The Death of Keynesian Economics

[loosecannon]

Nobody received back the gold that was stolen from them by the government, and a true gold standard was never put back into place. Doesn't sound temporary to me.

I keep trying to explain this to people on this board and they don't get it. You have a limited right to own property, but in every nation of the world you have no rights to own money. And when gold is used as a currency you lose your right to it.

Currencies are the property and domain of nation states.

Right now the government has granted you the conditional authority to own and use gold coin as currency, and they can take that right away at any time.

Same as it has always been.

My money is my property, and there is no limit to owning property. No one, governments included, has the right to infringe on anybody's right to own their property.

Wrong, the constitution itself states that Congress has complete authority over money. The notes in your wallet specifically identify them as property of the Federal Reserve.

And you auto can be impounded and your land seized if you don't pay taxes on them. Your cash can be seized for no reason at all, in fact it happens every day. Everything else you own can be seized on the allegation that you committed a crime.

You do have limited rights to own property, but you have no rights to own money. Which is why you can't legally deface money, the government owns it, and gold can and has been legally recalled.

 

[loosecannon]

Loosecannon intends well I'm sure, but his philosophy is pure Marxism

and your philosophy is pure Gibberishm.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I keep trying to explain this to people on this board and they don't get it. You have a limited right to own property, but in every nation of the world you have no rights to own money. And when gold is used as a currency you lose your right to it.

Currencies are the property and domain of nation states.

Right now the government has granted you the conditional authority to own and use gold coin as currency, and they can take that right away at any time.

Same as it has always been.

My money is my property, and there is no limit to owning property. No one, governments included, has the right to infringe on anybody's right to own their property.

Wrong, the constitution itself states that Congress has complete authority over money. The notes in your wallet specifically identify them as property of the Federal Reserve.

And you auto can be impounded and your land seized if you don't pay taxes on them. Your cash can be seized for no reason at all, in fact it happens every day. Everything else you own can be seized on the allegation that you committed a crime.

You do have limited rights to own property, but you have no rights to own money. Which is why you can't legally deface money, the government owns it, and gold can and has been legally recalled.

My body is my property, my labor is an extension of my body, and is therefore also my property. Therefore, anything that I earn through my labor, money, must also be my property. Since it is my property no person, collective, or government has any rightful claim to it. That criminals and governments, but I repeat myself, violate property rights is not evidence that property rights do not exist.

 

[Foxfyre]

I keep trying to explain this to people on this board and they don't get it. You have a limited right to own property, but in every nation of the world you have no rights to own money. And when gold is used as a currency you lose your right to it.

Currencies are the property and domain of nation states.

Right now the government has granted you the conditional authority to own and use gold coin as currency, and they can take that right away at any time.

Same as it has always been.

My money is my property, and there is no limit to owning property. No one, governments included, has the right to infringe on anybody's right to own their property.

Wrong, the constitution itself states that Congress has complete authority over money. The notes in your wallet specifically identify them as property of the Federal Reserve.

And you auto can be impounded and your land seized if you don't pay taxes on them. Your cash can be seized for no reason at all, in fact it happens every day. Everything else you own can be seized on the allegation that you committed a crime.

You do have limited rights to own property, but you have no rights to own money. Which is why you can't legally deface money, the government owns it, and gold can and has been legally recalled.

That is pure baloney. Our cash/money holdings are as much our property and Constitutionally protected as any other type of property. Congress is given authority to print money and establish its value. But it cannot take what is yours without due process within the restrictions of the Constitution.

Yes there are consequences for breaking laws and fines and other punishments can be administered according to the established law. But ours is a government of the people and it is the people, not the government, who own everything.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

• Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

• Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of people. Depending on the nature of the property, an owner of property has the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy their property, and/or to exclude others from doing these things.[1][2][3] Important widely recognized types of property include real property (land), personal property (physical possessions belonging to a person), private property (property owned by legal persons or business entities), public property (state owned or publicly owned and available possessions) and intellectual property (exclusive rights over artistic creations, inventions, etc.), although the latter is not always as widely recognized or enforced.[4]

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

My money is my property, and there is no limit to owning property. No one, governments included, has the right to infringe on anybody's right to own their property.

