Mink, you may want sweeping changes, but in the mean time it's good to make small improvements here and there. People aren't going to stop eating meat any time soon.
>> ^jwray: Mink, you may want sweeping changes, but in the mean time it's good to make small improvements here and there. People aren't going to stop eating meat any time soon.
people aren't gonna fill their tyres up any time soon either, it's just fucking rhetoric. i bet you not more than 5% of the people who said "WHOOOOOO!!!!" went home and filled their fucking tires.
Of course he isn't going to say "stop eating meat" but the reason is economic, not social. He needs to keep the meat industry happy. the fact that meat production is the worst thing in the entire environment after asbestos factories just kinda... isn't relevant, right? send people to their local petrol station to fill up their tyres and buy a coke.
so keep voting for these guys who talk bullshit and pretend they care when really their hands are tied.
gobama indeed. at last the USA has a Tony Blair, and we all know how kewl that is.
people aren't gonna fill their tyres up any time soon either, it's just fucking rhetoric. i bet you not more than 5% of the people who said "WHOOOOOO!!!!" went home and filled their fucking tires.
How much you wanna bet taht there are one hell of a lot of Obama supporters who *are* filling their tires as we speak. And how much you wanna bet there are a whole lot of McCain supporters who aren't going to fill their tires as some form of self-inflicting protest wound. it's like these people take pride in being stupid.
>> ^jwray: people aren't gonna fill their tyres up any time soon either, it's just fucking rhetoric. i bet you not more than 5% of the people who said "WHOOOOOO!!!!" went home and filled their fucking tires.
>> ^MINK: >> ^jwray: Mink, you may want sweeping changes, but in the mean time it's good to make small improvements here and there. People aren't going to stop eating meat any time soon.
people aren't gonna fill their tyres up any time soon either, it's just fucking rhetoric. i bet you not more than 5% of the people who said "WHOOOOOO!!!!" went home and filled their fucking tires.
Of course he isn't going to say "stop eating meat" but the reason is economic, not social. He needs to keep the meat industry happy. the fact that meat production is the worst thing in the entire environment after asbestos factories just kinda... isn't relevant, right? send people to their local petrol station to fill up their tyres and buy a coke.
so keep voting for these guys who talk bullshit and pretend they care when really their hands are tied.
gobama indeed. at last the USA has a Tony Blair, and we all know how kewl that is.
The problem with your angry stance is that is ANYONE tried to run for office and go straight for the 'stop eating meat', do you think they'd get into office?
Hmm?
Do you?
No, of course they bloody wouldn't, so what would be the friggen point of running with that? What's the point of running with 'Stop eating meat', that will instantly put off a huge number of people (including myself, I'm very, very pro environment, wish the government would start spending some big bloody money on it, don't care if it hurts us financially at the moment, because it'll be a win in the long run)? All that'd do is not get said person elected.
Brilliant plan.
I'd MUCH prefer someone who takes the steps they can get away with, slowly ramping up the scale of changes as people get used to them. You start off small, or start off with big things that don't directly affect people's way of life, and then slowly introduce those things that require people to change their behaviour. It's the only way you're going to be able to be in power and do ANYTHING.
So stop with the 'Well, if he isn't prepared to ban all cars, make everyone vegans and insist that people only breath out on alternating days, then I won't vote for him'. It's insane logic.
And it just smacks of you trying to be a smartass and saying 'look, I think I know something you don't, meat production causes lots of environmental impact'. If you think it's so damn important, you run for office with that as your lead policy and see how far you get.
I like that man. Even if i'm not always OK with what he's saying (hey, i'm an european socialist after all, we see things differently over here), he seems like the kind of person who actually believes he can do something for his country, and not just for himself.
Wish we had some politicians like that over here, it would give me an incentive to actually care about politics.
Energy crisis? What energy crisis? ...prices are up, in part, because worldwide demand (supply) is up. What are people basing their entitlement to low energy prices on? Paying $1 a gallon six years ago has absolutely no bearing on current market conditions.
The government should have no role in resolving the "energy crisis"...this "crisis" can only be addressed by the free market. If you don't like our dependence on oil, invest in wind, solar, geothermal, or nuclear--or start your own company. If you don't like paying $4.00 a gallon, buy a car with better fuel efficiency or inflate your tires (ha). If you can't afford a more efficient/appropriately sized car, buy a motorcycle or scooter. If you can't afford your own vehicle, take the bus. If theres no bus, ride a bicycle. If your work is too far, get a second job so you can pay for the gas. If you can't find a second job adjust your finances...
Oil should be taxed heavily to bring its private cost in line with its public cost. People who commute 2 hours a day for a 20% higher paying job are enriching themselves at the expense of the entire world.
I wouldn't even consider living/working in such a situation that it would would be more than a 20 minute walk from home to work. Part of the problem is bad city planning that promotes long commutes.
When the real cost of oil, in terms of externalities, is reflected by its market price after taxes, and people see gas selling for $15 a gallon, they will think carefully about conserving it. As long as gas is cheap, people will inevitably waste it. High gas prices are the best way to conserve oil. Regressive-taxation effects of such a plan can be offset by the welfare state.
I've long advocated a simple annual income tax according to this sort of formula:
Income after tax = $15,000 + 0.6 * (Income before tax)
So there is a safety net that guarantees everyone a minimum standard of living, but earned income contributes linearly towards take-home income, unlike other welfare systems that create local maxima in the graph of earned income vs. take home income.
hi guys! seeing as the first thing i said was "is he going to say stop eating meat? No."... it's kinda weird that you are all repeating that back to me and upvoting it as if it's a counterargument.
you are so retarded you jump to a "attack" without reading what i wrote.
my point, darlings, is that Obama pretends to give a shit but his hands are tied. He can't ban meat pollution, even if it is the largest problem, because of the meat industry. He can't say "stop driving" because of the car industry and oil industry. So he says "fill up your tires" as if saying THAT will make a difference (it won't). You all applaud, as if applauding will make a difference (it won't).
Let me ask you this, if we really do need radical lifestyle changes because of warming/cooling/watershortage/desertification whatever.... are you gonna vote for the guy that actually proposes changes or are you gonna vote for the guy who has a poster with "CHANGE" written on it and a few bandaid policies that keep everyone happy until the apocalypse?
>> ^MINK: my point, darlings, is that Obama pretends to give a shit but his hands are tied. He can't ban meat pollution, even if it is the largest problem, because of the meat industry. He can't say "stop driving" because of the car industry and oil industry. So he says "fill up your tires" as if saying THAT will make a difference (it won't). You all applaud, as if applauding will make a difference (it won't).
That wasn't the point of his speech, the tyre thing was a simple question from an individual about what he could do personally to help the situation...
You're making the same mistake McCain and co. did, inferring that a part of energy policy is filling the tyres. It never was anything but a simple tip, but it drew the ignorant antagonists to him like flies to shit.
Ironic that you watched the video and still made the same mistake...
