Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Brushfire wrote:
Interesting contradiction. You made a statement earlier that liberties are based on the prosperity of the State, yet, if the state fails, you now claim you would embrace the status quo, (whatever that is,) and become wealthy.

Wait, we're talking about failed states now? Oh, Masked Man, who art thee?

Brushfire wrote:
So why aren't you wealthy now? Is the state keeping you from doing so? What's holding you back?

I'm not wealthy?

Brushfire wrote:
If you are not free, you can only be a slave, a working class 'prole, or a black market criminal.

Wait, what? The second one basically means that you can't be free unless you are either outside society (impossible) or rich.

Brushfire wrote:
Unless you're other option is to join the tyranny that runs everything. Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven, hmmm?

Hell? Being part of a tyranny would be awesome. Can you imagine that type of freedom?

Brushfire wrote:More importantly, the concept of inalienable rights, outlined in our Constitution, is all but unknown in other governments, who by default treat their people as subjects instead of citizens.

You really need to learn a whole lot more about how other countries operate and how rights can be formed. What you wrote above is just complete nonsense.

First off you assume all other countries are monarchies, which is just odd. Second up you assumed that having a monarch means that monarch must ultimately have absolute control over the people, which is entirely wrong and has been wrong, and has been wrong since the Magna Carta.

There's also problems with you mistaking form for substance, and assuming a government with a constitutional monarch actually rests any level of real power in that person, but when the main thrust of your political argument has been wrong for 796 years, little problems like that fade into the background.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormrider wrote:What's sad is that even Hamilton would be appalled at what our country has morphed into. He wanted a strong government, but not like the one we have now.

Hmm, one thing that just occurred to me is that people often use 'weak government' and 'small government' as more or less synonyms, when they really, really aren't.

While there are benefits to a political system that makes it very difficult for any political group to gain strong control and operate decisively, this doesn't in any way include the likelihood that government would be kept small. In fact the opposite is more likely true, as a lack of decisive political power at the top is more likely to lead to bloat and inefficiency at the bottom.

Look at the on-going deficit woes as a case in point, if one party was able to gain actual control of government for a time, then the budget would actually be their responsibility alone. They would have the power but also the responsibility to bring it back to a sustainable level. But as it is, neither party can gain any real level of control, and neither party is ever really responsible for bringing the budget into line. So instead they just trade off against each other, both sides getting the projects they want, and sticking the cost on the deficit, that no-one is ever going to have the responsibility to fix.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brushfire wrote:How long do you think you will enjoy any prosperity as the Federal reserve continues to destroy the value of the dollar, and impose burdensome taxes on our children to pay for all their expenses currently paid for by credit? The US is 13 trillion in debt, and the dollar getting weaker in the international market every day. Wouldn’t that be cause of concern that your liberties will be affected as the “prosperity of the state” continues to declines? Your opinion of what constitutes oppression will change very quickly, as much as the Germans in the Weimar Republic when their currency became so much monopoly play money.

These are serious concerns. To take these concerns and surround them with concerns about a coming NWO is to undermine them by putting them in your fantasy world. I know that it's exciting, intoxicating even, to think of this new world of oppressive dictatorship that you must convince us all to oppose. That's why so much science fiction is set in such exciting settings.

But it isn't true, and by playing make believe games about such a world you reduce the seriousness of real issues such as the deficit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brushfire wrote:I discovered Ron Paul back in 2007, and learned, among many things, how US dollar and credit are manipulated by the Federal Reserve. I studied about fractural banking, and was shocked to see how much a of commercial venture was nothing more than a legal form of a Ponzi scheme, backed by taxpayers money. All the assets banks currently claim to hold is a fantasy that would pop the moment everyone decided at once to make a total withdrawal of their accounts.

The people who tell you these things are liars, or people parroting the claims of liars. "International banking is a ponzi scheme!" is nonsense.

Please take some economics lessons, particularly monetary economics, to dispell the myths you've bought into.

The people who tell you these things are liars, or people parroting the claims of liars. "International banking is a ponzi scheme!" is nonsense.

Please take some economics lessons, particularly monetary economics, to dispell the myths you've bought into.

I never said International banking is a ponzi scheme. Please reread my post again. I said the US banking is.

But lets talk about how well the US is doing in the International money market.The world’s largest bond fund, PIMCO just dumped all of its U.S. government-related debt holdings. The Chinese are holding us by the short hairs with the 1 trillion plus we own them.
Oil countries like Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela had the nerve to prefer the Euro instead of the US dollar in buying oil, which further threatens the US dollar.

Your claim that my sources are liars is not an argument. Prove why they are wrong. Tell me how any academic economic lessons you learned in college mean anything when the major players like the Federal Reserve make up the rules as they go along? What monetary lessons you learned in college obviously are not being practiced by the Fed, who can create credit out of thin air,monetized debt, and pass it on to taxpayers in the form of inflation. Every attempt to audit of the Fed has been shot down. Why is that, if they are playing by the so-called book of monetary lessons, and have noting to hide? Are they above accountability?

