Fair. Rev, Civil War, and WWI - the big ones - we went off it.
There are very few big wars and many small wars. In comparison to those wars, Iraq is a small war.
What are you talking about? How is cutting spending cutting revenue? Plus, maybe if we got lucky, he'd legalize weed and tax it. That's a bigger fantasy than RP even getting elected...
He could never cut spending enough to make up for the loss in revenues from the income tax.
Yeah, he has to turn to the credit card because of inflation and how fucked up the monetary/fiscal system is now. And when the dollar crashes, we're all facing crushing debt.
No, he has to turn to the credit card because Joe Sixpack wants that nice TV.
Both banks were allowed to lapse. And I know the gilded age was shit; that's why the people ceded control to the government. However, instead of the pendulum swinging from free market, to gov, and back to free market, the two just allied in the name of expansion and profits, and we're getting fucked b/c of it.
The Second Bank of the US was only allowed to lapse because of a nutter. Inflation hasn't been that bad and people don't have to worry much about products containing cocaine.
My bad. Hamilton:Jefferson :: Centralization:Free market
Jefferson was a realist. He accepted the Bank despite previously being opposed to it. He accepted it because he realized it was sound monetary policy. There is a reason why Hamilton is considered one of the greatest treasury secretaries.
Sure people may solve some of their own problems in stupid ways, but if we can have government trying mostly to keep stupid solutions people make to their problems, from harming others, then why is letting people be stupid and fuck themselves over such a bad idea?
Because by fucking themselves over they indirectly fuck you over.
It's an analogy. The military as it's currently defined publicly, is here to defend our nation and our freedom. I would personally see that as meaning national defense and really not too much else. So then isn't sending the military to police and build foreign nations the same as making police officers just go fight a war on say, the Iranian government, without changing their job description or offering them any real training or many useful tools on how to do that. That's what I mean, we're sending our soldiers to do things they most likely did not sign up for.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
The income tax is used to pay for the interest on the bonds we have to pay back to the Fed, China, and Japan. Since he's not abolishing the Fed until the Fed reserve notes are fully removed from circulation - and with the debt having been substantially reduced - then it's not an issue (the income tax would remain for a while; however, given a hypothetical Paul victory, I'm sure we'd see it reduced immediately).
Secondly, the second bank was way too powerful - even Galbraith admits this. Biddle plunged the country into depression - on purpose - by fiddling with the interest rates in order to influence public opinion. That undermines the government and, by necessity, must be checked.
The first bank was on a much tighter leash.
As to inflation "not being that bad," try paying off college debts, rent, and utilities off 40k a year (my first job - but still. Jeez.). Milk costs $5 a gallon now.
Inflation is a far bigger problem than you might realize. Like I said before, wall street doesn't feel it - the little person does. We spend quickly because to save is to allow the dollar to devalue in the bank account. However, in spending, there's a transfer of wealth from the poor/middle class to the wealthy who of course do not feel the effects of inflation. Also, see what I said about corporations making madd money abroad - almost 60 percent of revenue. That's why wall street thrives and the people are struggling to get by with two working parents.
Not that irrational purchases don't happen - but don't downplay inflation.
It's an analogy. The military as it's currently defined publicly, is here to defend our nation and our freedom. I would personally see that as meaning national defense and really not too much else. So then isn't sending the military to police and build foreign nations the same as making police officers just go fight a war on say, the Iranian government, without changing their job description or offering them any real training or many useful tools on how to do that. That's what I mean, we're sending our soldiers to do things they most likely did not sign up for.
No, because police officers are civilians. Members of the military are service members and sacrifice their rights to serve as congress deems.
Because by fucking themselves over they indirectly fuck you over.
Call me crazy, but under that definition isn't any indirect harm my fault and therefore my problem? If things start destabilizing the vast majority of the populace in a real and tangible way then yeah we do probably need to evaluate specific steps and measure we can use to combat it (in line with our constitution.) That said, giving a blank check to protect us from ourselves is a downright dangerous idea, because government doesn't have any reason or need to stop when they don't have to. I'd rather the government not say, declare war on the monster under the bed and pass a law banishing beds that have empty space under them because a lot of kids are scared of the monster under the bed. hyperbole? Yes, but sometimes it's necessary to show ridiculous things that could happen if we just hand over power without logical or rational limits and government sees an opportunity to seize something.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Jackson was against pretty much any national bank. He could have attempted to regulate the bank but he didn't.
As to inflation "not being that bad," try paying off college debts, rent, and utilities off 40k a year. Milk costs $5 a gallon now.
Inflation helps those. Deflation would cause all of those to cost more in real world terms. The cost of milk is not entirely dependent on inflation. Gas prices play a large role.
The income tax is used to pay for the interest on the bonds we have to pay back to the Fed, China, and Japan. Since he's not abolishing the Fed until the Fed reserve notes are paid off - and, by extension, the debt - then it's not an issue.