Let me ask you this, if we really do need radical lifestyle changes because of warming/cooling/watershortage/desertification whatever.... are you gonna vote for the guy that actually proposes changes or are you gonna vote for the guy who has a poster with "CHANGE" written on it and a few bandaid policies that keep everyone happy until the apocalypse?
Hah, or is everyone going to act locally while thinking globally without being led around by a figurehead like an ignorant herd of cattle on the way to said abbatoir...
Highly fucking unlikely imo... People hate change at the best of times, unless an emergency is waved in front of their noses, they don't want to know and/or change, usually until it's too late.
If you really do need a radical change in lifestyle it's going to be too fucking late to worry about who you're voting. Because odds on, you've been cloistered away from reality so long that when the change comes, it'll be too late to change and the candidate that wins will be the person that can facilitate your survival.
Note: You/your etc meaning the world and each nation in it, not directly at you Mink.
Let me ask you this, if we really do need radical lifestyle changes because of warming/cooling/watershortage/desertification whatever.... are you gonna vote for the guy that actually proposes changes or are you gonna vote for the guy who has a poster with "CHANGE" written on it and a few bandaid policies that keep everyone happy until the apocalypse?
I was going to vote for Gravel in the caucus, but we weren't anywhere near the 15% threshold required to get a delegate. So it boils down to Obama > Hillary > McCain.
but still, the tire filling thing is just a little soundbite he can throw out without annoying his higher ups. that's why he suggested it, rather than saying "if every american ate one less hamburger a month".....
I don't see how "if every American ate one less hamburger a month" is any less a soundbite that wouldn't annoy the higher ups then the line about tires.
I've long advocated a simple annual income tax according to this sort of formula:
Income after tax = $15,000 + 0.6 * (Income before tax)
What do you call someone who is forced to work for no wages? What do you call someone who has 100% of their wages forcefully taken? What do you call someone who has 40% of their wages forcefully taken?
I hope you sleep better at night knowing you are "only" 40% slave....or that you "only" spend 40% of your life in slavery.
>> ^MINK: ...rather than saying "if every american ate one less hamburger a month".....
This is obviously something pretty important to you, Mink, but surely you must realize that, strategically, saying such a thing would be a huge mistake for Obama.
I mean, we'd never hear the end of it.
Some republicon shill-meister would turn it into some kind of nursury rhyme like "flip-flop flip-flop" or "I invented the internet!" and from now till November second, that's all you would hear, twenty times a day, every day.
but still, the tire filling thing is just a little soundbite he can throw out without annoying his higher ups. that's why he suggested it, rather than saying "if every american ate one less hamburger a month".....
Np dood, healthy debate is always good... =)
Yeah, I don't honestly think it mattered what he said, it was a trite little suggestion but in context it was appropriate imo.
Either which way, if meat reduction isn't on the agenda (or menu *ba dum tish*), do you prefer offshore drilling or investment in to hybrid energy (or other sources)?
Or more to the point, do you prefer a guy who coughs up tidbits of information that complement his policy or a guy that pays people to try and make a joke of it rather than pushing his own policies?
Lets face it, oil is big news, meat pollution, how many people (at least those who don't live downwind from an abbatoir) even know that it's a big problem? At least the public have their faces rubbed in the oil problem so selling a policy for change to them is going to be far easier than saying "no more prime rib for joo!!!".. = )
>> ^imstellar28: I've long advocated a simple annual income tax according to this sort of formula:
Income after tax = $15,000 + 0.6 (Income before tax)
What do you call someone who is forced to work for no wages? What do you call someone who has 100% of their wages forcefully taken? What do you call someone who has 40% of their wages forcefully taken?
I hope you sleep better at night knowing you are "only" 40% slave....or that you "only" spend 40% of your life in slavery.
100% or .01%...there is no moral difference...
Taxes are the price we pay for any system of government other than anarchy. Comparing a 40% income tax on millionaires to slavery is ridiculous.
This is a foolishly narrow view. You get a lot for those taxes. If you theoretically removed the taxes, your wages would be slashed by at least as much, because there would be no one to regulate wages and set a minimum wage. It's not just taken! If there were no taxes there could be no government, and if there is NO government it is anarchy. In anarchy your life is forfeit.
>> ^imstellar28: I've long advocated a simple annual income tax according to this sort of formula:
Income after tax = $15,000 + 0.6 (Income before tax)
What do you call someone who is forced to work for no wages? What do you call someone who has 100% of their wages forcefully taken? What do you call someone who has 40% of their wages forcefully taken?
I hope you sleep better at night knowing you are "only" 40% slave....or that you "only" spend 40% of your life in slavery.
"Taxes are the price we pay for any system of government other than anarchy. "
So what you are telling me is you are not creative enough to think of a solution which does not involve physical force? The government is a servant. You wouldn't expect a servant to force a salary on you, would you? Any form of taxation other than a voluntary one, is immoral.
"If you theoretically removed the taxes, your wages would be slashed by at least as much, because there would be no one to regulate wages and set a minimum wage. It's not just taken! If there were no taxes there could be no government, and if there is NO government it is anarchy."
You should think about what you say before you repeat the misguided notions of others...this is NOT true. 1. minimum wages create unemployment and ultimately reduce wages--research it for yourself 2. again, just because you cannot think of a solution to government regulated slavery, does not mean one does not exist.
The options aren't "obama or mccain" "taxes or anarchy" "40% slavery or 1% slavery" ....all of life is not a two party system.
Although one thing is black and white--you either believe in slavery or you don't.
When everything the government does is voluntary, it's like having no government at all -- just a little underfunded charity program instead. Good luck getting enough money to build roads, put out fires, and catch murderers with only voluntary donations. Governments exist to moderate individual selfishness for the greatest good of the greatest number of people.
The prisoner's dilemma reward structure is analogous to a myriad of real world situations. By default the only stable equilibrium is dual noncooperation, and everybody loses. How do you alter the prisoner's dilemma so that the only stable equilibrium is dual cooperation? By external (governmental) imposition of a penalty for individual noncooperation.
Certain altruistic behaviors -- that people would tend to not do individually if it were completely voluntary -- the same people would wish that a government would impose to make everyone share that responsibility.
Suppose a poor old widow lives next door. You want to help her, but only if absolutely necessary, because you like having more money. If the neighbor helps her out enough, you won't help her, and if you help her out enough, the neighbor won't. Don't you wish you could just sign some agreement with your neighbor to share that cost? That simple idea writ large is the welfare state. And if you don't like the welfare state, you can emigrate elsewhere. There is no income tax in the Bahamas.
Let's take another example: roads. If you take responsibility for building the roads, your neighbor's going to slack off on road building. If your neighbor takes responsiblity for building the roads, you're going to slack off. Or maybe both of you will expect the other to help building the roads, without either of you moving a finger. What you need is a government that will ask everyone to pay a fair share of the cost of building the roads, and back that request with SOMETHING, so that people don't just selfishly refuse to contribute their fair share to the cost of the road. Voluntary charity alone would be unreliable and unfair, resulting in the altruistic few paying more than their fair share while the rest contribute nothing and still benefit from the roads.
