Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11238290 -

So what does that have to do with this, Woodrow?

zappaisgod said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
zappaisgod said:
The people who aren't paying them back, or any other loan for that matter, are bums.  So no, the banks didn't only give risky loans to bums.  Not even close.


For the fuckteenth time, I said risky loans weren't limited to poor minorities.


Wow, you are a stunningly dishonest debater.  Really one of the slimier ones I've come across.  Here is the actual quote.

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
zappaisgod said:
A "bum" is anyone who doesn't repay a debt.  There is no way you will ever understand the concept of market pressure, is there?


I like it.  By your newly made up definition for a bum, you are correct that banks only gave risky loans to bums.


zappaisgod said:
Surprisingly enough, most of those risky loans are being repaid.  The people who got risky loans but are paying them back are not bums.  The people who aren't paying them back, or any other loan for that matter, are bums.  So no, the banks didn't only give risky loans to bums.  Not even close.



Where did I say anything about poor or minority?  You can be a fucking billionaire but if you don't repay your loans you are a bum.


Now where is there any mention of minority or poor?  Most nonliars will note I specifically included billionaires.

I am not surprised that as your house of canards collapsed you went to look for any time I ever mentioned Affirmative Action, or poor people.  What I said earlier about ACORN is true, they extorted banks to lend to unqualified people which led to greater default burdens for the banks.  It is also true that they extorted those loans through the mechanism of an Affirmative Action lending legislation known as the CRA.  I have provided repeated links to those facts.  It has nothing to do with myassertion that people who don't pay back their loans.  I even went out of my way to say that anybody who pays their loans back is NOT a bum, regardless of how they got them.

Just for curiosity, what is your definition of bum?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11238345 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Mr.Al said:
I am disappointed.  I have not yet met a keynesian who is intellectually honest.  You could at least make a token attempt of a refutation of Austrian theory.

Even a link to your favorite government shill (keynesian "economist") with his argument would be acceptable.

I feel... like a sad panda bear.:confused:

I even gave you a couple days to think and research...


Sorry, I was busy this 3 day weekend.

I went back and reread this entire post - please tell me what points of yours I didn't refute.  The only one I noticed is the one you just made - "You could at least make a token attempt of a refutation of Austrian theory."  That's kind of a large request.  How about I start one point at a time - you seem to bring up the Austrian Business Cycle a lot.  Here's a chart that appears to show that the Central Bank has actually shrank the natural business cycles, rather than the other way around:

http://www.oswego.edu/~edunne/200ch8_1.html


The write-up in the link above says the same.



That chart does not take into account inflation of the money supply.  It comes down to people having a lower standard of living because the dollar does not buy what it used to and their wages have not correspondingly increased to the inflation of the money supply.  Increasing the money supply thus leads to a greater gap between the poor and ultra wealthy well connected mega corporations. The middle class begins to disappear.  The same thing happened to the Romans when they inflated their money supply.


I don't see how the fed helps to "moderate" the business cycle when it bails out the fractional reserve banking system.  No es possible. Comprende?    The central bank facilitates massive government spending to the point of unsustainable debt.

shadowstats.com





What you don't understand is that the prosperity in America is mortgaged by debt that can not be paid without destroying the dollar. The entire economy has been propped up through inflation and debt.  That is what keynesian economics calls for. 

Recent years have been utterly ridiculous in terms of government spending and funny money creation.  The fed has begun to monetize debt, this is what the Weimar Republic did after WWI.


--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Edited by Mr.Al (10/13/09 09:21 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11239044 -

zappaisgod said:
Now where is there any mention of minority or poor?


Now you're being pathetic.  I just posted it.  That post is where I got the impression that by "bums" you meant poor minorities.  Here it is again for you:

zappaisgod said:
You also might want to read up on lawsuits filed by ACORN to compel lending in shitty neighborhoods.  All in the name of Affirmative Action.  Bush was naive.  He should have known that bums are always bums regardless of whether you do them a favor of lending them money.  They don't pay it back.


If you meant something different, fine.  But don't accuse me of being dishonest because I didn't read your mind.

zappaisgod said:Most nonliars will note I specifically included billionaires.


Sigh. Yes, AFTER I told you bums weren't limited to poor minorities, THEN you provided your definition of a bum.

Quote:
zappaisgod said:
I am not surprised that as your house of canards collapsed you went to look for any time I ever mentioned Affirmative Action, or poor people.