He has said that he will abolish the IRS and the income tax. He plans to replace those with an national sales tax. Unless he is lying, I see no reason to disbelieve him.
Inflation is a far bigger problem than you might realize. Like I said before, wall street doesn't feel it - the little person does. We spend quickly because to save is to allow the dollar to devalue in its account.
We spend quickly because we want stuff. Besides, the real "little people" can't afford not to spend their money because they don't make enough money to make hoarding worthwhile. Hoarding is also bad for the economy.
You still haven't answered how hard money would deal with massive deflation.
At the former gold price of around USD $640 per Troy ounce, or around $20,000 per kilogram, the value of this entire planetary stock would be USD $2.5 trillion, which is less than the value of currency circulating. In the U.S. alone, more than $7.3 trillion is in circulation.
Okay, point conceded, it's a bad analogy. Still, wouldn't that basically mean people are being lied to about the overall goal and purpose of the military then?
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Because by fucking themselves over they indirectly fuck you over.
Call me crazy, but under that definition isn't any indirect harm my fault and therefore my problem? If things start destabilizing the vast majority of the populace in a real and tangible way then yeah we do probably need to evaluate specific steps and measure we can use to combat it (in line with our constitution.
You indirectly fucking shit up for other people and claiming responsibility for it doesn't make their new problems go away. If you drink beer laced with PCP and crash an SUV into someone's house it is your problem, but the gaping hole doesn't just go away. And you forgot to add "Or amend the constitution as necessary."
Okay, point conceded, it's a bad analogy. Still, wouldn't that basically mean people are being lied to about the overall goal and purpose of the military then?
Nation building can be considered protecting the country as it removes sources of instability.
Okay, point conceded, it's a bad analogy. Still, wouldn't that basically mean people are being lied to about the overall goal and purpose of the military then?
It's there to protect and defend American interests. American interests extend beyond America.
He has said that he will abolish the IRS and the income tax. He plans to replace those with an national sales tax. Unless he is lying, I see no reason to disbelieve him.
Perhaps. Abolishing the income tax would cause revenues to fall to 1995 levels. Given how much we spend abroad on the military, I don't think the loss of revenue would offset a debt repayment plan given dual currency.
Granted, I haven't checked what either figure actually is, so take this with a grain of salt.
You indirectly fucking shit up for other people and claiming responsibility for it doesn't make their new problems go away. If you drink beer laced with PCP and crash an SUV into someone's house it is your problem, but the gaping hole doesn't just go away. And you forgot to add "Or amend the constitution as necessary."
The rest of your post was crazy talk.
No, but that's why we have police, and courts and lawyers to make me pay for my actions. If I drink beer laced with PCP and then crash my SUV into someone's house, how can that be blamed on anyone other than me? If hundreds of people are in an SUV crashing epidemic, why not tighten penalties and dedicate more power to enforcing the existing laws? It's sort of like hate crime laws, why do we need them? If someone committs an offense, then they can already be punished. If we really think the punishment needs to be more severe, why not just give judges more leeway in deciding? We need to heavily explore existing methods for keeping society functional first before we start throwing around new laws or powers to stop these problems. I mean, look at that story that was originally supposed to tout the success of the patriot act, turns out that the whole thing got cracked by good 'ol fashioned police work.
I also thought "In line with our constitution" already included the idea of ammendments.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
As to inflation "not being that bad," try paying off college debts, rent, and utilities off 40k a year (my first job - but still. Jeez.). Milk costs $5 a gallon now.
Inflation is a far bigger problem than you might realize. Like I said before, wall street doesn't feel it - the little person does. We spend quickly because to save is to allow the dollar to devalue in the bank account. However, in spending, there's a transfer of wealth from the poor/middle class to the wealthy who of course do not feel the effects of inflation. Also, see what I said about corporations making madd money abroad - almost 60 percent of revenue. That's why wall street thrives and the people are struggling to get by with two working parents.
Not that irrational purchases don't happen - but don't downplay inflation.
This is a joke.
First of all, and I want to emphasize this: our current - rather modest - inflation rate is due to oil prices rising from $20 to $100.
Your milk being more expensive lately? That's because the price of feed for cows has gone up because fuel is more expensive and agricultural production is being diverted to ethanol. It has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve Bank.
Second, you don't seem to be aware that growth in every single income group in the United States either keeps pace with inflation or regularly surpasses it.
No, but that's why we have police, and courts and lawyers to make me pay for my actions. If I drink beer laced with PCP and then crash my SUV into someone's house, how can that be blamed on anyone other than me?
Blame and problem do not mean the same thing. Try again.
Shinto, go to page 93 and read my post. There is simply no way that is true that "every income group" has surpassed inflation rates. That would mean every single person gets a raise every year equal to the traditional 3 percent/year inflation instituted by the Fed. And, you know, that doesn't happen.
