The Birth of the 3rd Party

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]artw wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
John S. wrote:
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2009/10/cfg_poll_hoffman_leading_in_ny.php

Looks like America is finally done with the 2 party system. Lets hope this trend continues.

Let’s hope not at this point. This will only serve to HAND an election to democrats, and that’s it.

This is as ignorant a statement as I’ve seen in this forum.

[/quote]

What?

You obviously have not studied HISTORY. What happened when Ross Perot, a Third Party candidate ran against both Republican and democratic contenders. The republican party needs to be taken back by true conservatives, and that is the realisic angle if we want dems out next cycle.

[quote]

The rise of the Libertarian Party could be a great thing for old school Goldwater-type conservatives. Refusing to vote for 3rd parties because of some ignorant fear that the Democrats will end up winning all of the elections just means that more and more people who are growing disillusioned with the GOP will continue to vote Republican anyways, which will never lead to the GOP making the changes it needs to make in order to reconnect with those who are unhappy with their direction. [/quote]

Over time, and it will need to trickle UP from State and Congressional elections in order to ultimately gain a majority over a time span, but if it moves too fast Democrats will be in power again in 2012.

If both Libertarians and Republicans want the Democrats out, they have to work together NOW. Running a Libertarian or Independant will do nothing but dillute the conservative vote.

82

[quote]orion wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:

I wrote this in my last post, but it stands repeating. The free market does a very good job delivering commodities to the market place, but not as good a job with staples or necessities.

Food, clothes, shelter, gas, heat…

Which one of them is less “necessary” than healthcare?

[/quote]

Not less necessary, simply more accessible here in the US. I can come by all the items on your list with a leatherman tool, some flint and a ball of cotton. I cannot perform something as sugically simple as an apendectomy on myself and I’m not letting you do it so don’t ask. I also believe that governments can help fill gaps in these items when short term market corrections or idividual disability make acquiring these items impossible. There should be a test to ensure that the individual relying on the service is in actual need and, for reasons beyond their control, are unable to provide for themselves. Crafting the test is the tricky business. As a lawyer who helps adjudicate such matters, I will concede you that point.

83

[quote]orion wrote:
ZEB wrote:
limitatinfinity wrote:
There should be no speculation here. The U.S. Government WILL collapse.
It’s just a matter of time.
Considering all nations that don’t collapse as a result of outside occupiers collapse because of the destruction of their currency, I speculate that that the the federal government will not withstand the destruction of the dollar.
I think that the dollar will go to zero in 5-10 years and the federal structure will collapse in that time.

You’re not even close with that prediction.

Could happen.

A hyper inflation is entirely unpredictable, because it is no longer fueled by the quantity of money but by the increased velocity and the complete breakdown of trust in the currency.

That is purely psychological and can happen almost instantly.

[/quote]

I don’t see it that way. I agree that it has more to do with psychology than anything else, but this country has been through a great deal in the past and we’ve never been down that road, The Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, 911. I think we’ll be fine at least in that area.

84

[quote]limitatinfinity wrote:
John S. wrote:
orion wrote:
ZEB wrote:
limitatinfinity wrote:
There should be no speculation here. The U.S. Government WILL collapse.
It’s just a matter of time.
Considering all nations that don’t collapse as a result of outside occupiers collapse because of the destruction of their currency, I speculate that that the the federal government will not withstand the destruction of the dollar.
I think that the dollar will go to zero in 5-10 years and the federal structure will collapse in that time.

You’re not even close with that prediction.

Could happen.

A hyper inflation is entirely unpredictable, because it is no longer fueled by the quantity of money but by the increased velocity and the complete breakdown of trust in the currency.

That is purely psychological and can happen almost instantly.

I think he was saying that it is going to happen much sooner, which is what I believe.

I would have said 3-5 years, but there is likely going to be a false flag war in that period of time which will solidify a totalitarian government first.
Depending on the outcome, either the war itself or the immediate aftermath will finally fracture the U.S. and end centralized control.[/quote]

I could not disagree with you more.

85

[quote]ZEB wrote:
limitatinfinity wrote:
I would have said 3-5 years, but there is likely going to be a false flag war in that period of time which will solidify a totalitarian government first.
Depending on the outcome, either the war itself or the immediate aftermath will finally fracture the U.S. and end centralized control.

I could not disagree with you more.

[/quote]

Yea. I highly doubt it.

