Since your political discourse seems to have started with and is centered around fiscal policy and a gold standard as a remedy, I thought it would good to introduce some other authors into your midst:
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Bertrand Russell on "Gold Mining"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
Nothing here repudiates anything I've posted from Rothbard. Referring to the value of gold as a "superstition", which is essentially what he's doing, is like saying the value of anything is a superstition because its just people making up a value for it.
The French forced the US off of the gold standard and the value of the dollar has been been dropping ever since and is on the brink of collapse. It also kicked off a decade of horrible inflation in Volker had to raise interest rates in the US up to 20%.
Gold left in the ground cannot be exchanged. Gold left in reserves do get spent. It was the depletion of the US gold reserves that forced Nixon to take the US off of the gold standard in order to repay France for its expenses murdering Vietnamese.
The author's analogy to saving the pound for a rainy day is false. Governments do spend their gold during rainy days, which is why its accumulation in reserve does represent wealth. This is why its reserves do represent wealth, and why Russia and China are still accumulating gold reserves today (they must be fooled by the superstition of gold).
I'm sure when he refers to good economists, he's not referring to the ones that predicted the great depression and can explain the business cycle, which essentially means this guy is a jackass. He spends no time refuting the Austrian's logic and simply ignores them.
You are financially stable if you have a hord of gold (this has been historically true), much more stable than if you owned lots of dollars right now.
Gold left in the ground is not as valuable as dug gold for the obvious reason: the gold still needs to be dug, which takes effort and expense, which effects the market value of dug gold.
That gold doesn't safe guard a society from corrupt government because governments drop the gold standard during war provides even more support for a gold standard. If a government was forced to be kept on the gold standard THERE WOULD BE LESS WAR.
Germany repudiated their debt by inflation> yes, lets follow the example of Weimar!
Of course Russell...we want our currencies to be worth less so that we can't buy as much, thank you for your clear logic that you have obstained from using!
I wonder if other governments, and people, ever get pissed off when their loans are paid off in currencies that have are worth a fraction of that of the loan...hmmm...probably not, Russell, thank you for showing the light you war mongering piece of shit!
Gold standards are useless in times of stress? Like what times? WARS? You're right about that Russell, if there was a pure gold standard currency being used in the the US right now, the government would not have been able to print money to finance their part in World War 1, World War 2, the Korean War, Vietnam, the gulf war, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
What a douche.
Now please read my post on Rothbard and counter it with some logic.
"Referring to the value of gold as a "superstition", which is essentially what he's doing, is like saying the value of anything is a superstition because its just people making up a value for it."
No, I'm quite sure the value of most goods is based on their use-value or pleasure-value.
You ignored why he said gold is a superstition, which makes you a bonehead.
"The French forced the US off of the gold standard and the value of the dollar has been been dropping ever since and is on the brink of collapse. It also kicked off a decade of horrible inflation in Volker had to raise interest rates in the US up to 20%."
Yup, but that is because the United States didn't have enough gold to pay back its loans, which is a fundamental problem with using gold as a currency. Its supply is less than the demand for it.
Yes, the Americans inflated the value of the American dollar to pay the French back. Whoopie-tee-doo. That has nothing to do with the value of the dollar, though. When a dollar is taken off the gold standard, its value is related to the value of goods and products and increases and decreases in relation to its supply. This increase or decrease is not damaging unless dramatic, as we have already seen.
You see, Josh, you are comparing the value of the dollar to when it was on the gold standard. That is a false comparison. At that point, the value of the dollar was related to the value of gold plus the value of products and goods. After Nixon got rid of the gold standard, the value of money was related to the value of products and goods only.
"Gold left in the ground cannot be exchanged. Gold left in reserves do get spent."
Russell said it was a fiction, because the gold was stuck somewhere on the other side of the world, so if there was a run on the bank, no one would be able to get their gold anyway. LOL. What a stupid system. Moreover, since there was a such a low reserve required, a run on the bank would result in people not being able to get their gold anyway. In effect, even before Nixon axed the gold standard, the gold standard was aleady effectively not in use. It was a SUPERSTITION.
"The author's analogy to saving the pound for a rainy day is false. Governments do spend their gold during rainy days, which is why its accumulation in reserve does represent wealth. This is why its reserves do represent wealth, and why Russia and China are still accumulating gold reserves today (they must be fooled by the superstition of gold)."
I'm not going to deny that gold has a market value, Josh.
"I'm sure when he refers to good economists, he's not referring to the ones that predicted the great depression and can explain the business cycle, which essentially means this guy is a jackass. He spends no time refuting the Austrian's logic and simply ignores them."
Not at all. He clearly states that he understands that governments are not likely to pay their debts unless forced to, which means the gold standard is no different than paper money. I thought you understood that governments have been devaluing gold coins since the beginning?
"You are financially stable if you have a hord of gold (this has been historically true), much more stable than if you owned lots of dollars right now."
The same is true of any commodity, because commodities represent the true, real value of goods and products.
"Gold left in the ground is not as valuable as dug gold for the obvious reason: the gold still needs to be dug, which takes effort and expense, which effects the market value of dug gold."
And the value of products if it is used as currency. It drives their real value up. Gold inflation!
"That gold doesn't safe guard a society from corrupt government because governments drop the gold standard during war provides even more support for a gold standard. If a government was forced to be kept on the gold standard THERE WOULD BE LESS WAR."
How are you going to forced the government to do that, Josh? This is one of Russell's and my central points, points you ignore and lie to yourself about.
"Germany repudiated their debt by inflation> yes, lets follow the example of Weimar!"
Gold is not the answer. The answer would be putting the right government in control of the treasury and bank system.
"I wonder if other governments, and people, ever get pissed off when their loans are paid off in currencies that have are worth a fraction of that of the loan...hmmm...probably not, Russell, thank you for showing the light you war mongering piece of shit!"
You only have a piece of Russell right now, so calm down.
"Gold standards are useless in times of stress? Like what times? WARS? You're right about that Russell, if there was a pure gold standard currency being used in the the US right now, the government would not have been able to print money to finance their part in World War 1, World War 2, the Korean War, Vietnam, the gulf war, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
What a douche."
No, it is you who is the douche. You still haven't recognized that governments have been doing this even on the gold standard. Gold coins were devalued in times of stress even in ancient times.
"Now please read my post on Rothbard and counter it with some logic."
Pre-concluded conclusions are not logical.
"No, I'm quite sure the value of most goods is based on their use-value or pleasure-value."
Which is different for each individual. The value of gold, or anything, is based on what people are willing to pay for it. Its value to you might by higher, but on the market, its value is set by those willing to buy it.
I didn't ignore why he said its a superstition, he discussed it through the entire two pages and he was wrong all of the way through.
"Yup, but that is because the United States didn't have enough gold to pay back its loans, which is a fundamental problem with using gold as a currency. Its supply is less than the demand for it."
Yes, the problem with gold is that a country will never have enough of it to spend on wars. Thanks for clearing that up.
"When a dollar is taken off the gold standard, its value is related to the value of goods and products and increases and decreases in relation to its supply. This increase or decrease is not damaging unless dramatic, as we have already seen."
You still do not understand inflation and its ability to rob the poor.
"After Nixon got rid of the gold standard, the value of money was related to the value of products and goods only."
SO getting rid of the gold standard naturally causes the dollar to lose value (duh). And this is a good for who? Its good to have a dollar that can buy less because. . .
"if there was a run on the bank, no one would be able to get their gold anyway."
This would be fraud.
"the gold standard was aleady effectively not in use. It was a SUPERSTITION."
Which is why 1913 was a much worse year than 1971.
"He clearly states that he understands that governments are not likely to pay their debts unless forced to, which means the gold standard is no different than paper money. I thought you understood that governments have been devaluing gold coins since the beginning?"
Thank you for assisting my argument for a smaller, less powerful, government. Its almost like you argue, the government is committing evil anyway, so lets give them more power to do more evil, lets not take that power away. Hilarious.
"The same is true of any commodity, because commodities represent the true, real value of goods and products."
I will not disagree, and if I could store barrels of oil in my apartment I would. However its much more economical and realistic for me to buy silver.
"Gold inflation!"
You still do not understand inflation, and you still haven't provided logic to suggest gold will cause inflation.
"How are you going to forced the government to do that, Josh? This is one of Russell's and my central points, points you ignore and lie to yourself about."
The people need to change their perspective on government. Simply because they haven't yet, doesn't mean the logic is wrong. Again, you cannot argue that its okay for government to go off the gold standard simply because we can't stop them. That's not an argument, that's ignorant.
"Gold is not the answer. The answer would be putting the right government in control of the treasury and bank system. "
Yes, the mythical RIGHT government. And you think I'm an ideologue.
"No, it is you who is the douche. You still haven't recognized that governments have been doing this even on the gold standard. Gold coins were devalued in times of stress even in ancient times."
Yep, I know. The Romans did it to pay for WAR. The Kings would do it for WAR, although, the Kings would also do it to defraud the people and it was their own little way of causing inflation. So why is this right?
"Pre-concluded conclusions are not logical."
Huh?
"Which is different for each individual."
No, or the barter system would not have worked for as long as it did. People had known, repeated preferences. This is the value that underlies the legitimacy of any medium of exchange.
"The value of gold, or anything, is based on what people are willing to pay for it."
Hence "gold inflation".
"Its value to you might by higher, but on the market, its value is set by those willing to buy it."
And its inflationary value as a medium of exchange is set by its need-value, want-value, and the supply of it and demand for it.
"I didn't ignore why he said its a superstition, he discussed it through the entire two pages and he was wrong all of the way through."
This a zero-content reply.
"Yes, the problem with gold is that a country will never have enough of it to spend on wars. Thanks for clearing that up."
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was arguing with a pie-in-the-sky idealist. Do you have an alternative form of government that doesn't not need a military and does not control the minting of new currency?
"You still do not understand inflation and its ability to rob the poor."
Wages increase in relation to inflation. Minimum wages should as well. BY GOVERNMENT MANDATE if the petty bourgeosie is too greedy to increases their wages on their own.
"SO getting rid of the gold standard naturally causes the dollar to lose value (duh). And this is a good for who? Its good to have a dollar that can buy less because. . ."
