TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
You forgot cockiness
But as I know what I'm talking about, I believe it is justified.
If the press can make you look stupid, then you might want to think about how you address the press.
I haven't seen the press make Ron Paul look stupid, but I have seen them ignore him blatantly.
No it's not. The errors made by the people that stated how much government programs were going to cost measured in the thousands of percents.
And while you might believe that they are not going to fudge the numbers to match what their employers want, then you are sadly naive.
Do you even know what M1, M2, M3, and M4 is?
Do you even know what inflation is?
You are demonstrating a lack of knowledge so profound that it is breath-taking.
High rates serve to discourage inflation, because it tightens up money supply. Low rates serve to encourage inflation by loosening it.
Inflation is not caused by employment, or unemployment. Those are mere indicators of what is happening to consumer demand, and thus lag behind inflation or deflation.
Obviously, unemployment is going to be deflationary, but if there is deflation, then some businesses are going to face losses, or are going to start laying off workers (or lean on their suppliers to get discounts.)
If you are going to post charts you should post charts that are detailed, or post the underlying data so it can be examined.
Destruction is part of the economic cycle, and extending out the period of destruction is stupid. The malinvestment has to be corrected for, before real growth can resume. Attempting to inflate a deflating economy only prolongs the suffering, anxiety, and nervousness of people that are effected, or might be effected.
Better to step out of the way, let the firms that were mismanaged get swept away so that the resources they are soaking up can be redirected to better uses that actually have some demand.
Economic Intervention does not solve the underlying problems. If the government hides the damage to the economy by inflating (and then tweaking the CPI to show lower rates) then the underlying problems of malinvestment and mismanagement are not actually fixed.
Besides, Inflation does not benefit any one, because money has no value in and of itself, it is merely a commodity that serves as a common benchmark for the value of other goods and services.
And as I've repeated countless times, deflation is the natural trend of a thriving economy, because it means that the economy is becoming more efficient through productivity gains, and labor gains.
Only a dying economy (or one that is being flooded with valueless paper) is going to see inflation over the long term.
Your vaunted economic intervention is a piss poor attempt to mask reality with out fixing the underlying problems. The idea isn't to allow the malinvestment to be corrected for, because inflating the money supply does not accomplish that, all inflation does is mask the real problems by allowing the malinvestment to continue.
You can not have a economic model that ignores reality, or politics. Economics, like the economy, is driven by the individual desires of every participant in the market. You can not just arbitrarily attempt to dictate to them what they want or need, at least not for long. The Soviets tried that, and are on the ash heap of history because of it.
I suppose even paranoids have enemies...
Hardly long breaks...
And I thought I sounded like a callous, heartless bastard. I believe that people should be able to enjoy their holidays, here you are bitching about people being allowed to enjoy hollidays.
Working students to death is not going to encourage them to be motivated to study harder. It will likely discourage them, by depriving them of anything worth looking forward to.
Speaking of injecting politics into economics, perhaps you should take a look in the mirror.
No, this country was not built upon the principles you claim. Not only are you ignorant of economics, but are ignorant of history.
This republic was not built on socialist ideals.
Actually, no society has ever been built on socialist ideals and survived or prospered.
If a person's house burned down, then they can ask for help, but if they can not ask their neighbors for help, or are unwilling too, then their neighbors should not be obligated to help them.
Forced Charity, Myrmidon, is theft, not charity.
People should benefit from their labor, and if the markets place a higher value on their labor, then that is how it is.
The attempts of government to discourage society from making such value judgments is ignorant. Everything is subjective.
I don't think a doctor should be taxed any more then an employee at the bottom. The so called excessive consumption of those that have money means more jobs for everyone, and jobs, are a good thing to have, because they lead to production and wealth creation.
Taxes on income, on labor, are slavery. They are an attempt to punish people for being willing to work harder or being smarter, or better trained, than other people.
They are collected through direct violations of the 4th, and 5th Amendments. They are collected in such a fashion as that no one is secure in their papers, effects and homes from the threat of government extortion. The metholodogy of their collection forces people to possibly bear witness against themselves.
But that doesn't cover the slavery aspect.
For the slavery aspect, one only need to consider that under slavery the production of a group of people was taken with out their permission, by force, or threat of force.
Taxes are collected from a group of people, with out their permission, by force, or threat of force.
If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's probably a fucking duck.
Well then I am sure you can look forward to a career as another hollow talking head on network T.V.
Yes, you are, you're just ignorant of what slavery is.
Allowing a tyranny of 51% to dictate to the other 49% what they have to do is not a system that is just, fair, or equatable. It is a system of tyranny.