And I looked for the word "bum".  And I found them all together.  Which is why I assumed that's what you meant by a bum.

zappaisgod said:
What I said earlier about ACORN is true, they extorted banks to lend to unqualified people which led to greater default burdens for the banks.  It is also true that they extorted those loans through the mechanism of an Affirmative Action lending legislation known as the CRA.  I have provided repeated links to those facts.


In non-conservative speak, you are saying that ACORN made the banks follow the law.  And you're calling me the dishonest and sleazy debator.

zappaisgod said:
Just for curiosity, what is your definition of bum?


Someone who avoids work.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Mr.Al]
    #11239216 -

Mr.Al said:
That chart does not take into account inflation of the money supply.


It doesn't matter.  If inflation were accounted for, that would move the chart down from 5% average growth to something lower; it wouldn't increase the relative size of the cycles shown on the chart.

Mr.Al said:
It comes down to people having a lower standard of living because the dollar does not buy what it used to and their wages have not correspondingly increased to the inflation of the money supply.


Wages have increased roughly in line with inflation.  Perhaps not as much as inflation, but this isn't so much because of inflation itself, it's because more corporate earnings are now going to the top 5% of corporate management, and less is going to everyone else.  The top 5% are making WAY more than they used to, even after adjusting for inflation.

Mr.Al said:
Increasing the money supply thus leads to a greater gap between the poor and ultra wealthy well connected mega corporations. The middle class begins to disappear.  The same thing happened to the Romans when they inflated their money supply.


Whoa...  you think corporations are paying upper management more and everyone else less because of inflation and not greed???  I don't understand your logic at all.

Mr.Al said:
I don't see how the fed helps to "moderate" the business cycle when it bails out the fractional reserve banking system.  No es possible. Comprende?    The central bank facilitates massive government spending to the point of unsustainable debt.

shadowstats.com





What you don't understand is that the prosperity in America is mortgaged by debt that can not be paid without destroying the dollar. The entire economy has been propped up through inflation and debt.  That is what keynesian economics calls for. 

Recent years have been utterly ridiculous in terms of government spending and funny money creation.  The fed has begun to monetize debt, this is what the Weimar Republic did after WWI.


Yes deficit spending has been going out of control since Reagan.  But is our debt unsustainable?  Here's a historical perspective with some good commentary in the link:

National Debt Graph


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11239391 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
zappaisgod said:
Now where is there any mention of minority or poor?


Now you're being pathetic.  I just posted it.  That post is where I got the impression that by "bums" you meant poor minorities.  Here it is again for you:

zappaisgod said:
You also might want to read up on lawsuits filed by ACORN to compel lending in shitty neighborhoods.  All in the name of Affirmative Action.  Bush was naive.  He should have known that bums are always bums regardless of whether you do them a favor of lending them money.  They don't pay it back.



Really?  The old quote from 5 days ago was more relevant to you than the several, including the immediately preceding one, where I made it quite clear that bums referred to anyone who doesn't repay their loans?  This is what I call a flagrant lie and why your crap is disingenuous and dishonest.
Quote:
If you meant something different, fine.  But don't accuse me of being dishonest because I didn't read your mind.


You should have read the post immediately preceding the one where you injected race into the equation
Quote:
zappaisgod said:Most nonliars will note I specifically included billionaires.


Sigh. Yes, AFTER I told you bums weren't limited to poor minorities, THEN you provided your definition of a bum.


False.  I made it clear in the 10/7 post as well.  For your refreshment I said this
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/11209938#11209938
"Yes, they were.  A "bum" is anyone who doesn't repay a debt."
Before the post you reference about the extortionate ACORN
Quote:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
I am not surprised that as your house of canards collapsed you went to look for any time I ever mentioned Affirmative Action, or poor people.


And I looked for the word "bum".  And I found them all together.  Which is why I assumed that's what you meant by a bum.

  You should have read what I wrote instead of assuming.  If you looked for the word "bum" in a word search of zappa posts how come you missed the one above which was PREVIOUS to the one you quoted?  THIS IS WHY YOU ARE DISHONEST.
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
What I said earlier about ACORN is true, they extorted banks to lend to unqualified people which led to greater default burdens for the banks.  It is also true that they extorted those loans through the mechanism of an Affirmative Action lending legislation known as the CRA.  I have provided repeated links to those facts.


In non-conservative speak, you are saying that ACORN made the banks follow the law.  And you're calling me the dishonest and sleazy debator.


