the ground with price tags attached.
     
  4. rusty_apache

    rusty_apache Guest

    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    9
    I don't recall even mentioning Gold, but actually I did dump a stupid amount of cash into 19th century double Eagles when the US began Quantitative easing a few years ago. My first choice was a "bargain" on a 1960 Bentley, but then I thought to myself....Where the HELL do you even drive a Bentley anymore?

    I'm just a simple working person without sophisticated investment savvy. I believe I already think differently from most folks. I mainly like the history of the old coins, so to me they are not just a metal investment. I chose many of them because their mint dates correspond to key dates in the lives of my ancestors, like birth dates and stuff.

    My thinking was that no one can electronically hack my safety deposit box from Indonesia and clean out my funds. If the "conservatives" are correct about inflation I would have a hedge against the declining purchasing power of paper money. I bought into it actually HOPING that I would lose a lot of money because falling Gold values in my little brain would mean that inflation is not rampant, and jobs are possibly being created. I collected the coins for the long haul, to pass on to my descendants, not to cash in on for a quick buck. I have them because I like them.

    I also have been collecting antiques, and various antique vehicles for 30 years, and in a decent economy they could be sold off over time, and it doesn't cost anything to have stuff hanging out in the barn. I like the way I can rebuild or repair ever component of them without a computer diagnosis and they have no delicate circuitry to eventually malfunction, or be taken down by solar flares or EMP. It's worked for Cubans since the 1950s and has for me too. I've had a wonderful life, not worrying about car notes and credit card debt. Sure it sucks to have to get out and fix an elderly car or truck, but it has a certain satisfaction when the "problem" is solved and a 50-75 year old piece of machinery is again operating flawlessly. People accuse me of "liking" to fix things, and I'm certain to correct them. I say I love "having worked on them" (past tense) I enjoy the fruits of my labor, but the bloody knuckles, cracking, grease stained skin, and stinging sweat in my eyes....not so much! The bottom line is, if the economy improves and I lose money on Gold, then hopefully in my golden years, others will have enough prosperity to buy my rusty treasures instead.

    I also have urban real estate that can be rented, and 5 heavily wooded acres of hardwood forest east of San Antonio that can be used for firewood/cooking, and a water well. I have lakefront property on Buchanan WITH water rights. I turned down $4,500 an acre for the lake Buchanan property, because it's been in the family since 1934. Even though there is no legal right of way road access to the land, I can still get there by canoe. I want to build a tiny rock cottage eventually and live off the grid there. That land is too rocky for much agriculture ,but it would make an excellent location for a retreat due to it's natural and artificial isolation. My family owns a well maintained 1943 ford tractor, as well as a variety of plows, and harrow disks. I'm now investing in rust again, in the form of cultivators and planter implements for the tractor, because I know that one day water and food may be the new "gold".

    I would not call my family "doomsday preppers", just that we're thinking ahead, while trying to remain cautiously optimistic. We reload our own ammunition, and hope like hell it only gets used for target practice, and not self defense.

    That said, I really enjoy your enlightening comments from a business perspective.
     
  5. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    That is interesting Rusty Apache. I am an optimist myself---but we are rapidly approaching a crossroads, and where our future tool---representative of where we are as a human race---will be either a quantum computer or a sharpened stick.

    When I said "before I continue to answer your posts..." I was referring to the posts of StpLSD25.
     
  6. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    MVW- you never replied to my post. Maybe that's "informative" to people like scratcho, but I believe I made many good points that you didn't acknowledge.
     
  7. Raga_Mala

    Raga_Mala Psychedelic Monk

    Messages:
    1,039
    Likes Received:
    10
    I, for one, would love to see the discussion move (as MVW suggested earlier) in the direction of small-government liberalism. In my opinion, the size of the government and the power of private capital have to be reduced and diffused concurrently. Essentially, my critique ends up leaning towards one or another form of libtertarian socialism, which to most would be a form of anarchism.

    The problem is concentrations of societal or institutional power per se. Whether the conditions and opportunities of your life are limited by a government bureaucracy or by narrow conglomerations of private ownership that control all the means of survival (or by a combination of both) is immaterial.