>> ^jwray: Good luck getting enough money to build roads, put out fires, and catch murderers with only voluntary donations. Governments exist to moderate individual selfishness for the greatest good of the greatest number of people.
Sorry to interrupt your pointless argument with anarchists, but government does have a legitimate duty. A voluntary system works on paper for these things, the problem is that it can't last because other nations won't do the same. If you have ZERO taxation for national defense, you will be bowled over by a country that does. Charity can work for minor problems, but you can't privatize nuclear warheads and so forth. Libertarians like myself understand this and recognize that the government has legitimate duties for protecting the infringement of rights (police/fire/environment), non-preemptive national defense (some roads, military), and offering recourse for disputes (courts).
Most of the people on this site are soft socialists. Where socialists (called liberals or neo-cons today) go wrong, is the belief in policies going beyond this, particularly when it comes to the markets. Good intentions but terrible results because they're not fully understood by the people enacting them. A socialist might say allowing government to bail out bankruptcy is a good thing. A libertarian would say that by sparing true consequence and rewarding risky behavior, you get more of it: that the fear of bankruptcy is one of the pillars of an efficient economy. And the socialist will say: but look, we never bailed them out before and they still took insane risk, therefore we need regulation. And the libertarian will say: the market got drunk, yes, but it was BECAUSE of another socialist policy, thus you cannot justify further socialism based on problems other socialist policies create. Central banking is a socialist policy. If the market got drunk, it was The Federal Reserve that provided the liquor and egged them on. Because of their ability to set interest rates far lower than where the market wanted them, they sent a false signal to profit-driven markets that created enormous artificial demand for housing during what was supposed to be an interest-hiking recession/correction in 2000 when the last bubble they birthed collapsed, the NASDAQ bubble.
Thus, you can see how socialism builds on itself until eventual all-out collapse. Since no one understands economics, and no one wants the pain of a recession, they don't see how a socialist enablement (the central bank) under either party and not the free market was the actual root cause of the problem. So a politician gets on a pedestal and promises to make this impossible by abolishing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and returning to a full gold standard (Paul), and loses, while a person who promises to bail everyone out with inflation and ease people's fears with even more Federal Reserve powers wins. People want the easy answer, and it will result in hyperinflationary collapse like every other fiat currency before it. It's inevitable, the powers you gave these benevolent dictators can't help but be abused.
Let's try another one: subsidies. I hear it all the time, "big bad corporations. It's the corporations. Their greed is the problem and we need to regulate it through government." And yet, these same people support subsidies. What is a subsidy? A subsidy is forced payment (tax) by government, which is then dished out by a politician who didn't earn it, to whichever company financed his/her campaign the most. Since it's a bidding contest, the largest companies always beat the smaller ones. The end result is that individuals and small businesses are effectively subsidizing larger ones, eroding the competitive pillar that makes free markets produce better and cheaper products. The idealist objective behind this is, of course, the academic argument that intellectuals in government can decide a product better than the market. In reality, politicians are just as greedy if not moreso than regular individuals, and when given the opportunity to make such a choice, it rarely gets made with any logic or thrift, because it wasn't their hard-earned money being spent. Why would you be thrifty with stolen money? It's true that the companies are doing some bribing here, but it's made possible by subsidies. You can't bribe a politician for a special privilege if that power is made illegal.
Let's try another one: Social Security. The flaws are endless in this one. It started at 2% of wages and has worked its way up to 12%. The retirement age has continually been increased so that more people are dying before they can get anything back. People from one generation were made to pay for existing recipients, creating a weird dependency gap reminiscent of ponzi schemes now that the trust fund annually raided. I'll just post a few videos.
Enough said. And again, Ron Paul in one of the debates said that the problem gets worse as time goes on, and it should be phased out immediately in favor of private savings not controlled by government. But no, that would be the "radical" thing to do, say the socialists. Meanwhile, they commit their grandchildren to possibly 30% of wages and a recipient age of 80 as a way of keeping it "solvent."
^ I actually agree with you on most of the actions you're recommending, if not your total rejection of "socialism" (which you seem to define as "anything that restricts businesses from doing as they please") in favor of market fundamentalism.
There is always an implied (and in your case directly stated) belief that anyone who believes in regulating markets doesn't understand economics, and I heartily disagree. If that were the case, all PhD economists would all be endorsing the Libertarian party...and yet, they've got a political spectrum that leans left of the average populace.
My favorite "market regulation" is a ban on slavery. If you follow the Libertarian/market fundamentalist argument -- slavery should be legal. People should be able to sell themselves into permanent servitude, and then be resold by their owners.
Fraud should also be legalized -- if I'm smart enough to dupe a person or corporation out of their money, I should get to keep it.
Violent intimidation should also be legalized. If my competitors think they can open a store in my neighborhood, they better be able to protect it from my guys burning it down.
After all, only a socialist would think we should interfere with the free market.
Those sound silly, but they're along your line of thinking. When us "socialists" talk about regulating the mortgage market, most of us are thinking that the law should require lending companies be upfront about the risks and costs involved in loans to the customer. It shouldn't be "caveat emptor" at all times, and buying a home shouldn't mean you need to hire a lawyer, just to hear the truth about what your obligations will be.
As for the part you're mostly talking about, where there's talk of limiting the amount of risk large financial institutions can take, I somewhat agree that if we weren't giving them a safety net, they'd limit their own risk themselves. Personally, I think the right answer is to make the risk more personal -- the leadership of banks should have the risk be real (resulting in destitution and/or arrest), while the institution itself gets the safety net so consumers don't pay the price for risks that they didn't have control over (and may not have been aware of).
As for the gold standard, I rather like the idea, though to be frank I've not really read up on what economists have to say about it.
Gold is the oldest fiat currency. Its value is an arbitrary function of how much faith people have in it as a currency. Its price is being propped up by that faith alone. As an industrial material, the demand for gold is very low compared to the amount available.
By the way, imposing the gold standard would shrink the money supply so dramatically as to cause deflation, and then deflation would cause loan defaults, and loan defaults would cascade to another great depression.
The current amount of dollar currency in circulation is $800 billion, and the amount of Euro currency in circulation is about $1 trillion. Backing all of that with gold, at the price of $855 per ounce, would require 59.6 MILLION kilograms of gold. That is about double the world's total gold reserves. Because you have to shrink the money supply so dramatically to impose a gold standard, you cannot do it without extreme deflation.
It is the federal reserve's job to prevent inflation by jacking up its interest rates and curtailing the printing of money as needed. Plenty of fiat currencies are doing fine with less than 1% inflation.