86

I don’t think this thesis that increased velocity is all that is required, or that there have been hyperinflations without large increase in supply, can possibly be correct.

With reference to hyperinflations where money lost so much value that for example it took 10,000 units or even a million units of money to purchase what one unit relatively recently had, could velocity have increased by 10,000 or a million times?

No actual increase in number of units of money existing?

With everyone having a wheelbarrow full of bills denominated in the thousands, millions, or more?

I don’t think so.

88

[quote]pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:

I wrote this in my last post, but it stands repeating. The free market does a very good job delivering commodities to the market place, but not as good a job with staples or necessities.

Food, clothes, shelter, gas, heat…

Which one of them is less “necessary” than healthcare?

If anything these staples are delivered far more efficiently than any other product.

[/quote]

A full 1/3rd of the world is malnourished while the Western world grows morbidly obese…good call. I am saying that the scarcity of resources like food is a myth. Delivery is the problem. We (the US) actually have a market interest in all 192 countries on the planet being able to feed themselves. And no I am not suggesting we grow and give them the food, that’s called “dumping” and is bad for the receiving nation. Techno sharing is one suggestion. Economies that cannot produce food, well, are not economies, i.e. not customers for our TVs and hybrids. Also countries that cannot feed themselves frequently become failed states ripe for totalitarian takeover, a security risk for us.

90

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I don’t think this thesis that increased velocity is all that is required, or that there have been hyperinflations without large increase in supply, can possibly be correct.

With reference to hyperinflations where money lost so much value that for example it took 10,000 units or even a million units of money to purchase what one unit relatively recently had, could velocity have increased by 10,000 or a million times?

No actual increase in number of units of money existing?

With everyone having a wheelbarrow full of bills denominated in the thousands, millions, or more?

I don’t think so.[/quote]

There isn’t a linear relationship. It is a relative increase as everyone goes to spend money they know it isn’t going to be worth tomorrow what it is today. Like a tidal wave it builds and builds until it bursts but the money had to be in the system first just like a wave needs water and lots of built up energy – the velocity of money is related to how much of it is in the system. Just like how wave velocity is related to the size of the body of water – more water more potential.

Whereas before people had held off buying now everyone is buying because they are uncertain about the purchasing power of their money from one instant to the next. Business owners raise prices as people go to buy up consumables and before we know it prices have skyrocketed.

Whereas inflation relates to the money supply hyperinflation relates to a psychological effect due to the uncertainty created by inflation.

91

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I don’t think this thesis that increased velocity is all that is required, or that there have been hyperinflations without large increase in supply, can possibly be correct.

With reference to hyperinflations where money lost so much value that for example it took 10,000 units or even a million units of money to purchase what one unit relatively recently had, could velocity have increased by 10,000 or a million times?

No actual increase in number of units of money existing?

With everyone having a wheelbarrow full of bills denominated in the thousands, millions, or more?

I don’t think so.[/quote]

Methinks you are wrong.

Your argument might have had merit when we still had paper money, but now money is mostly a string of 1s and 0s in a computer.

That neither needs to be printed nor can it be slowed down by the need to physically carry it around.

So I would expect a crash to be much faster in the US , not slower than in Zimbabwe,

92

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:

First, I do not have “blind faith” in anything, and blind faith is not required. I have recource, the ultimate weapon in a free market and elected goverments, I have a vote. I also possess considerable powers of persuasion so my vote tends to be slightly more contagious than the next guys, but only slightly. Second, if you have “blind faith” that you are really in control of your health care in the current system, I hope, and I really mean this, that you never get truly sick. I don’t mean like the flu, I mean some nasty shit like cancer or congenital heart failure. Then you will learn what “control” really looks like. It looks like insurance companies doing post application underwriting or jacking your premiums so high you’re essentially priced out of the market.

I wrote this in my last post, but it stands repeating. The free market does a very good job delivering commodities to the market place, but not as good a job with staples or necessities. For these items there is a perverse market incentive to create the illusion of scarcity and hold the rest of the world hostage with monopolies. This also bears repeating, hyper-concentrations of wealth do not a free market make. When you say “free” think “free flowing.” Markets are made stonger with competition and competition is made stronger with movement or aggitation in the market place.[/quote]

I see what you are saying, and it would make sense if we had free market in health care.(we don’t). For some reason we are not allowed to buy insurance across state lines.(Oh and by the way Medicare has the highest turned down applications). Ask a doctor how much of his business is through government? Or why don’t we talk about tort reform?(100-200 billion dollars saved just by not using preventive medicine). I argue that we have had a hybrid mix in health care and that the government is the cancer that is killing it.