    Although isolated examples of somewhat-functional programs of social welfare in the current U.S. can be found, by and large I think it is a naive mistake to think of the state apparatus as a mechanism standing between the middle/working class and the moneyed classes, protecting as it were the interests of the former from the exploitative designs of the latter. It is very evident from the course of American history from the time of the Constitution that, while democracy is well and good up to a point, the state has a primary commitment to preserve the rights of property. 20th century history clearly bears out that the parts of the state apparatus which are not under electoral check have a tendency to rapidly become cronyistic and function on behalf of, or in collusion with, powerful private interests: the military/intelligence apparatus has been used, at the expense of the country as a whole (not to mention American and foreign lives), to serve the interests of our moneyed corporations abroad; the domestic military apparatus functions as a funnel for subsidies or contracts to various private industries; regulatory bureacracies end up promoting the interests of those they are meant to be regulating (for instance--talk of the "medical-industrial complex" is incomplete without the acknowledgement of the participation of the FDA et. al. in the dynamics that lead to the medical corporations' absurd profits); the law enforcement apparatus has been shamelessly used for class-warfare, from strike-breaking/union-busting to drug-law enforcement to the horrors of the prison-industrial complex. While the power of the electorate has allowed the implementation of some genuine social welfare legislation, the popularly-elected portions of the government fare little better, especially as the power of money in electioneering and the scientific efficiency of public relations techniques grow more powerful. In short, we find that Congress and the Executive (not to mention state governments) more often work for the interests of the moneyed elite than against them. Examples are manifold.

    On the other hand, the alternative of a pure free market seems to make little sense as concerns individual liberties, if we define those liberties broadly as a control over one's own destiny. Elimination of the compulsory (i.e. state) economy, without concurrent property reforms, leads only to the replacement of public/private conglomerate tyrannies with private tyrannies. Marx's analysis of industrial capitalism comes out being essentially correct. If one is obliged to bargain for one's life with the infinitely more powerful institutions that own all the means of living, one is little better off than a slave. A financialized economy actually compounds this power dynamic compared to an industrial economy. It is absurd to assert, as StpLSD25 does, that collusion from the state sector is the only factor allowing monopolies to propagate, and that in the absence of such collusion the Invisible Hand of competitive enterprise would lead to consumer-friendly win-wins all around. Especially if we imagine simply dismantling all regulatory and socialistic structures TODAY, with the powerful private entities holding on to all the gains offered to them over the years by state collusion and subsidy, and competing from there, there is no reason whatsoever to conclude that free-market competition would bring them back to an equilibrium reducing their awesomely monolithic concentrations of power.

    MVW, I think I agree with your general leanings but you toe the Democratic party line a bit more than I can agree with. I see it as far from proven that Obamacare is a social-welfare program of any kind, or that it provides significant net benefit to the average consumer or reduces the power of the medical-industrial complex overall to exploit sick people for profit. It is absurd to compare it to any country with socialized medicine since it does not in any significant way socialize medicine. On the contrary, I view the individual insurance mandate itself as nothing more than a guaranteed market for the health insurance industry, and I fully expect we will see their profit margins increase as a result.
    With the bank-bailouts as well...while GDP statistics or certain other metrics may bear out on paper your rhetoric of a shallow recession with a quick recovery, it's the case that most of the recovery happened in the profit margins of the formerly-floundering financial institutions and very little of it ended up in the hands of the middle and working classes. The job market is not recovering at nearly the rate of other indicators, and that is a fact. It is not mere vindictiveness for people to wish that the folks who made the extremely irresponsible decisions that led to the recession, which adversely affected everyone in the economy, should have to suffer some consequences for those colossal failures in judgment, and the concept of "too big to fail" should be deeply troubling to anyone with a head on their shoulders.
     
  8. scratcho

    scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,486
    Likes Received:
    14,733
    "people like scratcho." Huh. And what are scratcho-like people? Hopefully those that like to learn from those who know their stuff. There a few around here.
     
  9. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    you're just taking someones word because he used to be in the industry, now he's on "your side." When did Liberals start supporting bailouts and fake money based on debt?