>> ^NetRunner: ^ I actually agree with you on most of the actions you're recommending, if not your total rejection of "socialism" (which you seem to define as "anything that restricts businesses from doing as they please")
No, I define socialism for what it is: any government which controls over 50% of its capital. We are extremely close to that and it's a major problem. Do you understand that in a libertarian society, it is illegal to infringe on a person's rights, whether you're a company or an individual? How do you interpret my post as wanting to let companies do ANYTHING they please? Gimme a break, companies in a truly free market are forced to follow the law and compete in a fair environment or be taken to court. The enablements of inflation, subsidies, and specialized tax breaks erode that fairness. Without that, companies would have only one legitimate way to make money: to convince you to buy their product over their competitor's. And to pay its workers by outbidding its competition and getting you to agree on a price. Oh, the horror! And not even the highest paid lawyers in the world can win cases on outright false advertising and malpractice.
>> ^NetRunner: ^There is always an implied (and in your case directly stated) belief that anyone who believes in regulating markets doesn't understand economics, and I heartily disagree. If that were the case, all PhD economists would all be endorsing the Libertarian party...and yet, they've got a political spectrum that leans left of the average populace.
"Economics" is too vague. There are many different branches, the dominant philosophy changes with time. Currently, it is neo-Keynesian, but that will change after its collapse. It matters not that 90% of current economics doctorates are in this manner of thinking. The Austrians were already proven right from the FIRST great depression, do we really need another one to figure out that the Federal Reserve is the equivalent of the benevolent dictator argument?
>> ^NetRunner: ^My favorite "market regulation" is a ban on slavery. If you follow the Libertarian/market fundamentalist argument -- slavery should be legal. People should be able to sell themselves into permanent servitude, and then be resold by their owners.
I don't think that's going to fly, because no one would know if you were voluntarily doing it or somehow coerced or tricked into doing it. But fundamentally, you're right, people own their own bodies, and that means they are free to inflict themselves with drugs, kill themselves, whatever. If our technology comes to a point where the government is capable of manipulating your body into not doing something with some kind of field under the pretense of protecting you, will you allow them this ability? Or are you smart enough to realize that the power will be abused and incur ultimate costs far greater than the benefits?
>> ^NetRunner Fraud should also be legalized -- if I'm smart enough to dupe a person or corporation out of their money, I should get to keep it.
Wrong, misrepresentation or not honoring a verbal or contractual agreement is the equivalent of theft. The transaction is not complete until both parties receive what they contractually agreed upon. If some person in Negeria tells you you won a prize and you pay them the collection fee, and they give you no prize, that is an unlawful appropriation of property and an infringement of rights. Not a freely acceptable activity under a libertarian free market, because the federal government has legitimate duties to protect people from infringements of rights and offer a means of recourse through the courts. See, this is the problem. You don't even understand the few government powers that ARE justified, you're so wrapped up in its "regulatory" extensions!
>> ^NetRunner: ^Violent intimidation should also be legalized. If my competitors think they can open a store in my neighborhood, they better be able to protect it from my guys burning it down.
Ummm, arson is destruction property you don't own. Rights derive from property, if you don't own it, you can't take or break it with impunity in a system that protects from such infringements.
>> ^NetRunnerAfter all, only a socialist would think we should interfere with the free market.
The market is millions of people making mutually agreeable transactions. The government is not the market, they're just suppose to protect people's property and settle disputes on a national and domestic level. And it isn't black and white anyway. For example, I disagree with fellow libertarians in that I want to keep the FDA for information, labelling, and enforcement of what constitutes terms like "organic" and "free range," but remove their ability to ban products. That power is currently used for collusive anti-competitive reasons. Go on wikipedia and look up Stevia for one example, the artificial sweetener lobby bribed officials to block its use in products because it was a natural, no-patent substitute to crap like "Aspartame" which would have cost them billions.
>> ^NetRunnerThose sound silly, but they're along your line of thinking. When us "socialists" talk about regulating the mortgage market, most of us are thinking that the law should require lending companies be upfront about the risks and costs involved in loans to the customer. It shouldn't be "caveat emptor" at all times, and buying a home shouldn't mean you need to hire a lawyer, just to hear the truth about what your obligations will be.
I'm not entirely sure what such a law would say, there are risks everywhere to everything. You can't slam your finger in the car door and sue the automaker for not explaining the risks of doors to you. Likewise, if you are speculating on home appreciation and taking a non-standard loan, I have ZERO sympathy for you if you didn't read the paperwork and ask questions beforehand. Many of these people lied about their incomes to get mortgages on homes they knew they couldn't afford, but thought would pay for themselves.
Ultimately, though, their only loss will be their credit and the home they couldn't afford because they can walk away and leave their bank or lender with the unpaid loan and depreciating house. That's what the government is trying to bail out with honest taxpayer money. Instead of letting the chips fall where they may, we're trying to delay a necessary recession AGAIN with inflation. Prices want to come down from these artificial levels, and have those jobs reallocate to manufacturing exports because exports are the only thing a the weak dollar is good for. Yes, that's a painful process, just like a junkie from a high, but you have to come down from it, not shoot up with more heroin until you kill the dollar.See, that's the market's automatic way of healing itself. BUT IT ISN'T BEING ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. We're getting more intervention, full of moral hazard from socialized losses and a systemic destruction of natural deterrents (why would I keep saving prudently if I lose and a speculator wins? Why would banks stop being taking risks if the government will always spare them true consequence?).
But tell me, how many politicians are going to win an election saying that pain is necessary? Zero. They're going to play to people's ignorance and gravy train optimism and propose an easy government solution. And it will be a replay of the FDR administration with Obama, but pretty effing bad under McCain as well.
And I just want to say thank god that you didn't know any myths about gold, because I'm tired of writing today, but I see jwray made up for that. *sigh*
Technically, a gold standard is not fiat, only symbolically. Fiat is generally defined as anything which is forced for use as money. In "declaring" gold as money, governments were merely adopting what people were already using. You see, gold won in the free market as a common means of exchange. Not paper. Of all things on earth, it is especially suited for this task. It is rare, easily divisible, indestructible, has few industrial uses, and requires no upkeep. Since it has to be mined from the earth, a natural limit is placed on government. They are restricted to asking (taxing) its citizens when they want to finance something! They can't just print new money will-nilly, lie about how much they're doing it with flawed CPI measurements, and make its citizens pay higher prices! Imagine that! And our highest rates of real growth were in the late 19th century, a period of no slavery, no income tax, no central bank, and gold-based money. It hasn't been matched since.
>> ^jwray Its value is an arbitrary function of how much faith people have in it as a currency. Its price is being propped up by that faith alone.
That is the case for ALL things. Value is entirely subjective and depends on the human situation surrounding it, and the scarcity of that good relative to others. If you're alone on a mountain and you're starving, a cow is worth a hell of a lot more than gold or paper. If you're in a massive society where barter is inefficient and you need a common means of exchange and placeholder for wealth, gold fills that role nicely. If your government has done this to your money so that it's worth less than firewood, all faith in it will be lost relative to actual goods, including gold, which CAN'T EVER be made as common as dirt. The possibility doesn't EXIST:
>> ^jwray As an industrial material, the demand for gold is very low compared to the amount available.
Which is exactly why this particular precious metal made such a good monetary asset. Why would you want your money to have volatility from the supply and demand of complex industry products?