No, not exactly.  ACORN can't make the banks do anything, which I have pointed out several times.  Nor is the law clear that the banks would have lost the cases.  What is clear is that the banks would have to spend millions defending the cases and would have a public relations nightmare.  They went a long to get along.  Then they sold the loans to us.  ACORN used a nebulous, racist government business interference statute to extort money from banks.  Of particular note is that there was very little CRA lending until it was expanded by Clinton and used by ACORN as a threat.
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Just for curiosity, what is your definition of bum?


Someone who avoids work.


Really?  What if they support themselves without it?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11239402 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Yes deficit spending has been going out of control since Reagan.  But is our debt unsustainable?  Here's a historical perspective with some good commentary in the link:

National Debt Graph



And you persist in the nonsensical lie that the President sets the budget.  When Congress was controlled by Gingrich the debt went down.  That is the only clear conclusion to be drawn from that graph.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11240672 -

Every single time you talked about bums not repaying loans, you talked about ACORN.  Up until your 8 Oct post when you said "A "bum" is anyone who doesn't repay a debt."  My very next post was the one I said "By your newly made up definition for a bum, you are correct that banks only gave risky loans to bums."  Then you accused me of being dishonest and you claim you had always used that definition of a bum.  Please show me where you defined a bum before your 8 Oct post that I called you on.

zappaisgod said:
Really?  The old quote from 5 days ago was more relevant to you than the several, including the immediately preceding one, where I made it quite clear that bums referred to anyone who doesn't repay their loans?  This is what I call a flagrant lie and why your crap is disingenuous and dishonest.


Of course it's more relevant, because you never defined it any other way before you (re)defined it on 8 Oct.  If you did, tell us where.

zappaisgod said:
Most nonliars will note I specifically included billionaires.
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Sigh. Yes, AFTER I told you bums weren't limited to poor minorities, THEN you provided your definition of a bum.


False.  I made it clear in the 10/7 post as well.  For your refreshment I said this
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/11209938#11209938
"Yes, they were.  A "bum" is anyone who doesn't repay a debt."
Before the post you reference about the extortionate ACORN


That link points to your 8 Oct new definition which is exactly the one I called you on!  Try again.  I don't see an earlier post where you referred to a bum without referring to ACORN.

zappaisgod said:
You should have read what I wrote instead of assuming.  If you looked for the word "bum" in a word search of zappa posts how come you missed the one above which was PREVIOUS to the one you quoted?  THIS IS WHY YOU ARE DISHONEST.


I did read what you wrote and I didn't miss the post you just quoted either.  In fact, the one you just quoted IS the one I replied to, not something after it!  Take another look, or quit being dishonest.  This is getting really old.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11241337 -

Back to the topic.  I posted a graph showing historical debt as a percentage of GDP.  I didn't put much emphasis on the accompanying article, but I think it's pretty good.

Quote:
How We Get Out of the Great Depression II
By Steven Stoft, March 2, 2009



Here we go again:  Hoover got us in, and WWII got us out.  Bush got us in, and to his credit, started trying to get us out.  Though, mostly he threw money at bankers.

In the Great Depression, Roosevelt tried deficit spending, but he was too timid. Then he stopped in 1937 and the economy nose-dived. It took the humongous deficits of WWII to pull us out of the Great Depression. Those deficits blasted the economy from depression into overdrive.

Of course after the war, we had to pay off a huge national debt, but during that time, from 1946 to 1980, the economy was mainly quite prosperous. We hit a bad recession when Reagan took office, and his early deficit spending made sense (though he didn't know it). But then he continued to drive up the debt through the boom years that followed. That didn't make any sense.

We are now headed into the worst slump since 1938, and you better hope Obama can fix it because that was not a pretty time. Unfortunately, as in the Great Depression, the extreme conservatives would rather trash the country than have our government succeed. They are much worse than Bush.

The main thing to remember is that, with consumer spending going down, business is going to lay people off—not hire them. You can't blame business for this. It's just a vicious cycle that the economy gets into. And you can't blame consumers for not spending in bad times. The only way out of this, if we don't want to wait 10 years, is for the government to spend, pay unemployment insurance, or give tax breaks to people who will spend (not the rich). Of course there's also the problem of the banks. Obama should stop saving the bankers, and just take over the bad banks. Once they're working they can be sold back to the private sector.


This supports what Reich was saying in the original post.  Are there flaws in this argument?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11241626 -

"The only way out of this, if we don't want to wait 10 years, is for the government to spend, pay unemployment insurance, or give tax breaks to people who will spend (not the rich). Of course there's also the problem of the banks. Obama should stop saving the bankers, and just take over the bad banks. Once they're working they can be sold back to the private sector."