It's not the same dollar, duh. One dollar was on the gold standard, the new dollar on a floating standard. They are not the same. The "dollar" has not lost value, because there is no such thing as "the dollar".
"This would be fraud."
No, its the fucking way it is. With or without government backed banking. Banks try and make a profit by lending more than their reserves.
"Which is why 1913 was a much worse year than 1971."
No, I think 1913 had a little more to do with nationalism.
"Thank you for assisting my argument for a smaller, less powerful, government. Its almost like you argue, the government is committing evil anyway, so lets give them more power to do more evil, lets not take that power away. Hilarious."
No, I am forcing you to realize that the medium of exchange is not the problem. It is the way government is managed that is the problem, because there has never been a non-fiat medium of exchange.
"I will not disagree, and if I could store barrels of oil in my apartment I would. However its much more economical and realistic for me to buy silver."
True, and I'm not disagreeing with that. What I am disagreeing with is the use of metals as currencies as some sort of objective replacement for democratic, republican action in these or other matters.
"You still do not understand inflation, and you still haven't provided logic to suggest gold will cause inflation."
1. The supply of gold is much less than the demand for gold would be if it were used as a currency. ARE YOU DENYING THIS FACT?
2. Gold has a market value. It is used in industry and as a decoration. Therefore, as the demand for these uses goes up, so does the price of gold. If gold is used as a currency, then the price of currency would go up with the demand for gold, hence creating "gold inflation".
"The people need to change their perspective on government. Simply because they haven't yet, doesn't mean the logic is wrong. Again, you cannot argue that its okay for government to go off the gold standard simply because we can't stop them. That's not an argument, that's ignorant."
I think its a governance problem, not a medium of exchange problem.
"Yes, the mythical RIGHT government. And you think I'm an ideologue."
Then if there is no RIGHT government, the gold standard is useless, because the government is the one that controls the medium of exchange.
"Yep, I know. The Romans did it to pay for WAR. The Kings would do it for WAR, although, the Kings would also do it to defraud the people and it was their own little way of causing inflation. So why is this right?"
I didnt say it was right. I said that gold is not the answer.
"People had known, repeated preferences. This is the value that underlies the legitimacy of any medium of exchange."
At any one time preferences change and so do prices. This is determined by the preferences at a particular time and therefore determined by the market.
"This a zero-content reply."
I didn't think I would need to explain this, but this entire conversation is a reply.
"Do you have an alternative form of government that doesn't not need a military and does not control the minting of new currency?"
Huh? I'm talking about a government that didn't need to enter into World War 1, and wouldn't have been able to on the gold standard. I'm not sure what you're talking about.
"Wages increase in relation to inflation. Minimum wages should as well."
The money is printed, given to the elite, corporatists, government, etc. They spend the money at current prices. This pushes up prices, causing those on the bottom end (us) to pay more for goods before we experience a pay increase. This is a transfer of wealth. Then, those that are lucky may get a raise that matches inflation, well, the government's inflation numbers anyway. Of course the government doesn't have an interest in reporting the correct rise in prices so they create new ways of calculating inflation in an effort to make it look better than what it is. The is politically wise, and also assists the government in staying fiscally responsible because it doesn't need to increase payments as much as they should to those who depend on CPP, old-age pension, EI, etc. No to mention, those that are the poorest, working in minimum wage jobs, typically never see a rise in wages that matches the inflation of the money supply. If the government does increase the minimum wage, its based on their inflation numbers, and only after the fact. Inflation makes the rich richer and poor poorer. There is also a distortion created in the market in relation to capital goods and consumer goods. I'm not going to explain this again, just every time you demonstrate an ignorance on the topic I will post a link to a lecture Rothbard provides explaining the topic. If you'd like to refute the damage inflation does, please, do. But you haven't yet, you just ignore it. Which means you're either ignorant, or a liar, right?
http://www.box.net/shared/xldvkizrbf
"One dollar was on the gold standard, the new dollar on a floating standard."
The old dollar could buy more than the new dollar, so yes, there is a dollar, and yes, it has lost value.
"No, its the fucking way it is. With or without government backed banking. Banks try and make a profit by lending more than their reserves."
Which, because the deposits can be claimed at anytime, is fraud. You will not when an argument by saying "its the fucking way it is" because we're arguing about the fucking way it should be.
"It is the way government is managed that is the problem"
We wouldn't need to worry about the way the government was managed if it had no power. SO again, thank you for continuing to validate my perspective.
The argument that it needs to be managed by the right people supports my argument because the right people rarely ever manage government. As Bush proved, you can be the stupidest asshole in the world and still stay in office.
"True, and I'm not disagreeing with that. What I am disagreeing with is the use of metals as currencies as some sort of objective replacement for democratic, republican action in these or other matters."
O-k. So it seems you agree that the Fed does no good, but you don't like hard currency either, so what is your solution?
"The supply of gold is much less than the demand for gold would be if it were used as a currency. ARE YOU DENYING THIS FACT?"
No, but it doesn't matter. It will force the value of gold up in relation to goods and services, therefore forcing the price of goods and services down in relation to gold.
"Gold has a market value. It is used in industry and as a decoration. Therefore, as the demand for these uses goes up, so does the price of gold. If gold is used as a currency, then the price of currency would go up with the demand for gold, hence creating "gold inflation""
The problem here is that you're claiming that because the value of gold will go up because there will be more demand in the market for it, that that's inflation. As previously mention, please refer to this link to understand inflation: http://www.box.net/shared/xldvkizrbf
That's like saying we shouldn't use paper and ink as currency because it will artificially cause the price of paper and ink to go up. Maybe thats why my ink cartridges are so expensive? All we're doing is finding a new use for gold, and yes, when you find a new use for a commodity, its value goes up. But, as previously mentioned, this does no harm to individuals because the prices for all other goods will simply be pushed down against it.
"I think its a governance problem, not a medium of exchange problem."
Then you will spend your life disappointed because your expectations of government will always be greater than what government can deliver. And again, if you don't think its a medium of exchange problem, please refer to this link: http://www.box.net/shared/xldvkizrbf
"Then if there is no RIGHT government, the gold standard is useless, because the government is the one that controls the medium of exchange."
The government can't control the value of gold, all it does is mint it as a currency. The government's need to devalue the currency continuously throughout this century proves that it lacks the ability to set the value of gold; it cannot control the market.
"I didnt say it was right. I said that gold is not the answer."
Well, you have yet to convince me with any logical argument, and you offer no other solution.
"At any one time preferences change and so do prices. This is determined by the preferences at a particular time and therefore determined by the market."
And? Use-value still underlies any medium of exchange.
"I didn't think I would need to explain this, but this entire conversation is a reply."
This is a zero-content reply.
"Huh? I'm talking about a government that didn't need to enter into World War 1, and wouldn't have been able to on the gold standard. I'm not sure what you're talking about."
Nationalism was the #1 reason, not debts.
"The money is printed, given to the elite, corporatists, government, etc. They spend the money at current prices. This pushes up prices, causing those on the bottom end (us) to pay more for goods before we experience a pay increase. This is a transfer of wealth. Then, those that are lucky may get a raise that matches inflation, well, the government's inflation numbers anyway. Of course the government doesn't have an interest in reporting the correct rise in prices so they create new ways of calculating inflation in an effort to make it look better than what it is. The is politically wise, and also assists the government in staying fiscally responsible because it doesn't need to increase payments as much as they should to those who depend on CPP, old-age pension, EI, etc."
I'm not in favor of giving money to the rich, nor am I really in favor of monetary inflation. I'm merely pointing out that in times of financial crisis it is the correct thing to do to prevent the system from crashing.
"No to mention, those that are the poorest, working in minimum wage jobs, typically never see a rise in wages that matches the inflation of the money supply. If the government does increase the minimum wage, its based on their inflation numbers, and only after the fact. Inflation makes the rich richer and poor poorer."
Yeah, small businesses are assholes, eh?
"There is also a distortion created in the market in relation to capital goods and consumer goods. I'm not going to explain this again, just every time you demonstrate an ignorance on the topic I will post a link to a lecture Rothbard provides explaining the topic. If you'd like to refute the damage inflation does, please, do. But you haven't yet, you just ignore it. Which means you're either ignorant, or a liar, right?"
No, again you are wrong. I, in opposition to Rothtard, think that a collapse of the entire system is much worse than short-term inflation. I already know the problems with inflation.
"The old dollar could buy more than the new dollar, so yes, there is a dollar, and yes, it has lost value."
Not once the new dollar reaches equilibrium and wages increase to make up for the expenses of living.
"Which, because the deposits can be claimed at anytime, is fraud. You will not when an argument by saying "its the fucking way it is" because we're arguing about the fucking way it should be."
It's how the banks naturally developed. *Shrug* It would take a lot of spilled blood to change it.
"We wouldn't need to worry about the way the government was managed if it had no power. SO again, thank you for continuing to validate my perspective."
And how would that be done, Josh? Suggestions?
"The argument that it needs to be managed by the right people supports my argument because the right people rarely ever manage government. As Bush proved, you can be the stupidest asshole in the world and still stay in office."
LOL. Sounds like you just abandoned the gold standard in favor of a fiat high standard. Excellent. Thanks for conceding the point.
"O-k. So it seems you agree that the Fed does no good, but you don't like hard currency either, so what is your solution?"
There is no solution. There is only democratic action.
"
No, but it doesn't matter. It will force the value of gold up in relation to goods and services, therefore forcing the price of goods and services down in relation to gold.'
Exactly! Hence creating a disparity between the currency's value and the real value of products! Gold inflation!
"The problem here is that you're claiming that because the value of gold will go up because there will be more demand in the market for it, that that's inflation."
Hello? McFly? By whatever name you want to call it there will be an increase in the value of gold, but NO increase in the real value of goods.
"That's like saying we shouldn't use paper and ink as currency because it will artificially cause the price of paper and ink to go up. Maybe thats why my ink cartridges are so expensive? All we're doing is finding a new use for gold, and yes, when you find a new use for a commodity, its value goes up. But, as previously mentioned, this does no harm to individuals because the prices for all other goods will simply be pushed down against it."