    The problem with what MVW is suggesting is: it creates government monopolies, it raises prices for everyone, it bails out elite companies who then buy out their competition- and like it or not, it continues the Military-industrial complex, because our dollar is based off of the protection we give to oil-yielding middle eastern countries.

    You can believe and support whatever you want, but you shouldn't support something and then claim you don't when the truth is exposed. This is still government force. They are forcing taxpayers to pay for malinvestments of some of the wealthiest bankers in the world. Washington forces Washington puppets into Government worldwide and, works with these same corporations to rape our world of it's natural resources.

    So again, Liberalism sadly does nothing to stop the status quo. They don't want to end the CIA, DHS, TSA or, any of these very corrupt agencies that make a living by violating the Constitution, and starting wars and rebellions overseas.

    It is all rolled into one; Whether Democrat or Republican- they both want more government spending, and to keep this fiat 'infinite' wealth going.

    But what MVW is failing to realize is that the devaluation of a countries currency can make everyone broke.



    MVW claims there's no inflation- but raising prices on everything from coffee to oil is inflation. You're taking him on his word because he was in the business, but in a way he's putting faith in a government-ran economy to save us all, and it wont happen with as much as we print and spend. It will make prices go up, and even $10 an hour wont be enough to live- then, Liberals will want them to raise minimum wage; So we're really not helping by printing and spending- we're making the value of our money go way down, while the bankers and politicians profit from our labor and debt.
     
  10. scratcho

    scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,486
    Likes Received:
    14,733
    Don't know why I bother, but this will all become moot anyway when capitalism is/will be shown to have been an immoral aberration down the historical line. It's all a god-damn joke played with rigged systems that have had and will continue to be played by the powerful until either forward thinking humans can devise an equatable system that WORKS FOR ALL HUMANS or the rig turns to shit/chaos. I'll be long gone, but you youngins' will live it.
     
  11. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    I already almost finished replying to this post earlier, when my damn firefox crashed- arrgh! But, I'm gonna try it again...

    That's not what the free market is, that's what government is. The free market allows for a middle class and allows people to grow in their job. communism however, always focuses power and wealth on governments who run everything from schools, to car manufacturers and, fast food joints. Liberals believe we will be served with the best service, not have to pay a dime and, make life "equal" for everyone (except government who'd be far richer than anyone.

    When government takes over these industries, it makes prices go up and sometimes creates monopolies in that field, and ends up raising the taxes, making the cost and comfort of living for everyone decrease.




    You just contradicted yourself. You say welfare is to help those in need, then, you say the government should protect property. Money is property and, the government has no constitutional authority to even force an income tax out of our paychecks, but it has been one of the prime government factions in recent years.


    Well, I believe this too. But, I believe the answer is less government all the way around. If the government didn't have the power to abuse their position and choose corporate bribes over protecting the Constitution, then, they would be forced to work for us, rather than against us.

    And btw when you talk about socialist anarchy- I would like people to realize we can live peacefully together without government. Even more peacefully than with them, in fact. But it's not through socialism.

    It seems leftist place more blame on the 'rich' than on the government which caused this mess. A small number of rich people actually utilized war, bailouts and, government benefits to get their money- so, why is it the Liberal agenda to hurt these individuals, just because they've done well for themselves?


    This is the most common misconception Libertarians get; As I said above, it's not all rich people who are corrupt, it's those who bribe the government to get their way. If we had politicians who followed the law, these people would be jailed and possibly shut down. It does hell of a lot more than indiscriminately taxing the rich more.

    Also the option that Liberalism leans towards, is Government tyranny.

    Communism doesn't work. It has always become a platform for government to take total control. In that situation, the government essentailly owns everything "redistributing" the wealth like our governments- to their rich buddies and building the military.

    The government is the most powerful institution on this planet. (other than the UN)

    You acknowledged all the damage we do, why do you think corporations would hurt you with less government? I mean, you were bad-talking the FDA a few lines back

    Maybe next time read what I say before misquoting me. I don't want to dismantle all regulatory systems- and, I don't know many Libertarians who do.

    If they (truly) protect life, liberty and, property and follow the Constitution they're okay- I said I would ban stupid regulations like the ban on lemonade stands. All these restrictions make it harder for small businesses to compete.