:lol:





Yeah there are some flaws...

Nixon said that the government would only own Amtrak for 2-3 years....  That certainly went well...

Your solution is to inflate the money supply???  Is that not a perfect description of attempting to remake an economic bubble???  How about leave the fucking economy alone? 



You think that the government screwing with the economy, which is what they did before and during the Great Depression, will fix the problem.  That is WHY the Great Depression lasted so long.:crazy2:  The economy picked back up again after government backed the fuck away!

How about the Depression of 1920-1921???


--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Edited by Mr.Al (10/13/09 07:28 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11241712 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Every single time you talked about bums not repaying loans, you talked about ACORN. 


Probably false but how does that equate to me saying only poor minorities are bums when I repeatedly said that even billionaires who don't repay their loans are bums.
Quote:
Up until your 8 Oct post when you said "A "bum" is anyone who doesn't repay a debt."  My very next post was the one I said "By your newly made up definition for a bum, you are correct that banks only gave risky loans to bums."  Then you accused me of being dishonest and you claim you had always used that definition of a bum.  Please show me where you defined a bum before your 8 Oct post that I called you on.


OK
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/11200956#11200956
10/7 11:16 AM

Quote:
Their homes?  Why are they their homes when they never paid for them?  I have asked this before and I will ask it yet again.  If the bums who borrowed the money had paid back their loans would there be a crisis?  Answer, "no".  In fact, the answer is actually, "FUCK NO".


Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Really?  The old quote from 5 days ago was more relevant to you than the several, including the immediately preceding one, where I made it quite clear that bums referred to anyone who doesn't repay their loans?  This is what I call a flagrant lie and why your crap is disingenuous and dishonest.


Of course it's more relevant, because you never defined it any other way before you (re)defined it on 8 Oct.  If you did, tell us where.


See above.  Perhaps I wasn't clear in that post but I was certainly clear subsequently and prior to your fallacious assertion that I was specifically referring to poor or minorities.
Quote:


zappaisgod said:
Most nonliars will note I specifically included billionaires.
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Sigh. Yes, AFTER I told you bums weren't limited to poor minorities, THEN you provided your definition of a bum.


False.  I made it clear in the 10/7 post as well.  For your refreshment I said this
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/11209938#11209938
"Yes, they were.  A "bum" is anyone who doesn't repay a debt."
Before the post you reference about the extortionate ACORN


That link points to your 8 Oct new definition which is exactly the one I called you on!  Try again.  I don't see an earlier post where you referred to a bum without referring to ACORN.


See above.  Also several other references to the fact that socioeconomic status or racial makeup were not qualifications for bumhood.  Several.
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
You should have read what I wrote instead of assuming.  If you looked for the word "bum" in a word search of zappa posts how come you missed the one above which was PREVIOUS to the one you quoted?  THIS IS WHY YOU ARE DISHONEST.


I did read what you wrote and I didn't miss the post you just quoted either.  In fact, the one you just quoted IS the one I replied to, not something after it!  Take another look, or quit being dishonest.  This is getting really old.


False.  The post I linked was this one:
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/11209938#11209938
"Yes, they were.  A "bum" is anyone who doesn't repay a debt.  There is no way you will ever understand the concept of market pressure, is there?"

The post you linked was this one:
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/11200956#11200956
In which I said this:
"Oh no?  Perhaps you might want to actually read the article.  You also might want to read up on lawsuits filed by ACORN to compel lending in shitty neighborhoods.  All in the name of Affirmative Action.  Bush was naive.  He should have known that bums are always bums regardless of whether you do them a favor of lending them money.  They don't pay it back."

I have been quite clear from the beginning that bumhood is not related to race or socioeconomic class.  It is related to behavior.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11241935 -

Quote:
The main thing to remember is that, with consumer spending going down, business is going to lay people off—not hire them. You can't blame business for this.

I would wager that the majority of lay-offs are to maintain profits and not to keep a company from going under, which is the worst possible thing these companies could do for the economy and therefore their profits.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Mr.Al]
    #11242347 -

Mr.Al said:
Nixon said that the government would only own Amtrak for 2-3 years....  That certainly went well...


You trusted Nixon?  :shrug:

Why do you think it hasn't gone private yet?  Almost certainly because it wouldn't be profitable under private ownership either.  I don't understand why the Government is subsidising an industry that Americans don't seem too interested in.  I'd be fine letting AMTRAK die.  I suspect there are political reasons we're not aware of - perhaps a desire to maintain the railroad infrastructure?