Partially. You ink cartridges are so expensive mostly because of patents and an established price range, but, yeah, the demand for ink drives up its price. But it is nothing like gold. Gold is used as a decoration, a very expensive decoration. Ink is not. Gold has a very small commodity value, while ink has a very high one. However, if ink were used as a medium of exchange, as it is, its value would not skyrocket as high as gold's would, because the relative supply of ink is still much more than gold's, which is why, along with paper, we can use it as a cheap medium of exchange, with no "ink inflation".
"That's like saying we shouldn't use paper and ink as currency because it will artificially cause the price of paper and ink to go up."
Compared to the supply of gold, ink and paper are limitless.
"Then you will spend your life disappointed because your expectations of government will always be greater than what government can deliver."
LOL, I'm not the one who believes the gov will stick by the "gold standard" in times of crisis, or even in times of peace. You, my friend, are in for a lifetime of disappointment.
"The government can't control the value of gold, all it does is mint it as a currency. The government's need to devalue the currency continuously throughout this century proves that it lacks the ability to set the value of gold; it cannot control the market"
LOL, but they are not setting the value of gold! They are devaluing the price of the gold currency by minting less of it per coin!
"Well, you have yet to convince me with any logical argument, and you offer no other solution."
Democratic action.
In fact, if monetary inflation is controlled, an equilibrium should result.
"Use-value still underlies any medium of exchange."
There are many factors that affect exchange. Water has lots of use value.
"Nationalism was the #1 reason, not debts."
When is Nationalism a good excuse for anything, and what are you saying it was the reason for? Leaving the gold standard? Just a coincidence it always occurs during year and Russell advises it happens during times of stress, like war? What are you talking about?
"I'm merely pointing out that in times of financial crisis it is the correct thing to do to prevent the system from crashing."
SO, the system is crashing due to inflation and MORE inflation is the logical remedy? Not to mention you just completely contradicted yourself. What is your definition of crashing? Do you think if the government doesn't inflate the world will end? Please read about the recession of 1921 and then compare this with how the 1930s and 1970s turned out when inflation was used. Compare it to now. The US Government has flooded the market with cash and still, 200,000 people layed off in the past three weeks. Read about the recession of 1921.
"Yeah, small businesses are assholes, eh?"
Its the fault of small businesses that central banks steal from the poor?
"No, again you are wrong. I, in opposition to Rothtard, think that a collapse of the entire system is much worse than short-term inflation. I already know the problems with inflation."
Right, well, maybe you should grow a heart and a little compassion for the people that lose out when the government inflates. There is no reason to believe the markets would collapse if the government would simply butt-out, and there is no reason to believe the market wouldn't rebound within the short-term if the government would butt-out. However, you think printing money provides capital to companies that need it when all it really does is create a mirage of capital in the short term and steal from the middle class and poor. The mirage of capital just creates more mal-investment and builds up for a harder fall.
"Not once the new dollar reaches equilibrium and wages increase to make up for the expenses of living."
Of course we live our lives in a constant state of inflation so our wages are always chasing it. If the dollar was left on the gold standard neither expenses nor wages would need to increase and inflation wouldn't exist.
"It's how the banks naturally developed. *Shrug* It would take a lot of spilled blood to change it."
Your *shrugging* = you make a logical argument but because this is the way it is I will expend no intellectual capital thinking about it and will accept the status quo as being correct because I'm a lemming.
"And how would that be done, Josh? Suggestions?"
I think those who enjoy liberty will need to win the intellectual battle. It can not be done if people do not support it. If the people want to live in a society where their lives are dominated by government, than that will be what they get, but I think in the long run this will be rejected.
""The argument that it needs to be managed by the right people supports my argument because the right people rarely ever manage government. As Bush proved, you can be the stupidest asshole in the world and still stay in office."
LOL. Sounds like you just abandoned the gold standard in favor of a fiat high standard. Excellent. Thanks for conceding the point."
Your response made absolutely no sense.
"There is no solution. There is only democratic action."
The ultimate democracy exists through the market.
"Exactly! Hence creating a disparity between the currency's value and the real value of products! Gold inflation!"
What are you talking about? What disparity?
"By whatever name you want to call it there will be an increase in the value of gold, but NO increase in the real value of goods."
SO?
"we can use it as a cheap medium of exchange"
Nothing like cheap money. . .why is cheap money good again?
"LOL, I'm not the one who believes the gov will stick by the "gold standard" in times of crisis, or even in times of peace. You, my friend, are in for a lifetime of disappointment."
I have no blind faith in government, that is you. Like any other atrocity the government commits, the government will do what it wants as long as the people stand on the side line. Most of us will be in for a lifetime of disappointment.
"LOL, but they are not setting the value of gold! They are devaluing the price of the gold currency by minting less of it per coin!"
. . .In an effort to pay back its debts while preserving their gold reserves.
"Democratic action."
That's not a solution. If you were to write a book about solving the problems of the world would you simply write "democratic action". No, that's a cop out for not being able to come up with a solution. If you want the world's solutions decided by mob mentality, you better figure out which solution you want the mob to support.
"There are many factors that affect exchange"
But none as fundamental as use-value.
"Water has lots of use value."
Yes, that's true. And what is your point?
"When is Nationalism a good excuse for anything, and what are you saying it was the reason for? "
WWI
"Just a coincidence it always occurs during year and Russell advises it happens during times of stress, like war?"
Advises? He didn't advise anything. They simply did. Russell was still a young man during WWI.
"SO, the system is crashing due to inflation and MORE inflation is the logical remedy?"
No, the system may crash due to a collossal amount of unpaid debt. I thought you knew this?
"Do you think if the government doesn't inflate the world will end?"
You just equivocated "world will end" with "economic crash". That is illogical.
I think that there is a good chance that there will be a deep economic depression/crash if the government does not stimulate it. I think Keynesian economics is correct.
"Please read about the recession of 1921 and then compare this with how the 1930s and 1970s turned out when inflation was used."
No, thanks. You can argue your position if you think it is worth it.
"Compare it to now. The US Government has flooded the market with cash and still, 200,000 people layed off in the past three weeks. Read about the recession of 1921."
You can outline it in this thread, thanks. Was 1921 due to 4 million jobs being lost, wages being driven down by illegal interpretations of the immigration laws, or a huge pile of debt due to free market techniques? It was a veritable merry-go-round of sell debt to the next guy. Innovation, you know. Oh yeah, did 1921 have a huge dust bowl?
"Its the fault of small businesses that central banks steal from the poor?"
I would say it is morally reprehensible that the small businesses have to be forced to keep wages with inflation. I think small businesses know this, and steal from the poor, their employees, along with the banks. ;)
"Right, well, maybe you should grow a heart and a little compassion for the people that lose out when the government inflates."
LOL. And you are against the minimum wage. LOL. Fuck off.
"There is no reason to believe the markets would collapse if the government would simply butt-out,"
Reasons:
1) All revolutions of the past.
2) The length of the Great Depression due to severe causal factors. This crisis also has severe causal factors at its root.
"and there is no reason to believe the market wouldn't rebound within the short-term if the government would butt-out."
Lower wages due to free market economics have played a huge part in this crisis, and you want more free market?
"However, you think printing money provides capital to companies that need it when all it really does is create a mirage of capital in the short term and steal from the middle class and poor."
Only if it does not open up capital flow.
"The mirage of capital just creates more mal-investment and builds up for a harder fall."
You are assuming it is a mirage. You have not made any arguments that have convinced me that they are indeed "mirages". You have merely asserted and pleaded.
"Of course we live our lives in a constant state of inflation so our wages are always chasing it. If the dollar was left on the gold standard neither expenses nor wages would need to increase and inflation wouldn't exist."
No, there would be gold inflation.
"Your *shrugging* = you make a logical argument but because this is the way it is I will expend no intellectual capital thinking about it and will accept the status quo as being correct because I'm a lemming.'
No, it is me making a statement, not an argument. An argument is a series of statements that lead to a conclusion.
You are right, I do not intend to spend much time arguing about it with someone who has a stack of unanswered counters piling up in front of him. And, yes, you are a lemming.
This, so far, is your best sentence of this post:
"Of course we live our lives in a constant state of inflation so our wages are always chasing it."
"I think those who enjoy liberty will need to win the intellectual battle. It can not be done if people do not support it. If the people want to live in a society where their lives are dominated by government, than that will be what they get, but I think in the long run this will be rejected."
You do realize that your equating liberty with market evangelism will make you irrelvant to people who know the facts of history, right? People who think will not change their views just because you repeat the same principles over and over again.
"Your response made absolutely no sense."
"managed by the right people" = fiat currency, bonehead.
"The ultimate democracy exists through the market."
Well, lookie here, we agree on something. You are right, if the market creates a class of wage slaves, a revolution will result. If the market pays high wages, capitalism will continue. Democracy. :) But, alas, THIS HAS NOTHING DO WITH THIS ARGUMENT!
"What are you talking about? What disparity? "
Real value of products versus demand for gold as commodity and currency. Duh.
"SO?"
This means that the real value of goods will be less than the price of currency, hence creating a high price for gold as a currency. As this demand increases or decreases, inflation and deflation will result.
"Nothing like cheap money. . .why is cheap money good again?"
Because there is not enough gold for 6 billion people.
"I have no blind faith in government, that is you."
Being illogical much? My support of government = blind faith in government. I don't think so.
"Like any other atrocity the government commits, the government will do what it wants as long as the people stand on the side line. Most of us will be in for a lifetime of disappointment."
Making argument is standing on the sidelines, bonehead.
". . .In an effort to pay back its debts while preserving their gold reserves."
LOL, it is exactly the same thing. They paid back less because they didnt have the gold.
"That's not a solution. If you were to write a book about solving the problems of the world would you simply write "democratic action"."
Yes, I would. The title would be "Democratic Action is The Solution". The TOC would only list one chapter, "Democratic Action". And the index would only have one entry. You guessed, democratic action, page 2.
"No, that's a cop out for not being able to come up with a solution."
Gold is your cop out for not acting physically demonstration and revolution. You ignore the fact that all currencies have been fiat, because you can't fathom why anyone would argue for a subjective solution, when subjectivity, for you, is the very problem.
"If you want the world's solutions decided by mob mentality, you better figure out which solution you want the mob to support."