    And btw, in America- Monopolies are illegal. So yeah, the only way monopolies exist in America, is when government takes over an industry- or, Monsanto (which came to be with government benefits and protection.)

    I have never been harassed by a private employee- infact, corporarations wont allow their employees to chase you if you stole something and get out the door, because they're so afraid of a lawsuit due to injuries. (and I strongly support lawsuits for property damage)

    We are connected globally today- and every company knows that the wrong attention could put them out of business. Not only that- but I want a government big enough to protect life liberty and property and nothing more. But, alot of humanitarian things they do today is just a pattern of waste.

    I just wanted to reply to this because you referred to me, and I wanted to set thee record straight.
     
  12. Raga_Mala

    Raga_Mala Psychedelic Monk

    Messages:
    1,039
    Likes Received:
    10
    All right, here goes. You seem insistent on being simple-minded and not recognizing subtlety. You base your whole argument on a few black-and-white assumptions that you simply can't prove. I also think you simply failed to understand my assertions at certain points (maybe I didn't state them clearly).

    I don't advocate Communism. Your straw-man arguments about what "Liberals" believe do not make any address to my basic points. I think the idea that pure free-marketism "allows a middle class" (as opposed, I suppose to economies with a substantial state sector) is a major assertion that you should have to prove with some evidence. The history of unregulated capital is primarily one of exploitation of labor.

    Yes this is true. Monopolies can also exist independent of government, for example, when a single entity owns an overwhelming proportion of a requisite raw material, or when a single entity owns intellectual property that makes competition impossible. While state subsidy can be a contributor to monopolies, it is not the determining factor in whether they will arise at all.


    You very much misunderstood my point on this one. When I said "the state has a commitment to preserve the rights of property," I was stating what the situation IS (how the government is set up), not what I think it should do. Further more the term "rights of property" has to be understood in a particular sense--it means, in effect "the rights of the propertied class." The Constitution was set up, in part, to protect the rights of the property-owning minority, particularly wealthy landlords, against the land reforms that would undoubtedly have been instituted if pure democracy had ever been practiced. The state apparatus, and indeed the whole conceptual framework of governance, was designed to protect the already-existing privilege. You should not take my statement to mean that I think government ought to protect property.

    Since the Sixteenth Amendment is a duly-ratified part of the U.S. Constitution, this sentence is just straight-up false.

    There's a semantic difference here. We both agree that wealthy individuals and the government have colluded to fleece the population. You say it is the government's fault for being there for the rich to abuse...leftists say it is the rich's fault for using the government unethically to enrich themselves. I will return to my argument that it is conglomerations of power, whether private, public, or a conglomeration that are the issue.

    Again we have a definitional issue here. If bribing the government to get their way is the criterion of corruption, then of course "not all rich people...are corrupt, it's those who bribe the government to get their way". On the other hand, if we have a broader definition of corruption that takes in all the ways of using massive capital to exploit other people or extract value from the commons for one's own enrichment, pretty much all capitalists end up looking pretty corrupt. They don't need a state co-conspirator to oppress the working class.

    This response proves your ignorance big-time, not because it is necessarily wrong (for the record, I think you're right about communism) but because you clearly don't understand what I was talking about. I didn't say anything about communism in the section you were quoting. Just mentioning Marx isn't the same as supporting communism. Marx was first and foremost a theorist of industrial capitalism; the work he did on alternative systems is peripheral and, although it follows from his critique of capitalism, the viability of his alternatives has nothing to do with the validity of his analysis/critique. If you have not understood the basic Marxian critique about the power of capital, or the inherent relation between capital and labor, it will be very difficult indeed for you to understand what I am saying about the dangers of unfettered capitalism. I recommend you read Marx or a reasonable summary; the subtlety and insightfulness of his thought is at least equal to that of Adam Smith, and the environment he was writing about is much more applicable to today's world than that in which Smith was writing.

    Indeed, way more fucking powerful than the UN. The enforcement apparatus of the UN doesn't hold a candle to the US government, and the legislative functionality is essentially under the control of the US government (remember the US has a unilateral veto power in the security council, which it uses freely).

    Saying government helps corporations hurt people doesn't mean it's the only means for corporations to hurt people. It's not the unique enabling factor.