Mr.Al said:
Your solution is to inflate the money supply???  Is that not a perfect description of attempting to remake an economic bubble???


NO!  Once again, the solution being proposed in this thread is to borrow money, not create it out of thin air.

Mr.Al said:
You think that the government screwing with the economy, which is what they did before and during the Great Depression, will fix the problem.  That is WHY the Great Depression lasted so long.:crazy2:  The economy picked back up again after government backed the fuck away!


Funding WWII is your idea of the Government backing away?!?!?  Try again.

Mr.Al said:
How about the Depression of 1920-1921???


According to Wikipedia:
"The recession lasted from January 1920 to July 1921, or 18 months, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. Though long by modern standards, this was shorter than recessions from 1910-12 and 1913-1914 (24 and 23 months respectively) and significantly shorter than the Great Depression (43 months)."

I'm assuming your point was about the length of this depression, right?  They don't last as long anymore.  In fact, according to BEA data, the current depression appears to be nearing its end even quicker than the depression of 1920:



Time will tell how long it will last...

Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (10/13/09 09:56 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11244963 -

Borrowing money is still inflating the money supply to create a temporary false prosperity.


I wasn't referring to WWII, I was referring to after the war.


http://mises.org/article.aspx?control=1065



WWII did not create prosperity. 

The massive destruction of entire cities, factories, and misallocation of resources is a lesson in Frederic Bastiat's "Broken Window Fallacy" writ large.  What could have been produced if all that destruction did not occur?  If it were not necessary to rebuild what was destroyed?  Perhaps we should just destroy a city in the U.S. every month.  It will be great for the economy.:crazy2:  Think of all the people we could employ!:lol:

The Great Depression fucked up the economy for a decade.


Given that government is spending more money than ever before, it is certainly possible that the "recession" will end...  It would only be false prosperity caused by more funny money floating around!  Then the crash after prices adjust....




Remember the Weimar Republic???

Better go to the hardware store and buy that wheelbarrow, otherwise what will you use to carry all that fiat to go and buy the wheelbarrow so you can get that loaf of bread???:wink:


How much inflation can the economy withstand until the dollar tanks? 

What is the solution then?

Government price fixing?

http://mises.org/story/3498


Central economic planning, central banks, and stupid government cheerleaders are to blame for this economic mess.  How do you figure they are the ones with the solutions?:crazy2:


--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Edited by Mr.Al (10/14/09 10:10 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Mr.Al]
    #11245222 -

Mr.Al said:
Borrowing money is still inflating the money supply to create a temporary false prosperity.


Borrowing money is a fundamental part of capitalism.  If I have a business that I want to upgrade/improve, I take out a loan, make improvements, and hope they pay for themselves.

Similarly, the Government stimulates the economy, the nation is prosperous, and the new prosperity generates additional income for the Government.

Mr.Al said:
I wasn't referring to WWII, I was referring to after the war.

http://mises.org/article.aspx?control=1065

WWII did not create prosperity.

The massive destruction of entire cities, factories, and misallocation of resources is a lesson in Frederic Bastiat's "Broken Window Fallacy" writ large.  What could have been produced if all that destruction did not occur?  If it were not necessary to rebuild what was destroyed?  Perhaps we should just destroy a city in the U.S. every month.  It will be great for the economy.:crazy2:  Think of all the people we could employ!:lol:



I'll agree that war is not the smartest way to stimulate the economy, as a stimulus is best if it provides some sort of return on investment.  Improving education, making public transportation more efficient, investing in alternative energies all have potential returns to the country.  You win now AND you win later.

Mr.Al said:
The Great Depression fucked up the economy for a decade.

Given that government is spending more money than ever before, it is certainly possible that the "recession" will end...  It would only be false prosperity caused by more funny money floating around!  Then the crash after prices adjust....


I think you need to read your own literature.  Borrowed money isn't "funny money".  Printed money is.  (And yes, I understand there is some of that going on too, but there always has been to a degree.  Hence, we have inflation.)

Mr.Al said:
Remember the Weimar Republic???

Better go to the hardware store and buy that wheelbarrow, otherwise what will you use to carry all that fiat to go and buy the wheelbarrow so you can get that loaf of bread???:wink:

How much inflation can the economy withstand until the dollar tanks?


Why do you think there is a limit?  So long as wages stay in line with inflation, there isn't a problem.  As previously discussed, wages have kept up with inflation:



Mr.Al said:
What is the solution then?