Why does it take 2 working parents to barely support a family today when 50 years ago a single income could get the job done?
The Fed has instituted long-term, slow inflation that was felt over a number of years rather than immediately.
He has said that he will abolish the IRS and the income tax. He plans to replace those with an national sales tax. Unless he is lying, I see no reason to disbelieve him.
Perhaps. Abolishing the income tax would cause revenues to fall to 1995 levels.
You have, ironically, failed to adjust for inflation.
Nation building can be considered protecting the country as it removes sources of instability.
In some cases right now that's possibly true but again we have to really look at it in a way that hasn't been looked at yet in the long term. Ideally, nation building done right, in the right place, at the right time, can stop bad things from happening to America and Americans abroad and at home, but most of our need for such actions has again come from our past interventionist actions. Do we need to fix some things globally right now? Absolutely, but we can't just sign on for more of the same, there needs to be a definite change in how and why decisions are made and with a very transparent and thorough investigation before we do such things.
Like i keep saying, practicallity, doing things based on an idealogy has only hurt us in the long run.
It's there to protect and defend American interests. American interests extend beyond America.
At times, yes, but what defines American interests? Personally I'd say it's only when the action has been weighed, researched, debated and decided (in a transparent way) that the vast majority of this nation would benefit greatly in the long term from the action. Historically a lot of our screwups were when we thought it'd be cool and for America but it ended up backfiring in our face. That's why it's often better just to not do anything short of serious and easily identifiable direct need/want and benefit to doing so.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
It's there to protect and defend American interests. American interests extend beyond America.
At times, yes, but what defines American interests? Personally I'd say it's only when the action has been weighed, researched, debated and decided (in a transparent way) that the vast majority of this nation would benefit greatly in the long term from the action. Historically a lot of our screwups were when we thought it'd be cool and for America but it ended up backfiring in our face. That's why it's often better just to not do anything short of serious and easily identifiable direct need/want and benefit to doing so.
Weighed, researched, and debated you say? If only we had a body of people to do that...
Blame and problem do not mean the same thing. Try again.
Re-read what you just quoted. We already have systems in place to solve that problem as best as reasonably possible. They're called the police and the judicial system. They punish people who do bad things, they award damages to the victims so they can try and repair their lives and they also keep people beyond reform off of the streets where they could harm others. Sure there are some things money and medical care may not be able to just "bring back" but if we go into preventative law then you'd better be pretty specific about what when and how you want to prevent things and why we can't solve it adiquately with existing law.
Again, blank checks to do anything are bad for government.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Weighed, researched, and debated you say? If only we had a body of people to do that...
Yes, now if only we could trust them to be compotent as well. I say it like that because this is the same congress that gave up much of its power to the executive branch to do whatever it pleases in a lot of new ways. Yes that mythical body of people exists but they sure aren't doing their job right and that's why I keep saying they need more limits and checks on their power. That's what this whole argument is about, which is that government is too big and needs less power and more limits exactly because as we've seen in recent years, we are practicing stupid by the barrel full in all branches right now and it needs to be reigned in.
The best way to prevent stupid from hurting us is to make it so that the biggest threat of stupid hurting us comes only from ourselves, which we tend to have direct indisputable and immediate authority over, unlike the government.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Ron wants to change this system by instituting a dual currency of non-debt/bond based government bills while slowly fazing out Federal Reserve bills. Also, by slashing spending and getting out of Iraq, we free up a shit load of money. In this manner, we can pay off the national debt. Only after that’s done would any serious discussion of returning to commodity backed currency begin.
You realize that we haven't actually really been taxed on Iraq yet, right? It's like telling someone who's in massive debt that they can work out of debt, by not paying their VISA bill.
Secondly, the second bank was way too powerful - even Galbraith admits this. Biddle plunged the country into depression - on purpose - by fiddling with the interest rates in order to influence public opinion. That undermines the government and, by necessity, must be checked.
Shinto, go to page 93 and read my post. There is simply no way that is true that "every income group" has surpassed inflation rates. That would mean every single person gets a raise every year equal to the traditional 3 percent/year inflation instituted by the Fed. And, you know, that doesn't happen.
Why does it take 2 working parents to barely support a family today when 50 years ago a single income could get the job done?
You really just don't understand economic growth, do you.
Why does it take two working parents today to "barely" support a family? Because our standard of living has risen. Those two working parents today wouldn't be struggling if they were living at a 1950 standard. They would own one car, live in an 700 square foot house and not have any electronics besides a radio.
Their healthcare would cost a lot less because medical science wouldn't be sophisticated enough to prescribe expensive medical treatment to them. There were no expensive tests to be performed with expensive machines. If you had a heart attack you either pulled through or died. They didn't have surgery that could help.
Furthermore, the working dad probably worked in a low skill factory job. This job would have provided both health insurance for free and a retirement pension. Demand is high for the good he helped to produce because the other industrial areas of the world have been devastated by WWII and haven't entirely recovered yet. In time such low skill jobs will leave due to globalization.