    Beyond this point I won't reply to the specifics of your post because the last few paragraphs really go off in several different directions that don't seem that coherent to me.
     
  13. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933

    I apologize---I will get to them soon. I have been preparing a class in technical analysis (chart reading) and my wife is taking up all my time so I have very little time to finish it. There are a lot of people waiting for it, I hope to be done soon with that.

    I like Raga Mala's post----he had some good points which I will comment on shortly.
     
  14. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    I think I am more than just someone in the industry. I have never been part of the status quo---on one of the albums on my Hip Forums home page is a picture of me with a beard, bandana, and long hair----believe it or not, that was taken 3 or 4 years ago, while I still worked in the industry (it is the album cover photo). I didn't always dress and look like that as I worked in the industry---but often I did. I wouldn't take the word of 85 - 90% of the people that worked in the industry. One reason I can get away with working in the industry and looking like that is that I have an uncanny knack for being right. (Of course I didn't wear a bandana with a 3-piece suit. But in that 3-piece suit there was no hiding the fact that I wasn't going to exactly play the corporate game or be molded into the corporate culture. I had the respect of enough people on both sides of the Pacific that it didn't matter.)

    You are missing one of the biggest points I tried to make---if the bail outs were voted in on the very first vote----it would have solved the biggest problem----the psychology behind the credit crisis. The market was ready to move---and it would've cost far far less than what we ended up doing---because instead of stopping the panic in its tracks, the government only added more fuel---and it became a fierce battle of trying to inject enough money into the system to get it back on its feet.

    To say that the bail outs raised prices for everyone, and enabled elite companies to buy out their competition is a fairly naive and simplistic statement. Yes the tarp funds did play their part in allowing companies to buy up their competition, but even without that you would have seen it happen anyway. Any kind of economic disruption like a credit crisis, causes industries to consolidate. The same thing happened in the banking and brokerage of industry of Japan in the 1990's and there was no government bailouts---not for a number of years (and when they did finally resort to it---realizing their mistake----it was too late anyway). And tell me now---what prices went up for everybody?

    If you are talking about anything with corn, or corn oil it, or the meat and other products of corn-fed animals that have reached the age when they can be slaughtered, or milk, or certain other products that are higher priced now------I can tell you why those are higher priced, and it has nothing to do with the bail outs. Not to mention the fact that we are going into 4 or 5 years after the bail outs...

    Yes---the military-industrial complex is a serious problem---I think baby boomers did their part to end that---I'm passing the torch down to you younger people---and if you need some music to inspire you---might I suggest, 'Something in the Air.'

    Oh yes---and I think there is a lot more to the dollar than the fact that we protect oil-producing Middle Eastern countries. In fact a lot of them seem to hate us. You're just opening up a whole can of worms there---but that is extremely simplistic to think that value, or credibility, or strength, or anything else about the dollar is based solely on that.

    There you go telling liberals what they are again. All you conservatives want to do is use the government to enforce the repression of homosexuality, and to deny the rights of such people that everyone else has without question! What---you disagree? Not all conservatives are like that?

    Actually, the thing I really can't understand is how anyone can consider themselves both a hippie and a conservative. I also can't imagine an Anti-War movement that is conservative.

    However I must admit I do have a thing for the CIA----I mean, if it weren't for the CIA how would we ever have all those cool spy movies? I mean---you have to admit---the cold war was really pretty exciting in its own way... Every now and then you'd run across that tiny article tucked in a corner of a newspaper that had just enough information to let you know that there was a much bigger story than what was being told...

    Seriously though---it was Bush and his Patriot Act that put us on this terrible path we are on with domestic spying and everything else. I don't consider him a liberal. In fact, the democratic party has shifted considerably towards the right----and that is not just me saying that---it is widely known and accepted.

    And what's this? taxpayers are bring forced to pay for malinvestments of some of the wealthiest bankers in the world? That statement is wrong on so many levels. It would be true if this group of the wealthiest bankers were off doing something all alone that suddenly blew up in their face and almost brought the world economy down, and it was all them, and no one else, and then they were bailed out, but taxpayers had to pay for that over and over and over again. But if you stopped looking at all this conspiracy crap and tried to get the real facts, you might learn that taxpayers made a hefty profit off of the tarp funds (Maybe we should start demanding that this gets returned to us, instead of arguing stupid things like, if the tarp money would have been paid to individuals then everything would have been good...). You might also learn what really caused the credit crisis, and who was at fault.