Government price fixing?

http://mises.org/story/3498


NO!  Are you crazy!  Let the prices float to what the market wants.

Mr.Al said:
Central economic planning, central banks, and stupid government cheerleaders are to blame for this economic mess.  How do you figure they are the ones with the solutions?:crazy2:


As we discussed earlier, there are many reasons for the current crisis.  Although Greenspan can take some of the blame, most of the reasons have nothing to do with the federal reserve.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11246390 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Mr.Al said:
Increasing the money supply thus leads to a greater gap between the poor and ultra wealthy well connected mega corporations. The middle class begins to disappear.  The same thing happened to the Romans when they inflated their money supply.


Whoa...  you think corporations are paying upper management more and everyone else less because of inflation and not greed???  I don't understand your logic at all.




it's because you don't understand the monetary system at all.


--------------------
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root."
-Henry David Thoreau
Strike The Root

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11246445 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Mr.Al said:
Your solution is to inflate the money supply???  Is that not a perfect description of attempting to remake an economic bubble???


NO!  Once again, the solution being proposed in this thread is to borrow money, not create it out of thin air.



borrowed money IS "printed" out of thin air, don't you know what fractional reserve banking is?  you need to do some reading.




Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Mr.Al said:
Borrowing money is still inflating the money supply to create a temporary false prosperity.


Borrowing money is a fundamental part of capitalism.  If I have a business that I want to upgrade/improve, I take out a loan, make improvements, and hope they pay for themselves.

Similarly, the Government stimulates the economy, the nation is prosperous, and the new prosperity generates additional income for the Government.


so you want to maximize government profit at the expense of everyone's purchasing power?  aka, increase the gap between rich and poor?  and i though you were a left winger.


Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Mr.Al said:
The Great Depression fucked up the economy for a decade.

Given that government is spending more money than ever before, it is certainly possible that the "recession" will end...  It would only be false prosperity caused by more funny money floating around!  Then the crash after prices adjust....


I think you need to read your own literature.  Borrowed money isn't "funny money".  Printed money is.  (And yes, I understand there is some of that going on too, but there always has been to a degree.  Hence, we have inflation.)


again you make this mistake.  borrrowed money IS FUNNY MONEY.  LOOK UP FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING.  why argue about something you clearly know nothing about?




Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Mr.Al said:
What is the solution then?

Government price fixing?

http://mises.org/story/3498


NO!  Are you crazy!  Let the prices float to what the market wants.


such hypocrisy.  are you for or against free markets?


Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Mr.Al said:
Central economic planning, central banks, and stupid government cheerleaders are to blame for this economic mess.  How do you figure they are the ones with the solutions?:crazy2:


As we discussed earlier, there are many reasons for the current crisis.  Although Greenspan can take some of the blame, most of the reasons have nothing to do with the federal reserve.


:facepalm:

care to clarify then, oh wise one?


--------------------
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root."
-Henry David Thoreau
Strike The Root

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Yrat]
    #11247170 -

Yrat said:
borrowed money IS "printed" out of thin air, don't you know what fractional reserve banking is?


Yes I do understand fractional reserve banking.  Perhaps you don't understand it completely, so let me help explain.  When the US sells bonds, those bonds can be purchased by the market, or by the Federal Reserve.  When they're purchased by the Federal Reserve, it's probable that they use "funny money" (money that doesn't exist) to buy them.  However, when they're purchased by the market, it's real money.  Funny money can lead to inflation, as it increases the supply of money in the economy.  Borrowed money, on the other hand, simply moves existing money from the lender to the Government.  This money is NOT created out of thin air.

Yrat said:
so you want to maximize government profit at the expense of everyone's purchasing power?  aka, increase the gap between rich and poor?  and i though you were a left winger.


When funny money is issued, it does help the Government at the expense of the dollar.  It's a roundabout way of increasing Government revenue.  As a liberal, I'm ok with this if it's not out of control (I prefer that the Government sell debt to the markets rather than the Fed).  I still have no idea how you think this helps the wealthy at the expense of the poor.  Government money is generally used to help the working class (with the exception of the recent banking bailouts, in which case I agree with you).

Yrat said:
again you make this mistake.  borrrowed money IS FUNNY MONEY.  LOOK UP FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING.  why argue about something you clearly know nothing about?


See above or tell me how I'm wrong.

Yrat said:
such hypocrisy.  are you for or against free markets?


It depends on how you define "free markets".  There's a huge spectrum between laissez faire and communism which you seem to be unaware of.  I am in favor of captialist markets with significant Government regulation/oversight.