Because it was supposed to serve as a check on the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch to prevent them from abusing their power. It was not intended to be the activist legislating system that it has warped into in the 20th century, which are of course, due in large part to FDRs threats to pack the court if they didn't surrender to his tyrannical demands.
All the more reason to get government out of the way...
Oh, I see that quote. I've changed my mind. Public money should not be used for private benefit at all.
The government's ideas are wrong, they are attempting to regulate demand, instead of increase supply to effect prices.
Their attempts will backfire, and result in increased demand. Clearly if a person does not have health insurance they are not going to be inclined to go to the doctor or a hospital unless they have to.
If there was more competition in the markets then prices would decline, which would ease the burden on insurance companies, and those that pay for insurance.
The government is putting the cart before the horse.
Comparing the United States to any European nation is not an apples to apples comparison.
First of all, there is the fact that we are easily 10x bigger than France, in both actual land mass and population. Then there is the fact that our population is much more dispersed as a result of our size.
The only comparison that can be made with any great fairness would be comparing us to the entirety of Europe, and I am sure that just like here, there are variances in the quality, efficiency and quantity of care available.
Immaterial, the problem is that the United States should not be involved in any foreign war that will require occupation after we have achieved victory. The United States strength has been its refusal to be drawn into international politics and kowtow to the demands of foreign potentates and foreign kings.
The founders recognized the fact that we should avoid foreign entanglements. Not only are they costly, but they reduce our ability to defend ourselves, which is the only just use of the military.
We should have pulled out of Europe at the end of 1991. Subsidizing their defense at our expense amounts to paying tribute to those nations.
If you have more than $100K in the bank then you are mismanaging your money.
Actually, considering the fact that I am paying taxes, the only person that would suffer is myself, and as I am paying taxes then I have already paid for it (over $30K in the last two years) no, my debt to society is already amortized. I do believe that the balance on that account is actually in my favor.
If the vaccine causes irreparable harm then they should be sued.
Besides, the media scare-mongering around Swine and Bird Flue is stupid. The swine flu hasn't even gotten near the mortality of the 1917/18 Epidemic.
Must, be because our health system is a lot more effective than given credit for. Obviously, if there was something wrong with it, then there would be more deaths, but the deaths that are reported come from peopel that went into hospitals for treatment.
Besides, the treatment for viruses has not changed over the course of several millenia, drink fluids, and enjoy some time off. Not really much else you can do about viral infections.
Yes, there are vaccines, but there are risks with vaccines, too, and with going into hospitals.
Blanket Protecting them from lawsuits is not the solution.
You've obviously never tried to scoop up sand. If you use your fist you will lose more and more the tighter you squeeze, until you are lucky to have a few grains in your hand. If you cup your hand and don't squeeze you get more. The government's approach is the equivalent of a fist, not a cupped palm.
Corruption doesn't necessarily effect the cost of living.
And yes, I accused you of being a Statist again, because you are. You are arguing that the government should do this, that, and another, and then protest that you don't want more government intervention.
I have yet to see you produce anything that would indicate that you actually favor less government, instead of more government.
Those that are merely satisfied with what they have are on the path to seeing it all be taken from them. A nation that is not actively seeking to maintain its lead will fail. A man who is merely satisfied with what he has is a man that is walking around dead.
It's ignorance to believe that we should be satisfied. The cost of living is going up in Europe, and the middle class is being squeezed out of existence by it, because their economy is stagnant and unchanging, due to the same insipid policies being pursued here by the Federal Reserve and the Federal Government.
Yes, everyone loves the McJobs which are apparently the only thing that this country is going to be left with after we chase manufacturing out of the country.
Service jobs do not produce real wealth.
They have typically been a force towards keeping inflation in check through the importation of cheap foreign made goods.
Which is a good thing, because the Federal Reserve has been doing the exact opposite, and pursuing inflationary policies with reckless abandon.
Unfortunately all those T-Bills and all that debt we are producing costs interest, and thus to think we can continue to increase the amount of our debt indefinitely with out ill-effects is absurd.
Well, except to you, because you probably believe that as we are all dead in the long term anyway, it doesn't matter.
No sense of obligation to future generations to give them a nation that can stand on its own two feet.
I believe we had actually shifted to discussing tariffs, and whether or not they are beneficial or required when it comes to protecting industries that are important for the security of the United States.
Perhaps you should go read up on World War II some more. Near the outbreak of hostilities Japan was facing supply problems in steel, aluminum, and oil, because we had cut them off. To leave ourselves vulnerable and unable to produce armaments for "savings" or "efficiency" is stupid.
You failed to realize the point, and are dragging the argument in a different direction all together. Maybe I'll just accept it as your concession that I'm right, and that you're wrong.