I don't consider elections the result of the mob. But I'm sure you do! I also don't think revolution is the result of the mob. Nor did the founders, but I'm sure you do!
"No, the system may crash due to a collossal amount of unpaid debt. I thought you knew this?"
Caused by inflating the money supply via easy credit; and all the government is calling for is for banks to provide more credit and people to spend more money they don't have. So I'll adjust: The financial collapse is caused by too much debt, and more debt is going to fix it?
"You just equivocated "world will end" with "economic crash". That is illogical.
I think that there is a good chance that there will be a deep economic depression/crash if the government does not stimulate it. I think Keynesian economics is correct."
Well we're experiencing an economical crash. When has Keynesian economics ever been correct? The US government has been spending itself silly for a decade, don't you think the economy would have been stimulated enough, according to Keynes?
"You can argue your position if you think it is worth it."
In 1921 there was a deep recession and Warren Harding did absolutely nothing and it was over in 1923.
"huge pile of debt due to free market techniques"
What free market techniques?
"I would say it is morally reprehensible that the small businesses have to be forced to keep wages with inflation. I think small businesses know this, and steal from the poor, their employees, along with the banks."
What are you talking about? Small businesses are getting crushed by this too. Small business owners don't know anything about inflation except that we have a mythical central bank here to control. Their motivation is to run a successful business, not to screw their employees.
"And you are against the minimum wage."
Yes. It discriminates against those who are willing to work for less and creates a segment of the labour market that will always be left unemployed.
"1) All revolutions of the past."
Cite a revolution against a small government.
"2) The length of the Great Depression due to severe causal factors."
Intervention during the Great Depression caused a decade of 20% unemployment, is that what we have to look forward to? That's the solution Keynes is giving us?
"Lower wages due to free market economics have played a huge part in this crisis, and you want more free market?"
Yes, because prices would also come down. All this stimulus is going to do is maintain high unemployment and keep prices high at the same time. During a recession prices need to be allowed to drop.
"You are assuming it is a mirage. You have not made any arguments that have convinced me that they are indeed "mirages". You have merely asserted and pleaded."
A factory is capital. Paper is paper. More paper does not create more capital, it simply dilutes paper. For a period of time, the paper will look like capital, until it moves through the economy and then prices adjust accordingly, and we realize we just have a lot more useless paper and a lot of malinvestment that went along with the useless paper, kind of like what's been happening the past 10 years. Easy credit has created an illusion of wealth so people spent beyond their means and now the piper needs to be paid.
"Your *shrugging* = you make a logical argument but because this is the way it is I will expend no intellectual capital thinking about it and will accept the status quo as being correct because I'm a lemming."
Re-read this and think hard about who the pronouns represent and then reply again.
"You do realize that your equating liberty with market evangelism will make you irrelvant to people who know the facts of history, right?"
Depends on your perspective of history.
"This means that the real value of goods will be less than the price of currency, hence creating a high price for gold as a currency. As this demand increases or decreases, inflation and deflation will result."
This is non-sensical. I still don't understand this "disparity". A 1 ounce gold coin will be worth what the market determines it will be worth based on supply and demand. This value is solely determined by what you are able to buy with it. If there is higher demand for gold, then you can buy more with it. The "real value" is based on the currency so how can it be less than what the currency is worth, when the currency is worth the value of goods? Stop using inflation and deflation in relation to supply and demand. Supply and demand are what prices are dependent on, so ya, if the demand of gold is higher, it will have a greater purchasing power. Why is any of this bad?
"Because there is not enough gold for 6 billion people."
Why not?
"My support of government = blind faith in government. I don't think so."
Yes, I'm sorry. For you its, Supposed Right = Bad, Supposed Left = Good. I forgot your perspective on government was slightly more complicated than I previously indicated
"You ignore the fact that all currencies have been fiat, because you can't fathom why anyone would argue for a subjective solution, when subjectivity, for you, is the very problem."
Subjectivity should be left to the people. The government has no place in this regard.
"I also don't think revolution is the result of the mob."
I know revolutions come from the minorities; that's why there's still hope for liberty :)
"Caused by inflating the money supply via easy credit; and all the government is calling for is for banks to provide more credit and people to spend more money they don't have. So I'll adjust: The financial collapse is caused by too much debt, and more debt is going to fix it?"
Responsible debt, yes. The other debt was due to free market, irresponsible debt. There would not have been a financial crisis if there was no bad debt. It's not the easy credit of the FED that caused the mess, but the easy, lax regulations that allowed companies to "innovate" scams for getting rid of bad debt once they had signed.
"Well we're experiencing an economical crash."
Due to bad loans due to lax regulation.
"When has Keynesian economics ever been correct?"
During the Great Depression.
"The US government has been spending itself silly for a decade, don't you think the economy would have been stimulated enough, according to Keynes?"
It was stimulated. Definitely. Do you have proof othewise? Or are you just spouting rhetoric without argument?
"In 1921 there was a deep recession and Warren Harding did absolutely nothing and it was over in 1923."
I'm sorry, don't I need to know a little about the causes of a recession before I can judge its length? Yes, I think I do.
"What free market techniques?"
The unregulated selling of loans to other people due to deregulation.
"What are you talking about? Small businesses are getting crushed by this too. Small business owners don't know anything about inflation except that we have a mythical central bank here to control. Their motivation is to run a successful business, not to screw their employees."
I'm pretty sure small business owners know that inflation depreciates wages and their income as well.
"Yes. It discriminates against those who are willing to work for less and creates a segment of the labour market that will always be left unemployed."
No. It drives up the average wage and spreads capital investment around, which in turn creates more jobs. Low wages = less innovation.
"Cite a revolution against a small government."
What? I didnt say the revolutions were all the result of government. I'm also including economic caused revolutions, like the slave rebellions and serf rebellions.
"Intervention during the Great Depression caused a decade of 20% unemployment, is that what we have to look forward to? That's the solution Keynes is giving us?
"
No, it was the 4 year dust bowl, the resultant collapse of the farming economy, the resultant crash of 9000 small banks coupled with the stock market crash that caused the Great Depression to as long as it was.
"Yes, because prices would also come down. All this stimulus is going to do is maintain high unemployment and keep prices high at the same time. During a recession prices need to be allowed to drop."
Ah, no, this causes people to save even more, because they'll try and wait until prices are even lower, which in turn causes less factory production, which puts more people out of work... and so on and so on..
"A factory is capital."
Indeed.
"Paper is paper."
Indeed. You're really intelligent!
"More paper does not create more capital, it simply dilutes paper."
Yes, which is why paper has nothing do with the economy. When people are paid a wage by the government to build roads or schools, that "paper" gains value when the worker spends his or her wages on food, shelter, and other necessity. This, in turn, stimulates those who receive that money from those workers to spend. It's a domino effect.
"For a period of time, the paper will look like capital, until it moves through the economy and then prices adjust accordingly, and we realize we just have a lot more useless paper"
That's assuming that paper money is just dumped into the economy. It is not with Keynesian economics. Instead, the government employees a worker to build a road or a school, things that need to be done anyway, and that workers takes his money and spends it on basic necessities. This in turn infuses new money into the busiesses the workers buys from, hence stimulating scared citizens to spend, BECAUSE THEY FEEL THAT THEY HAVE MORE MONEY.
"and a lot of malinvestment that went along with the useless paper, kind of like what's been happening the past 10 years. Easy credit has created an illusion of wealth so people spent beyond their means and now the piper needs to be paid."
I dont think there is any piper, Josh. I think that bad loans were made and now we are paying the price. We were not participating in orgies and spending money lavishly on useless things. Instead, anyone who wasn't involved in the bad loans was spending in good faith.
"Depends on your perspective of history. "
Really? I'm pretty sure that factories started in the 18th century. And I'm pretty sure they were paid wages. I'm also pretty sure the person who owned the factory profited from it. And in turn I'm also sure that he reinvested it. Hence, CAPITALISM.
"
This is non-sensical. I still don't understand this "disparity". A 1 ounce gold coin will be worth what the market determines it will be worth based on supply and demand. This value is solely determined by what you are able to buy with it. If there is higher demand for gold, then you can buy more with it. The "real value" is based on the currency so how can it be less than what the currency is worth, when the currency is worth the value of goods? Stop using inflation and deflation in relation to supply and demand. Supply and demand are what prices are dependent on, so ya, if the demand of gold is higher, it will have a greater purchasing power. Why is any of this bad?"
Because the medium of exchange is suppose to represent the real value of a product, not the real value of the product plus the price of gold. Nor is gold as a medium of exchange not going to inflate. It will up and down with the demand for gold. At one point you will have gold that is worth two chocolate bars, and then the same gold will be worth one chocolate bar.
"Why not?"
Because the supply of gold is limited, stupid.
"Yes, I'm sorry. For you its, Supposed Right = Bad, Supposed Left = Good. I forgot your perspective on government was slightly more complicated than I previously indicated"
Good. I am not the opposite of you, thanks.
"Subjectivity should be left to the people. The government has no place in this regard."
The government is the result of subjectivty!
"I know revolutions come from the minorities; that's why there's still hope for liberty :)"
Oh, so you believe in aristocratic dictatorships?
"There would not have been a financial crisis if there was no bad debt. It's not the easy credit of the FED that caused the mess"
. . .but the Fed provided the environment for the bad debt through easy money. If interest rates were higher, there wouldn't be as much bad debt because it would cost more to borrow.
Right, but the point was that you think we're going to experience a crash if we don't stimulate, but the government has been stimulating for years. Spending has sky-rocketed under bush, and the crash is here. It's not "we're going to" it's "we're experiencing". Most honest Keynesians don't even think Obama's trillion dollar stimulus is correct because it's not even real "stimulus". So you argue that poor spending got us into this (bad debt) but good spending is going to get us out, but what happens if Obama's spending is bad too?
"During the Great Depression."
So the stimulus will lead to 10 years of 20% unemployment? And this is solving the problem?
"It was stimulated. Definitely. Do you have proof othewise? Or are you just spouting rhetoric without argument?"
That didn't answer my question. Don't you think the economy has been stimulated enough?