Wrong, the constitution itself states that Congress has complete authority over money. The notes in your wallet specifically identify them as property of the Federal Reserve.

And you auto can be impounded and your land seized if you don't pay taxes on them. Your cash can be seized for no reason at all, in fact it happens every day. Everything else you own can be seized on the allegation that you committed a crime.

You do have limited rights to own property, but you have no rights to own money. Which is why you can't legally deface money, the government owns it, and gold can and has been legally recalled.

That is pure baloney. Our cash/money holdings are as much our property and Constitutionally protected as any other type of property. Congress is given authority to print money and establish its value. But it cannot take what is yours without due process within the restrictions of the Constitution.

Yes there are consequences for breaking laws and fines and other punishments can be administered according to the established law. But ours is a government of the people and it is the people, not the government, who own everything.

• Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

• Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of people. Depending on the nature of the property, an owner of property has the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy their property, and/or to exclude others from doing these things.[1][2][3] Important widely recognized types of property include real property (land), personal property (physical possessions belonging to a person), private property (property owned by legal persons or business entities), public property (state owned or publicly owned and available possessions) and intellectual property (exclusive rights over artistic creations, inventions, etc.), although the latter is not always as widely recognized or enforced.[4]

Actually Congress is given the power to coin money, not print money.

 

[loosecannon]

You can believe that whooey for the rest of your lives, it still isn't true.

 

[antagon]

It's really very simple.

Who manage's the people's money better?

The people who make the money or the government whom confiscates it and allocates it the way it sees fit?

Or as another member phrased it, who spends our money better? The government who prints it or the people who collect and hoard it?

Your question is reasonable and one that all patriots should think through carefully.

The other question is ad hominem is one that usually comes from the 'Statist' or "Political Class' mentality that the government technically owns everything and should allocate what the citizens should have or be allowed.

Using the Adam Smith explanation as expanded by Walter Williams in my previous post, 'collecting' is necessary in order for the people to look to their own security and 'hoarding' is what responsible people do to ensure that security. In more charitable language it is 'saving for a rainy day' or in Biblical language: it is setting up stores in preparation for the lean years that are certain to come.

As no goverment can possibly be smart enough, educated enough, or skilled enough to manage society or its resources as well as the people themselves will do simply living their lives, the more resources left with the people to do that, the better off the people will be. The government serves best by securing the people's unalienable rights and then leaving them to live their lives.

gimme a break. hoarding is not a statist liberal ad hominem, it is an economics term which is examined in depth in adam smith's fifth book on the wealth of nations, all of which i've read cover to cover.

educate yourself. pick up your copy of ...On the Wealth of Nations read volume V chapter III. the first three pages of mine explain hoarding, its history, and the detriment to commerce with which adam smith associated it.

this is classical capitalist economics economics, Foxfyre, and put forward by the 'father' of such.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's really very simple.

Who manage's the people's money better?

The people who make the money or the government whom confiscates it and allocates it the way it sees fit?

Or as another member phrased it, who spends our money better? The government who prints it or the people who collect and hoard it?

Your question is reasonable and one that all patriots should think through carefully.

The other question is ad hominem is one that usually comes from the 'Statist' or "Political Class' mentality that the government technically owns everything and should allocate what the citizens should have or be allowed.

Using the Adam Smith explanation as expanded by Walter Williams in my previous post, 'collecting' is necessary in order for the people to look to their own security and 'hoarding' is what responsible people do to ensure that security. In more charitable language it is 'saving for a rainy day' or in Biblical language: it is setting up stores in preparation for the lean years that are certain to come.

