Ryan, explain to us again how communism is supposed to work.
Maybe that’s all we really need to understand.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
But please continue to delude yourself, since it makes you feel better.[/quote]
I am sorry I do not recall you ever responding to any of my claims. Please rehash it one more time for me just so I can be sure I am in fact wrong…[/quote]
Oh come now, certainly you recall me correcting your foolish, ahistorical claims about the “natural” formation of markets, or of your flawed methodology.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
No matter how you try to dodge the question, you have not provided one single scrap of evidence that increases in the money supply cause bubbles. As I mentioned, we are living through an unprecedented expansion of the money supply, yet there certainly is no bubble forming.
[/quote]
then…
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Manufacturers are unable to sell their goods without relying heavily on credit, and this bubble will pop some day, revealing the economic reality.
[/quote]
Hmmm, connect the dots on THAT one.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
But please continue to delude yourself, since it makes you feel better.[/quote]
I am sorry I do not recall you ever responding to any of my claims. Please rehash it one more time for me just so I can be sure I am in fact wrong…[/quote]
Oh come now, certainly you recall me correcting your foolish, ahistorical claims about the “natural” formation of markets, or of your flawed methodology.
[/quote]
But how can you be correct since markets have existed in all times and places before the first instance of government ever came about? Just because you are not capable of recognizing this fact does not make me wrong.
To say I am wrong just points to 1) your utter lack of understanding of what the market is and 2) that you hold too closely to historicism rather than correctly identifying history as the result of human action – and thus the ideas that humans cling to.
You follow false history and that is your undoing.
And you still have not answered what communism is, what socialism is, and why capitalism must fail.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
No matter how you try to dodge the question, you have not provided one single scrap of evidence that increases in the money supply cause bubbles. As I mentioned, we are living through an unprecedented expansion of the money supply, yet there certainly is no bubble forming.
[/quote]
then…
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Manufacturers are unable to sell their goods without relying heavily on credit, and this bubble will pop some day, revealing the economic reality.
[/quote]
Hmmm, connect the dots on THAT one.[/quote]
Good call, sloppy wording on my part. I meant, “no new bubble in response to the loosening.”
You are wrong because you are applying the modern concept of a self-regulating market to markets of the past, which were drastically different in character. You are confused by words, and you are unfamiliar with the history of the modern market, which was forcibly created and maintained by the state.
[quote]To say I am wrong just points to 1) your utter lack of understanding of what the market is and 2) that you hold too closely to historicism rather than correctly identifying history as the result of human action – and thus the ideas that humans cling to.
You follow false history and that is your undoing.[/quote]
Once again it is your sloppy thinking and your preference for words over ideas that lead to your misunderstanding. Your claim that I follow “false history” is ridiculous, since you seem to know none of the history of capitalism, much of which shows the absurdity of your ideas.
Just a reminder, Ryan thinks that by merely labeling something stupid, sloppy, wrong, ridiculous, etc actually makes it so . . .
Have you managed to address any of my posts yet? Do you actually have anything to say, or are you just going to follow me around, being a sore loser, while somehow simulataneously accusing me of having nothing to say?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Have you managed to address any of my posts yet? Do you actually have anything to say, or are you just going to follow me around, being a sore loser, while somehow simulataneously accusing me of having nothing to say?[/quote]
Have you managed to address any of my posts yet? Do you actually have anything to say, or are you just going to follow me around, being a sore loser, while somehow simulataneously accusing me of having nothing to say?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You are wrong because you are applying the modern concept of a self-regulating market to markets of the past, which were drastically different in character. You are confused by words, and you are unfamiliar with the history of the modern market, which was forcibly created and maintained by the state.
[quote]To say I am wrong just points to 1) your utter lack of understanding of what the market is and 2) that you hold too closely to historicism rather than correctly identifying history as the result of human action – and thus the ideas that humans cling to.
You follow false history and that is your undoing.[/quote]
Once again it is your sloppy thinking and your preference for words over ideas that lead to your misunderstanding. Your claim that I follow “false history” is ridiculous, since you seem to know none of the history of capitalism, much of which shows the absurdity of your ideas.
[/quote]
When was the market invented and by whom?
Exact date and person or group of persons, please.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Have you managed to address any of my posts yet? Do you actually have anything to say, or are you just going to follow me around, being a sore loser, while somehow simulataneously accusing me of having nothing to say?[/quote]
Have you managed to address any of my posts yet? Do you actually have anything to say, or are you just going to follow me around, being a sore loser, while somehow simulataneously accusing me of having nothing to say?[/quote]
Well, I suppose you answered that question. You’re back in 3rd grade again.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:When was the market invented and by whom?
Exact date and person or group of persons, please.[/quote]
It came about gradually, of course, but the best date one could put on it would be 1834, when the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 was passed by parliament, which helped establish a proper labor market, the chief remaining obstacle to industrial capitalism as we know it.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yeah, I re-read, and you still did not address the question, obviously outfoxed and hoping I’d just drop it. What you still have not explained is how the expansion of the money supply caused the stock market bubble. All you do is say “Look! The money supply increased!” and “Look, here’s a stock market bubble!” and in typical brain dead Libertarian fashion, simply assume that it was the government action that caused the problem, as opposed to the numerous more likely causes inside the system itself.
No matter how you try to dodge the question, you have not provided one single scrap of evidence that increases in the money supply cause bubbles. As I mentioned, we are living through an unprecedented expansion of the money supply, yet there certainly is no bubble forming. [/quote]
Ryan, I’m gonna break this down as simple as I can without getting out my daughters crayons.
