Stable Economy

[Rshermr]

And this race to the bottom will end in epoc disaster. Me poor, fucking retarded and short sighted spork.

That would be your opinion, dipshit. And you know how much I value your opinion.

I thought you would at least go out to some bat shit crazy con tool web site for some support. You know, hell, CATO loves it. Or, if you spend a day, maybe you can finc an impartial source that would support it. Not many, however. Mostly just con tools. And libertarians.

It's a mathematical certainty that it ends in disaster. The rest of the tripe you spew isn't worth a rebuttal or commenting.

the gold standsard? Yes it did end in disaster, in the early 1930's. And it has not been tried since. And is still used by no country.

So glad we agree.

 

[Rshermr]

What is it about private fortunes that make conservatives bow low and obey?

maybe that Jobs and Gates gave us products that we love to use everyday!! Imagine if we hated the people who improved our lives as libturds do. Why, we could be back in the stone age in no time if only we'd listen to libturds!!

And there is ed, bowing and scraping. funny.

 

[georgephillip]

If he thinks Steve and Bill gave us anything, he probably thinks Hank Paulson saved the world:

"It has been four long winters since the federal government, in the hulking, shaven-skulled, Alien Nation-esque form of then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, committed $700 billion in taxpayer money to rescue Wall Street from its own chicanery and greed.

"To listen to the bankers and their allies in Washington tell it, you'd think the bailout was the best thing to hit the American economy since the invention of the assembly line.

"Not only did it prevent another Great Depression, we've been told, but the money has all been paid back, and the government even made a profit.

"No harm, no foul – right?

"Wrong."

Secrets and Lies of the Bailout | Politics News | Rolling Stone

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That would be your opinion, dipshit. And you know how much I value your opinion.

I thought you would at least go out to some bat shit crazy con tool web site for some support. You know, hell, CATO loves it. Or, if you spend a day, maybe you can finc an impartial source that would support it. Not many, however. Mostly just con tools. And libertarians.

It's a mathematical certainty that it ends in disaster. The rest of the tripe you spew isn't worth a rebuttal or commenting.

the gold standsard? Yes it did end in disaster, in the early 1930's. And it has not been tried since. And is still used by no country.

So glad we agree.

No, the current fiat Keynesian ponzi scheme. It's almost up. The gold standard never failed. You're confusing gold with (and of course no surprise for a pure ignorant statist) government intervention and the federal reserve act for the mess created in the 1930s.

 

[Rshermr]

It's a mathematical certainty that it ends in disaster. The rest of the tripe you spew isn't worth a rebuttal or commenting.

the gold standsard? Yes it did end in disaster, in the early 1930's. And it has not been tried since. And is still used by no country.

So glad we agree.

No, the current fiat Keynesian ponzi scheme. It's almost up. The gold standard never failed. You're confusing gold with (and of course no surprise for a pure ignorant statist) government intervention and the federal reserve act for the mess created in the 1930s.

Wow, step. You mentioned something being a mathematical certainty. Here is a mathematical certainty. The great depression started in 1929. By the time a dem was in the presidency, UE was over 22% and rising. So, the government intervention and the federal reserve act happened after, and the UE went down.
Try a little honesty, step. Lies are too easy to disprove.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

By the time a dem was in the presidency, UE was over 22% and rising.

actually Hoover was, in effect, a Democrat who used the Hoover Dam and other projects plus the biggest tax increase in history to that point to combat the liberal's Great Depression. FDR continued the same liberal policies and so extended the Depression by 10 years and caused World War.

Its no wonder FDR is the liberal's greatest hero. How can you top 10 years of Depression and 5 years of world war??

 

[georgephillip]

"The Tariff Act of 1930 (codified at 19 U.S.C. ch.4 ), otherwise known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff or Hawley-Smoot Tariff,[1] was an act, sponsored by Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley, and signed into law on June 17, 1930, that raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels.[2]

"The overall level tariffs under the Tariff were the second-highest in U.S. history, exceeded by a small margin only by the Tariff of 1828.[3] The act, and the ensuing retaliatory tariffs by U.S. trading partners, reduced American exports and imports by more than half."

A good or bad idea?
Do you see any parallels today?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"The Tariff Act of 1930 (codified at 19 U.S.C. ch.4 ), otherwise known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff or Hawley-Smoot Tariff,[1] was an act, sponsored by Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley, and signed into law on June 17, 1930, that raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels.[2]

"The overall level tariffs under the Tariff were the second-highest in U.S. history, exceeded by a small margin only by the Tariff of 1828.[3] The act, and the ensuing retaliatory tariffs by U.S. trading partners, reduced American exports and imports by more than half."

