A funny state of the economy

I own stock in several key health care companies that will benefit from the current US health care legislation.
I also have several Chinese investments.
My Mama always taught me to "Follow The Big Money"
Go with the flow my brothers and sisters, Go with the flow!
Just do what the members of the US Congress do.
 
So why we are all distracted with our arguments dems, rep's conservative, liberal.. the real smart people are doing this..
They don't even have to be real smart ... but it sure helps, if your really rich. Now we got this "big debate" over extending the tax cuts, by "another" 2 years. So. if we need to "extend them" .... (gee Dr. Science, that means they're "already there") ... For 9 years, and all during "that" time .... did we see any jobs created? Did we see any "economic stimulus"? ... who "are" all these small business owners (who make "over $250,000 a year)? All the "small business owners" I know, fall into that "median" category .... $50K (or less).​
If I made close to $250K, I'd gladly give 50% up, for taxes. I think I could still manage on an income of $125K. That's only about 14 times what I'm making, now .... all the while .... this diatribe "extend ... expire" BS is over 3%.​
And this whole communism, socialism, libraltarianism, semantics .... who cares "what" you call it. It's coming. Like the big alien motherships, from another planet. You can't run. You can't hide. You ain't got a vote in the matter. It's coming. And it's bigger than any one government/nation. It's the "New World Order" in HD.​
 
Godwin's Law!

Ha! No. Not in this case. From the horse's mouth:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard208.html

"But the most convincing evidence of Keynes's strong fascist bent was the special foreword he prepared for the German edition of The General Theory. This German translation, published in late 1936, included a special introduction for the benefit of Keynes's German readers and for the Nazi regime under which it was published. Not surprisingly, Harrod's idolatrous Life of Keynes makes no mention of this introduction, although it was included two decades later in volume seven of the Collected Writings along with forewords to the Japanese and French editions.

The German introduction, which has scarcely received the benefit of extensive commentary by Keynesian exegetes, includes the following statements by Keynes: "Nevertheless the theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a given output produced under conditions of free competition and a lance measure of laissez-faire." (Keynes 1973 [1936]: p. xxvi. Cf. Martin 1971: pp. 200–5; Hazlitt [1959] 1973: p. 277; Brunner 1987: p. 38ff.; Hayek 1967: p. 346)"


+1.

( I knew all along that you were a really an economist hiding being your Pearl Masters..)

That somehow makes my role as a drummer seem...less sexy. :D

So why we are all distracted with our arguments dems, rep's conservative, liberal.. the real smart people are doing this..http://www.cnbc.com/id/40233691

That's just it; these arguments are a distraction, at best. There are no political solutions to our problems, only market solutions. Look within for leadership. The "Tea Party", liberals, conservatives, etc. - it's all indistinguishably useless...an imminent failure and a frivolous waste of your time and energy. These people are intentionally vague and contradictory in their expressed goals because they don't serve you, they serve themselves.

And this whole communism, socialism, libraltarianism, semantics .... who cares "what" you call it. It's coming. Like the big alien motherships, from another planet. You can't run. You can't hide. You ain't got a vote in the matter. It's coming. And it's bigger than any one government/nation. It's the "New World Order" in HD.​

I strongly disagree (unless you were joking ;) Referring to this and also, Polly and nhzoso's discussion: politics is a cesspool of pessimism. Correctly assessing the world from an economic point of view is optimistic.

There is no "NWO". I don't believe in all of this dystopian forecasting...as if we'll all live in prison camps someday. This is naive and it lends far too much credit to the goons who currently run the world. Huxley and Orwell were great fiction writers, not well-read economists. You can remain optimistic because the market will correct the wrongs. Top-heavy states/empires all over the world...England, Europe, E. Europe, the US, are going broke. The parasitic nature of state-capitalism guarantees eventual collapse, which guarantees a dramatically smaller state. A smaller state equals more economic freedom, and economic freedom is one-in-the-same with individual liberty.
 
There are no political solutions to our problems, only market solutions. Look within for leadership. The "Tea Party", liberals, conservatives, etc. - it's all indistinguishably useless...an imminent failure and a frivolous waste of your time and energy. These people are intentionally vague and contradictory in their expressed goals because they don't serve you, they serve themselves.