Here, let me show you something.
Bottom fifth gains $2000 per capita per year.
4th gains $4000 per year.
3rd gains $6000.
2nd gains $10,000.
1st gains $50,000.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Show me who said we should let the government do anything.
I thought we were arguing for and against limiting the power of government, I'm arguing why we need limits, and also why we need more limits.
I never even stated my thoughts on it. I've only pointed out the fallacies in yours. No one here thinks the government should do whatever it likes and you shouldn't make assumptions like that.
I never even stated my thoughts on it. I've only pointed out the fallacies in yours. No one here thinks the government should do whatever it likes and you shouldn't make assumptions like that.
To be fair, I was saying more concisely that I believe giving government a blanket mandate to "do whatever is necessary to fix X or Y" was bad, not that you meant we should let them do literally anything.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
He has said that he will abolish the IRS and the income tax. He plans to replace those with an national sales tax. Unless he is lying, I see no reason to disbelieve him.
Perhaps. Abolishing the income tax would cause revenues to fall to 1995 levels. Given how much we spend abroad on the military, I don't think the loss of revenue would offset a debt repayment plan given dual currency.
Granted, I haven't checked what either figure actually is, so take this with a grain of salt.
YOU ARE NOT ADJUSTING FOR INFLATION
Removing the income tax lowers federal revenue to roughly 1.55 trillion in 2006 dollars.
When you adjust for inflation, it lowers federal revenue to 1980 levels.
Now, this may escape you so I just want to make sure you notice it. The population of the United States has risen by 80 million people since then.
You really just don't understand economic growth, do you?
And you really don't understand the system. The jobs "left due to globalization?" Nice euphemism. What you really mean is that because of the dollar's current revered status, Americans live on the labor and manufactured goods of others and produce nothing. We've been living above our means for years and this simply cannot last. As soon as the dollar implodes, we're fucked - we have no industry to fall back on. What happens when OPEC drops the dollar and China follows suit? Our market dries up, and since we don't produce shit, we've got nothing to export. Yeah, we'll be happy then.
And yes, our standard of living is higher - that's the point. It's what we're used to and we think we can keep getting it because it's what we're entitled to. Of course, it's not and we're realizing it as the dollar devalues and foreign confidence weakens. Our cost if living is rising and all those little perks cost more and more - but the paycheck stays the same. It's the price we pay for our parents' selfishness. We're absolutely fucked if we don't cut spending and start paying off the debt.
Put simply, it's impossible to continue this unlimited growth. The rest of the world won't allow it. It worked for a while because we forced them to accept it via military dominance, industrial might, and a wealth of gold. 2 of those 3 advantages are now gone. With the expenditures towards financing said military finally becoming so high and resentment of the US so severe - the rest of the world will treat the dollar as what it really is: a worthless piece of paper of which there are far too many in circulation. They'll drop it, and we go into depression - horrible depression. With shitloads of defaulted loans.
I don't want that. Ron's the only one who has articulated any actual vision towards changing this - and he's castigated as a kook. He knows what he's talking about: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html
Seeing as Fallout2man and WRT are spouting crazytalk on so many subjects its hard to begin explaining to them where they went wrong. I will try to tackle their belife in the "GOLD" Standard. I know a lot of people have explained it before, but maybe this time it will finaly sink in.
Start by taking a gold ore, deep inside a mountain. Have some men start mining to get to it. Since Gold is rarely close to the surface they will have to dig a very deep hole to get to it. Once they get the ore, then have the ore shipped to the smelters to be smelted into gold bars. THEN have the gold bars shipped to their destination(a bank). Have the Bank dig a deep hole for their vault. Place the gold bars in the deep hole(the vault) and Assign a guard to watch over it.
The question a normal person would ask at this point would be: HOW THE FUCK DID THIS BECOME THE BASIS FOR A SOUND FISCAL POLICY? AND WHAT WOULD HAVE CHANGED IF WE JUST LET THE GOLD LIE INSIDE THE MOUNTAIN? WHY THE FUCK WOULD WE WANT TO GO BACK TO THIS SYSTEM?
Sorry, but the idea of the "Gold standard" as the end all, be all of fiscal policy is the most retarded idea in history. HELL historicaly, gold was never the "standard" its supporters claimed. Gold was used in coins, not because of some magical propeties, but because it was hard to fake, rare to find and never rusted. Most goverment minted "gold" coins true, but they rarely contained gold in real amounts. Most coins around the world contained only a fraction of this magcial substance called gold. There was more gold in a teeth filling than in the average "gold" coin. Gold as a basis for currency has not existed for 300 years and was a diminished concept before that.
