|
 Mr.Al
Alphabet soup
Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 27 days, 22 hours
|
 Re: bill clinton fucking sucked [Re: zappaisgod]
#11238407 - 10/13/09 08:31 AM (2 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Long story short zap, when productivity is increased in the economy the medium of exchange will correspondingly have more buying power. That is real lasting prosperity....
Inflating the money supply is false prosperity because for awhile people have more buying power because there is more of the medium of exchange and prices take awhile to adjust to the influx of new money. That is the boom. When prices adjust the cycle moves into the bust phase.
Your thoughts about the increase of the money supply not being harmful is erroneous because wages do not keep pace with inflation. That is what puts the real squeeze on most people.
In regards to the loaf of bread comment... Do you remember the Weimar Republic?
Edited by Mr.Al (10/13/09 08:33 AM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 34,515
Last seen: 6 hours, 10 minutes
|
Re: bill clinton fucking sucked [Re: Mr.Al]
#11238912 - 10/13/09 10:35 AM (2 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
No. I'm not that old, you fucker.
Purchasing power is a reasonable measure, no? All this talk about wages and inflation and whatnot being catastrophic is craziness. In the 60s, when I was a child these things were rare:
More than one car per household
Air conditioning
color television
dishwashers
I could go on ad nauseum. Even the poor today have more luxuries than most middle class families had then.
You also need to consider homeostasis vis-a-vis any measurement of prosperity, false, real or imagined. Constantly producing that ridiculous "The dollar has lost 96% of it's value since" nonsense does not facilitate your argument. If the "since" in question was "last Tuesday" you would have a point. But it isn't so you don't.
--------------------
|
 Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 152,645
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck 
|
Re: bill clinton fucking sucked [Re: Mr.Al]
#11239438 - 10/13/09 12:07 PM (2 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
How do you define "false" prosperity?
the clinton years
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 1,403
Last seen: 1 hour, 49 minutes
|
Re: bill clinton fucking sucked [Re: Mr.Al]
#11239523 - 10/13/09 12:26 PM (2 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
Again, you are not looking at the moral hazard created by artificially low interest rates. The federal reserve created the moral hazard. Central economic planning and banking caused the problem and you blame the market???
Greenspan had a role. I've said it at least 3 times already. Another dumbass republican appointee.
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
How do you define improvement? Since the fed hijacked the currency the dollar has lost 96% of it's purchasing power. The situation we are in now constitutes improvement?
Wages have gone up significantly too. You forgot to mention that.
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
I define false prosperity as the temporary good times that an influx of new money causes, before prices adjust to the increase in the money supply.
We're in agreement that money itself doesn't create prosperity. But money can be used to jump start a slow economy. Once the economy starts moving, the Government needs to step back again (which they haven't effectively done in recent decades).
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
Socialism worked great for Jamestown, didn't it? http://mises.org/story/336
Dude, WTF? I'm not saying people shouldn't work. Neither does socialism (which isn't what I support by the way).
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
Government taking wealth from people through taxation or inflation is certainly means a decrease in freedom, is that not a key part in the right to pursue happiness?
I don't think a nation can survive without a Government and taxes. Show me an example where I'm wrong.
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
Jeffrey Sachs is another useless windbag who would not be able to refute A.B.C. theory, which utterly destroys the entire keynesian school, and thus his words are worth less than nothing.
His example shows Austrian theory appears to be flawed.
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
How do you not comprehend that "saving" gigantic, bankrupt, and inefficient (fucking profitless!!! W.T.F. man!) corporations occurs at the cost of the entire damn economy! Healthy businesses produce more value.
If GM doesn't return to profitability, then I agree it was a wasted bailout. The bailout was to get them through the recession, along with the rest of the country. Chrysler returned to profitability in the 80's, and I believe GM will also.
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
Subsidizing business failure is utter nonsense! It reinforces failure! W.T.F.!?!
Agreed. I'm not a fan of the bailouts. Especially the banks. But I understand why they were done.
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
The central argument is that government spending occurs with unseen costs attached to them. It is immoral for politically well connected (sometimes also organized crime connected) unions to rob from the productivity of the entire economy through theft!
You call it theft, I call it taxes. But yes, it is immoral for Government to give to people who are well connected to Govt (Goldman Sachs, etc).
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
Fiat has a short lifespan because government abuses the shit out of the power to create new money and back it with nothing but force. You would do well to read this http://mises.org/story/2868
I don't know who actually proposed the "broken window fallacy" in your link, but any retard can see it's flawed. It assumes a taxing someone is like destroying a window. Do you really think a country can survive without taxes?