There a part of me that would love to see markets replace govt but it's an impossible dream. The first problem is that if you strip the power from government where does it go? Nature abhors a vacuum. You end up with multinationals as feudal lords - defacto government. Distortions caused by economies of scale would run riot even more than it's been allowed to do now. A recipe for instability ... and stability is the plank on which western prosperity was built.

Government is a necessary evil to provide stability by tempering power imbalances (nothing like dealing with a multinational when they rip you off - you get the finger and there's not a thing you can do about it). If we could find a way of getting governments to focus on sensible things like helping to temper the natural excesses to which market will naturally gravitate rather than waging counter-productive wars or imposing their religious dogmas on us regarding what we do with our own bodies, it'd be cool.
 
There a part of me that would love to see markets replace govt but it's an impossible dream. The first problem is that if you strip the power from government where does it go? Nature abhors a vacuum. You end up with multinationals as feudal lords - defacto government. Distortions caused by economies of scale would run riot even more than it's been allowed to do now. A recipe for instability ... and stability is the plank on which western prosperity was built.

Government is a necessary evil to provide stability by tempering power imbalances (nothing like dealing with a multinational when they rip you off - you get the finger and there's not a thing you can do about it). If we could find a way of getting governments to focus on sensible things like helping to temper the natural excesses to which market will naturally gravitate rather than waging counter-productive wars or imposing their religious dogmas on us regarding what we do with our own bodies, it'd be cool.

Certainly not the first time I've heard this, in 12 yrs. of reading and debating. Impossible? Perhaps, but that doesn't make it a wasted effort and not worth pursuing. I see it as an evolution of society, that has been progressing since ordered society amongst humans began. The US was one step in the progression toward laissez faire, which has now been spoiled by the pursuit of empire, of course. This is, after all, the inevitable conclusion of a successful state.

You make several incorrect assumptions here...let's examine them. I don't believe any degree of "evil" to be necessary, at all.

Assumption 1: Gov't creates stability.

I fail to see this. In the theoretical stateless society, private property and full personal liability renders large-scale war improbable, if not impossible. Nothing destroys wealth and lives faster than war. It is impractical for small parties to attempt to wage war by way of their own finances, not extracted from taxpayers. To the point, large-scale war is the product of government and no other human institution has claimed lives and property faster, in the history of mankind. War is the antithesis of safety and stability.

Assumption 2: Corporations = free enterprise

Incorrect. The opposite is true. Corporations are state-licenced entities, deriving special privilege from the state. Any power that corporations have over individuals is derived from state-power and cannot otherwise exist, at least not for very long, since it would be self-destructive to even attempt it. I'm not sure what type of "wars" you're referring to, but see #1 (private property prevents frivolous unprofitable pursuits.) Any corporatist abuse you can cite today is a problem with government-granted privilege, not the free market.

Assumption 3: Statism = safety

This is core, of course. States are formed out of fear...fear of our neighbors and xenophobic paranoia of "outsiders". This is the selling point of statists, but the unfortunate irony is; states are to be feared above all else. Nothing compromises your safety and stability more. After all, we are just talking about *people*, are we not? Fear of your fellow man is the *worst* justification for creating a special coercive monopoly in society, allowed to use murder and the threat thereof, to force the will of the majority onto others, I have ever heard.

Anyhow...

Wishing that you could get government to be sensible and actually solve problems in society is nothing more than a logical fallacy. I've been accused of being utopian by people who claim such things, believe it or not. On the contrary, because I'm aware that utopia is impossible, I advocate a society that reflects human nature, rather than one that rubs directly against its grain.

Western prosperity was built atop state-capitalism. Think of this as a farm for free-range animals. Free-range animals have the illusion of freedom and thus are more productive. In the end, they still go to slaughter. Since state-capitalism resembles free markets in some ways, it is more productive than say, communism. Both systems are inevitable failures, however, it's just the degree of intervention into markets that determines how long this process takes.
 