The Gold standard itself was a continuation of this debasing of gold coins. It was printed money that you could exchange if you wanted to for a set amount of gold. In reality there where 3 major flaws with the gold standard: 1) If you showed up at a bank and tried to exchange your money for gold, the bank would have their guards throw you out(after a good ass-kicking), because 2) The money in circulation far exceded the amount of gold in any banks vault. The 3 flaw? They keept increasing the ration between the printed money and the gold supply as this was the only way to prevent crippling deflation(gold being harder to find than simply letting the printing press run).
The gold standard was based around the idea that you could exchange money for gold only so long as none acctualy did so! The US was never on the gold standard as a Rondroid would understand it. When the US went of the gold standard it was an acknowledgment of the truth, that it was a obsolete fiction with no basis in fiscal reality. Going off the gold standard was like the medical profession finally laying to rest their leeches.
TL: DR The gold standard was just a dream then and it would be a nightmare now. Let it rest in the history books and ignore any lunatic that wants to resurrect it.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Jesus dude. COMMODITY BACKED. It doesn't have to be gold. It would be fucking retarded to go on a strictly gold standard again especially because the US doesn't HAVE any gold.
Oh, and by the way, good thing paper money can't be counterfeited, huh?
The whole idea of a commodity backed currency is to promote fiscal and personal monetary responsibility and keep stable prices (which can be impacted if huge loads of gold are found blah blah blah. Better than leaving it in the hands of self-interested and ambitious politicians/bankers who grow fat and rich off interest). Further, if we want fiat, why not just let the government print it? That promotes fiscal responsibility too. If they go to town printing shit to finance a war in excess of their budget, we get hyperinfaltion and people riot in the street. Keeps the gov. in check.
The current system just leaves us dangerously dependent on foreign countries/the Fed. If the gov. can issue a bond, it can issue a dollar.
You really just don't understand economic growth, do you?
And you really don't understand the system. The jobs "left due to globalization?" Nice euphemism. What you really mean is that because of the dollar's current revered status, Americans live on the labor and manufactured goods of others and produce nothing.
We export over one trillion dollars worth of good and services every year.
What do you mean "left due to globalization" with the cute little quotations?
No matter what you think about how currency is effecting imports, what you pay a guy in China is going to be way way way below what you pay a guy in the United States. That's why the manufacturing jobs that depended on unskilled labor left.
And you're right about Chinese being paid less and the reason for the jobs leaving. They're cheaper because we're living above our means and forcing the rest of the world to work while we simply consume.
Don't you get that it's just a house of cards and it's all going to fall down as soon as the foreigners abandon the dollar? A country with 5 percent of the world's population can't continue to live so richly while the rest work for us. It's about the end and we have to prepare for the consequences. America was only supposed to be an Empire of civil liberties, not of world dominance.
500 Billion dollars of that is oil. If oil prices hadn't risen from 2000 levels our trade deficit would be half that size.
In any case, your assertion that we don't produce "jack shit" is wrong. Our economy does not depend on exports. We have stronger net gdp growth than almost all western countries even with our trade deficit.
So, when are you going to stop with the spouting of dogma? History shows that commodity backed currency tends to have some major downsides, which we have discussed over and over across the 95 pages of this damned thread.
As people have pointed out, what makes any commodity valuable? The answer is its utility. Gold has had its historic utility derived from the fact that it's rare, easily malleable, and pretty. In more modern times, it's become useful in medicine and electronics. Beyond that, though, there's no intrinsic value to gold. And the fact that gold values fluctuate proves that point succinctly. So, you say that we'll pick another commodity. But can you show me a commodity that has intrinsic value? I know you can't. The dominance of fiat is due in large part to the realization that money, in fact, is just another commodity.
As for counterfeiting, two points.
First, it's not like counterfeiting is a modern invention. Even in the "magic" days of gold coin, counterfeiting was a popular pasttime. Why do you think you always see movie pirates biting doubloons?
Second, sure you can try to make funny money. But what do you think the odds are of you getting caught, especially if you pass a lot of bad bills? I would think our whole discussion of NORFED would illustrate the dangers of unlawfully getting into the making money business.
In short, dogma may sound good, but it doesn't work.
I wish I shared your optimism. You clearly know more about econ than me, but you haven't shaken my belief in RP. I'm ideologically too close to his views.
Anyways, I'ma go smoke a J and see "No Country for Old Men." To be continued.
And you're right about Chinese being paid less and the reason for the jobs leaving. They're cheaper because we're living above our means and forcing the rest of the world to work while we simply consume.
That's laughable. Our economy grows very strongly every year despite the hundreds of billions of net exported value due to the trade deficit. You know why? Because Americans work really fucking hard and have a really good economy. It grows by twice or three times our trade deficit every year.
Don't you get that it's just a house of cards and it's all going to fall down as soon as the foreigners abandon the dollar? A country with 5 percent of the world's population can't continue to live so richly while the rest work for us. It's about the end and we have to prepare for the consequences. America was only supposed to be an Empire of civil liberties, not of world dominance.