A good or bad idea?
Do you see any parallels today?

too stupid libturds caused the Great Depression with Smoot and are still opposed to free trade today!! Liberals should be made illegal as the Constitution intended.

 

[Norman]

2. The number of dollars let's say, only changes with increases or decreases in population.

a little Econ 101 for you: with economic progress comes more GDP or more goods and services. Without a rising money supply you would have deflation and depression. These are bad things, but you have to have taken Econ 101 to know that.

Deflation doesn't cause depressions.

Depressions cause deflation (but not necessarily).

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

2. The number of dollars let's say, only changes with increases or decreases in population.

a little Econ 101 for you: with economic progress comes more GDP or more goods and services. Without a rising money supply you would have deflation and depression. These are bad things, but you have to have taken Econ 101 to know that.

Deflation doesn't cause depressions.

A little Econ 101, class one, day one for you: When prices are going down (we call this deflation) its stupid to buy today when you can buy tomorrow at a lower price. When people stop buying you get a depression. As I said, class one day one!! Sorry

 

[georgephillip]

"The Tariff Act of 1930 (codified at 19 U.S.C. ch.4 ), otherwise known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff or Hawley-Smoot Tariff,[1] was an act, sponsored by Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley, and signed into law on June 17, 1930, that raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels.[2]

"The overall level tariffs under the Tariff were the second-highest in U.S. history, exceeded by a small margin only by the Tariff of 1828.[3] The act, and the ensuing retaliatory tariffs by U.S. trading partners, reduced American exports and imports by more than half."

A good or bad idea?
Do you see any parallels today?

too stupid libturds caused the Great Depression with Smoot and are still opposed to free trade today!! Liberals should be made illegal as the Constitution intended.

Better yet, Pluto...liberals could be reduced to 3/5 the legal stature of white male landowners "as the Constitution intended." More proof that conservatives value private wealth over freedom.

 

[BillSPrestonEsq]

public

 

[BillSPrestonEsq]

The thing about gold is that it is still vulnerable to rapid inflation and deflation. Gold, as I'm sure you know, is used in manufacturing and sold as jewelry. It is also being mined at a rate that is unpredictable and so it's growth is unpredictable. Also the rate at which it destroyed, used, or lost is unpredictable. All these factors make it a very unreliable and unstable form of currency.

 

[BillSPrestonEsq]

I can't imagine a more stable economy that one that is based on these three rules:

1. Currency is a number, a dollar, whatever. It is not backed by gold or silver or anything tangible.

2. The number of dollars let's say, only changes with increases or decreases in population. For example the federal reserve could become a branch of the treasury that maintains the security, quality and quantity of paper money in circulation.

3. Banks are required to hold 100% of their on demand accounts. You could still have savings in the form of cds or bonds but checking accounts would have to be held in the reserves.

I don't think most people agree or even have thought about it. I think that it's the biggest mistake we can make to ignore the flaws of our current system. I think it is the root of most of our problems economically today. The ability for government to create money has historically turned out badly. I think that people have to talk about this more.

Obama will not back down from his belief that he can save our economy by continuing the use of Keynesian Economics. No economy has been saved by the use of this failed economic theory. It will never work. Greece, France, Spain and other European Socialist Countries are at the brink of economic collapse. Their use of Keynesian Economics ( which appears to be the economy that goes hand and hand with European Socialism ) failed to save them. Would a rational person apply a theory that has never worked and expect a different income?

I can

Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results....one can only assume that as a collective people are batshit crazy. Hopefully people start to see the light now that there is so much information at our fingertips. Also the increased ability to network and spread ideas. Then again, bad ideas seem to spread faster..

 

[BillSPrestonEsq]

a little Econ 101 for you: with economic progress comes more GDP or more goods and services. Without a rising money supply you would have deflation and depression. These are bad things, but you have to have taken Econ 101 to know that.

Deflation doesn't cause depressions.

A little Econ 101, class one, day one for you: When prices are going down (we call this deflation) its stupid to buy today when you can buy tomorrow at a lower price. When people stop buying you get a depression. As I said, class one day one!! Sorry

I agree that if you did not increase the money supply with population growth you would get deflation, though not necessarily a depression. That only comes from rapid deflation.
You would not get depressions like the one's we have seen with our fractional reserve banking system under my OP.