--------------------
I love how the right makes shit up about what Obama is going to do, and then scare themselves with it. - Falcon91Wolvrn03
 
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,162
Loc: [life]now[/life]
Last seen: 6 months, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
Another dumbass republican appointee.
Who was then reappointed by a Democrat.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 1,403
Last seen: 1 hour, 49 minutes
|
Re: bill clinton fucking sucked [Re: zappaisgod]
#11239540 - 10/13/09 12:32 PM (2 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
I don't see any empirical evidence there about which direction the causality arrow points in. Welfare is a luxury only afforded to the most affluent societies. Affluence is not caused by welfare. See his own remarks regarding unemployment.
That's a fair point. But I would argue that any affluent society should have welfare. If you disagree that's fine. Majority vote wins.
--------------------
I love how the right makes shit up about what Obama is going to do, and then scare themselves with it. - Falcon91Wolvrn03
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 1,403
Last seen: 1 hour, 49 minutes
|
Re: bill clinton fucking sucked [Re: Redstorm]
#11239546 - 10/13/09 12:33 PM (2 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Redstorm said:
Quote:
Another dumbass republican appointee.
Who was then reappointed by a Democrat.
And later reappointed by a Republican, after which time the housing crisis began. 
--------------------
I love how the right makes shit up about what Obama is going to do, and then scare themselves with it. - Falcon91Wolvrn03
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,162
Loc: [life]now[/life]
Last seen: 6 months, 12 days
|
|
All of which is irrelevant to everything.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 34,515
Last seen: 6 hours, 10 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
I don't see any empirical evidence there about which direction the causality arrow points in. Welfare is a luxury only afforded to the most affluent societies. Affluence is not caused by welfare. See his own remarks regarding unemployment.
That's a fair point. But I would argue that any affluent society should have welfare. If you disagree that's fine. Majority vote wins.
I have always supported some assistance for the truly needy. Unfortunately, I have never seen any legislation which cannot be gamed, whether unintentionally or by design.
Yes, majority vote wins. Do you want California? Because whenever a spending piece of shit actually comes to vote there it usually loses.
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 34,515
Last seen: 6 hours, 10 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Redstorm said:
Quote:
Another dumbass republican appointee.
Who was then reappointed by a Democrat.
And later reappointed by a Republican, after which time the housing crisis began.
The housing crisis was not Greenspan's responsibility. In fact, both he and Bush warned against it and were thwarted in their efforts to rein in Fannie and Freddie. You also seem to be under the impression that this was the first housing crisis. It was not. The early nineties were fucking crazy. Interest rates were through the roof but people STILL bought and bought and bought. Clearly, low interest rates by themselves do not produce a housing crisis.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 1,403
Last seen: 1 hour, 49 minutes
|
Re: bill clinton fucking sucked [Re: zappaisgod]
#11240118 - 10/13/09 02:05 PM (2 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Clearly, low interest rates by themselves do not produce a housing crisis.
Agreed.
--------------------
I love how the right makes shit up about what Obama is going to do, and then scare themselves with it. - Falcon91Wolvrn03
|
Mr.Al
Alphabet soup
Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 27 days, 22 hours
|
|
Wages do not keep pace with inflation of the money supply...
Greenspan was a major player in creating the housing bubble. Bernanke is also a tool though, recently reappointed by the current clown. The current fed chair was supported by Dems and Repubs so acting like this is a partisan issue doesn't make sense. The depression of 1920 lasted one year because government didn't interfere with the economy. THE GREAT DEPRESSION LASTED A DECADE BECAUSE IT WAS A CENTRAL ECONOMIC PLANNING DISASTER! Which depression would you like to live through?
Can you see that using money creation to "jump start" the economy is not real growth??? You have to pay the piper later with increased prices. Then there is another economic downturn. The business cycle occurs because the market is not allowed to adjust.
You say you don't support socialism, yet you call for a welfare state. Welfare is redistribution of wealth.
Sachs did not show anything flawed in A.B.C. theory. It is idiotic to think that welfare states are economically sustainable. Welfare rewards non-production, how is that sustainable?
Frederic Bastiat's "Broken Window Fallacy" relates to government spending, which is what you appear to be calling for. Massive government spending, like what we have now, hampers the private sector from producing in the future. The future production does not occur. This is because the government spending occurs at the cost of the entire economy. Recall that government allocation of resources is far less efficient than the private sector. Can you admit that much is true?
How hard is it to understand that companies that are not capable of being profitable should go bankrupt???
If you bail out too big to fail THE ENTIRE ECONOMY BECOMES SUBJECT TO FAILURE.
