In the marketplace of ideas substance will always beat out bombastic hyperbole.
It is no accident that the PWI forums have taken a majority libertarian bent and others have been run off. They cannot subdue logic and argumentative skill.
Voila!
In the exact same sense that the Betamax videocassette recording format “ran off” consumers into the waiting arms of VHS - twas the overwhlemingly superior quality of the Betamax that made those consumers dart away from one corner of the market into another.
Well done, Lifticus. Your analogies continue to impress even the most savvy of pre-schoolers.[/quote]
So you are conceding my point about the superiority of some ideas over others…?
Just say so and quit darting around the subject. Betamax is the conservatism of recording and playpack video media. In other words – it is ancient history!!
I would say that the market place has actually flourished. Like in competition all that is left is the strongest element.
Let me make sure I don’t misunderstand you - you think the lack of diverse viewpoints and intelligent debate here at PWI is because your favored viewpoint “won” because of its “strength”?
Try again. This is the internet. The marketplace for ideas is nearly limitless. Folks interested in intelligent debate are finding other places to go and spend their time.[/quote]
I don’t think anyone here is above debating there idea’s. Its not like we are using emotional argument or anything like that.
We debate facts. But like I said if you think PWI is dead just wait till after the elections in 2010. People will be back to rally against conservatives preaching personal responsibility.
I too have gone to other places to debate, because there is a lack of opposing views, but it’s the same shit every where you go, and when you debate with facts well you tend to get the same result you get here.
[quote]John S. wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
John S. wrote:
I would say that the market place has actually flourished. Like in competition all that is left is the strongest element.
Let me make sure I don’t misunderstand you - you think the lack of diverse viewpoints and intelligent debate here at PWI is because your favored viewpoint “won” because of its “strength”?
Try again. This is the internet. The marketplace for ideas is nearly limitless. Folks interested in intelligent debate are finding other places to go and spend their time.
I don’t think anyone here is above debating there idea’s. Its not like we are using emotional argument or anything like that.
We debate facts. But like I said if you think PWI is dead just wait till after the elections in 2010. People will be back to rally against conservatives preaching personal responsibility.
I too have gone to other places to debate, because there is a lack of opposing views, but it’s the same shit every where you go, and when you debate with facts well you tend to get the same result you get here.[/quote]
Exactly. And what I think many of the people who left PWI don’t get is that we argue for the sake of arguing. Some people love to argue. Its fun to get all pissed off and to piss someone off and trade insults. Afterall, how is it possible to prove anything in politics, or world issues?
Look at the Obama bowing thread – does anyone really give a fuck if this slick Kenyan con artist bows down to a Saudi criminal/prince or some Tojo Emperor fuckface? Nah. I wouldn’t piss on any of 'em just to see it splash. But it’s fun to talk and rant about it.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I would certainly be most happy to be wrong. It is not fun to be gloom-and-doom. But I know that the outcome of most fiat money systems is disasterous to the populations who get fleeced. And then, no one since Phillip II of Spain has run up such disasterous levels of debt; and look what happened to Spain.
In 1932, the average wage was 56 ounces of gold per year. It is now down to about 32 ounces per year. We’re being fleeced and voting for the fleecing.[/quote]
[quote]Charlemagne wrote:
Taken from
“How We Can Win the Second American Revolution Without Firing a Shot”
A Tea Party Manifesto
by James Ostrowski
Liquidate the global military empire, ending the two Asian land wars that George Bush got us into and the Democrats and Obama helped pay for.
Take the savings, trillions, and liquidate the federal welfare state, buying out all Social Security recipients with lump sum payments.
Abolish all the unconstitutional departments and programs like Education, Energy, HUD, HHS, and Agriculture.
Then we can repeal the Goddamned Income Tax Amendment, the worst thing that ever happened to this country, except for possiblyâ??
The Federal Reserveâ??abolish it. Repeal the legal tender laws and gold and silver will automatically become market money.