    I will agree that Democrats and Republicans are all about spending and greed. Fiat 'inifinite' wealth sounds like Ron Paul jibberish.


    Of course devaluing a country's currency would make everyone broke. It appears clear to me that, what you don't realize is that you still don't understand what I have been telling you.

    But it is funny that you point this out----because that is exactly what would happen if we forced the dollar back onto the gold standard...


    To be exact, what I said is that there are times when economies hit an extremely serious crisis---and that in those times, there is a need for government bailouts---but they should be done quickly and at a point where they have a maximum impact to market psychology. If it would have been done correctly in 2008 it would not have required all the spending. I also believe that we need a safety net to help those who have fallen on hard times, and so forth. But I that does not mean that I promote what you say I do.

    But where is this inflation you were talking about. When I wrote my previous posts, I was buying gas cheaper than I had for at least a few years. The CRB index (which tracks something like 28 different commodities) has been trending down over the past three years (Maybe longer, I forget---but the chart I just looked at goes back 3 years).

    I already commented on the inflation numbers, and the reason why government numbers are accurate---but I guess you would have us believe that the government has some secret inflation number that they aren't telling us----never mind the fact that some of the types of data that conspiracy theorists and gold bugs claim the government is purposely not reporting on, have also been in decline.

    How is the value of our money going way down?

    And don't accuse me of putting faith in our government just because I defend certain policies, or defend economic data, or push for certain actions, or what have you. Our government is screwed up, and there is too much legislation, and it does spy on us, and step over our rights left and right. We have to fight to put an end to that. Our government is screwing us as it buries itself in a culture of greed. Nor do I support the robber barons who the government is in bed with. I guess you are too wrapped up in your various biases and conspiracy theories to really understand what I am saying.
     
  15. Anaximenes

    Anaximenes Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,854
    Likes Received:
    9
    So are you against Libertarianism, Mountain Valley Wolf? I ask this for the ordinary understanding about mistakes for routines of business done because of hidden rationality as opposed unhidden empirical judgments, or hidden ignorance of scientists' work as opposed to unhidden legal conscience for a warning?
     
  16. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    You say I cant prove it. Is that because you don't believe what I'm saying or, would you just not listen even if I did prove it?

    It wasn't strawman arguments- it wasn't even an argument. I was simply trying to understand what you were saying. You gotta see how you talking about viewing corporations the same way that Karl Marx does, could seem like a communist. He is afterall the grandfather of Communism.

    Well, it's true. When Government has all the wealth, none of the money "trickles down," because they only hire government employees.

    I know corporations do have ways that they hurt the taxpayer. But, I don't feed into the idea that if we end alot of the stupid and wasteful regulations, that suddenly companies will be selling us poison, paying less than minimum wage and wage war with other countries to increase their profit margins; Mainly because no company would want that negative publicity

    That's not true. Look at the Federal Reserve, obamacare, social security etc- With Government programs, we're forced to buy in. And Obamacare is backed by the insurance companies, much like the federal reserve was backed by the banks.

    But if they don't protect property, who is going to stop corporations from harming other peoples property?

    There was no original Right for them to lay out taxes, they ratified that the same year the Federal Reserve was built (1913)- Hmmmm.

    The only taxes we had to give the government at the start, was hardly anything compared to today, and they originally needed the money to fight the Brittish. But, they never took the taxes away. Despite that, the government was pretty small into the 1960's. Suddenly they skyrocketed exponentially due to the legitimacy the people gave them to cause force on peaceful people, merely for using drugs. Today, it is everything that's illegal and everyone who is a potential terrorist in the governments eyes.

    We've given the government far too much power, and they abuse it all the way around, and work with these corporations to get into war.

    It's not every rich person that does that, first of all. it's only the very huge, and really corrupt industries like JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, Halliburton and, others that perpetually use government force and laws, to impose their will on peaceful people.