And I never said that tariffs should be used exclusively to just protect all domestic industry, just vital industries (steel, aluminum and agriculture) that are required in the event of another war.
Other than that, they should be used to ensure that the everyone is forced to compete on a level playing field, it is not just to allow nations like China to abuse their currency by continuously devaluing it, or refusing to allow it to float so that they can continue to take advantage of the lower cost of labor that results from such refusal to allow a floating currency.
The United States is still amongst the most productive of nations in the world, but for us to ignore that fact and allow other nations that are not as efficient as us to compete, because they can state that their currency is worth less than ours, despite having similar purchasing power parity in those nations as our dollar has here, then we are giving them a loaded gun and allowing them to take potshots at our industries.
No, your sad lack of any rhetorical skill is hurting you.
Obviously, people, like nations, can not trade goods that they do not have for money, to purchase other goods.
Trade, to be sustainable, must result in both nations maintaining a balance of trade so that both of them get needed goods, and selling excess goods. If a nation continuously trades at a deficit, then they will soon run out of credit to purchase needed goods, despite still having excess goods.
If a family takes out a credit card, and slowly adds more and more onto it, they will find themselves unable to afford to do anything, because the payments will consume all of their income.
The same is no less true for nations.
Yes, and we all have been magically teleported to the a fairy-world tale of perfection...
If you are able to produce the good for $4, and I have a undervalued currency that is shared by my community that I state is only worth .5 of your currency and thus am able to undercut your price (despite being less efficient) then no one is served, because the most efficient producer is not producing the commodity that is being produced.
Now, if you will stop pulling out these basic examples it will be an improvement on the level of the debate.
Yes, and thank you for indicating my point about the market correcting for itself.
Now, what happens if you don't want to produce whatever widget it is, because you are producing a widget that is more profitable?
Let's say that you are producing Aluminum cans that give you a profit of 25% (which is excessive, but works), and that going back to producing steel cans would only give you a profit margin of 15%. Clearly, you are not going to go back to producing Aluminum cans, unless the profit margin and demand jump to a level at which producing steel cans is more profitable than producing aluminum cans.
Thus, if every one abandons steel cans, because there is no demand, then prices will soar, which will reduce demand further, or some one will step in to fulfill that demand at whever price point is sufficient for them to receive a profit.
Not necesarilly. In the real world nothing is as simple as your attempts to make it seem would induce one to think.
During the 80s the Japanese were told they would face import quotas if they did not produce in the United States. In that case, protectionist policies benefitted everyone, creating a win, win, win situation.
Of course, the legacy costs of GM, Ford and Chrysler are ultimately what did those companies in...
Yes, but we slowly see the efficiency at we can produce it erode due to the aging of property, plant and equipment, and also face lag times while that industry ramps up.
Efficiency also erodes if we do not ensure that companies are continuing to determine if there are more efficient ways of producing whatever good they are producing.
Steel comes from iron, so it is impossible for us to have actually mined up all the steel. And now that I'm done jabbing you. The answer to that is no, I doubt that even if the population soared to 200 Billion that humanity would ever be able to actually consume all the resources on this planet.
The planet is freaking huge, and if some how we do consume all the resources, there are plenty of additional resources in space, and on other local planets (assuming we are stuck in this solar system.)
Is buying on the black market efficient?
Prices on black markets usually involve premiums due to the risks involved in trading on the black market.
Actually that second example would be a baker that specializes in making bread from traded wheat, not a farmer. A farmer would be the one growing the wheat for sale to the baker. Of course, the baker would also have to have a mill, in order to turn the wheat into flour to be able to bake bread.
However, if there is more profit in milk then there is in eggs, then would not all three farmers be best served by focusing on milk?
Of course, the price would fluctuate against them (assuming no outside parties) and thus they might all jump into eggs again, or partially into eggs again, until they are all back to growing wheat, producing eggs, and producing milk to limit the effects of the variances in prices upon their operations, which would be more efficient then them attempting to chase the market forever, and thus decreasing the real efficiency of the market.
Oil is a highly cost-effective good, because of the density of the energy stored in it.
There is a reason why it has survived for over a century and a half as the leading fuel source for internal combustion engines, and would continue to enjoy such a lead until oil becomes scarce and thus more expensive than other fuel sources, thus making it less efficient than other fuel sources.
For some one that routinely jumps up and down shouting efficiency I'm surprised you didn't close your mouth before using your oil example.
Forcing by threat of legal extortion
They are going to tax me, if I don't have it, and thus make it irrational to not have it.
They are using the threat of legal extortion to intimidate me into doing something against my will, and thus are forcing me into doing it.
No, I think the problem is the exact opposite, you're citing overly simplistic models that do not account for half of the variables that actually exist in the markets.