Don't you get that you are just a sucker for apocalyptic thinking?
Posts
He could never cut spending enough to make up for the loss in revenues from the income tax.
No, he has to turn to the credit card because Joe Sixpack wants that nice TV.
The Second Bank of the US was only allowed to lapse because of a nutter. Inflation hasn't been that bad and people don't have to worry much about products containing cocaine.
Jefferson was a realist. He accepted the Bank despite previously being opposed to it. He accepted it because he realized it was sound monetary policy. There is a reason why Hamilton is considered one of the greatest treasury secretaries.
It's an analogy. The military as it's currently defined publicly, is here to defend our nation and our freedom. I would personally see that as meaning national defense and really not too much else. So then isn't sending the military to police and build foreign nations the same as making police officers just go fight a war on say, the Iranian government, without changing their job description or offering them any real training or many useful tools on how to do that. That's what I mean, we're sending our soldiers to do things they most likely did not sign up for.
Secondly, the second bank was way too powerful - even Galbraith admits this. Biddle plunged the country into depression - on purpose - by fiddling with the interest rates in order to influence public opinion. That undermines the government and, by necessity, must be checked.
The first bank was on a much tighter leash.
As to inflation "not being that bad," try paying off college debts, rent, and utilities off 40k a year (my first job - but still. Jeez.). Milk costs $5 a gallon now.
Inflation is a far bigger problem than you might realize. Like I said before, wall street doesn't feel it - the little person does. We spend quickly because to save is to allow the dollar to devalue in the bank account. However, in spending, there's a transfer of wealth from the poor/middle class to the wealthy who of course do not feel the effects of inflation. Also, see what I said about corporations making madd money abroad - almost 60 percent of revenue. That's why wall street thrives and the people are struggling to get by with two working parents.
Not that irrational purchases don't happen - but don't downplay inflation.
Read the contract. Specifically the first paragraph on the second page.
Call me crazy, but under that definition isn't any indirect harm my fault and therefore my problem? If things start destabilizing the vast majority of the populace in a real and tangible way then yeah we do probably need to evaluate specific steps and measure we can use to combat it (in line with our constitution.) That said, giving a blank check to protect us from ourselves is a downright dangerous idea, because government doesn't have any reason or need to stop when they don't have to. I'd rather the government not say, declare war on the monster under the bed and pass a law banishing beds that have empty space under them because a lot of kids are scared of the monster under the bed. hyperbole? Yes, but sometimes it's necessary to show ridiculous things that could happen if we just hand over power without logical or rational limits and government sees an opportunity to seize something.
Inflation helps those. Deflation would cause all of those to cost more in real world terms. The cost of milk is not entirely dependent on inflation. Gas prices play a large role.
He has said that he will abolish the IRS and the income tax. He plans to replace those with an national sales tax. Unless he is lying, I see no reason to disbelieve him.
We spend quickly because we want stuff. Besides, the real "little people" can't afford not to spend their money because they don't make enough money to make hoarding worthwhile. Hoarding is also bad for the economy.
You still haven't answered how hard money would deal with massive deflation.
Okay, point conceded, it's a bad analogy. Still, wouldn't that basically mean people are being lied to about the overall goal and purpose of the military then?
The rest of your post was crazy talk.
Nation building can be considered protecting the country as it removes sources of instability.
Perhaps. Abolishing the income tax would cause revenues to fall to 1995 levels. Given how much we spend abroad on the military, I don't think the loss of revenue would offset a debt repayment plan given dual currency.
Granted, I haven't checked what either figure actually is, so take this with a grain of salt.
No, but that's why we have police, and courts and lawyers to make me pay for my actions. If I drink beer laced with PCP and then crash my SUV into someone's house, how can that be blamed on anyone other than me? If hundreds of people are in an SUV crashing epidemic, why not tighten penalties and dedicate more power to enforcing the existing laws? It's sort of like hate crime laws, why do we need them? If someone committs an offense, then they can already be punished. If we really think the punishment needs to be more severe, why not just give judges more leeway in deciding? We need to heavily explore existing methods for keeping society functional first before we start throwing around new laws or powers to stop these problems. I mean, look at that story that was originally supposed to tout the success of the patriot act, turns out that the whole thing got cracked by good 'ol fashioned police work.
I also thought "In line with our constitution" already included the idea of ammendments.
This is a joke.
First of all, and I want to emphasize this: our current - rather modest - inflation rate is due to oil prices rising from $20 to $100.
Your milk being more expensive lately? That's because the price of feed for cows has gone up because fuel is more expensive and agricultural production is being diverted to ethanol. It has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve Bank.
Second, you don't seem to be aware that growth in every single income group in the United States either keeps pace with inflation or regularly surpasses it.
Why does it take 2 working parents to barely support a family today when 50 years ago a single income could get the job done?