Why not allow auto makers go bankrupt?
|
Yrat
Hello
Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 1,986
Last seen: 8 hours, 3 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
Government taking wealth from people through taxation or inflation is certainly means a decrease in freedom, is that not a key part in the right to pursue happiness?
I don't think a nation can survive without a Government and taxes. Show me an example where I'm wrong.
i think you should look up the date when a federal income tax was instituted in the USA.
is it merely coincidence that pure, cold hard capitalism coincided with the greatest technological boom in human history? (the industrial revolution).
--------------------
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root."
-Henry David Thoreau
Strike The Root
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 1,403
Last seen: 1 hour, 49 minutes
|
Re: bill clinton fucking sucked [Re: Yrat]
#11244991 - 10/14/09 09:11 AM (2 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yrat said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
Government taking wealth from people through taxation or inflation is certainly means a decrease in freedom, is that not a key part in the right to pursue happiness?
I don't think a nation can survive without a Government and taxes. Show me an example where I'm wrong.
i think you should look up the date when a federal income tax was instituted in the USA.
is it merely coincidence that pure, cold hard capitalism coincided with the greatest technological boom in human history? (the industrial revolution).
I don't know what you mean by "pure, cold hard capitalism". The industrial revolution started in Britain at about the same time Britain began to impose income taxes (late 1700's). The United States Government has always had taxes ever since our founding. Initially those were excise taxes, tariffs, customs duties, and property tax. The industrial revolution took place in spite of these taxes.
--------------------
I love how the right makes shit up about what Obama is going to do, and then scare themselves with it. - Falcon91Wolvrn03
|
Mr.Al
Alphabet soup
Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 27 days, 22 hours
|
|
What do you think about the astounding coincidence that the "federal" reserve hijacked the money supply in the same year of the income tax amendment??? (I surmise Yrat was hinting at that)
Now: given that competition is good for the economy why should a central bank have a monopoly over legal tender???
I thought monopolies were bad?!?
Can the "enlightened keynesian" please explain this mystical monetary conunderum??
How much doublethink does it take before someone's head explodes from holding completely conflicting ideas to be true?
Central economic planning worked great for the U.S.S.R.
We must need more of it here, komrad!
Edited by Mr.Al (10/14/09 09:21 AM)
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 1,403
Last seen: 1 hour, 49 minutes
|
Re: bill clinton fucking sucked [Re: Mr.Al]
#11245381 - 10/14/09 10:30 AM (2 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
What do you think about the astounding coincidence that the "federal" reserve hijacked the money supply in the same year of the income tax amendment??? (I surmise Yrat was hinting at that)
I don't know. What's your theory?
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
Now: given that competition is good for the economy why should a central bank have a monopoly over legal tender???
I thought monopolies were bad?!?
Can the "enlightened keynesian" please explain this mystical monetary conunderum??
How much doublethink does it take before someone's head explodes from holding completely conflicting ideas to be true?
Do you really think it's a good idea to have fiat money printed by the free market??? C'mon now, you're smarter than that.
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
Central economic planning worked great for the U.S.S.R.
We must need more of it here, komrad!
I don't know why you bring up the Soviet Union. Why don't we just look at the United States. The US has done better than any other country since WWII.
--------------------
I love how the right makes shit up about what Obama is going to do, and then scare themselves with it. - Falcon91Wolvrn03
|
Yrat
Hello
Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 1,986
Last seen: 8 hours, 3 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
Now: given that competition is good for the economy why should a central bank have a monopoly over legal tender???
I thought monopolies were bad?!?
Can the "enlightened keynesian" please explain this mystical monetary conunderum??
How much doublethink does it take before someone's head explodes from holding completely conflicting ideas to be true?
Do you really think it's a good idea to have fiat money printed by the free market??? C'mon now, you're smarter than that.
wow, i'm not even sure how to respond to this ignorance. dependable currencies are generated by natural market forces, which is why after thousands of years, precious metals were used for this purpose, and fit the bill quite nicely (btw, they are still the only true currency in the world). the powers that be have successfully separated us from true currency, and we are forced to use their fiat by law. score one for them.
but aside from this fact, would you care to explain how a "market" would actually print money as you have claimed? the fact is, it wouldn't, because a market is not an entity unto itself. it is a collection of natural forces created by human psychology in response to the relationships between supply and demand. so again, how does a market print money? the very fact that precious metals were chosen as currency by human society is BECAUSE they can not be generated out of nothing (fiat) by ruling governments throughout history. they became standard money for thousands of years for this very. fucking. reason.
are you trying to say that individuals would not be prevented from printing their own fiat? well if that were the case who the hell would use that for currency? the printer would have to mandate (by threat of force) that you use their "money" as legal tender. hey wait a second, that sure sounds familiar!
can you explain how you are simultaneously arguing for and against this ability? doublethink indeed!