I strongly disagree (unless you were joking ;)
Certainly your right to disagree - and have a different opinion.​
Referring to this and also, Polly and nhzoso's discussion: politics is a cesspool of pessimism.
No, neither "optimistic" or "pessimistic" .... people are optimistic or pessimistic. Politics is a tool, a very useful tool. Especially if you have extreme amounts of wealth.​
Correctly assessing the world from an economic point of view is optimistic.
Well, I'm glad you're an "optimist". I am too. But, whether you ... or I .... or someone else ... has the "correct assessment", there's really nothing we can do about it. Whatever it is ,it's going to happen. With our blessing ... or without.​




There is no "NWO".
Again, your right, to disagree.​
There's an "elephant" in the room. You can acknowledge that the "elephant" is there .... or you can go on about your business, and ignore that the "elephant" is there. Either way, doesn't matter. The "elephant" couldn't care less, whether he's "seen" or "not".​
I don't believe in all of this dystopian forecasting...as if we'll all live in prison camps someday.
I don't think I ever mentioned "living in prison camps". And I hate terms like "dystopian" ... it's like throwing terms like socialism, fascism, communism around. Buzz words.​
This is naive
OK... this just pisses me off. If you're calling me "naive" I'm pissed. If you're calling my way of thinking "naive", I'm pissed. I have just as much a right to express myself .... as you .... or anyone else. It's a given, that we don't see "eye to eye" ....​
and it lends far too much credit to the goons who currently run the world.
Fact of the matter is ... the goons that run the world, are indeed, running the world. You can't take the power away from the Kings and Queens, dynasties built a thousand years ago. Wealth handed down, from generation to generation.​
Huxley and Orwell were great fiction writers, not well-read economists.
Again, more "buzz" words. I don't think I've ever read any "Huxley" ... and I've maybe read one "Orwell" book.​
You can remain optimistic because the market will correct the wrongs.
No, I can remain "optimistic", because I'm 53, and so far, everything that life has "thrown at me", I've been able to deal with. I probably have another 40 years in me, and I probably have enough "cash" in my wallet to "afford" the trip. At the end of the road ... no worries.
 
No need to be pissed, Harry. I wasn't sniping at you and certainly meant no offense. Just stating my grounds for disagreement.
 
Vince, I don't have time to go through everything bit by bit but I do understand that libertarians are 1) very passionate and 2) seek the same things as any of us want - freedom without anarchy .

We have a system that has delivered better outcomes in terms of stability and living standards than in any time in history. Perhaps the model in which it was built has outlived its usefulness? Could be. However, the alternatives offered strike me as idealistic, unrealistic and unconvincing. There are a lot of "experts" who seem to know better than the experts.

The stateless society is an impossible dream (apart from the anarchy in Somalia). As I said, take away the state and someone else will fill the power void. That someone will be the most powerful amongst us - multinationals and organised crime rings. What we would end up with is a collection of feudal lords, at least some based overseas. As it is, they are already pulling the strings, with government acting as both a puppeteer and, thankfully, a filter.

I believe that no system can work ideally when you crowd a squillion people on the planet. What we have is a wicked problem. All I know is the Tea Party and its equivalents are going the wrong way but it's to be expected that when times are hard people pine for the glory days and will cling to any snake oil salesman (or sales woman, as seems to be the case) who promises a return to the good old days. History demonstrates that this approach ends up in disaster.

Hopefully people won't be fooled, although Rupert Murdoch's stable of bias-merchants seem to be calling the shots more than I'd like.

This ain't pessimism - it's reality. In short: too many people, certainly too many for a systemless society without the coordination that government brings. Bear in mind that we already have systems that reflect human nature, hence their existence.
 