The Fed has instituted long-term, slow inflation that was felt over a number of years rather than immediately.
You have, ironically, failed to adjust for inflation.
In some cases right now that's possibly true but again we have to really look at it in a way that hasn't been looked at yet in the long term. Ideally, nation building done right, in the right place, at the right time, can stop bad things from happening to America and Americans abroad and at home, but most of our need for such actions has again come from our past interventionist actions. Do we need to fix some things globally right now? Absolutely, but we can't just sign on for more of the same, there needs to be a definite change in how and why decisions are made and with a very transparent and thorough investigation before we do such things.
Like i keep saying, practicallity, doing things based on an idealogy has only hurt us in the long run.
At times, yes, but what defines American interests? Personally I'd say it's only when the action has been weighed, researched, debated and decided (in a transparent way) that the vast majority of this nation would benefit greatly in the long term from the action. Historically a lot of our screwups were when we thought it'd be cool and for America but it ended up backfiring in our face. That's why it's often better just to not do anything short of serious and easily identifiable direct need/want and benefit to doing so.
Gold serves as a carrier medium for gold pressed latinum.
Re-read what you just quoted. We already have systems in place to solve that problem as best as reasonably possible. They're called the police and the judicial system. They punish people who do bad things, they award damages to the victims so they can try and repair their lives and they also keep people beyond reform off of the streets where they could harm others. Sure there are some things money and medical care may not be able to just "bring back" but if we go into preventative law then you'd better be pretty specific about what when and how you want to prevent things and why we can't solve it adiquately with existing law.
Again, blank checks to do anything are bad for government.
Yes, now if only we could trust them to be compotent as well. I say it like that because this is the same congress that gave up much of its power to the executive branch to do whatever it pleases in a lot of new ways. Yes that mythical body of people exists but they sure aren't doing their job right and that's why I keep saying they need more limits and checks on their power. That's what this whole argument is about, which is that government is too big and needs less power and more limits exactly because as we've seen in recent years, we are practicing stupid by the barrel full in all branches right now and it needs to be reigned in.
The best way to prevent stupid from hurting us is to make it so that the biggest threat of stupid hurting us comes only from ourselves, which we tend to have direct indisputable and immediate authority over, unlike the government.
You realize that we haven't actually really been taxed on Iraq yet, right? It's like telling someone who's in massive debt that they can work out of debt, by not paying their VISA bill.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/four_pinocchios_for_ron_paul.html
Wow, that's really not what he said at all.
You really just don't understand economic growth, do you.
Why does it take two working parents today to "barely" support a family? Because our standard of living has risen. Those two working parents today wouldn't be struggling if they were living at a 1950 standard. They would own one car, live in an 700 square foot house and not have any electronics besides a radio.
Their healthcare would cost a lot less because medical science wouldn't be sophisticated enough to prescribe expensive medical treatment to them. There were no expensive tests to be performed with expensive machines. If you had a heart attack you either pulled through or died. They didn't have surgery that could help.
Furthermore, the working dad probably worked in a low skill factory job. This job would have provided both health insurance for free and a retirement pension. Demand is high for the good he helped to produce because the other industrial areas of the world have been devastated by WWII and haven't entirely recovered yet. In time such low skill jobs will leave due to globalization.
Here, let me show you something.
Bottom fifth gains $2000 per capita per year.
4th gains $4000 per year.
3rd gains $6000.
2nd gains $10,000.
1st gains $50,000.
I thought we were arguing for and against limiting the power of government, I'm arguing why we need limits, and also why we need more limits.
To be fair, I was saying more concisely that I believe giving government a blanket mandate to "do whatever is necessary to fix X or Y" was bad, not that you meant we should let them do literally anything.
YOU ARE NOT ADJUSTING FOR INFLATION
Removing the income tax lowers federal revenue to roughly 1.55 trillion in 2006 dollars.
When you adjust for inflation, it lowers federal revenue to 1980 levels.
Now, this may escape you so I just want to make sure you notice it. The population of the United States has risen by 80 million people since then.
And yes, our standard of living is higher - that's the point. It's what we're used to and we think we can keep getting it because it's what we're entitled to. Of course, it's not and we're realizing it as the dollar devalues and foreign confidence weakens. Our cost if living is rising and all those little perks cost more and more - but the paycheck stays the same. It's the price we pay for our parents' selfishness. We're absolutely fucked if we don't cut spending and start paying off the debt.
Put simply, it's impossible to continue this unlimited growth. The rest of the world won't allow it. It worked for a while because we forced them to accept it via military dominance, industrial might, and a wealth of gold. 2 of those 3 advantages are now gone. With the expenditures towards financing said military finally becoming so high and resentment of the US so severe - the rest of the world will treat the dollar as what it really is: a worthless piece of paper of which there are far too many in circulation. They'll drop it, and we go into depression - horrible depression. With shitloads of defaulted loans.