Lets say they make a public option and it somehow makes it. So the poorer people get on the program, but what happens if employers put there people on the insurance? What happens when the majority rush onto the program? Who will fund it? Do we let it collapse or do we need to start having a public fund for it? Will they start to have to determine who can get surgery and who can’t?

These are questions that one must ask, and the answer to them should tell you that government is not the way to inject competition. The way for congress to inject competition is to do there job and by the legal definition regulate commerce.

93

[quote]orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
I don’t think this thesis that increased velocity is all that is required, or that there have been hyperinflations without large increase in supply, can possibly be correct.

With reference to hyperinflations where money lost so much value that for example it took 10,000 units or even a million units of money to purchase what one unit relatively recently had, could velocity have increased by 10,000 or a million times?

No actual increase in number of units of money existing?

With everyone having a wheelbarrow full of bills denominated in the thousands, millions, or more?

I don’t think so.

Methinks you are wrong.

Your argument might have had merit when we still had paper money, but now money is mostly a string of 1s and 0s in a computer.

That neither needs to be printed nor can it be slowed down by the need to physically carry it around.

So I would expect a crash to be much faster in the US , not slower than in Zimbabwe,

[/quote]

Inflation is an increase in the money supply. Velocity of money exaggerates the symptoms of inflation but is not technically responsible for inflation. As people rush to spend money as they get it, they bid up the cost of goods. Cost of goods does not equal inflation, just a measure of inflation.

Most discussions of inflation do not differentiate the definition of inflation and its core symptoms. It all getâ??s lumped into â??inflationâ??. â??Hyper-inflationâ?? appears to be universally accepted to mean more than straight inflation, and almost always includes mention of velocity of money.

94

[quote]orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
I don’t think this thesis that increased velocity is all that is required, or that there have been hyperinflations without large increase in supply, can possibly be correct.

With reference to hyperinflations where money lost so much value that for example it took 10,000 units or even a million units of money to purchase what one unit relatively recently had, could velocity have increased by 10,000 or a million times?

No actual increase in number of units of money existing?

With everyone having a wheelbarrow full of bills denominated in the thousands, millions, or more?

I don’t think so.

Methinks you are wrong.

Your argument might have had merit when we still had paper money, but now money is mostly a string of 1s and 0s in a computer.

That neither needs to be printed nor can it be slowed down by the need to physically carry it around.

So I would expect a crash to be much faster in the US , not slower than in Zimbabwe,

[/quote]

As for any modern hyperinflations with electronically-existing money, I deny that velocity increased by a million times with same actual money supply. I believe that a person making the remarkable claim of no increase, or no great increase, in money supply in actual hyperinflations that have occurred ought to be able to able to substantiate that, as money supplies are measured values.

Really, it’s not hard.

Suppose that a hyperinflation occurs where a day’s groceries cost one million dollars. (There have been hyperinflations where numbers were in the billions or even trillions of units.)

That means that the money supply is large enough that most people have AT LEAST a million such dollars on hand (by which I also included electronically at hand.) At the same time.

The money supply therefore has to be greater, else they can’t have that much on hand.

95

[quote]dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
I don’t think this thesis that increased velocity is all that is required, or that there have been hyperinflations without large increase in supply, can possibly be correct.

With reference to hyperinflations where money lost so much value that for example it took 10,000 units or even a million units of money to purchase what one unit relatively recently had, could velocity have increased by 10,000 or a million times?

No actual increase in number of units of money existing?

With everyone having a wheelbarrow full of bills denominated in the thousands, millions, or more?

I don’t think so.

Methinks you are wrong.

Your argument might have had merit when we still had paper money, but now money is mostly a string of 1s and 0s in a computer.

That neither needs to be printed nor can it be slowed down by the need to physically carry it around.

So I would expect a crash to be much faster in the US , not slower than in Zimbabwe,

Inflation is an increase in the money supply. Velocity of money exaggerates the symptoms of inflation but is not technically responsible for inflation. As people rush to spend money as they get it, they bid up the cost of goods. Cost of goods does not equal inflation, just a measure of inflation.