Yrat said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Although Greenspan can take some of the blame, most of the reasons have nothing to do with the federal reserve.


:facepalm:

care to clarify then, oh wise one?


Zap and I already did in the Bill Clinton thread.  Here's some of them:

-Reckless and unsustainable lending practices resulting from the deregulation and securitization of real estate mortgages
-Financial institutions overleveraging themselves
-Rating agencies giving AAA ratings to mortgage backed securities made up of risky mortgages


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11247277 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Yrat said:
borrowed money IS "printed" out of thin air, don't you know what fractional reserve banking is?


Yes I do understand fractional reserve banking.  Perhaps you don't understand it completely, so let me help explain.  When the US sells bonds, those bonds can be purchased by the market, or by the Federal Reserve.  When they're purchased by the Federal Reserve, it's probable that they use "funny money" (money that doesn't exist) to buy them.  However, when they're purchased by the market, it's real money.  Funny money can lead to inflation, as it increases the supply of money in the economy.  Borrowed money, on the other hand, simply moves existing money from the lender to the Government.  This money is NOT created out of thin air.


the money for a loan doesn't exist until you sign on the dotted line.  up until that moment, it was not on the balance sheet.  when you sign it into existence, yes, it IS created out of thin air.  this is how a DEBT-based fractional reserve system works.

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Yrat said:
so you want to maximize government profit at the expense of everyone's purchasing power?  aka, increase the gap between rich and poor?  and i though you were a left winger.


When funny money is issued, it does help the Government at the expense of the dollar.  It's a roundabout way of increasing Government revenue.  As a liberal, I'm ok with this if it's not out of control (I prefer that the Government sell debt to the markets rather than the Fed).  I still have no idea how you think this helps the wealthy at the expense of the poor. 


via inflation.  inflation is a tax that transfers value of money upwards to the politically well-connected (those who get to spend it first when it still has 100% base value).  do you think the poor are the ones likely to have such connections to government?  the very process of money creation (inflation of supply) moves VALUE upwards.  don't think numbers on the bill, think of the VALUE it is supposed to represent. 

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Yrat said:
again you make this mistake.  borrrowed money IS FUNNY MONEY.  LOOK UP FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING.  why argue about something you clearly know nothing about?


See above or tell me how I'm wrong.


see above

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Yrat said:
such hypocrisy.  are you for or against free markets?


It depends on how you define "free markets".  There's a huge spectrum between laissez faire and communism which you seem to be unaware of.  I am in favor of captialist markets with significant Government regulation/oversight.


more doublethink!  that doesn't even make sense.  do you know the definition of capitalism?  here, i looked it up for you:

capitlism:
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

explain to me how we can have state-sponsored investment into various private sectors, and even state-ownership of certain industries, and yet still have that definition be applicable to our system.  would you agree that what we have now is nowhere near capitalism?

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Yrat said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Although Greenspan can take some of the blame, most of the reasons have nothing to do with the federal reserve.


:facepalm:

care to clarify then, oh wise one?


Zap and I already did in the Bill Clinton thread.  Here's some of them:

-Reckless and unsustainable lending practices resulting from the deregulation and securitization of real estate mortgages
-Financial institutions overleveraging themselves
-Rating agencies giving AAA ratings to mortgage backed securities made up of risky mortgages




didn't the FED make the easy money that allowed those things to become problems?


--------------------
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root."
-Henry David Thoreau
Strike The Root

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Yrat]
    #11247487 -

Yrat said:
the money for a loan doesn't exist until you sign on the dotted line.  up until that moment, it was not on the balance sheet.  when you sign it into existence, yes, it IS created out of thin air.  this is how a DEBT-based fractional reserve system works.


So if I buy a bond, you're saying that I'm not actually using my real money, I'm signing new money into existance???  That only applies if the Fed is buying the bonds, as I already stated.

Yrat said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I still have no idea how you think this helps the wealthy at the expense of the poor.


via inflation.  inflation is a tax that transfers value of money upwards to the politically well-connected (those who get to spend it first when it still has 100% base value).  do you think the poor are the ones likely to have such connections to government?  the very process of money creation (inflation of supply) moves VALUE upwards.  don't think numbers on the bill, think of the VALUE it is supposed to represent.


I actually agree with you, it helps the Government and the people who get the money first.  If the Government spends it on welfare, education, building projects, etc, then they get it first.

Yrat said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Yrat said:
again you make this mistake.  borrrowed money IS FUNNY MONEY.  LOOK UP FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING.  why argue about something you clearly know nothing about?