As no goverment can possibly be smart enough, educated enough, or skilled enough to manage society or its resources as well as the people themselves will do simply living their lives, the more resources left with the people to do that, the better off the people will be. The government serves best by securing the people's unalienable rights and then leaving them to live their lives.

gimme a break. hoarding is not a statist liberal ad hominem, it is an economics term which is examined in depth in adam smith's fifth book on the wealth of nations, all of which i've read cover to cover.

educate yourself. pick up your copy of ...On the Wealth of Nations read volume V chapter III. the first three pages of mine explain hoarding, its history, and the detriment to commerce with which adam smith associated it.

this is classical capitalist economics economics, Foxfyre, and put forward by the 'father' of such.

And you again mix the context and read into my comments something I didn't say and haven't said. And you know nothing of my education on this subject.

 

[loosecannon]

It's really very simple.

Who manage's the people's money better?

The people who make the money or the government whom confiscates it and allocates it the way it sees fit?

Or as another member phrased it, who spends our money better? The government who prints it or the people who collect and hoard it?

Your question is reasonable and one that all patriots should think through carefully.

The other question is ad hominem is one that usually comes from the 'Statist' or "Political Class' mentality that the government technically owns everything and should allocate what the citizens should have or be allowed.

Using the Adam Smith explanation as expanded by Walter Williams in my previous post, 'collecting' is necessary in order for the people to look to their own security and 'hoarding' is what responsible people do to ensure that security. In more charitable language it is 'saving for a rainy day' or in Biblical language: it is setting up stores in preparation for the lean years that are certain to come.

As no goverment can possibly be smart enough, educated enough, or skilled enough to manage society or its resources as well as the people themselves will do simply living their lives, the more resources left with the people to do that, the better off the people will be. The government serves best by securing the people's unalienable rights and then leaving them to live their lives.

gimme a break. hoarding is not a statist liberal ad hominem, it is an economics term which is examined in depth in adam smith's fifth book on the wealth of nations, all of which i've read cover to cover.

educate yourself. pick up your copy of ...On the Wealth of Nations read volume V chapter III. the first three pages of mine explain hoarding, its history, and the detriment to commerce with which adam smith associated it.

this is classical capitalist economics economics, Foxfyre, and put forward by the 'father' of such.

it's OK, he called me a Marxist just because I schooled him on property rights.

 

[william the wie]

The key problem with Keynesian or any other type of modern economics is that it has the wrong starting point.

Neurological economics is just now showing that non-economic exchange is of equal or greater importance than economic exchange. Government intervention in non-economic exchange through welfare (more so in the Far East and EU than the US) and monetary policies is basically ad hoc and is properly comparable to juggling vials of nitroglycerin.

Evolutionary economics attributes virtually all non-survival economic activity to assortive mating competition. Since some genes and most memes are group selective (Try using an alphabet or language no one else does and observe effectiveness.) but almost all genes and very many memes function as individually selective mechanisms all current economic models are fatally flawed. It is not just Keynesian economics that is dead.

Demographic models are still shaking out. The two generation cycle championed by Dent and the four generation cycle developed by Strauss & Howe and championed by the still living Neil Howe are both still shaking out as a possible 16-20 generation cycle of genetic/mimetic adaptation model seems increasingly likely.

The information revolution is making it increasingly easier to predict and game government action making it less effective.

So all current economic models are to some degree obsolete.

 

[psikeyhackr]

So all current economic models are to some degree obsolete.

Yeah, what economic model mentions the losses to the entire planet for the depreciation of all of the cars on the planet for the last 50 years?

But none of the nitwits calling themselves economists have mentioned this.

Our economic theory depends on the worker/consumers being dumber than the economists.

psik

 

[loosecannon]

Neurological economics is just now showing that non-economic exchange is of equal or greater importance than economic exchange.

this exemplifies itself perfectly within every family and community. I expect more than half of all productive human activity on earth is not economic. And its net value may surpass that of the economy.

 

[loosecannon]

Yeah, what economic model mentions the losses to the entire planet for the depreciation of all of the cars on the planet for the last 50 years?

But none of the nitwits calling themselves economists have mentioned this.

some have. But economics is considered unbiased because it's results can be measured in both dollars and cents. Whereas the costs, true costs of economic activity are not so precisely evaluated within other frames of reference.

 

[loosecannon]

So all current economic models are to some degree obsolete.

psst, they always were obsolete, just like all science is obsolete.