I don't want that. Ron's the only one who has articulated any actual vision towards changing this - and he's castigated as a kook. He knows what he's talking about: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html
Start by taking a gold ore, deep inside a mountain. Have some men start mining to get to it. Since Gold is rarely close to the surface they will have to dig a very deep hole to get to it. Once they get the ore, then have the ore shipped to the smelters to be smelted into gold bars. THEN have the gold bars shipped to their destination(a bank). Have the Bank dig a deep hole for their vault. Place the gold bars in the deep hole(the vault) and Assign a guard to watch over it.
The question a normal person would ask at this point would be:
HOW THE FUCK DID THIS BECOME THE BASIS FOR A SOUND FISCAL POLICY? AND WHAT WOULD HAVE CHANGED IF WE JUST LET THE GOLD LIE INSIDE THE MOUNTAIN? WHY THE FUCK WOULD WE WANT TO GO BACK TO THIS SYSTEM?
Sorry, but the idea of the "Gold standard" as the end all, be all of fiscal policy is the most retarded idea in history. HELL historicaly, gold was never the "standard" its supporters claimed. Gold was used in coins, not because of some magical propeties, but because it was hard to fake, rare to find and never rusted. Most goverment minted "gold" coins true, but they rarely contained gold in real amounts. Most coins around the world contained only a fraction of this magcial substance called gold. There was more gold in a teeth filling than in the average "gold" coin. Gold as a basis for currency has not existed for 300 years and was a diminished concept before that.
The Gold standard itself was a continuation of this debasing of gold coins. It was printed money that you could exchange if you wanted to for a set amount of gold. In reality there where 3 major flaws with the gold standard: 1) If you showed up at a bank and tried to exchange your money for gold, the bank would have their guards throw you out(after a good ass-kicking), because 2) The money in circulation far exceded the amount of gold in any banks vault. The 3 flaw? They keept increasing the ration between the printed money and the gold supply as this was the only way to prevent crippling deflation(gold being harder to find than simply letting the printing press run).
The gold standard was based around the idea that you could exchange money for gold only so long as none acctualy did so! The US was never on the gold standard as a Rondroid would understand it. When the US went of the gold standard it was an acknowledgment of the truth, that it was a obsolete fiction with no basis in fiscal reality. Going off the gold standard was like the medical profession finally laying to rest their leeches.
TL: DR The gold standard was just a dream then and it would be a nightmare now. Let it rest in the history books and ignore any lunatic that wants to resurrect it.
Oh, and by the way, good thing paper money can't be counterfeited, huh?
The whole idea of a commodity backed currency is to promote fiscal and personal monetary responsibility and keep stable prices (which can be impacted if huge loads of gold are found blah blah blah. Better than leaving it in the hands of self-interested and ambitious politicians/bankers who grow fat and rich off interest). Further, if we want fiat, why not just let the government print it? That promotes fiscal responsibility too. If they go to town printing shit to finance a war in excess of their budget, we get hyperinfaltion and people riot in the street. Keeps the gov. in check.
The current system just leaves us dangerously dependent on foreign countries/the Fed. If the gov. can issue a bond, it can issue a dollar.
We export over one trillion dollars worth of good and services every year.
What do you mean "left due to globalization" with the cute little quotations?
No matter what you think about how currency is effecting imports, what you pay a guy in China is going to be way way way below what you pay a guy in the United States. That's why the manufacturing jobs that depended on unskilled labor left.
Don't you get that it's just a house of cards and it's all going to fall down as soon as the foreigners abandon the dollar? A country with 5 percent of the world's population can't continue to live so richly while the rest work for us. It's about the end and we have to prepare for the consequences. America was only supposed to be an Empire of civil liberties, not of world dominance.
500 Billion dollars of that is oil. If oil prices hadn't risen from 2000 levels our trade deficit would be half that size.
In any case, your assertion that we don't produce "jack shit" is wrong. Our economy does not depend on exports. We have stronger net gdp growth than almost all western countries even with our trade deficit.
As people have pointed out, what makes any commodity valuable? The answer is its utility. Gold has had its historic utility derived from the fact that it's rare, easily malleable, and pretty. In more modern times, it's become useful in medicine and electronics. Beyond that, though, there's no intrinsic value to gold. And the fact that gold values fluctuate proves that point succinctly. So, you say that we'll pick another commodity. But can you show me a commodity that has intrinsic value? I know you can't. The dominance of fiat is due in large part to the realization that money, in fact, is just another commodity.
As for counterfeiting, two points.
In short, dogma may sound good, but it doesn't work.
Anyways, I'ma go smoke a J and see "No Country for Old Men." To be continued.
That's laughable. Our economy grows very strongly every year despite the hundreds of billions of net exported value due to the trade deficit. You know why? Because Americans work really fucking hard and have a really good economy. It grows by twice or three times our trade deficit every year.
Don't you get that you are just a sucker for apocalyptic thinking?