Because it's really simple-- Governments spend more money that they have, and create credit and increase debt limits, which breaks the elementary rule of economics that you cannot spend your way into prosperity, with nonsense stimulus programs and buy back clunker car programs. Whatever way you decide to attack my argument, you cannot ignore the 13 trillion debt that just surpassed our GNP. How long will our government current management of our monetary system continue to be sustainable with this?

Also prove why fractional banking is not a form of of Government corporate welfare where US banks can borrow from the Federal reserve at low interest rates, leverage out more loans to customers than they have assets to cover, and if they fail, get bailed out by the FDIC--which is gets its money from the US tax payer. Because that is exactly how the game is being played, removing business risk. If a bank fails in say, Iowa, your taxes are used to bail it out. Is that an sterling example of how capitalism and free market is to work? If so, it's not going to work in the long run.

So if Ron Paul is a liar, tell me, who do you say is the smart money guru who has it all figured out why we are having the problems, much less has the solution? Greenspan, Bernanke, or Geithner?

Brushfire wrote:
Your claim that my sources are liars is not an argument. Prove why they are wrong.

Says the guy who spoke in rhetoric for the better part of a page.

Phototoxin wrote:
Why is that, if they are playing by the so-called book of monetary lessons, and have noting to hide? Are they above accountability?

You're mistaking rules of the enforceable type, for rules of the conditional type.

The only thing keeping my from stating that you're equivocating is uncertainty regarding your awareness.

Phototoxin wrote:
Because it's really simple-- Governments spend more money that they have, and create credit and increase debt limits, which breaks the elementary rule of economics that you cannot spend your way into prosperity...

That's not an elementary rule of economics. Economics does not deal in qualitative matters.

Brushfire wrote:

The people who tell you these things are liars, or people parroting the claims of liars. "International banking is a ponzi scheme!" is nonsense.

Please take some economics lessons, particularly monetary economics, to dispell the myths you've bought into.

Because it's really simple-- Governments spend more money that they have, and create credit and increase debt limits, which breaks the elementary rule of economics that you cannot spend your way into prosperity, with nonsense stimulus programs and buy back clunker car programs. Whatever way you decide to attack my argument, you cannot ignore the 13 trillion debt that just surpassed our GNP. How long will our government current management of our monetary system continue to be sustainable with this?

Yes. You. Can. That is how every single nation has expanded and prospered since the dawn of time. You can not expand through saving, conserving. or doing nothing. Especially in the modern world were there is no physical backing behind money, you can not run out of money.

Brushfire wrote:I never said International banking is a ponzi scheme. Please reread my post again. I said the US banking is.

Every developed country maintains much the same system. Much like claiming the US is somehow unique in having guaranteed rights for it's citizens that government cannot infringe, the idea that US banking is somehow unique in it's banking is just as mistaken.

The Chinese are holding us by the short hairs with the 1 trillion plus we own them.

This relies on assuming China has some power to call in the debt, when they're obligated to. It also assumes China's own economic growth and prosperity isn't dependant on buying more US debt.

Your claim that my sources are liars is not an argument. Prove why they are wrong.

Cite your sources. I'm going off my memories of people citing similar arguments, basically relying on a woefully silly explanation of the accelerator effect.

Tell me how any academic economic lessons you learned in college mean anything when the major players like the Federal Reserve make up the rules as they go along?

The rules of economics aren't something people make up. They're observations on how markets and individuals tends to operate.

What monetary lessons you learned in college obviously are not being practiced by the Fed, who can create credit out of thin air, and monetized debt, passing it on to taxpayers in the form of inflation.

Umm, understanding how that operates, and how governments should operate the balance inflation against deflation is one of the primary concerns of monetary economics.

Because it's really simple-- Governments spend more money that they have, and create credit and increase debt limits, which breaks the elementary rule of economics you cannot spend your way into prosperity,

That is not true of all governments. And that isn't a rule of economics, let alone a primary one.

In fact, it's complete fething nonsense. You can spend your way out of an economic downturn. Economics doesn't phrase it in those terms, but you really can drive up aggregate demand by increasing government spending, enough to offset a downturn and remove the economic waste of some portion of the business cycle.

Also prove why fractional banking is not a form of of Government corporate welfare where US banks can borrow from the Federal reserve at low interest rates,

One thing is not the other. You can have fractional banking without special rates for certain customers.

So if Ron Paul is a Liar, tell me, who do you say is the smart money guru who has it all figured out why we are having the problems, much less has the solution? Greenspan, Bernanke, or Geithner?

You have assumed that we need one person as a golden light on all matters of economics to place our absolute trust in. Economics is a science, and like all sciences you will get the most out of it by reading honest debate and (once you have sufficient understanding) taking part in such debate.