"I'm sorry, don't I need to know a little about the causes of a recession before I can judge its length? Yes, I think I do. "
As per the Austrians, central and fractional reserve banking is the natural cause of the business cycle and therefore all recessions. After 10 mins of googling I cannot find any explanation for it. Wikipedia simply describes what happened, and not why.
"The unregulated selling of loans to other people due to deregulation."
So people shouldn't be allowed to accumulate debt? I see a contradiction here. . .
"I'm pretty sure small business owners know that inflation depreciates wages and their income as well."
"No. It drives up the average wage and spreads capital investment around, which in turn creates more jobs. Low wages = less innovation."
Then explain unemployment.
"I didnt say the revolutions were all the result of government. I'm also including economic caused revolutions, like the slave rebellions and serf rebellions."
No, you said if the government butt out they would revolt, and this is based on history. I'm just looking for an example of people revolting when government didn't save their jobs.
"the resultant collapse of the farming economy"
The farming economy didn't collapse. They burned crops to keep prices up during the 30s.
"the resultant crash of 9000 small banks"
Why did they crash if farmers had crops to burn?
So. . .because of the 4 year dust bowl, the depression lasted 10 years. Thankfully there's no dust bowl this time. Let's see how long this lasts for.
"Because the supply of gold is limited, stupid."
That's not a legit reason. It doesn't disappear. It's not like oil, it doesn't get used up.
"Good. I am not the opposite of you, thanks."
No, I'm supposed right = bad, supposed left = bad, truth and freedom = good. That's not opposite. That you think it is opposite shows complete ignorance of what I've been saying; at least I try to understand your perspective.
""I know revolutions come from the minorities; that's why there's still hope for liberty :)"
Oh, so you believe in aristocratic dictatorships?"
Huh?
". . .but the Fed provided the environment for the bad debt through easy money. If interest rates were higher, there wouldn't be as much bad debt because it would cost more to borrow."
No, even if the FED had provided the environment, the loans would not have happened without the deregulation of standards and the almost criminal way obviously bad debt was passed on to other people once it was signed.
"Right, but the point was that you think we're going to experience a crash if we don't stimulate, but the government has been stimulating for years."
No, the government has been spending for years. You really should learn the meanings of words, Josh. Stimulate means that the economic has become sluggish. Before the economic crisis the economy was not sluggish. It did not need to be stimulated. The government spending at that point was just normal government spending.
"Spending has sky-rocketed under bush, and the crash is here."
Well, here we agree. The government has a lack of funds because of spending on an unjust war.
"It's not "we're going to" it's "we're experiencing"."
Not until a vast majority are not eating well will we be experiencing the Great Depression, Josh. That's one way the two crisises are different.
"Most honest Keynesians don't even think Obama's trillion dollar stimulus is correct because it's not even real "stimulus"."
How do you mean?
"So you argue that poor spending got us into this (bad debt)"
No, bad debt isn't spending.
"but good spending is going to get us out, but what happens if Obama's spending is bad too?"
It won't matter. Every economic depression or recession has a natural length which depends on the severity of the causes that created it. It will run its course.
"So the stimulus will lead to 10 years of 20% unemployment? And this is solving the problem?"
No, sorry, a stock market crash and 4 year dust bowl caused 20% unemployment during the Great Depression, not the stimulus. If anything, this crisis shouldn't last as long, because its causes are not severe.
"That didn't answer my question. Don't you think the economy has been stimulated enough?"
I passed over your previous quote too quickly and misunderstood. No, normal government spending is not a stimulus.
"As per the Austrians, central and fractional reserve banking is the natural cause of the business cycle and therefore all recessions. After 10 mins of googling I cannot find any explanation for it. Wikipedia simply describes what happened, and not why."
Christ almighty, I guess I'll have to freaking look it up!
"The recession was caused by a decline in aggregate demand combined with an increase in aggregate supply."
It seems like it was a text-book Marxian recession. Overall demand for products dropped sharply, while the supply of product increased sharply, hence creating a sharp decrease in prices. If this was the only cause of the recession, then it is no surprise it was so short.
"So people shouldn't be allowed to accumulate debt? I see a contradiction here. . ."
As long as they can pay it back, and as long as their jobs are flying overseas to China in favor of slave wage labor.
"Then explain unemployment."
Have you worked with doll workers?
"No, you said if the government butt out they would revolt, and this is based on history. I'm just looking for an example of people revolting when government didn't save their jobs."
That was not what I was arguing. I said the low wages that will be created by a free market will lead to revolution in the long-run, just like the slave and serf rebellions.
"The farming economy didn't collapse. They burned crops to keep prices up during the 30s."
Yeah, I'm sure there were some big farmers left over, but the tens of thousands of small farms that went of business left a big gaping hole in the economy. And am quite sure that that burning happened after the Dust Bowl.
Thanks for trying!
"Why did they crash if farmers had crops to burn?"
Because, Josh, in non-Austrian land there are big farmers and small farmers. In the 1920s, the farming economy was a majority small farms, whereas today it is a majority big farms. Moreover, I'm quite sure there was a lot of burning of crops going on during the dust bowl.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_bowl
And if they were doing it to drive up prices, SHAME ON THEM. People were starving and the big farms were still looking to make a profit? SHAME.
The 9000 banks failed due to small farmers going out of business and other factors.
"So. . .because of the 4 year dust bowl,"
Actually, six years. Even ten years in some places. My mistake. The worst of it was over in six years, though.
"the depression lasted 10 years. Thankfully there's no dust bowl this time. Let's see how long this lasts for."
Make sense. If the dust bowl lasted for 6 years, then it would probably take 3 or 4 years for the economy to recover. Couple this with the other factors that caused the GD and you have its remarkable length.
"That's not a legit reason. It doesn't disappear. It's not like oil, it doesn't get used up. "
True, but it is used in industry and for decoration, both of which increase in demand when population increases. Considering the global population is increasing at a ridiculous rate per year, I'm pretty sure gold as a standard is not the answer.
"No, I'm supposed right = bad, supposed left = bad, truth and freedom = good. That's not opposite. "
That's funny. My map looks like this:
truth and freedom = good, which defined right as bad, center as bad, and left as good (assuming no dictatorships result). You seem to go backwards. Maybe you are my opposite!
"Huh?"
Well, a belief in republicanism, in republic-democracy, representitive democracy, when the populace votes for the principles you believe in, but a revolutionary outlook when the populace does not vote the principles you believe in = aristocratic dictatorship. The only responsible, future American revolution will be to despose of a American tyrant. Since this has not happened, your outlook can be described as "republican aristocracy" (hey, I like that one!)
"the loans would not have happened without the deregulation of standards and the almost criminal way obviously bad debt was passed on to other people once it was signed."
Well, I would agree that those who are providing the initial loans, the Fed, should be regulated more, but what deregulation did Bush bring? You still have failed to provided 1 example of deregulation.
"No, the government has been spending for years. You really should learn the meanings of words, Josh. Stimulate means that the economic has become sluggish. Before the economic crisis the economy was not sluggish. It did not need to be stimulated. The government spending at that point was just normal government spending."
Do you have any idea how stupid that is? You're saying extreme spending during good economics times won't have the positive effects as extreme spending during bad economic times because the economy is already good. Huh? How does that make any sense AT ALL?
"Well, here we agree. The government has a lack of funds because of spending on an unjust war. "
Which should have prevented this recession since WWII brought the US out of the recession *rolling eyes*
"How do you mean?"
Sorry, I read an article about this and I can't locate it to properly support my statement. It was based around the idea that Keynes wanted to spend all kinds of cash to create jobs immediately where most of the stimulus bill is based on public choice policies, such as education.
"No, bad debt isn't spending."
How was the debt created?
"It won't matter. Every economic depression or recession has a natural length which depends on the severity of the causes that created it. It will run its course."
Yes, funny how most socialist country suffer through long poor economic periods.
"If anything, this crisis shouldn't last as long, because its causes are not severe."
How long will it need to last until you realize you're wrong? I bet you don't, I bet over the next 5 - 10 years you'll just keep rationalizing why its still here for reasons other than government intervention.
I would argue that this government spending is not stimulus. Let's see how stimulated the economy gets over the next 12 months.
"Christ almighty, I guess I'll have to freaking look it up!"
It doesn't really get into the history books much because the government didn't intervene and fuck everything up.
"It seems like it was a text-book Marxian recession. Overall demand for products dropped sharply, while the supply of product increased sharply, hence creating a sharp decrease in prices."
Yes, inflation causes such a distortion in the economy. However, I know you don't accept inflation for the cause of recessions, so please explain why overall demand for product dropped sharply (as this is really the result of the depression, not the cause).
"That was not what I was arguing. I said the low wages that will be created by a free market will lead to revolution in the long-run, just like the slave and serf rebellions."
Can you provide a reference point?
"Yeah, I'm sure there were some big farmers left over, but the tens of thousands of small farms that went of business left a big gaping hole in the economy. And am quite sure that that burning happened after the Dust Bowl."
The government provided an environment for over-plowing in the mid-west when they guaranteed wheat prices. This caused the dust bowl. http://www.lewrockwell.com/french/french84.html
"People were starving and the big farms were still looking to make a profit? SHAME."
Government put in pricing policies on wheat which forced farmer's to burn crops in order to not flood the market with wheat and drive prices down. Not the farmers.
"True, but it is used in industry and for decoration, both of which increase in demand when population increases. Considering the global population is increasing at a ridiculous rate per year, I'm pretty sure gold as a standard is not the answer."
And yet you still fail to make a logical argument to support this.
"Well, I would agree that those who are providing the initial loans,"
And those who loan directly. The 700 billion in bad debt didn't come directly from the FED. It came directly from those who loaned from the FED and then loaned that money fraudulantly.
"but what deregulation did Bush bring? You still have failed to provided 1 example of deregulation."
Lack of action or application is de facto deregulation.
"Do you have any idea how stupid that is?"
It's not stupid at all. You are guilty of not thinking.
You're saying extreme spending during good economics times won't have the positive effects as extreme spending during bad economic times because the economy is already good."
No, I'm saying that normal government spending is not a stimulus. It certainly has economic effects, but it is not a stimulus.