See above or tell me how I'm wrong.


see above


As explained, it's only funny money if the fed creates money to buy bonds, not if existing money buys it.

Yrat said:
more doublethink!  that doesn't even make sense.  do you know the definition of capitalism?  here, i looked it up for you:

capitlism:
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

explain to me how we can have state-sponsored investment into various private sectors, and even state-ownership of certain industries, and yet still have that definition be applicable to our system.  would you agree that what we have now is nowhere near capitalism?


No.  I would say we have capitalism with a hint of socialism, but nothing even close to pure socialism (government ownership of industry).

Yrat said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Zap and I already did in the Bill Clinton thread.  Here's some of them:

-Reckless and unsustainable lending practices resulting from the deregulation and securitization of real estate mortgages
-Financial institutions overleveraging themselves
-Rating agencies giving AAA ratings to mortgage backed securities made up of risky mortgages


didn't the FED make the easy money that allowed those things to become problems?


To a degree.  But they wouldn't have happened with adequate regulation.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11247614 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Yrat said:
the money for a loan doesn't exist until you sign on the dotted line.  up until that moment, it was not on the balance sheet.  when you sign it into existence, yes, it IS created out of thin air.  this is how a DEBT-based fractional reserve system works.


So if I buy a bond, you're saying that I'm not actually using my real money, I'm signing new money into existance???  That only applies if the Fed is buying the bonds, as I already stated.


are we talking bonds or loans?

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Yrat said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I still have no idea how you think this helps the wealthy at the expense of the poor.


via inflation.  inflation is a tax that transfers value of money upwards to the politically well-connected (those who get to spend it first when it still has 100% base value).  do you think the poor are the ones likely to have such connections to government?  the very process of money creation (inflation of supply) moves VALUE upwards.  don't think numbers on the bill, think of the VALUE it is supposed to represent.


I actually agree with you, it helps the Government and the people who get the money first.  If the Government spends it on welfare, education, building projects, etc, then they get it first.


so government hands out depreciated dollars to the poor, making them poorer, while moving value upwards to a wealthy elite, all at the expense of the middle class.  how is this NOT widening the gap between rich and poor?


Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Yrat said:
more doublethink!  that doesn't even make sense.  do you know the definition of capitalism?  here, i looked it up for you:

capitlism:
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

explain to me how we can have state-sponsored investment into various private sectors, and even state-ownership of certain industries, and yet still have that definition be applicable to our system.  would you agree that what we have now is nowhere near capitalism?


No.  I would say we have capitalism with a hint of socialism, but nothing even close to pure socialism (government ownership of industry).


you don't think by that very definition, real capitalism is mutually exclusive from your version?

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Yrat said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Zap and I already did in the Bill Clinton thread.  Here's some of them:

-Reckless and unsustainable lending practices resulting from the deregulation and securitization of real estate mortgages
-Financial institutions overleveraging themselves
-Rating agencies giving AAA ratings to mortgage backed securities made up of risky mortgages


didn't the FED make the easy money that allowed those things to become problems?


To a degree.  But they wouldn't have happened with adequate regulation.


fox and the henhouse.  the FED is a business, a private bank.  it is not government owned.  as a business, their goal is to make a profit, their business is, quite literally, making money.  you trust them to regulate themselves?  it is nothing but government-sponsored counterfeiting. 


--------------------
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root."
-Henry David Thoreau
Strike The Root

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Government
( 1 2 all )		 DailyPot 4,271 33 01/18/14 11:44 AM
by Echro
* TV Marti: shining example of government wastefullness Anonymous 360 1 06/18/03 08:44 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* paper money as currency?Inflation? stock HOW?? fake economy?
( 1 2 all )		 kaiowas 3,143 22 08/26/03 08:37 AM
by Anonymous
* Do you "like" the US government?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 trendalM 3,305 63 07/22/04 06:36 PM
by Evolving
* Federal Reserve Questions... RonoS 1,715 16 09/19/02 07:32 AM
by Anonymous
* Must Read: History Of The Federal Reserve FrankieJustTrypt 2,024 17 02/15/04 06:48 AM
by Phred
* Government Hits $6.4 Trillion Debt Limit
( 1 2 all )		 Ellis Dee 2,754 23 02/26/03 09:22 AM
by pattern
* The Alliance and Coalition Sue Government silversoul7 704 3 02/18/04 02:31 PM
by Strumpling

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
16,837 topic views. 1 members, 240 guests and 17 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.036 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.