If you absolutely have to have one person to see as a font of economic wisdom, then I'd suggest Paul Krugman. Like any human being, I don't think he's right on all matters, but he's certainly endeavouring to be as honest as possible, with us and with himself. He's also demonstrated an impressive ability to predict the impact of policy debate on the stimulus bill (printing extra money would only offset deflationary pressure, not generate hyperinflation, the size of the stimulus bill wouldn't be enough to drop unemployment below the administration's goal of 9%).


Meanwhile, I guess you've conceded those other points? You've recognised that the US is not unique in the freedoms it gives its people? That talking about the NWO makes serious issues like the deficit and civil liberties sound less credible?

Brushfire's real name is Leonard Peikoff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:Economics is a social science...

Whoa, whoa, whoa, let's not be hasty.

*fixed*

Phew, that's better.

dogma wrote:Whoa, whoa, whoa, let's not be hasty.

*fixed*

Phew, that's better.

Dear God, do you know what you've done? Even on dakka, well accustomed to pointless, never ending debates, cannot survive a debate over whether economics is a real science or not. No website can...

Political Science begs to...

LoL.

Yes. You. Can. That is how every single nation has expanded and prospered since the dawn of time. You can not expand through saving, conserving. or doing nothing. Especially in the modern world were there is no physical backing behind money, you can not run out of money.

The it cannot be consider money anymore. Money is a medium of exchange, to be redeemed for something else in value. What can be considered money when its value becomes so degraded as to be worth nothing? When coins are based into worthless metal, and the paper dollar is not even worth the paper its printed on? The promise that somehow, someday, future generations in the US will make good the value on the note in the future, with what assets? That's a case of literally passing the buck. You are say it's ok to ring up debts today, and someone else pay them off, never mind we haven't even paid off the debts of the previous generation. In case you haven't notice, employment is not doing so good lately.

You really believe that government fiat money can give paper money value, as much as a child states a mud pie is like a real pie? What do you believe government is somehow able to confer value to money by enacting law?

If you absolutely have to have one person to see as a font of economic wisdom, then I'd suggest Paul Krugman.

Because he has a Nobel peace prize, that qualifies him as a financial guru, as much as it validated Obama (As he barely entered his term in office) as a peacemaker, who now is bombing Libya for humanitarian reasons? Spending is prosperity=War is peace?

Brushfire wrote:
The it cannot be consider money anymore. Money is a medium of exchange, to be redeemedd for something else in value. What can be considered money when its value becomes so degraded as to be worth nothing.

Yeah, paper money is totally worthless. You should give me all of yours, as it is clearly a burden.

Brushfire wrote:
When coins are based into worthless metal, and the paper dollar is not even worth the paper its printed on? Debt, or the promise that somehow, someday, the US will make good the value on the note in the future, with what assets? That government fiat money can give paper money value, as much as a child states a mud pie is like a real pie?

Wait, do you think gold is intrinsically valuable?'

Yeah, paper money is totally worthless. You should give me all of yours, as it is clearly a burden

.

Brushfire wrote:
When coins are based into worthless metal, and the paper dollar is not even worth the paper its printed on? Debt, or the promise that somehow, someday, the US will make good the value on the note in the future, with what assets? That government fiat money can give paper money value, as much as a child states a mud pie is like a real pie?

Wait, do you think gold is intrinsically valuable?'

Brushfire wrote:
Tell you what. Buy $100 of gold today. Place it in a box with a 100 dollar bill somewhere. Wait one year, and see which has increased in value in time. Same with silver.

I would rather invest according to market value on a day to day basis.

Brushfire wrote:
I have silver dimes that are worth over two dollars each due to the intrinsic worth of the metal they possess. The value of my investment in them has gone up almost a dollar per coin
in one year.

Nothing has intrinsic worth, unless shiny equals valuable.

Brushfire wrote:
I'm sure those who bought an ounce of gold in the 1970's for under a $100 are kicking themselves because it's now worth many times over than a $100 they kept in the bank.
If you don't think so, send me your burdensome gold, and I'll send you monopoly money which you can pretend has value.

Oh look, I just exchanged a series of USD for a good (breakfast sandwich), clearly my paper money lacks in value.

Oh look, I just exchanged a series of USD for a good (breakfast sandwich), clearly my paper money lacks in value.

Sure, you had to spend US dollars for something that would have cost you small change in the 1960's.

So you spent more dollars for a product today than you would years ago, not due of the scarcity of the thing itself,
but because the dollar buying power has decreased. Does that make you feel like a big spender, because you have
to spend more to get less as time goes by?

It would appear that something of an impasse has been reached, I'm sure that you're all as shocked as I am.

Still , on the plus side we now know that suggesting that kids shouldn't get fat, should eat healthily and maybe do some exercise is, obviously, the first step towards a bleak totalitarian future, one where we weep in anguish and bow down to inhuman masters from beyond.

.. still, as long as Youtube's still up we're be alright eh ?