"Which should have prevented this recession since WWII brought the US out of the recession *rolling eyes*"
Again, you are guilty of not thinking. The amount of armourment used in WWII is massively more than what is used in Iraq, hence creating more economic effect. Nor did the allies try to contain any country. They were on a constant offensive. The troops in Iraq, on the other hand, are playing a containment game, which means the military factory production needed for their occupation is very low, hence creating low economic output, and the costs are high, because the government must pay the soliders to keep the status quo. Therefore, they are not the same examples at all, Josh.
"How was the debt created?"
By deregulated crooks offering people loans they could not pay back. By 4 million jobs being lost and wages being suppressed. The FED can't use its abitlity to create new money without someone to sigh on the dotted line, Josh.
"Yes, funny how most socialist country suffer through long poor economic periods."
Not as funny as the fact that none of the so-called socialist countries were controlled by the working class, and hence fail the basic definition of socialism.
"How long will it need to last until you realize you're wrong? I bet you don't, I bet over the next 5 - 10 years you'll just keep rationalizing why its still here for reasons other than government intervention."
I'm quite sure the Dust Bowl had huge economic effects. Are you denying this?
"I would argue that this government spending is not stimulus. Let's see how stimulated the economy gets over the next 12 months."
No, you don't argue. You assert certain conclusions and fail to respond to my points.
Government spending will be a stimulus if is stimulated using real money and for the creation of real production. It is therefore your job to show that fixing a road or building a new school is not real production.
"Yes, inflation causes such a distortion in the economy. However, I know you don't accept inflation for the cause of recessions,"
I accept inflation as a cause, just not a central cause of the Great Depression or the current crisis. The current crisis was caused by bad loans, pure and simple.
"so please explain why overall demand for product dropped sharply (as this is really the result of the depression, not the cause)."
I don't have much information to go on, Josh, but it seems that the wiki is saying that the recesssion of 1921 was caused by a glut of products. This was before computerized inventorying, so it makes sense. Sometimes capitalism, at least before the advent of the computer, produces too many products, which in term causes prices to drop. Again, this is a textbook Marxian cases of bust, an example Marx liked. Unfortunately for Marx, he didnt foresee computerization of a company's ability to measure demand.
"Can you provide a reference point?"
The history of rebellions and revolutions.
I'm going to stop my response here, because I have to do my dishes and make supper. The Rockwell essay will take a bit of thought, for which I dont have time for now.
"It came directly from those who loaned from the FED and then loaned that money fraudulantly."
You mean Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and all of the banks committed fraud? You know there are already laws on the books for this. . .though doesn't seem like the government thinks anyone committed any fraud because they're not charging anyone.
"Lack of action or application is de facto deregulation."
That's still not an example. The republicans tried to regulate Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, the Dems stopped them. That seems like action. Can you provide an example of inaction?
"No, I'm saying that normal government spending is not a stimulus. It certainly has economic effects, but it is not a stimulus."
The trillion dollar stimulus is normal government spending.
"Again, you are guilty of not thinking. The amount of armourment used in WWII is massively more than what is used in Iraq, hence creating more economic effect. Nor did the allies try to contain any country. They were on a constant offensive. The troops in Iraq, on the other hand, are playing a containment game, which means the military factory production needed for their occupation is very low, hence creating low economic output, and the costs are high, because the government must pay the soliders to keep the status quo. Therefore, they are not the same examples at all, Josh."
For you to support this, you'd have to prove that the US government paid less out in military contracts during the Iraq War than did in World War II, and I'm sure you'd find you're wrong.
"By deregulated crooks offering people loans they could not pay back. By 4 million jobs being lost and wages being suppressed. The FED can't use its abitlity to create new money without someone to sigh on the dotted line, Josh."
So the loans were created by people spending money. Bad debt = spending money on stupid shit.
"By deregulated crooks offering people loans they could not pay back."
If they're crooks, why are they not being prosecuted?
"Not as funny as the fact that none of the so-called socialist countries were controlled by the working class, and hence fail the basic definition of socialism."
No real-socialist country is controlled by the working class, so lets talk about REAL SOCIALISM.
"It is therefore your job to show that fixing a road or building a new school is not real production."
It's not production that they can sell to pay off real debt, which is what Keynes argued for (which is still wrong). The US needs to build products to sell to the world to get out of their mess.
"The current crisis was caused by bad loans, pure and simple."
. . .bad loans financed by artificially low interest rates set by the Fed. Why can you not make this connection.
"This was before computerized inventorying, so it makes sense."
So before computers people couldn't project demand for their product? Seriously? Jesus, the economy would have been full of such recessions then, it would be a yearly occurence up until the invention of the computer.
Inflating the money supply causes an over investment in capital goods and an under investment in consumer goods. This creates a distortion in the economy and eventually the market needs to correct itself and that is the recession. The investment in capital shrinks, and people are laid off. This is why during recessions companys that build houses and are involved with capital investments always feel it twice as bad.
"The history of rebellions and revolutions."
I'm looking for one example of the type of rebellion or revolution you are talking about that I can look up.
Take your time with the Rothbard essay. Even Wiki says it was due to the over plowed fields, it just doesn't mention the government set the price of wheat to encourage the overplowing.
"You mean Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,"
Yes, and all the little private lending companies.
"and all of the banks committed fraud?"
I don't think fraud is the word. "Lended to everyone no matter what" is probably more apt.
"You know there are already laws on the books for this. . .though doesn't seem like the government thinks anyone committed any fraud because they're not charging anyone."
Of course they're not, because it was the Bush administration's anti-regulation approach that allowed them to be so lax in the first place. Obama's party is backed by the same people, maybe more so now that they need to be bailed out by government, and as a result Obama isn't going to be charging anyone with fraudulent activities, even though Obama knows that deregulation of standards is to blame. NOT THE CRA, which opened the possiblity of lending for low-income families, the ACTUAL ABOLISHING OF ANY STANDARDS WHATSOEVER, which happened under Bush, de facto.
"That's still not an example. The republicans tried to regulate Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, the Dems stopped them. That seems like action. Can you provide an example of inaction?"
Well, if the "democrats" stopped them, then it is the democrats fault as well.
Inaction, as in the republicans controlling both the presidency and Congress, yet still unable to force through regulation. Inaction, asin the republicans not applying the letter of the law to the terms of loans. Inaction, as the DINOS not applying the letter of the aw to the terms of loans.
"The trillion dollar stimulus is normal government spending."
If it is normal spending, then it is not a stimulus. Normal here means what the government spent on a yearly basis before the crisis.
"For you to support this, you'd have to prove that the US government paid less out in military contracts during the Iraq War than did in World War II, and I'm sure you'd find you're wrong."
No, what I'd have to do is show that the government has spent less real dollars on the Iraq war than it has on World War II. REAL DOLLARS, Josh.
"So the loans were created by people spending money. Bad debt = spending money on stupid shit."
Oh how I love how you equivocate. The loans were created from the assumption that people would pay back there loans with real money. Spending is not the problem, Josh; not even spending money on stupid shit; spending credit that you can't is the problem.
"If they're crooks, why are they not being prosecuted?"
Because of the deregulationists in the two parties have control. If anyone on the left had control, things would be different.
"No real-socialist country is controlled by the working class, so lets talk about REAL SOCIALISM."
There is and was no real socialist country, BY DEFINITION.
"It's not production that they can sell to pay off real debt, which is what Keynes argued for (which is still wrong). The US needs to build products to sell to the world to get out of their mess."
True. Either way, it still stimulates the economy, and in this case creates real benefits that will be used by the populace. It is definitely not a long-term solution, if that is what you are getting at.
Hard to do that with Chinese wages at 30 cents an hour on the exchange and 3 dollars an hour in China.
". . .bad loans financed by artificially low interest rates set by the Fed. Why can you not make this connection."
Because the credit doesn't exist in the first place without a signer. Figure it out, it's simple. The FED can offer all the low-interest credit it wants, and if there is no one to sign, there will be no loans.
"So before computers people couldn't project demand for their product? Seriously? Jesus, the economy would have been full of such recessions then, it would be a yearly occurence up until the invention of the computer."
Well, it would have been if all the companies had produced a glut at once, as it did in 1921 according to the wiki.
"Inflating the money supply causes an over investment in capital goods and an under investment in consumer goods. This creates a distortion in the economy and eventually the market needs to correct itself and that is the recession. The investment in capital shrinks, and people are laid off. This is why during recessions companys that build houses and are involved with capital investments always feel it twice as bad."
Computers and pre-computer inventory methods basically eliminated the problem, so there is not much to argue about, but if you are again asserting that recessions/depression are only caused by government inflating the money supply, okay, you are crazy.
"I'm looking for one example of the type of rebellion or revolution you are talking about that I can look up."
All of them. All of them were revolts against the economic order.
"Take your time with the Rothbard essay. Even Wiki says it was due to the over plowed fields, it just doesn't mention the government set the price of wheat to encourage the overplowing."
I still haven't had time to read it, but I'm sure the demand for bread and vegetables had something to do with the "overplowing", just as I'm quite sure that government set prices were not to blame.
"Yes, and all the little private lending companies."
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were guaranteed by the government.
"I don't think fraud is the word. "Lended to everyone no matter what" is probably more apt."
So then the conclusion must be to regulate the banks! But what about the borrowers?
"Of course they're not, because it was the Bush administration's anti-regulation approach that allowed them to be so lax in the first place. Obama's party is backed by the same people, maybe more so now that they need to be bailed out by government, and as a result Obama isn't going to be charging anyone with fraudulent activities, even though Obama knows that deregulation of standards is to blame. NOT THE CRA, which opened the possiblity of lending for low-income families, the ACTUAL ABOLISHING OF ANY STANDARDS WHATSOEVER, which happened under Bush, de facto."
So. . .we agree charging individuals for fraud is the role of government. But the difference is that you want to punish others for that fraud, which we disagree on, because I think those who have not done wrong should not be punished.
Again though, I'd ask you to provide a specific example of Bush deregulating.
"not applying the letter of the law to the terms of loans. Inaction, as the DINOS not applying the letter of the aw to the terms of loans."
Can you reference specific examples, or are you just spewing baseless assumptions?
"No, what I'd have to do is show that the government has spent less real dollars on the Iraq war than it has on World War II. REAL DOLLARS, Josh."