Now, add a couple of amendments to bring the moribund Constitution back to life. Ban all corporate welfare so we never again have bankster heists and corporate bailouts. And, since true federalism was destroyed in the Civil War, letâ??s recognize what the Founders understood in 1776, that any republic has the right to withdraw from a union when it so chooses. That will guarantee that the federal government will never again turn into a monstrous, murderous, counterfeiting kleptocacy…[/quote]
Gold and silver “becoming the market”? This is a foolish idea. Studies have shown the countries facing a recession were much more capable of getting out of it if they A. got out of the gold standard or B. were able to adjust the monetary base thereby adjusting interest rates which can only be done with fiat money (not a gold or silver standard). If we want to adjust our monetary base we’d have to buy and sell gold, not treasuries, and we cannot simple create gold or silver, we have to mine it. The problem with that is there is only a fixed amount, which wont allow for much inflation in the monetary base.
As for destroying corporate welfare, I agree, corporations that only get sheltered from the market are simple put on life support, yet when they are put back into full unshielded competition they will fail. Yet bank failures in history are more prone to cause complete economic wide volatility. In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s there were 12 recessions in 11 years. I can quote my money and banking professor on that one. That also was a result of no federal reserve intervention because there was no federal reserve.
Lastly, I doubt drastically cutting off everyone’s ability to move upward in life would really make America any better. The reason we have public goods like education energy etc is because while the general public may enjoy such services they would not be capable of formulating it on their own (economies of scale).
Then again any economic debate is all normative, so next time I post ill throw in some data for you.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I would certainly be most happy to be wrong. It is not fun to be gloom-and-doom. But I know that the outcome of most fiat money systems is disasterous to the populations who get fleeced. And then, no one since Phillip II of Spain has run up such disasterous levels of debt; and look what happened to Spain.
In 1932, the average wage was 56 ounces of gold per year. It is now down to about 32 ounces per year. We’re being fleeced and voting for the fleecing.
Iteressting perspective , is that American wages?[/quote]
If we’re measuring wages in gold then obviously it shall decrease. We have a generally fixed amount of gold and an ever increasing population level. Also the workforce has increased due to preferences of individuals for work over leisure. More people with the same amount of pie means smaller slices all around.
The reason our Gold and silver standard failed is because there was a fixed price between gold and silver. If you remove the fixed price it would work.
you could also back it on oil and natural resources.
Fiat money has never worked. Because when all is said and done it is just a piece of paper.
Countries around the world are waking up to the fact that they gave away their gold and other stuff for paper.
We have been in an on off again recession since the beginning of Fiat currency. Because we didn’t deal with the pain when we should have we are about to get much more pain.
Sure one can pull up data on countries that had a recession with a gold standard. But if you think they got out of the recession by being on a Fiat standard you are wrong. They simply delayed the recession, but by delaying it made it a lot worse.
For Fiat currency see Zimbabwe.
Tho we are about to witness a little bit of Zimbabwe in a year or so.
[quote]John S. wrote:
The reason our Gold and silver standard failed is because there was a fixed price between gold and silver. If you remove the fixed price it would work.
you could also back it on oil and natural resources.
Fiat money has never worked. Because when all is said and done it is just a piece of paper.
Countries around the world are waking up to the fact that they gave away their gold and other stuff for paper.
We have been in an on off again recession since the beginning of Fiat currency. Because we didn’t deal with the pain when we should have we are about to get much more pain.
Sure one can pull up data on countries that had a recession with a gold standard. But if you think they got out of the recession by being on a Fiat standard you are wrong. They simply delayed the recession, but by delaying it made it a lot worse.
For Fiat currency see Zimbabwe.
Tho we are about to witness a little bit of Zimbabwe in a year or so.[/quote]
What options are there to remove the fixed price of a commodity such as gold and silver? If we do have a market economy based on gold and silver then would the price of each not simply be the market equilibrium determined by the demand for it and the supply of it. Would not the supply be viewed as fixed its self?
A recession being delayed by the removal of a gold and silver standard? A gold and silver standard prolongs recessions with the inability to adjust interest rates. As we know or should know, the Federal Reserve can adjust interest rates with open market operations, in which it can increase or decrease the money supply with U.S. Treasuries. An increase in the money supply would simply lower interest rates.
Yet a gold and silver standard would force countries with account deficit’s (recessions) to tighten gold and silver reserve due to the backing on trade with gold and silver (rather then selling debt to foreign countries). A smaller monetary base will increase interest rates and widen recessions, until the output gap is substantially negative.
Also, a delayed recession is simply called an expansion. As for Zimbabwe, that’s a failure in fiscal policy; NOT monetary policy. In order to pay off debt incurred due to over spending they simply turned on the printing press.