The Federal Reserve’s increase in money supply led to artificially low interest rates throughout the twenties, which led to a boom in production of capital goods, which of course was unsustainable because it was artificial. The boom of course eventually matures and reality as it always does catches up with business, and the Federal Reserve, fearing price inflation, contracted the money supply by one third. Money supply mischief had a DIRECT correlation to the stock market bubble that that was formed and eventually popped. The Federal reserves urgent cheap money responses to temporary panics in 1997 and 1998 preceded the dot-com bubble. A couple years of cheap money preceded the housing bubble.
Now please, tell me how I am wrong in this analysis. Tell me what facts I have gotten wrong.
As far as current bubbles, I found some really interesting stuff on predictions regarding the current debt bubble.
The Global Government Debt Bubble Threatens the Economy
Published on January 30, 2009 by J.D. Foster, Ph.D.
The Total Debt Relative to GDP Trumps Everything Else
The Deleveraging has Begun
http://comstockfunds.com/(X(1)S(npiu1i45pv5gfln5inol1kj4))/default.aspx?act=newsletter.aspx&newsletterid=1504&menugroup=Home&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
I also found this video interesting:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:Ryan, I’m gonna break this down as simple as I can without getting out my daughters crayons.
The Federal Reserve’s increase in money supply led to artificially low interest rates throughout the twenties, which led to a boom in production of capital goods, which of course was unsustainable because it was artificial. The boom of course eventually matures and reality as it always does catches up with business, and the Federal Reserve, fearing price inflation, contracted the money supply by one third. Money supply mischief had a DIRECT correlation to the stock market bubble that that was formed and eventually popped.
Now please, tell me how I am wrong in this analysis. Tell me what facts I have gotten wrong.[/quote]
That, right there, in bold. How do you not see that?
Boom-and-bust happens anyway. It has always happened. Bubbles have NEVER needed a central bank to form.
Let me make this as simple as I possibly can: you maintain that the Fed caused the bubble, but you provide NO evidence that an expansion of the money supply directly causes overproduction. Interest rates are certainly low right now, but there is no overproduction.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:Ryan, I’m gonna break this down as simple as I can without getting out my daughters crayons.
The Federal Reserve’s increase in money supply led to artificially low interest rates throughout the twenties, which led to a boom in production of capital goods, which of course was unsustainable because it was artificial. The boom of course eventually matures and reality as it always does catches up with business, and the Federal Reserve, fearing price inflation, contracted the money supply by one third. Money supply mischief had a DIRECT correlation to the stock market bubble that that was formed and eventually popped.
Now please, tell me how I am wrong in this analysis. Tell me what facts I have gotten wrong.[/quote]
That, right there, in bold. How do you not see that?
Boom-and-bust happens anyway. It has always happened. Bubbles have NEVER needed a central bank to form.
Let me make this as simple as I possibly can: you maintain that the Fed caused the bubble, but you provide NO evidence that an expansion of the money supply directly causes overproduction. Interest rates are certainly low right now, but there is no overproduction. [/quote]
You are a fucking clown, have a nice day…
Early Speculative Bubbles & Increases in the Money Supply
http://mises.org/store/Early-Speculative-Bubbles-P578.aspx
What Say You, Mr. McCain? Money Supply Economics
http://www.robertringer.com/money-supply.html
Hillbama Magic
The Coming Economic Depression
http://www.robertringer.com/economic-depression.html
The Concise Guide To Economics
by Jim Cox
[i]The modern business cycle, however, needs a more sophisticated explanation as it is a more complex phenomenon. Marxists believed that business cycles were the inevitable collapsing of capitalism, but this theory can be discarded since capitalism has not collapsed though socialism has. Keynesians account for the business cycle by an appropriate level of spending (prosperity) or underspending (depression) but have been baffled by the simultaneous occurrence of both inflation and depression–a condition their theory treats as being as likely as a square circle…
When an artificial increase in the money supply through the banks occurs, this increases the available money in savings and depresses the interest rate, thereby encouraging an artificial increase in spending which is highly sensitive to the interest rate–capital spending. This run-up in the capital goods industry is the boom, and the subsequent depression results when consumers reestablish their consumption to saving ratio–thus revealing that the capital goods boom was indeed artificial. The only way to prevent the depression is to pump another dose of new money into the system to maintain the higher savings ratio, but eventually this must end or there will be a runaway inflation.
The artificial increase in the money supply therefore is a government subsidy–through monetary policy–to the capital goods industry. Naturally the subsidy stimulates production in the capital goods industry. Once that subsidy is removed by consumers reestablishing their preferred saving ratio, there is a crash in the capital goods industry.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:When was the market invented and by whom?
Exact date and person or group of persons, please.[/quote]
It came about gradually, of course, but the best date one could put on it would be 1834, when the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 was passed by parliament, which helped establish a proper labor market, the chief remaining obstacle to industrial capitalism as we know it.
[/quote]
Just curious , what did you call the market place before the said date and what were the major differences ?
I think people were going to the market well before 1834.
Ryan is being led around on his leash by historicism instead of historicity which he hasn’t a clue how to interpret.
^ excellently said
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I think people were going to the market well before 1834.
Ryan is being led around on his leash by historicism instead of historicity which he hasn’t a clue how to interpret.[/quote]
Of course they were, but the market was radically changed in character around this time.
Or are you denying the obvious transformation of society during the Industrial Revolution now? To be consistent, you have to treat ancient, incidental markets exactly the same as you treat modern markets.
Keep the faith.