>> ^jwray By the way, imposing the gold standard would shrink the money supply so dramatically as to cause deflation, and then deflation would cause loan defaults, and loan defaults would cascade to another great depression.
Nobody said it would be easy. Remember, depressions can be inflationary, too. Once that happens, people are in bad shape any way looking for a way out. I was afraid you were going to argue that there was a quantitative limit, which there isn't. In a move to monetize gold, it's demand and price will rise substantially to meet those figures, and the people who convert early will be better off than those converting last. But it can be done, particularly in a scenario when the paper money is made worthless anyway. Look at Zimbabwe. In their present situation, if every citizen immediately converted their money to gold, and used gold thenceforth, their long-term situation would improve dramatically as their money could no longer be debased.
car engine runs on better on inflated tyres than soft tyres. if the tyres are soft, you burn more fuel. its just like forcing the vehicle to run on a flat tyres. i've tried it and in runs better than before. it smoothens your driving. you have nothing to loose if you just inflate your tyres.
Stumble This
Oh and "this is serious business" made me giggle
If you want lessons in childishness, always look to the republicons.
Their air pressure guage is just like their bandaid with a purple heart on it.
Really funny. How clever. Ha ha.
When your opponent is being an ass - it unfortunately gives you a hell of a lot to work with!
Being President is Serious Business!!
No.
he said fucking fill your tyres up and keep drivin.
He's getting worse and worse, and dangerously close to reminding me of the film Idiocracy.
^Yeah, but wouldn't we rather he be a moderate who wins the election than be a "perfect candidate" who loses?
Ron Paul anyone ?
Mink, you may want sweeping changes, but in the mean time it's good to make small improvements here and there. People aren't going to stop eating meat any time soon.
people aren't gonna fill their tyres up any time soon either, it's just fucking rhetoric. i bet you not more than 5% of the people who said "WHOOOOOO!!!!" went home and filled their fucking tires.
Of course he isn't going to say "stop eating meat" but the reason is economic, not social. He needs to keep the meat industry happy. the fact that meat production is the worst thing in the entire environment after asbestos factories just kinda... isn't relevant, right? send people to their local petrol station to fill up their tyres and buy a coke.
so keep voting for these guys who talk bullshit and pretend they care when really their hands are tied.
gobama indeed. at last the USA has a Tony Blair, and we all know how kewl that is.
Sooo what do you suggest? A tire-filling gestapo?
This guy is good.
people aren't gonna fill their tyres up any time soon either, it's just fucking rhetoric. i bet you not more than 5% of the people who said "WHOOOOOO!!!!" went home and filled their fucking tires.
Sooo what do you suggest? A tire-filling gestapo?
No, I think he's advocating a Vegetarian gestapo.
I KNEW IT!! Obama is Anonymous.
>> ^jwray:
Mink, you may want sweeping changes, but in the mean time it's good to make small improvements here and there. People aren't going to stop eating meat any time soon.
people aren't gonna fill their tyres up any time soon either, it's just fucking rhetoric. i bet you not more than 5% of the people who said "WHOOOOOO!!!!" went home and filled their fucking tires.
Of course he isn't going to say "stop eating meat" but the reason is economic, not social. He needs to keep the meat industry happy. the fact that meat production is the worst thing in the entire environment after asbestos factories just kinda... isn't relevant, right? send people to their local petrol station to fill up their tyres and buy a coke.
so keep voting for these guys who talk bullshit and pretend they care when really their hands are tied.
gobama indeed. at last the USA has a Tony Blair, and we all know how kewl that is.
The problem with your angry stance is that is ANYONE tried to run for office and go straight for the 'stop eating meat', do you think they'd get into office?
Hmm?
Do you?
No, of course they bloody wouldn't, so what would be the friggen point of running with that? What's the point of running with 'Stop eating meat', that will instantly put off a huge number of people (including myself, I'm very, very pro environment, wish the government would start spending some big bloody money on it, don't care if it hurts us financially at the moment, because it'll be a win in the long run)? All that'd do is not get said person elected.
Brilliant plan.
I'd MUCH prefer someone who takes the steps they can get away with, slowly ramping up the scale of changes as people get used to them. You start off small, or start off with big things that don't directly affect people's way of life, and then slowly introduce those things that require people to change their behaviour. It's the only way you're going to be able to be in power and do ANYTHING.
So stop with the 'Well, if he isn't prepared to ban all cars, make everyone vegans and insist that people only breath out on alternating days, then I won't vote for him'. It's insane logic.
And it just smacks of you trying to be a smartass and saying 'look, I think I know something you don't, meat production causes lots of environmental impact'. If you think it's so damn important, you run for office with that as your lead policy and see how far you get.
Wish we had some politicians like that over here, it would give me an incentive to actually care about politics.
Gobama !
The government should have no role in resolving the "energy crisis"...this "crisis" can only be addressed by the free market. If you don't like our dependence on oil, invest in wind, solar, geothermal, or nuclear--or start your own company. If you don't like paying $4.00 a gallon, buy a car with better fuel efficiency or inflate your tires (ha). If you can't afford a more efficient/appropriately sized car, buy a motorcycle or scooter. If you can't afford your own vehicle, take the bus. If theres no bus, ride a bicycle. If your work is too far, get a second job so you can pay for the gas. If you can't find a second job adjust your finances...
If you don't understand this concept, read a book on economics.
"Economics in One Lesson"
http://www.google.com/search?q=economics+in+one+lesson
I wouldn't even consider living/working in such a situation that it would would be more than a 20 minute walk from home to work. Part of the problem is bad city planning that promotes long commutes.
When the real cost of oil, in terms of externalities, is reflected by its market price after taxes, and people see gas selling for $15 a gallon, they will think carefully about conserving it. As long as gas is cheap, people will inevitably waste it. High gas prices are the best way to conserve oil. Regressive-taxation effects of such a plan can be offset by the welfare state.
I've long advocated a simple annual income tax according to this sort of formula:
Income after tax = $15,000 + 0.6 * (Income before tax)
So there is a safety net that guarantees everyone a minimum standard of living, but earned income contributes linearly towards take-home income, unlike other welfare systems that create local maxima in the graph of earned income vs. take home income.
you are so retarded you jump to a "attack" without reading what i wrote.
my point, darlings, is that Obama pretends to give a shit but his hands are tied. He can't ban meat pollution, even if it is the largest problem, because of the meat industry. He can't say "stop driving" because of the car industry and oil industry. So he says "fill up your tires" as if saying THAT will make a difference (it won't). You all applaud, as if applauding will make a difference (it won't).
Let me ask you this, if we really do need radical lifestyle changes because of warming/cooling/watershortage/desertification whatever.... are you gonna vote for the guy that actually proposes changes or are you gonna vote for the guy who has a poster with "CHANGE" written on it and a few bandaid policies that keep everyone happy until the apocalypse?
my point, darlings, is that Obama pretends to give a shit but his hands are tied. He can't ban meat pollution, even if it is the largest problem, because of the meat industry. He can't say "stop driving" because of the car industry and oil industry. So he says "fill up your tires" as if saying THAT will make a difference (it won't). You all applaud, as if applauding will make a difference (it won't).