[quote]Charlemagne wrote:
Taken from
“How We Can Win the Second American Revolution Without Firing a Shot”
A Tea Party Manifesto
by James Ostrowski
Liquidate the global military empire, ending the two Asian land wars that George Bush got us into and the Democrats and Obama helped pay for.
Take the savings, trillions, and liquidate the federal welfare state, buying out all Social Security recipients with lump sum payments.
Abolish all the unconstitutional departments and programs like Education, Energy, HUD, HHS, and Agriculture.
Then we can repeal the Goddamned Income Tax Amendment, the worst thing that ever happened to this country, except for possiblyâ??
The Federal Reserveâ??abolish it. Repeal the legal tender laws and gold and silver will automatically become market money.
Now, add a couple of amendments to bring the moribund Constitution back to life. Ban all corporate welfare so we never again have bankster heists and corporate bailouts. And, since true federalism was destroyed in the Civil War, letâ??s recognize what the Founders understood in 1776, that any republic has the right to withdraw from a union when it so chooses. That will guarantee that the federal government will never again turn into a monstrous, murderous, counterfeiting kleptocacy…[/quote]
[quote]Tim33345 wrote:
Charlemagne wrote:
Taken from
“How We Can Win the Second American Revolution Without Firing a Shot”
A Tea Party Manifesto
by James Ostrowski
Liquidate the global military empire, ending the two Asian land wars that George Bush got us into and the Democrats and Obama helped pay for.
Take the savings, trillions, and liquidate the federal welfare state, buying out all Social Security recipients with lump sum payments.
Abolish all the unconstitutional departments and programs like Education, Energy, HUD, HHS, and Agriculture.
Then we can repeal the Goddamned Income Tax Amendment, the worst thing that ever happened to this country, except for possibly�¢??
The Federal Reserve�¢??abolish it. Repeal the legal tender laws and gold and silver will automatically become market money.
Now, add a couple of amendments to bring the moribund Constitution back to life. Ban all corporate welfare so we never again have bankster heists and corporate bailouts. And, since true federalism was destroyed in the Civil War, letÃ?¢??s recognize what the Founders understood in 1776, that any republic has the right to withdraw from a union when it so chooses. That will guarantee that the federal government will never again turn into a monstrous, murderous, counterfeiting kleptocacy…
wait… 3. abolish education??? WHY?[/quote]
He did not say abolish education…but the education department. The “why” is self-evident but if you must have it explained to you. The Ed Department has a massive budget and it goes up every year and what has it produced? So far…dumb kids.
[quote]moneymike88 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I would certainly be most happy to be wrong. It is not fun to be gloom-and-doom. But I know that the outcome of most fiat money systems is disasterous to the populations who get fleeced. And then, no one since Phillip II of Spain has run up such disasterous levels of debt; and look what happened to Spain.
In 1932, the average wage was 56 ounces of gold per year. It is now down to about 32 ounces per year. We’re being fleeced and voting for the fleecing.
Iteressting perspective , is that American wages?
If we’re measuring wages in gold then obviously it shall decrease. We have a generally fixed amount of gold and an ever increasing population level. Also the workforce has increased due to preferences of individuals for work over leisure. More people with the same amount of pie means smaller slices all around.
[/quote]
You may be right and I am not sure we could go back to a gold standard because I believe it would create such a deficit in the world market of gold that it would skyrocket
[quote]mmllcc wrote:
Tim33345 wrote:
Charlemagne wrote:
Taken from
“How We Can Win the Second American Revolution Without Firing a Shot”
A Tea Party Manifesto
by James Ostrowski
Liquidate the global military empire, ending the two Asian land wars that George Bush got us into and the Democrats and Obama helped pay for.
Take the savings, trillions, and liquidate the federal welfare state, buying out all Social Security recipients with lump sum payments.
Abolish all the unconstitutional departments and programs like Education, Energy, HUD, HHS, and Agriculture.
Then we can repeal the Goddamned Income Tax Amendment, the worst thing that ever happened to this country, except for possibly�?�¢??
The Federal Reserve�?�¢??abolish it. Repeal the legal tender laws and gold and silver will automatically become market money.