 

[BillSPrestonEsq]

a little Econ 101 for you: with economic progress comes more GDP or more goods and services. Without a rising money supply you would have deflation and depression. These are bad things, but you have to have taken Econ 101 to know that.

AHHH! Not the deflation boogeyman every keynesian has been rolling out since the early part of the 1900s.

Deflation doesn't necessarily mean depression. The amount of currency in rotation handles a modest rise, based on production, better than any other system. Which, as it turns out, is simply a few people printing up more. Which is disastrous.

Just look at the rate of inflation through the classic gold era if you want to see monetary stability.

Why am I not surprised you would be a gold standard kind of guy. Economic stability of the gold era, he says. Right up to the great depression. Nice.

From a rationality point of view, you may want to take your head out of your ass and look around. NO COUNTRY is on the gold standard any more. None. And the gold standard is not coming back, me poor ignorant tool.

Are you saying that having a gold standard caused the great depression?

 

[BillSPrestonEsq]

"The financial plan is for the government is to supply nearly free credit to the banks, so that they can to lend debtors enough – at the widest interest-rate markups in recent memory (what banks charge borrowers and credit-card users over their less-than-1% borrowing costs) – to pay down the debts that were run up before 2008.

"This is not a program to increase market demand for the products of labor.

"It is not the kind of circular flow that economists have described as the essence of industrial capitalism. It is a financial rake-off of a magnitude such as has not existed since medieval European times, and the last stifling days of the oligarchic Roman Empire two thousand years ago."

The goof liberal tries to change the subject when he loses a debate:

Actually today there is no requirement to be a vassel in order to survive. Capitalism and feudalism are opposites. Only a liberal could be so stupid as to assume there is no distinction

Actually, today's cons take pains to conceal how a neo-rentier economy requires the 99% (labor and consumers) to owe the 1% (bondholders, stockholders and property owners) in the same way feudal serfs owed their lords and ladies.

What is it about private fortunes that make conservatives bow low and obey?

]

I agee that we have a problem. We disagree on why the problem exists and how to solve it. I think that we have such inequality not because of a free market and not enough regulation and government, but the exact opposite. True capatalism is free trade between two consenting parties one transaction at a time. How can this be any more fair? It is when government gets involved that the playing field becomes one sided. When you give government the ability to affect business you give a reason for businessmen to become politicians and that is what we have today. That is the problem.

In order to fix this problem we need to remove government from business and in doing so remove businessmen from the government. In order to fix our economy we need to limit the power that anyone has on manipulating currency. One rule: The money supply remains tied to population. If there is just one golden rule I think that government can handle it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

True capatalism is free trade between two consenting parties one transaction at a time. How can this be any more fair? It is when government gets involved that the playing field becomes one sided. When you give government the ability to affect business you give a reason for businessmen to become politicians and that is what we have today. That is the problem.

very very good an accurate!! But no context unless you point out that libturds want the crony capitalist fascism. They support Obamacare and Fan/Fred, for example, and they don't sign the pledge. Republicans are the saints!

One rule: The money supply remains tied to population. If there is just one golden rule I think that government can handle it.

you are dead wrong there. If money supply rises in proportion to population that is good of course but it must also rise in proportion to GDP growth!! If you have more goods and the same money/population (too little money chasing to many goods) you will have deflation( falling prices) and depression because it will always make more sense to buy in the future.

Hope that helps?

 

[georgephillip]

I agee that we have a problem. We disagree on why the problem exists and how to solve it. I think that we have such inequality not because of a free market and not enough regulation and government, but the exact opposite. True capatalism is free trade between two consenting parties one transaction at a time. How can this be any more fair? It is when government gets involved that the playing field becomes one sided. When you give government the ability to affect business you give a reason for businessmen to become politicians and that is what we have today. That is the problem.

In order to fix this problem we need to remove government from business and in doing so remove businessmen from the government. In order to fix our economy we need to limit the power that anyone has on manipulating currency. One rule: The money supply remains tied to population. If there is just one golden rule I think that government can handle it.

"Government is the means by which state policy is enforced, as well as the mechanism for determining the policy of the state."

If we agree on the above definition of Government, wouldn't government charter of corporations automatically affect how business is conducted? What institution protects consumers from corporate externalities if not democratically elected legislators?

 

[akelch]

"Government is the means by which state policy is enforced, as well as the mechanism for determining the policy of the state."

If we agree on the above definition of Government, wouldn't government charter of corporations automatically affect how business is conducted? What institution protects consumers from corporate externalities if not democratically elected legislators?

A free market.