That wasn't the point of his speech, the tyre thing was a simple question from an individual about what he could do personally to help the situation...
You're making the same mistake McCain and co. did, inferring that a part of energy policy is filling the tyres. It never was anything but a simple tip, but it drew the ignorant antagonists to him like flies to shit.
Ironic that you watched the video and still made the same mistake...
Let me ask you this, if we really do need radical lifestyle changes because of warming/cooling/watershortage/desertification whatever.... are you gonna vote for the guy that actually proposes changes or are you gonna vote for the guy who has a poster with "CHANGE" written on it and a few bandaid policies that keep everyone happy until the apocalypse?
Hah, or is everyone going to act locally while thinking globally without being led around by a figurehead like an ignorant herd of cattle on the way to said abbatoir...
Highly fucking unlikely imo... People hate change at the best of times, unless an emergency is waved in front of their noses, they don't want to know and/or change, usually until it's too late.
If you really do need a radical change in lifestyle it's going to be too fucking late to worry about who you're voting. Because odds on, you've been cloistered away from reality so long that when the change comes, it'll be too late to change and the candidate that wins will be the person that can facilitate your survival.
Note: You/your etc meaning the world and each nation in it, not directly at you Mink.
I was going to vote for Gravel in the caucus, but we weren't anywhere near the 15% threshold required to get a delegate. So it boils down to Obama > Hillary > McCain.
but still, the tire filling thing is just a little soundbite he can throw out without annoying his higher ups. that's why he suggested it, rather than saying "if every american ate one less hamburger a month".....
Income after tax = $15,000 + 0.6 * (Income before tax)
What do you call someone who is forced to work for no wages?
What do you call someone who has 100% of their wages forcefully taken?
What do you call someone who has 40% of their wages forcefully taken?
I hope you sleep better at night knowing you are "only" 40% slave....or that you "only" spend 40% of your life in slavery.
100% or .01%...there is no moral difference...
...rather than saying "if every american ate one less hamburger a month".....
This is obviously something pretty important to you, Mink, but surely you must realize that, strategically, saying such a thing would be a huge mistake for Obama.
I mean, we'd never hear the end of it.
Some republicon shill-meister would turn it into some kind of nursury rhyme like "flip-flop flip-flop" or "I invented the internet!" and from now till November second, that's all you would hear, twenty times a day, every day.
thanks asmo for actually engaging.
but still, the tire filling thing is just a little soundbite he can throw out without annoying his higher ups. that's why he suggested it, rather than saying "if every american ate one less hamburger a month".....
Np dood, healthy debate is always good... =)
Yeah, I don't honestly think it mattered what he said, it was a trite little suggestion but in context it was appropriate imo.
Either which way, if meat reduction isn't on the agenda (or menu *ba dum tish*), do you prefer offshore drilling or investment in to hybrid energy (or other sources)?
Or more to the point, do you prefer a guy who coughs up tidbits of information that complement his policy or a guy that pays people to try and make a joke of it rather than pushing his own policies?
Lets face it, oil is big news, meat pollution, how many people (at least those who don't live downwind from an abbatoir) even know that it's a big problem? At least the public have their faces rubbed in the oil problem so selling a policy for change to them is going to be far easier than saying "no more prime rib for joo!!!".. = )
I've long advocated a simple annual income tax according to this sort of formula:
Income after tax = $15,000 + 0.6 (Income before tax)
What do you call someone who is forced to work for no wages?
What do you call someone who has 100% of their wages forcefully taken?
What do you call someone who has 40% of their wages forcefully taken?
I hope you sleep better at night knowing you are "only" 40% slave....or that you "only" spend 40% of your life in slavery.
100% or .01%...there is no moral difference...
Taxes are the price we pay for any system of government other than anarchy. Comparing a 40% income tax on millionaires to slavery is ridiculous.
>> ^imstellar28:
I've long advocated a simple annual income tax according to this sort of formula:
Income after tax = $15,000 + 0.6 (Income before tax)
What do you call someone who is forced to work for no wages?
What do you call someone who has 100% of their wages forcefully taken?
What do you call someone who has 40% of their wages forcefully taken?
I hope you sleep better at night knowing you are "only" 40% slave....or that you "only" spend 40% of your life in slavery.
100% or .01%...there is no moral difference...
I take pride in pointing out Snobama is an absolute fool.
... everybody knows you wait till the day after and then text the question while at work. Serious business.
So what you are telling me is you are not creative enough to think of a solution which does not involve physical force? The government is a servant. You wouldn't expect a servant to force a salary on you, would you? Any form of taxation other than a voluntary one, is immoral.
"If you theoretically removed the taxes, your wages would be slashed by at least as much, because there would be no one to regulate wages and set a minimum wage. It's not just taken! If there were no taxes there could be no government, and if there is NO government it is anarchy."
You should think about what you say before you repeat the misguided notions of others...this is NOT true. 1. minimum wages create unemployment and ultimately reduce wages--research it for yourself 2. again, just because you cannot think of a solution to government regulated slavery, does not mean one does not exist.
The options aren't "obama or mccain" "taxes or anarchy" "40% slavery or 1% slavery" ....all of life is not a two party system.
Although one thing is black and white--you either believe in slavery or you don't.
The prisoner's dilemma reward structure is analogous to a myriad of real world situations. By default the only stable equilibrium is dual noncooperation, and everybody loses. How do you alter the prisoner's dilemma so that the only stable equilibrium is dual cooperation? By external (governmental) imposition of a penalty for individual noncooperation.
Certain altruistic behaviors -- that people would tend to not do individually if it were completely voluntary -- the same people would wish that a government would impose to make everyone share that responsibility.
Suppose a poor old widow lives next door. You want to help her, but only if absolutely necessary, because you like having more money. If the neighbor helps her out enough, you won't help her, and if you help her out enough, the neighbor won't. Don't you wish you could just sign some agreement with your neighbor to share that cost? That simple idea writ large is the welfare state. And if you don't like the welfare state, you can emigrate elsewhere. There is no income tax in the Bahamas.
Let's take another example: roads. If you take responsibility for building the roads, your neighbor's going to slack off on road building. If your neighbor takes responsiblity for building the roads, you're going to slack off. Or maybe both of you will expect the other to help building the roads, without either of you moving a finger. What you need is a government that will ask everyone to pay a fair share of the cost of building the roads, and back that request with SOMETHING, so that people don't just selfishly refuse to contribute their fair share to the cost of the road. Voluntary charity alone would be unreliable and unfair, resulting in the altruistic few paying more than their fair share while the rest contribute nothing and still benefit from the roads.
Good luck getting enough money to build roads, put out fires, and catch murderers with only voluntary donations. Governments exist to moderate individual selfishness for the greatest good of the greatest number of people.