And I'd still bet you'd be wrong.
"spending credit that you can't is the problem."
So spending is the problem. Thank you.
"Because of the deregulationists in the two parties have control."
No, because the crooks are well connected with the two parties in control. Fraud is already against the law. You do not need to be for or against regulation to prosecute fraud.
"There is and was no real socialist country, BY DEFINITION."
And there has been no free market country either, by definition.
"Because the credit doesn't exist in the first place without a signer. Figure it out, it's simple. The FED can offer all the low-interest credit it wants, and if there is no one to sign, there will be no loans."
Lol, half the time you blame the lenders (the banks), and half the time you blame the borrowers (the banks), but you never blame the ultimate lender (the fed) and the ultimate borrowers (consumers and private business). Of course, the top of the chain of those poor monetary policy is the Fed; they are the enabler and the one that's at fault. Of course, its not because of the people at the Fed, they are given an impossible job, its the fault of the existence of the Fed.
If the Fed makes it easy for the borrowers to obtain credit, this will skew the risk assessment of borrowing the money as the return doesn't need to be as large to make it profitable. This means banks can accept more bankruptcies and bad debt because they can borrow more cash cheaply to cover this. If the market was allowed to set interest rates, they would naturally be higher and companies and banks would borrow and lend less as the risk of borrowing and lending would increase to where the market demands it to be. Meaning less businesses and people would be able to borrow until bankrupticies and would be forced to produce more value to society in order to maintain their existence.
"Well, it would have been if all the companies had produced a glut at once, as it did in 1921 according to the wiki."
The glut was created because the US went off of the gold standard during WWI.
"Computers and pre-computer inventory methods basically eliminated the problem"
This is completely false as recessions have occured prior to and after the invention of the computer.
"if you are again asserting that recessions/depression are only caused by government inflating the money supply, okay, you are crazy."
You can call be crazy but you didn't dispute anything I just wrote. Even after the invention of the computer, during recessions prices of consumers good rise in relation to capital goods, indicating a distortion of the market. I assert this distortion is created by inflating the money supply.
"All of them. All of them were revolts against the economic order."
Can you give me something I can look up please. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm looking for a particular historical event I can read about that you're referring to. At first I thought you might have a point, but given youre inability to provide an example is making think you're simply full of shit.
"I still haven't had time to read it, but I'm sure the demand for bread and vegetables had something to do with the "overplowing", just as I'm quite sure that government set prices were not to blame."
It's a five minute read. If the government suddenly came out and said they would buy every computer for $10,000, do you not think there would be a sudden sharp increase in the production of computers and also an enhanced disregard by computer manufacturers on the negative impact such over production would cause on the environment?
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were guaranteed by the government.
"
Explicitly?
And the small lending companies.
"So then the conclusion must be to regulate the banks! But what about the borrowers?"
Which borrowers?
"So. . .we agree charging individuals for fraud is the role of government. But the difference is that you want to punish others for that fraud, which we disagree on, because I think those who have not done wrong should not be punished."
Define 'others'.
"Can you reference specific examples, or are you just spewing baseless assumptions?"
Here's a fucking example:
"Senators focused on the absence of strict regulation of the plant in Blakely, Ga., which had not undergone an FDA inspection since 2001. T"
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-peanut-fda6-2009feb06,0,6599717.story
"And I'd still bet you'd be wrong."
You would lose. The amount of equipment, food, and personel needed for WWII far outstrips what is needed for the Iraq War. Are you denying this?
"So spending is the problem. Thank you."
No, spending real dollars or responsible loans is not the problem. We were talking about spending easy credit, not spending in general. GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS.
"No, because the crooks are well connected with the two parties in control. Fraud is already against the law. You do not need to be for or against regulation to prosecute fraud."
Crooks, capitalists, I see no difference.
"And there has been no free market country either, by definition. "
Not strictly free, true. But we are closer to a strict free market then we have ever been to a socialist state/society.
"Lol, half the time you blame the lenders (the banks), and half the time you blame the borrowers (the banks),"
Where did I blame the banks, Josh? I blamed deregulation, not the banks.
"but you never blame the ultimate lender (the fed) and the ultimate borrowers (consumers and private business)."
Again, the FED wouldnt have any customers without lax standards and questionable borrowers wouldn't get loans without the same lax standards. Its pretty simple, Josh. I'm sure if you think about it a little bit, instead of gobbling up Rothbard's vomit every time you read, you'd get it.
"Of course, the top of the chain of those poor monetary policy is the Fed; they are the enabler and the one that's at fault."
No, politics is the very top. The FED reflects political realities, not the other way around.
"Of course, its not because of the people at the Fed, they are given an impossible job, its the fault of the existence of the Fed."
It's not the fault of anyone. Its the system.
"If the Fed makes it easy for the borrowers to obtain credit, this will skew the risk assessment of borrowing the money as the return doesn't need to be as large to make it profitable. This means banks can accept more bankruptcies and bad debt because they can borrow more cash cheaply to cover this. If the market was allowed to set interest rates, they would naturally be higher and companies and banks would borrow and lend less as the risk of borrowing and lending would increase to where the market demands it to be. Meaning less businesses and people would be able to borrow until bankrupticies and would be forced to produce more value to society in order to maintain their existence."
I don't care about market evangelist masturbation, Josh. If the FED or the lending banks were regulated, there wouldnt be a problem. Period.
"The glut was created because the US went off of the gold standard during WWI."
Link? Either way, a glut occured.
"This is completely false as recessions have occured prior to and after the invention of the computer."
I didn't argue that glut was the only cause of recessions, Josh, so your counter is illogical.
"You can call be crazy but you didn't dispute anything I just wrote. Even after the invention of the computer, during recessions prices of consumers good rise in relation to capital goods, indicating a distortion of the market. I assert this distortion is created by inflating the money supply.
"
I assert that one-cause explanations are inherently stupid.
"You can call be crazy but you didn't dispute anything I just wrote. Even after the invention of the computer, during recessions prices of consumers good rise in relation to capital goods, indicating a distortion of the market. I assert this distortion is created by inflating the money supply.
"
Too lazy. You look it up. Slaves were the result of an economic order. They revolted because they didnt like being slaves, hence causing economic rebellion, etc...
"
It's a five minute read. If the government suddenly came out and said they would buy every computer for $10,000, do you not think there would be a sudden sharp increase in the production of computers and also an enhanced disregard by computer manufacturers on the negative impact such over production would cause on the environment?"
I finally have time.
*Sigh*
First, it was not "price fixing". It was the government offering more than the market price per bushel of wheat to guarantee that their soldiers were fed.
Second, since the war was not the result of "the government", and instead nationalism, one can not say that the Great Dust bowl was "the government's fault". Nationalism's fault, not "the government's".
Third, this article in no way refutes my argument that the Great Dust bowl was the primary cause of the longevity of the GD.
Fourth, Rothbard is a tard.
Fifth... well, there is no fifth, because I've destroyed your argument completely.
"Explicitly?"
The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) (NYSE: FNM), commonly known as Fannie Mae, is a stockholder-owned corporation chartered by Congress in 1968 as a government sponsored enterprise (GSE), but founded in 1938 during the Great Depression. The corporation's purpose is to purchase and securitize mortgages in order to ensure that funds are consistently available to the institutions that lend money to home buyers.[2] (wikipedia)
"Which borrowers?"
The borrowers that would borrow no matter what! DO you not read what you write when I respond to you? For every dollar lent, there is a dollar borrowed.
"Define 'others'."
Those that suffer from over regulation and have committed no harm.
""Senators focused on the absence of strict regulation of the plant in Blakely, Ga., which had not undergone an FDA inspection since 2001. T"
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-peanut-fda6-2009feb06,0,6599717.story"
You're quoting a story from February 2009 in reference to a completely unrelated issue? We're talking about the financial meltdown of the US and you're quoting a story about salmonella? WHERE IS THE DEREGULATION OF THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY THAT CAUSED THE MELTDOWN? STOP SPEWING BASELESS ASSUMPTIONS.
"Are you denying this?"
No. What I'm saying is that the US spent more real dollars during Iraq. Government is obviously larger today and more inefficient.
"No, spending real dollars or responsible loans is not the problem. We were talking about spending easy credit, not spending in general. GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS."
There's nothing responsible about running an economy which has a GDP made up of more than 70% consumption and runs on credit and the exportation of dollars to other countries. Its completely irresponsible.
"Crooks, capitalists, I see no difference."
Well, how blind your ideology makes you.
"Not strictly free, true. But we are closer to a strict free market then we have ever been to a socialist state/society."
Yep, and it encouraged the growth of the most prosperous nation in the history of the world, but its still not a free market and the growth of the US is tarnished by bloodshed at the hands of the United States government and the corruption its intervention provokes.
"Where did I blame the banks, Josh? I blamed deregulation, not the banks."
And you still have no proof of deregulation.
"Again, the FED wouldnt have any customers without lax standards and questionable borrowers wouldn't get loans without the same lax standards."
The fed creates its own standards. The congress has no legal authority to provide oversight.
"No, politics is the very top. The FED reflects political realities, not the other way around."
Politicians have no control over the Fed.
"It's not the fault of anyone. Its the system."
Right, the fault of a system based around a central bank.
"I don't care about market evangelist masturbation, Josh. If the FED or the lending banks were regulated, there wouldnt be a problem. Period."
That you ignore logic is indicative of your blinding ideology. Yes. The Fed should be regulated, but more so abolished.
"I assert that one-cause explanations are inherently stupid."
So is ignoring logic and fact.
"Too lazy. You look it up. Slaves were the result of an economic order. They revolted because they didnt like being slaves, hence causing economic rebellion, etc..."
I can't remember what this has to do with anything we're talking about.
"First, it was not "price fixing". It was the government offering more than the market price per bushel of wheat to guarantee that their soldiers were fed."
Thats price fixing.
"Second, since the war was not the result of "the government", and instead nationalism, one can not say that the Great Dust bowl was "the government's fault". Nationalism's fault, not "the government's"."
Wow, thats a stretch. Nationalism is the result of government.
"Third, this article in no way refutes my argument that the Great Dust bowl was the primary cause of the longevity of the GD."