    Without government, they can't really implement force. A corporation is not going to hurt you; all they can do is offer you a job, or, offer you a product. I know if someone offer me a minimum wage job, I'd probably say no, because it simply isn't enough to live.

    They're not going to force me into work or into war like government does; They'd be too afraid the message would get out there, and people would stop using their products. I don't give into the Liberal beliefs that companies will take over, because the only thing companies can really do to hurt us is dump in the envoirment. But, that's why these companies would be punished for destroying other peoples property; Jail instead of fines would be a much better deterrent.

    I dont blame all the rich like you do. I know some people have made their money honestly.
    Let's be honest; Everyone wants to make money. There's not a single person in business that isn't thinking about a profit. I'm not a businessman. But let's say you start selling homemade candybars, not only do you have to pay your friends for working and, pay for raw material. But due to government today, you need to pay a lot of money just to get started, you have a tax on every employee and, thousands of page of laws that compell you to buy a lawyer to understand it. With all this chipping away at their profit, they're bound to be less generous to their employees, because the employees are already costing them so much in taxes already. Then, the employees working for $8-$10 an hour, have to pay taxes out of their paycheck as well. Making their standard of living go way down, as they are charged well over $100 in taxes each paycheck

    You place blame on all rich people; But, this is the fault of government who has personally distributed the wealth to the very wealthy and themselves, and caused the transfer of wealth. It's not a coincidence that corporations have become exceedingly wealthy after the government expanded into nearly all aspects of our lives.

    I've read a lot about Marx; I took a philosophy class in college. And his thoughts on alternatives do have a lot to do with it. Being that he wished to kill any rich people who wouldn't give up their wealth, and founded communism and Marxism, I think it's pretty fair to say he was biased. He also lived in a Country in which, only the industrialists and government had money- so, maybe he did have a reason for feeling how he did.

    In America under capitalism though, we not only created the middle class, but 3 level; Lower,middle and, upper. This is how it should've stayed, about like it was in the 1960's (without all the wars; ) We still didn't have much government, our money was backed by gold and, people were making over $30 an hour in todays money. The only thing that's changed is government involvement in the private sector. Some regulations serve a purpose. i do believe the government should protect property from people or corporations.


    I don't think so. I think it's all the biggest entities of the world, bullying the rest of them.

    I never said it was, but it is their primary means. But, in my system they can do neither because harming someone is destroying someones property which is illegal, and if they bribe government officials, then, they violatee bribery laws. We want to punish businesses that has made their living off the backs of the taxpayer and, by changing laws. It doesn't make sense to take peoples money, when many of them clearly earned it.


    The problem with having a government whiich redistributes wealth, is because, as you admitted to earlier, the government makes prices go up. It also makes quality go down, and makes it harder for people to afford it. Like Medicare- There are less people on healthcare today, than 40 years ago before the government got involved.

    I used to believe all the Liberal jargon until Obama took office and I realized that their motives were to continue that status quo on everything from the drug war, the war on terror and, presidential powers to override the Constitution. The way out of this is not to endorse dependency on them. We could pay a very small fraction of the tax we pay now, and help everyone better than we do now. Our entire Federal Government is a giant Ponzi scheme.
     
  17. Anaximenes

    Anaximenes Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,854
    Likes Received:
    9
    I thought, STP lsd25, to you property rights are inalienable. Libertarians believe property rights are so. Without protection we are in the situation of property rights as the substance of refused judgment by the law. That way the revolution CAN have many ways of justifying the freedom of using the Law for ... "PAYBACK".

    We are all not aboriginals; some are European ethnics.
     
  18. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    Can you point out what you're referring to? Because I did defend private property ownership. But, not if it's boosted up and given immunity by government officials.
     
  19. Anaximenes

    Anaximenes Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,854
    Likes Received:
    9
    I guess you know, but doubtfully with reservations, and these cannot be recognized for good precedence.

    Almost... gambling laws are good for the lover ignorant of his poverty circumstance.
     
  20. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    MVW-I just want to say quickly, obama is not against the most corrupt, and he's not better than Bush. His NDAA is no less harmful than the Patriot Act, and, Obama has done much more after that to impose on our Rights-including free speech.

    Ill get back to the rest soon, but im pretty ill-
     

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