Sorry to interrupt your pointless argument with anarchists, but government does have a legitimate duty. A voluntary system works on paper for these things, the problem is that it can't last because other nations won't do the same. If you have ZERO taxation for national defense, you will be bowled over by a country that does. Charity can work for minor problems, but you can't privatize nuclear warheads and so forth. Libertarians like myself understand this and recognize that the government has legitimate duties for protecting the infringement of rights (police/fire/environment), non-preemptive national defense (some roads, military), and offering recourse for disputes (courts).
Most of the people on this site are soft socialists. Where socialists (called liberals or neo-cons today) go wrong, is the belief in policies going beyond this, particularly when it comes to the markets. Good intentions but terrible results because they're not fully understood by the people enacting them. A socialist might say allowing government to bail out bankruptcy is a good thing. A libertarian would say that by sparing true consequence and rewarding risky behavior, you get more of it: that the fear of bankruptcy is one of the pillars of an efficient economy. And the socialist will say: but look, we never bailed them out before and they still took insane risk, therefore we need regulation. And the libertarian will say: the market got drunk, yes, but it was BECAUSE of another socialist policy, thus you cannot justify further socialism based on problems other socialist policies create. Central banking is a socialist policy. If the market got drunk, it was The Federal Reserve that provided the liquor and egged them on. Because of their ability to set interest rates far lower than where the market wanted them, they sent a false signal to profit-driven markets that created enormous artificial demand for housing during what was supposed to be an interest-hiking recession/correction in 2000 when the last bubble they birthed collapsed, the NASDAQ bubble.
Thus, you can see how socialism builds on itself until eventual all-out collapse. Since no one understands economics, and no one wants the pain of a recession, they don't see how a socialist enablement (the central bank) under either party and not the free market was the actual root cause of the problem. So a politician gets on a pedestal and promises to make this impossible by abolishing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and returning to a full gold standard (Paul), and loses, while a person who promises to bail everyone out with inflation and ease people's fears with even more Federal Reserve powers wins. People want the easy answer, and it will result in hyperinflationary collapse like every other fiat currency before it. It's inevitable, the powers you gave these benevolent dictators can't help but be abused.
Let's try another one: subsidies. I hear it all the time, "big bad corporations. It's the corporations. Their greed is the problem and we need to regulate it through government." And yet, these same people support subsidies. What is a subsidy? A subsidy is forced payment (tax) by government, which is then dished out by a politician who didn't earn it, to whichever company financed his/her campaign the most. Since it's a bidding contest, the largest companies always beat the smaller ones. The end result is that individuals and small businesses are effectively subsidizing larger ones, eroding the competitive pillar that makes free markets produce better and cheaper products. The idealist objective behind this is, of course, the academic argument that intellectuals in government can decide a product better than the market. In reality, politicians are just as greedy if not moreso than regular individuals, and when given the opportunity to make such a choice, it rarely gets made with any logic or thrift, because it wasn't their hard-earned money being spent. Why would you be thrifty with stolen money? It's true that the companies are doing some bribing here, but it's made possible by subsidies. You can't bribe a politician for a special privilege if that power is made illegal.
Let's try another one: Social Security. The flaws are endless in this one. It started at 2% of wages and has worked its way up to 12%. The retirement age has continually been increased so that more people are dying before they can get anything back. People from one generation were made to pay for existing recipients, creating a weird dependency gap reminiscent of ponzi schemes now that the trust fund annually raided. I'll just post a few videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh-NqdmEDq4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs
Enough said. And again, Ron Paul in one of the debates said that the problem gets worse as time goes on, and it should be phased out immediately in favor of private savings not controlled by government. But no, that would be the "radical" thing to do, say the socialists. Meanwhile, they commit their grandchildren to possibly 30% of wages and a recipient age of 80 as a way of keeping it "solvent."
There is always an implied (and in your case directly stated) belief that anyone who believes in regulating markets doesn't understand economics, and I heartily disagree. If that were the case, all PhD economists would all be endorsing the Libertarian party...and yet, they've got a political spectrum that leans left of the average populace.
My favorite "market regulation" is a ban on slavery. If you follow the Libertarian/market fundamentalist argument -- slavery should be legal. People should be able to sell themselves into permanent servitude, and then be resold by their owners.
Fraud should also be legalized -- if I'm smart enough to dupe a person or corporation out of their money, I should get to keep it.
Violent intimidation should also be legalized. If my competitors think they can open a store in my neighborhood, they better be able to protect it from my guys burning it down.
After all, only a socialist would think we should interfere with the free market.
Those sound silly, but they're along your line of thinking. When us "socialists" talk about regulating the mortgage market, most of us are thinking that the law should require lending companies be upfront about the risks and costs involved in loans to the customer. It shouldn't be "caveat emptor" at all times, and buying a home shouldn't mean you need to hire a lawyer, just to hear the truth about what your obligations will be.
As for the part you're mostly talking about, where there's talk of limiting the amount of risk large financial institutions can take, I somewhat agree that if we weren't giving them a safety net, they'd limit their own risk themselves. Personally, I think the right answer is to make the risk more personal -- the leadership of banks should have the risk be real (resulting in destitution and/or arrest), while the institution itself gets the safety net so consumers don't pay the price for risks that they didn't have control over (and may not have been aware of).
As for the gold standard, I rather like the idea, though to be frank I've not really read up on what economists have to say about it.
By the way, imposing the gold standard would shrink the money supply so dramatically as to cause deflation, and then deflation would cause loan defaults, and loan defaults would cascade to another great depression.
The current amount of dollar currency in circulation is $800 billion, and the amount of Euro currency in circulation is about $1 trillion. Backing all of that with gold, at the price of $855 per ounce, would require 59.6 MILLION kilograms of gold. That is about double the world's total gold reserves. Because you have to shrink the money supply so dramatically to impose a gold standard, you cannot do it without extreme deflation.
It is the federal reserve's job to prevent inflation by jacking up its interest rates and curtailing the printing of money as needed. Plenty of fiat currencies are doing fine with less than 1% inflation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_currency#18th_and_19th_century
^ I actually agree with you on most of the actions you're recommending, if not your total rejection of "socialism" (which you seem to define as "anything that restricts businesses from doing as they please")
No, I define socialism for what it is: any government which controls over 50% of its capital. We are extremely close to that and it's a major problem. Do you understand that in a libertarian society, it is illegal to infringe on a person's rights, whether you're a company or an individual? How do you interpret my post as wanting to let companies do ANYTHING they please? Gimme a break, companies in a truly free market are forced to follow the law and compete in a fair environment or be taken to court. The enablements of inflation, subsidies, and specialized tax breaks erode that fairness. Without that, companies would have only one legitimate way to make money: to convince you to buy their product over their competitor's. And to pay its workers by outbidding its competition and getting you to agree on a price. Oh, the horror! And not even the highest paid lawyers in the world can win cases on outright false advertising and malpractice.
>> ^NetRunner:
^There is always an implied (and in your case directly stated) belief that anyone who believes in regulating markets doesn't understand economics, and I heartily disagree. If that were the case, all PhD economists would all be endorsing the Libertarian party...and yet, they've got a political spectrum that leans left of the average populace.