The universe operates unreliant upon our man made laws, matter and energy thesis.

Economics is just a super crude model of reality, on it's better days. Just like sciences are all super crude models of reality on better days.

At one time science asserted a flat earth even tho math had proven the earth spherical 1000 years earlier.

 

[hipeter924]

Keynesian Economics...

I rest my case, Keynesian's are Democrats.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Keynesian Economics...

I rest my case, Keynesian's are Democrats.

Not necessarily. You still see Republicans say only WW2 got us out of the Great Depression, as if "War Keynesianism" is any different in principle than "Domestic Keynesianism."

 

[loosecannon]

R$publican Economics...

I rest my case, R$publicans are Democrats.

 

[william the wie]

By the way I was in a hurry to get to the gym and omitted an important fact: the 400 year cycle is a convenience number. On average it takes any living animal species 16-20 generations to adapt an environmental change. For humans that results in about 400 years. The world has adjusted to the spread of mostly American foods worldwide (1500-1900) but not to the industrial revolution (1776-?) that interacted with it so a lot of confusion results. The continuing industrial change of the product life cycle is not something we adapt to genetically but mimetically and cultural adaptation is not designed for a 400 year adaptation cycle so political solutions don't work.

 

[antagon]

Or as another member phrased it, who spends our money better? The government who prints it or the people who collect and hoard it?

Your question is reasonable and one that all patriots should think through carefully.

The other question is ad hominem is one that usually comes from the 'Statist' or "Political Class' mentality that the government technically owns everything and should allocate what the citizens should have or be allowed.

Using the Adam Smith explanation as expanded by Walter Williams in my previous post, 'collecting' is necessary in order for the people to look to their own security and 'hoarding' is what responsible people do to ensure that security. In more charitable language it is 'saving for a rainy day' or in Biblical language: it is setting up stores in preparation for the lean years that are certain to come.

As no goverment can possibly be smart enough, educated enough, or skilled enough to manage society or its resources as well as the people themselves will do simply living their lives, the more resources left with the people to do that, the better off the people will be. The government serves best by securing the people's unalienable rights and then leaving them to live their lives.

gimme a break. hoarding is not a statist liberal ad hominem, it is an economics term which is examined in depth in adam smith's fifth book on the wealth of nations, all of which i've read cover to cover.

educate yourself. pick up your copy of ...On the Wealth of Nations read volume V chapter III. the first three pages of mine explain hoarding, its history, and the detriment to commerce with which adam smith associated it.

this is classical capitalist economics economics, Foxfyre, and put forward by the 'father' of such.

And you again mix the context and read into my comments something I didn't say and haven't said. And you know nothing of my education on this subject.

i only know as much as you've put forward, gauged against what i have. based on what you've written, you feel that adam smith could be seen to advocate that hoarding is 'responsible' and 'better off for the people'. let me know if that is a mischaracterization of what i've plainly read. such is not my intention.

did you read what i had suggested? 3 pages or so to refresh your memory or otherwise endow you with perspective you hadn't had before on the matter.

you've eluded my argument on the purview of government and the misalignment of individual and communal benefit, seizing just my counter proposal under the government's perspective in their obligation to the latter. talk about mixing context. did you miss the context there? an honest mistake?

the consistency which you accuse me of doing what you have in fact done is noted.

 

[editec]

It wasn't a real gold standard that Nixon took us off, but a gold exchange standard. FDR took us off a gold standard.

I think that was only temporary.

FDR made it illegal for Americans to use gold for monetary purposes, and then proceeded to steal their gold. Non-compliance was met with a $10,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison. There was nothing temporary about it.

Agreed.

It was one of the things that FDR did that I object to, that's for damned sure.

You are right, he mandated that American get paid far less for their confiscated gold than it was worth and he knew it. He paid the American people $20 an oz for it, I think.

Not much later, Europe, which didn't have much gold, and did have much debt, much thanks to WWI, suddenly had a lot of it sold on the open market.

It sold for about $35 per oz, as if memory serves me.