Edited by Yrat (10/14/09 01:21 PM)
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 1,403
Last seen: 1 hour, 49 minutes
|
Re: bill clinton fucking sucked [Re: Yrat]
#11246528 - 10/14/09 01:45 PM (2 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yrat said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Do you really think it's a good idea to have fiat money printed by the free market??? C'mon now, you're smarter than that.
wow, i'm not even sure how to respond to this ignorance. dependable currencies are generated by natural market forces, which is why after thousands of years, precious metals were used for this purpose, and fit the bill quite nicely (btw, they are still the only true currency in the world). the powers that be have successfully separated us from true currency, and we are forced to use their fiat by law. score one for them.
but aside from this fact, would you care to explain how a "market" would actually print money as you have claimed? the fact is, it wouldn't, because a market is not an entity unto itself. it is a collection of natural forces created by human psychology in response to the relationships between supply and demand. so again, how does a market print money?
I didn't claim the free market should. That's why I said "C'mon now, you're smarter than that."
Quote:
Yrat said:
the very fact that precious metals were chosen as currency by human society is BECAUSE they can not be generated out of nothing (fiat) by ruling governments throughout history. they became standard money for thousands of years for this very. fucking. reason.
are you trying to say that individuals would not be prevented from printing their own fiat? well if that were the case who the hell would use that for currency? the printer would have to mandate (by threat of force) that you use their "money" as legal tender. hey wait a second, that sure sounds familiar!
can you explain how you are simultaneously arguing for and against this ability? doublethink indeed!
Again, I'm not the one arguing for this. I think your question should be direced to Mr. Al.
--------------------
I love how the right makes shit up about what Obama is going to do, and then scare themselves with it. - Falcon91Wolvrn03
|
zorbman
Be Prepared
Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,475
|
|
Quote:
Do you really think it's a good idea to have fiat money printed by the free market???
My answer is HELL YES I do.
I would prefer there be a commodity standard imposed on the Fed but barring that I would much, MUCH rather have our money supply controlled by market forces than a secretive and unaccountable banking cartel which has successfully convinced people it is somehow essential to our economy. It isn't. Not by a longshot. We don't need to pay interest for access to our OWN MONEY and we don't need arrogant and aloof officials artificially inflating the money supply to profit them and their super rich banker buddies.
There are so many myths related to our current economy which need to be dispelled. One is that the Federal Reserve is essential to our economy as I mentioned. Another is the "Too Big To Fail" myth. If that were true, would someone tell me why the hell the banks have only gotten bigger since the financial crisis began? Simply put, this whole exercise is about concentrating wealth and power in a few hands.
--------------------
Men occasionally stumble over the truth but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill
Edited by zorbman (10/14/09 02:24 PM)
|
Yrat
Hello
Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 1,986
Last seen: 8 hours, 3 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Yrat said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Do you really think it's a good idea to have fiat money printed by the free market??? C'mon now, you're smarter than that.
wow, i'm not even sure how to respond to this ignorance. dependable currencies are generated by natural market forces, which is why after thousands of years, precious metals were used for this purpose, and fit the bill quite nicely (btw, they are still the only true currency in the world). the powers that be have successfully separated us from true currency, and we are forced to use their fiat by law. score one for them.
but aside from this fact, would you care to explain how a "market" would actually print money as you have claimed? the fact is, it wouldn't, because a market is not an entity unto itself. it is a collection of natural forces created by human psychology in response to the relationships between supply and demand. so again, how does a market print money?
I didn't claim the free market should. That's why I said "C'mon now, you're smarter than that."
but your questions was framed as if it could, which lends me to suggest you think that is possible.
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Yrat said:
the very fact that precious metals were chosen as currency by human society is BECAUSE they can not be generated out of nothing (fiat) by ruling governments throughout history. they became standard money for thousands of years for this very. fucking. reason.
are you trying to say that individuals would not be prevented from printing their own fiat? well if that were the case who the hell would use that for currency? the printer would have to mandate (by threat of force) that you use their "money" as legal tender. hey wait a second, that sure sounds familiar!
can you explain how you are simultaneously arguing for and against this ability? doublethink indeed!
Again, I'm not the one arguing for this. I think your question should be direced to Mr. Al.
where did Mr. Al advocate for fiat money?
--------------------
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root."
-Henry David Thoreau
Strike The Root
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