"Economics" is too vague. There are many different branches, the dominant philosophy changes with time. Currently, it is neo-Keynesian, but that will change after its collapse. It matters not that 90% of current economics doctorates are in this manner of thinking. The Austrians were already proven right from the FIRST great depression, do we really need another one to figure out that the Federal Reserve is the equivalent of the benevolent dictator argument?
>> ^NetRunner:
^My favorite "market regulation" is a ban on slavery. If you follow the Libertarian/market fundamentalist argument -- slavery should be legal. People should be able to sell themselves into permanent servitude, and then be resold by their owners.
I don't think that's going to fly, because no one would know if you were voluntarily doing it or somehow coerced or tricked into doing it. But fundamentally, you're right, people own their own bodies, and that means they are free to inflict themselves with drugs, kill themselves, whatever. If our technology comes to a point where the government is capable of manipulating your body into not doing something with some kind of field under the pretense of protecting you, will you allow them this ability? Or are you smart enough to realize that the power will be abused and incur ultimate costs far greater than the benefits?
>> ^NetRunner
Fraud should also be legalized -- if I'm smart enough to dupe a person or corporation out of their money, I should get to keep it.
Wrong, misrepresentation or not honoring a verbal or contractual agreement is the equivalent of theft. The transaction is not complete until both parties receive what they contractually agreed upon. If some person in Negeria tells you you won a prize and you pay them the collection fee, and they give you no prize, that is an unlawful appropriation of property and an infringement of rights. Not a freely acceptable activity under a libertarian free market, because the federal government has legitimate duties to protect people from infringements of rights and offer a means of recourse through the courts. See, this is the problem. You don't even understand the few government powers that ARE justified, you're so wrapped up in its "regulatory" extensions!
>> ^NetRunner:
^Violent intimidation should also be legalized. If my competitors think they can open a store in my neighborhood, they better be able to protect it from my guys burning it down.
Ummm, arson is destruction property you don't own. Rights derive from property, if you don't own it, you can't take or break it with impunity in a system that protects from such infringements.
>> ^NetRunnerAfter all, only a socialist would think we should interfere with the free market.
The market is millions of people making mutually agreeable transactions. The government is not the market, they're just suppose to protect people's property and settle disputes on a national and domestic level. And it isn't black and white anyway. For example, I disagree with fellow libertarians in that I want to keep the FDA for information, labelling, and enforcement of what constitutes terms like "organic" and "free range," but remove their ability to ban products. That power is currently used for collusive anti-competitive reasons. Go on wikipedia and look up Stevia for one example, the artificial sweetener lobby bribed officials to block its use in products because it was a natural, no-patent substitute to crap like "Aspartame" which would have cost them billions.
>> ^NetRunnerThose sound silly, but they're along your line of thinking. When us "socialists" talk about regulating the mortgage market, most of us are thinking that the law should require lending companies be upfront about the risks and costs involved in loans to the customer. It shouldn't be "caveat emptor" at all times, and buying a home shouldn't mean you need to hire a lawyer, just to hear the truth about what your obligations will be.
I'm not entirely sure what such a law would say, there are risks everywhere to everything. You can't slam your finger in the car door and sue the automaker for not explaining the risks of doors to you. Likewise, if you are speculating on home appreciation and taking a non-standard loan, I have ZERO sympathy for you if you didn't read the paperwork and ask questions beforehand. Many of these people lied about their incomes to get mortgages on homes they knew they couldn't afford, but thought would pay for themselves.
Ultimately, though, their only loss will be their credit and the home they couldn't afford because they can walk away and leave their bank or lender with the unpaid loan and depreciating house. That's what the government is trying to bail out with honest taxpayer money. Instead of letting the chips fall where they may, we're trying to delay a necessary recession AGAIN with inflation. Prices want to come down from these artificial levels, and have those jobs reallocate to manufacturing exports because exports are the only thing a the weak dollar is good for. Yes, that's a painful process, just like a junkie from a high, but you have to come down from it, not shoot up with more heroin until you kill the dollar.See, that's the market's automatic way of healing itself. BUT IT ISN'T BEING ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. We're getting more intervention, full of moral hazard from socialized losses and a systemic destruction of natural deterrents (why would I keep saving prudently if I lose and a speculator wins? Why would banks stop being taking risks if the government will always spare them true consequence?).
But tell me, how many politicians are going to win an election saying that pain is necessary? Zero. They're going to play to people's ignorance and gravy train optimism and propose an easy government solution. And it will be a replay of the FDR administration with Obama, but pretty effing bad under McCain as well.
And I just want to say thank god that you didn't know any myths about gold, because I'm tired of writing today, but I see jwray made up for that. *sigh*
Gold is the oldest fiat currency.
Technically, a gold standard is not fiat, only symbolically. Fiat is generally defined as anything which is forced for use as money. In "declaring" gold as money, governments were merely adopting what people were already using. You see, gold won in the free market as a common means of exchange. Not paper. Of all things on earth, it is especially suited for this task. It is rare, easily divisible, indestructible, has few industrial uses, and requires no upkeep. Since it has to be mined from the earth, a natural limit is placed on government. They are restricted to asking (taxing) its citizens when they want to finance something! They can't just print new money will-nilly, lie about how much they're doing it with flawed CPI measurements, and make its citizens pay higher prices! Imagine that! And our highest rates of real growth were in the late 19th century, a period of no slavery, no income tax, no central bank, and gold-based money. It hasn't been matched since.
>> ^jwray
Its value is an arbitrary function of how much faith people have in it as a currency. Its price is being propped up by that faith alone.
That is the case for ALL things. Value is entirely subjective and depends on the human situation surrounding it, and the scarcity of that good relative to others. If you're alone on a mountain and you're starving, a cow is worth a hell of a lot more than gold or paper. If you're in a massive society where barter is inefficient and you need a common means of exchange and placeholder for wealth, gold fills that role nicely. If your government has done this to your money so that it's worth less than firewood, all faith in it will be lost relative to actual goods, including gold, which CAN'T EVER be made as common as dirt. The possibility doesn't EXIST:
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/c/ca/Inflation-1923.jpg
>> ^jwray
As an industrial material, the demand for gold is very low compared to the amount available.
Which is exactly why this particular precious metal made such a good monetary asset. Why would you want your money to have volatility from the supply and demand of complex industry products?
>> ^jwray
By the way, imposing the gold standard would shrink the money supply so dramatically as to cause deflation, and then deflation would cause loan defaults, and loan defaults would cascade to another great depression.
Nobody said it would be easy. Remember, depressions can be inflationary, too. Once that happens, people are in bad shape any way looking for a way out. I was afraid you were going to argue that there was a quantitative limit, which there isn't. In a move to monetize gold, it's demand and price will rise substantially to meet those figures, and the people who convert early will be better off than those converting last. But it can be done, particularly in a scenario when the paper money is made worthless anyway. Look at Zimbabwe. In their present situation, if every citizen immediately converted their money to gold, and used gold thenceforth, their long-term situation would improve dramatically as their money could no longer be debased.