Most discussions of inflation do not differentiate the definition of inflation and its core symptoms. It all getâ??s lumped into â??inflationâ??. â??Hyper-inflationâ?? appears to be universally accepted to mean more than straight inflation, and almost always includes mention of velocity of money.
[/quote]

I wrote that you are right and I am wrong but now I am not sure.

A change in prices when the money supply is held equal reflects a change in supply and demand.

An increased velocity however changes all prices.

So, even though velocity induced “inflation” might not be an "inflation"§ it sure acts like one.

96

Let’s break it down to the simplest possible economy: two persons on a desert island.

I have goods and services that you need; and you have goods and services that I need.

We have some sort of money supply, which may include mechanisms for increasing it. Doesn’t matter for this discussion what it is. Let’s say we initially have 10,000 units total to start with.

We may well start off charging each other prices that reflect our traditional ideas from before being stranded.

However, maybe you decide that you want to be paid 150 units for one day’s worth of goods and services that I need.

Well, I can pay that, as I do have that on hand, but to say the least now I’m hardly going to sell you a day’s worth of goods and services that you need for 100 units, as I had been doing. I’m now determined to get 150 units if you want my stuff.

You have that on hand, you need the stuff, and so you pay.

This is an increase in velocity.

But it cannot happen that we wind up setting up prices of say a million, a billion, or a trillion units because that number of units doesn’t exist. (Unless we have increased the money supply.)

If an observer comes to the island and observes that you are charging me one trillion units per coconut, and I am charging you, likewise, one trillion units per papaya, he can correctly conclude with certainty that our money supply is no longer the 10,000 units that it had been prior to the hyperinflation.

He can correctly conclude that increase in velocity cannot be the sole explanation.

97

[quote]orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
I don’t think this thesis that increased velocity is all that is required, or that there have been hyperinflations without large increase in supply, can possibly be correct.

With reference to hyperinflations where money lost so much value that for example it took 10,000 units or even a million units of money to purchase what one unit relatively recently had, could velocity have increased by 10,000 or a million times?

No actual increase in number of units of money existing?

With everyone having a wheelbarrow full of bills denominated in the thousands, millions, or more?

I don’t think so.

Methinks you are wrong.

Your argument might have had merit when we still had paper money, but now money is mostly a string of 1s and 0s in a computer.

That neither needs to be printed nor can it be slowed down by the need to physically carry it around.

So I would expect a crash to be much faster in the US , not slower than in Zimbabwe,

Inflation is an increase in the money supply. Velocity of money exaggerates the symptoms of inflation but is not technically responsible for inflation. As people rush to spend money as they get it, they bid up the cost of goods. Cost of goods does not equal inflation, just a measure of inflation.

Most discussions of inflation do not differentiate the definition of inflation and its core symptoms. It all get�¢??s lumped into �¢??inflation�¢??. �¢??Hyper-inflation�¢?? appears to be universally accepted to mean more than straight inflation, and almost always includes mention of velocity of money.

I wrote that you are right and I am wrong but now I am not sure.

A change in prices when the money supply is held equal reflects a change in supply and demand.

An increased velocity however changes all prices.

So, even though velocity induced “inflation” might not be an "inflation"Ã?§ it sure acts like one.
[/quote]

We are in agreement. velocity of money also shifts dollars from savings into the consumption. Again bidding up the price of goods and also increasing the cost of borrowing money. They both increase becuase of the velocity of money. You are right that is acts like inflation, but it is not inflation.

Another example is the large amounts of US dollars being held (horded) overseas. That money was printed (inflation) long ago, but price increases will accelerate at insane levels when those dollars are put into circulation (velocity). inflationary effects are differnt from the actual inflation.

98

[quote]dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
I don’t think this thesis that increased velocity is all that is required, or that there have been hyperinflations without large increase in supply, can possibly be correct.

With reference to hyperinflations where money lost so much value that for example it took 10,000 units or even a million units of money to purchase what one unit relatively recently had, could velocity have increased by 10,000 or a million times?

No actual increase in number of units of money existing?

With everyone having a wheelbarrow full of bills denominated in the thousands, millions, or more?

I don’t think so.

Methinks you are wrong.

Your argument might have had merit when we still had paper money, but now money is mostly a string of 1s and 0s in a computer.

That neither needs to be printed nor can it be slowed down by the need to physically carry it around.