No, but it does make a point that the great dust bowl was caused by government price fixing, and therefore farther damaged the economy during the great depression
"Fifth... well, there is no fifth, because I've destroyed your argument completely."
Do you even think before you write?
"The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) (NYSE: FNM), commonly known as Fannie Mae, is a stockholder-owned corporation chartered by Congress in 1968 as a government sponsored enterprise (GSE), but founded in 1938 during the Great Depression. The corporation's purpose is to purchase and securitize mortgages in order to ensure that funds are consistently available to the institutions that lend money to home buyers.[2] (wikipedia)"
"In 1968, the government converted Fannie Mae into a private shareholder-owned corporation in order to remove its activity from the annual balance sheet of the federal budget.[8] Consequently, Fannie Mae ceased to be the guarantor of government-issued mortgages, and that responsibility was transferred to the new Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae)."
-wiki
"
The borrowers that would borrow no matter what! DO you not read what you write when I respond to you? For every dollar lent, there is a dollar borrowed."
Oh, you mean the borrowers who are granted loans because there is no regulation against giving such loans.
"Those that suffer from over regulation and have committed no harm."
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It must be hard to champion your position, Josh!
"You're quoting a story from February 2009 in reference to a completely unrelated issue? We're talking about the financial meltdown of the US and you're quoting a story about salmonella? WHERE IS THE DEREGULATION OF THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY THAT CAUSED THE MELTDOWN? STOP SPEWING BASELESS ASSUMPTIONS."
Its a pretty clear example of de facto deregulation, Josh. The laws are on the books, but the department is not carrying them out.
Also, the teenage mutant ninja girl is a great example of deregulated lending.
"No. What I'm saying is that the US spent more real dollars during Iraq. Government is obviously larger today and more inefficient."
If they are more efficient today, they obviously spent less dollars. Inefficiency means more real dollars spent. Anyway, you are obviously dumb. Efficiency is irrelvant, because the sheer size of the WWII effort demanded more equipment, more people, and more supplies SIMPLY due to its size. It is therefore not a matter of "efficiency".
"No. What I'm saying is that the US spent more real dollars during Iraq. Government is obviously larger today and more inefficient."
Consumption using real dollars is not the problem, Josh.
"Well, how blind your ideology makes you."
True, but I sleep well.
"Yep, and it encouraged the growth of the most prosperous nation in the history of the world, but its still not a free market and the growth of the US is tarnished by bloodshed at the hands of the United States government and the corruption its intervention provokes."
No. It helped. It was the high wages of unionization and government social safety nets that spread the wealth across the classes. It was the government that spurred scientific growth that helped develop new techs that fueled the economy.
"The fed creates its own standards. The congress has no legal authority to provide oversight."
True and false. It could have the authority if it wanted to change the FED, but it doesnt. Congress does, however, have the explicit power to regulate the banks and lending companies.
"Right, the fault of a system based around a central bank, caused by capitalism."
fyp
"That you ignore logic is indicative of your blinding ideology. Yes. The Fed should be regulated, but more so abolished."
I'm not talking about the fed. I'm talking about those organizations that lend directly to the consumer.
"I can't remember what this has to do with anything we're talking about."
Don't worry, it will help you in the long-run. Long digressions get confusing, but force you to yawn the argument out.
"Thats price fixing."
No, the government didnt fix the price. The government offered a price high than the market price, hence increasing the price. Price fixing is when the government or a monopoly fix a price using their authority.
"Wow, thats a stretch. Nationalism is the result of government. "
*cough* *cough* bullshit.
The Nazi ideology streched back to Roman times, not the government.
"No, but it does make a point that the great dust bowl was caused by government price fixing, and therefore farther damaged the economy during the great depression"
See above.
Bonehead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing
"Oh, you mean the borrowers who are granted loans because there is no regulation against giving such loans."
Shouldn't they regulate the takers too? Why do you ignore one half of this transaction. Not that I think they should, I'm just trying to understand your supposed logic.
"Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It must be hard to champion your position, Josh!"
Not really. I accept reality for what it is while you're in search of your utopia.
"Its a pretty clear example of de facto deregulation, Josh. The laws are on the books, but the department is not carrying them out."
It's a reference that's completely detached from the issue we're discussing. You can't reference deregulation in the financial industry because there has been none. The repubs even put through Sarbanes-Oxley which put in place incredible regulation in the financial and accounting industry.
"If they are more efficient today, they obviously spent less dollars. Inefficiency means more real dollars spent. Anyway, you are obviously dumb. Efficiency is irrelvant, because the sheer size of the WWII effort demanded more equipment, more people, and more supplies SIMPLY due to its size. It is therefore not a matter of "efficiency"."
You're calling me dumb and you fail to read or comprehend what I write. I said they are larger and more inefficient today and it cost more real dollars.
"government social safety nets that spread the wealth across the classes"
Right, because before the pro-union government of the 30s the US had one of the poorest middle classes in the world (sarcasm).
"No, the government didnt fix the price. The government offered a price high than the market price, hence increasing the price. Price fixing is when the government or a monopoly fix a price using their authority."
When they offer a higher price, and guarantee to buy any wheat at that price, they fix the price. Noone will sell lower to other buyers because they know they can sell to the government higher. The government doesn't operate in the free market. The wiki-pedia article refers to the most common use of the term, but that doesn't change the reality of what is occuring. Whether its colluding businesses or the government, they're doing the same thing.
"Shouldn't they regulate the takers too? Why do you ignore one half of this transaction. Not that I think they should, I'm just trying to understand your supposed logic."
Because they don't have access to credit, of course.
"Not really. I accept reality for what it is while you're in search of your utopia."
If that were really true, you wouldn't be arguing.
"It's a reference that's completely detached from the issue we're discussing. You can't reference deregulation in the financial industry because there has been none. The repubs even put through Sarbanes-Oxley which put in place incredible regulation in the financial and accounting industry."
Has zero to do with loans, Josh. SOX was a response by the Bush administration after they looked like a bunch of crooks after the Enron scandal.
"You're calling me dumb and you fail to read or comprehend what I write. I said they are larger and more inefficient today and it cost more real dollars"
And I am contradicting you.
"When they offer a higher price, and guarantee to buy any wheat at that price, they fix the price. Noone will sell lower to other buyers because they know they can sell to the government higher. The government doesn't operate in the free market. The wiki-pedia article refers to the most common use of the term, but that doesn't change the reality of what is occuring. Whether its colluding businesses or the government, they're doing the same thing."
No, Josh, it's not price fixing, Josh. It's the government offering a higher price for a product. Price fixing is when the price is raised by the government or by a business using market advantage or force in the case of the government.
excuse me, I made a mistake. Price fixing is when the price is fixed at a static number due to the force of the government or the collusion of one or more powerful businesses.
"Because they don't have access to credit, of course."
But you're not talking about regulating access to credit, you're talking about regulating actions.
"Has zero to do with loans, Josh. SOX was a response by the Bush administration after they looked like a bunch of crooks after the Enron scandal."
SOX put through huge accounting regulations which effects all businesses even financial ones. The point is that its a reference that is somehow attached where yours is completely irrelevant.
"No, Josh, it's not price fixing, Josh. It's the government offering a higher price for a product. Price fixing is when the price is raised by the government or by a business using market advantage or force in the case of the government."
When one buyer comes into a market and offers to buy all of a product at a price higher than market, they set the price. There is no possible way you can argue that the government didn't set the price of wheat. THey offered to buy out the entire market at a price higher than anyone else was willing to pay.
"But you're not talking about regulating access to credit, you're talking about regulating actions."
Indeed, because they're the same thing.
"SOX put through huge accounting regulations which effects all businesses even financial ones. The point is that its a reference that is somehow attached where yours is completely irrelevant."
Hi, Josh! The best way to cover your tracks in government when you have acted like a crook is to regulate! That's what Bush did. His party doesn't actually believe in regulation, but was forced to regulate because his leadership was implicitly involved in nasty business.
"When one buyer comes into a market and offers to buy all of a product at a price higher than market, they set the price. There is no possible way you can argue that the government didn't set the price of wheat. THey offered to buy out the entire market at a price higher than anyone else was willing to pay."
They didn't set the price, Josh. They offered the highest price. That's different. Setting or fixing the price assumes force or collusive ability. The gov used neither of those.
"Indeed, because they're the same thing."
No, they are two different things. They affect each other, but they are different.
"That's what Bush did. His party doesn't actually believe in regulation, but was forced to regulate because his leadership was implicitly involved in nasty business."
His party doesn't believe in big government either; yet they certainly made government larger.
"They didn't set the price, Josh. They offered the highest price. That's different. Setting or fixing the price assumes force or collusive ability. The gov used neither of those."
Call it what you want, in they end, they paid higher prices than the market, subsidizing wheat growers and causing the dust bowl.
"No, they are two different things. They affect each other, but they are different."
Access is an action of authority and an action of those who want what is within.
"His party doesn't believe in big government either; yet they certainly made government larger."
Yes, but only in context of war. If there was no war, his party would not have made the government bigger. In every non-war department funding was slashed.
Your problems here are that you don't know how to distinguish between two entities, you don't know your basic definitions, and you are reading people who have the same problems. For example:
"Call it what you want, in they end, they paid higher prices than the market, subsidizing wheat growers and causing the dust bowl."
No, Josh, I can't "call it what I want". Words have basic definitions that can not be ignored or rewritten because YOU DON'T AGREE. From Webster's Dictionary:
Subsidy: a grant or gift of money.
THEREFUCKINGFORE, the government buying wheat from farmers for the war was not a subsidy. Its EXPRESSED PURPOSE was to keep the troops fed. Once the war ended, the government stopped paying the high price. DUH. Nowhere did the government grant or give money to the farmers. It was not a gift. The government paid a higher price for each bushel of wheat to GUARANTEE that the soliders had food. My GOD your are being dumbed down by Rothtard.
Oh yeah, I missed a point: the government offered a higher price per bushel for the expressed purpose of feeding the troops. The higher price was set to increase the yield so that the soldiers could survive year round. The gov wanted more wheat, so they increased the price. Horse and carrot, Josh; not a gift or grant; thus, not a subsidy.
Post a Comment