Now, add a couple of amendments to bring the moribund Constitution back to life. Ban all corporate welfare so we never again have bankster heists and corporate bailouts. And, since true federalism was destroyed in the Civil War, letÃ??Ã?¢??s recognize what the Founders understood in 1776, that any republic has the right to withdraw from a union when it so chooses. That will guarantee that the federal government will never again turn into a monstrous, murderous, counterfeiting kleptocacy…
wait… 3. abolish education??? WHY?
He did not say abolish education…but the education department. The “why” is self-evident but if you must have it explained to you. The Ed Department has a massive budget and it goes up every year and what has it produced? So far…dumb kids.[/quote]
Far brighter than a Country that does not even try
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
mmllcc wrote:
Tim33345 wrote:
Charlemagne wrote:
Taken from
“How We Can Win the Second American Revolution Without Firing a Shot”
A Tea Party Manifesto
by James Ostrowski
Liquidate the global military empire, ending the two Asian land wars that George Bush got us into and the Democrats and Obama helped pay for.
Take the savings, trillions, and liquidate the federal welfare state, buying out all Social Security recipients with lump sum payments.
Abolish all the unconstitutional departments and programs like Education, Energy, HUD, HHS, and Agriculture.
Then we can repeal the Goddamned Income Tax Amendment, the worst thing that ever happened to this country, except for possibly�??�??�?�¢??
The Federal Reserve�??�??�?�¢??abolish it. Repeal the legal tender laws and gold and silver will automatically become market money.
Now, add a couple of amendments to bring the moribund Constitution back to life. Ban all corporate welfare so we never again have bankster heists and corporate bailouts. And, since true federalism was destroyed in the Civil War, letÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s recognize what the Founders understood in 1776, that any republic has the right to withdraw from a union when it so chooses. That will guarantee that the federal government will never again turn into a monstrous, murderous, counterfeiting kleptocacy…
wait… 3. abolish education??? WHY?
He did not say abolish education…but the education department. The “why” is self-evident but if you must have it explained to you. The Ed Department has a massive budget and it goes up every year and what has it produced? So far…dumb kids.
Far brighter than a Country that does not even try[/quote]
The U.S. Department of education could cease to exist and the school systems would remain - they are locally controlled and for the most part locally funded. Besides that - money does not equal education. Study after study has demonstrated that. The U.S. Department of education has created a system and bureaucracy that stifles true education.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.[/quote]
Yes, those were fine words when they suited the purposes at hand, but, of course, of no validity when it was Federal tax revenues, rather than British, being lost.
(While I would wish, and it would have been admirable, if we’d had a US President for whom slavery was the issue, that wasn’t the case. Sadly, Lincoln stated plainly that the country being “all-slave” would suit him as well as it being all-free. And when he wrote and signed the Emancipation Proclamation, he “freed” only those slaves whom he did not have the power to free, as they were in states that had seceded: those slaves which he did have the power to free, in the Territories, he explicitly stated were not freed by the proclamation. Unfortunately, it was about tax revenue and power.)
The US Federal Government does NOT recognize rights of states to secede and can be expected to act with extreme violence against any state that tries it. Having seen the example of the past, probably no state wishes to be burned to the ground.
It’s really not practical to speak of secession being supported by tradition from the Founding Fathers or any other reason. I agree that some would have agreed with it, but that matters not.
(While I would wish, and it would have been admirable, if we’d had a US President for whom slavery was the issue, that wasn’t the case. Sadly, Lincoln stated plainly that the country being “all-slave” would suit him as well as it being all-free. And when he wrote and signed the Emancipation Proclamation, he “freed” only those slaves whom he did not have the power to free, as they were in states that had seceded: those slaves which he did have the power to free, in the Territories, he explicitly stated were not freed by the proclamation. Unfortunately, it was about tax revenue and power.)[/quote]
Lincoln could not have freed slaves in non-rebelling states because he only had the capacity to free slaves by virtue of executive order in his capacity as commander-in-chief - thus, the two executive orders making up the Emancipation Proclamation derived from his military operations in rebelling states (see the “Insurrection Clause”).
There was no power to “free” slaves in free states - and Lincoln knew he didn’t have the power, your hard-to-read revisionism not withstanding. And no, it wasn’t about “tax revenue and power” or any other issue - it was considered not only a move to advance the cause of abolition, but was designed to be a morale-breaker for the South.
And, it worked. Stop indulging in bad history for political convenience - it just perpetuates more of it.