So I would expect a crash to be much faster in the US , not slower than in Zimbabwe,

Inflation is an increase in the money supply. Velocity of money exaggerates the symptoms of inflation but is not technically responsible for inflation. As people rush to spend money as they get it, they bid up the cost of goods. Cost of goods does not equal inflation, just a measure of inflation.

Most discussions of inflation do not differentiate the definition of inflation and its core symptoms. It all get�??�?�¢??s lumped into �??�?�¢??inflation�??�?�¢??. �??�?�¢??Hyper-inflation�??�?�¢?? appears to be universally accepted to mean more than straight inflation, and almost always includes mention of velocity of money.

I wrote that you are right and I am wrong but now I am not sure.

A change in prices when the money supply is held equal reflects a change in supply and demand.

An increased velocity however changes all prices.

So, even though velocity induced “inflation” might not be an "inflation"Ã???Ã??Ã?§ it sure acts like one.

We are in agreement. velocity of money also shifts dollars from savings into the consumption. Again bidding up the price of goods and also increasing the cost of borrowing money. They both increase becuase of the velocity of money. You are right that is acts like inflation, but it is not inflation.

Another example is the large amounts of US dollars being held (horded) overseas. That money was printed (inflation) long ago, but price increases will accelerate at insane levels when those dollars are put into circulation (velocity). inflationary effects are differnt from the actual inflation.[/quote]

Finally something I think everyone here can agree on. Availability of cash drives up the market price of goods, but that does not necessarily equate to inflation. Inflation is the measure of an increase in the cost of goods when measured against spendable or earned income. Houses and cars are not ten times more valuable then they were in the 60’s but they are ten times more expensive, because 30 year loans are available with FHA and VA guarantees. I used to work in the car business a long time ago and while I hate anecdotal evidence, this piece stands. According to the guys who were in the business long before me, no one borrowed money for five years to buy a car in the sixties and everyone expected to have to put 20 percent down on a house. A lack of responsibility lies on both sides of the borrowing/lending equation today. The problem with simply pointing that out and doing nothing is that a failing housing market becomes a vortex that sucks the life out of the economy as a whole.

To another point made above. You are absolutely right that selling hordes of US dollars to foreign investors to finance anything was about as short sighted a move as any we’ve made ever as a country. And every administration and Congress since WWII has been guilty of it. If China decides to have a fire sale on US currency then we are truly FUCKED. The only inhibiting factor right now is that we are China’s biggest customer so killing our economy cut’s off their cash flow. In a backasswards way, China is financing American’s ability to buy their goods. It is a treacherous house of cards, but I think (or hope and pray) that the laws of economic self interest will help keep things “relatively” stable long enough to let the air slowly out of the balloon.

99

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Let’s break it down to the simplest possible economy: two persons on a desert island.

I have goods and services that you need; and you have goods and services that I need.

We have some sort of money supply, which may include mechanisms for increasing it. Doesn’t matter for this discussion what it is. Let’s say we initially have 10,000 units total to start with.

We may well start off charging each other prices that reflect our traditional ideas from before being stranded.

However, maybe you decide that you want to be paid 150 units for one day’s worth of goods and services that I need.

Well, I can pay that, as I do have that on hand, but to say the least now I’m hardly going to sell you a day’s worth of goods and services that you need for 150 units, as I had been doing. I’m now determined to get 150 units if you want my stuff.

You have that on hand, you need the stuff, and so you pay.

This is an increase in velocity.

But it cannot happen that we wind up setting up prices of say a million, a billion, or a trillion units because that number of units doesn’t exist. (Unless we have increased the money supply.)

If an observer comes to the island and observes that you are charging me one trillion units per coconut, and I am charging you, likewise, one trillion units per papaya, he can correctly conclude with certainty that our money supply is no longer the 10,000 units that it had been prior to the hyperinflation.

He can correctly conclude that increase in velocity cannot be the sole explanation.[/quote]

Why wouldn’t these two people just barter? Money is a burden in this example and would probably have a negative value because it needs to be stored and kept safe. If I were on this island your money would be no good to me. I want real stuff.

100

Max wrote: Why wouldn’t these two people just barter? Money is a burden in this example and would probably have a negative value because it needs to be stored and kept safe. If I were on this island your money would be no good to me. I want real stuff.

Assuming there were sufficient resources on this island, why the hell would the two men even speak to one another unless they needed a spot on the bench press that they made with bamboo poles and hanging baskets of coconuts?