Last edited:
Just stating my grounds for disagreement.
That you disagree with me is implied, received, and understood.​
My opinion/observations started around 1971. The end of the Vietnam War. A lot of my friends had older brothers who had served in the "Nam". So, it was relatively easy for me, as a high-schooler, to talk to guys, first hand, who had done and seen things and been places that the 6'o clock news wasn't talking about.​
So I got more curious.​
Fast forward to 1975, I'm a freshman in college, and since I was in an "honors" program, I didn't have to take bonehead soc. 101. Instead, I had the good fortune to have a professor who was one of Nixon's advisors, as my soc. science teacher.​
Again, I learned a lot more than the 6'o clock news was telling me.​
Fast forward again.​
1979 - Russia invades Afghanistan. I tell people ... yeah ... and after the Russians leave, you'll see the US in there, in 10 years.​
Everyone thought I was crazy
1989 - the Berlin Wall comes down. I tell people ... yeah ... China will be embracing capitalism soon, and turn to a "more democratic" government.​
Everyone thought I was crazy ..... and in 2008, Fareed Zakaria interviews Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, and he talks about China moving "towards" a more democratic form of government, and he mentions the US moving "towards" a more socialistic form.​
2001 - the US invades Afghanistan. I tell people ... yeah .... we'll be in this one, for at least 10 years.​
Everyone thought I was crazy
2003 - the US invades Iraq. I tell people ... yeah ... we'll be in this one for at least 10 years ... and it's gonna help bankrupt our country.​
Everyone thought I was crazy
This is naive...
So certainly, I expect people to disagree with me ... maybe even call me crazy ... but don't dis-respect me and call me, or my opinion "naive". So far, I've been pretty "on the mark" with my predictions.​
 
...libertarians are 1) very passionate and 2) seek the same things as any of us want - freedom without anarchy .

Libertarians are anarchists. Political "libertarians", such as the partyarchs involved with the LP, are something else entirely. The of libertarian philosophy is the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), which when followed to its logical conclusion, consistently, cannot advocate statism in any form.

Anarchy and chaos aren't synonymous. Real, serious philosophical anarchists have always maintained that government is chaos and anarchy is order. In fact, the circle around the traditional "A" is an "O", as in "Anarchy is Order".

We have a system that has delivered better outcomes in terms of stability and living standards than in any time in history.

Yes, it has. State-Capitalism is a superior form of human ownership when compared to Socialism, Mercantilism, Feudalism, etc. It's still a form of human ownership and like all states, they still fail, violently and miserably.

The stateless society is an impossible dream (apart from the anarchy in Somalia). As I said, take away the state and someone else will fill the power void. That someone will be the most powerful amongst us - multinationals and organised crime rings. What we would end up with is a collection of feudal lords, at least some based overseas. As it is, they are already pulling the strings, with government acting as both a puppeteer and, thankfully, a filter.

This is an argument that many fall back on. "We must have a violent gang of criminals to protect us from...violent gangs of criminals." Organized crime has already taken over and the feudal lords are already in charge. You mention "multinationals" again. By this I assume you mean large, global corporations, correct? These top-heavy giants would never exist without the state (eliminating competition and subsidising), and could not possibly survive the ethics and rules inherent in the free market. I covered this a bit, already.

Americans might refer to the (not so) "wild west", Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and other regions/periods of non-authority, for more relevance. There are plenty of examples, besides Somalia:

http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/history.htm

All I know is the Tea Party and its equivalents are going the wrong way but it's to be expected that when times are hard people pine for the glory days and will cling to any snake oil salesman (or sales woman, as seems to be the case) who promises a return to the good old days.

Tea Party. LOL. I agree with this. There is no return to those idyllic days of yore, during America's modest days as a small Republic. This is not the nature of empires and has never happened. Economic collapse is how empires end...never by ceding power.

This ain't pessimism - it's reality. In short: too many people, certainly too many for a systemless society without the coordination that government brings.

I believe you misunderstand "anarchism". No one is advocating "chaos" - again, they're not one-in-the-same. Order is absolutely necessary, naturally. Libertarians advocate *voluntary* order, in all cases. Coercive, violent monopolies are not moral institutions and ultimately, they cannot hold order for long and create more problems than they hope to solve. This order is based entirely on the threat (and use) of murder...even as much as a parking ticket.

Polly, I'm not insisting that you agree with me, I'm simply saying that your rationale for the acceptance of statism is not good enough for me. I've long since rejected these types of arguments for the reasons I gave...they're inherently contradictory.

Impossible? Again, maybe...maybe not. I practice non-aggression and peaceful, positive free market exchanges, everyday. Speculating on possibility doesn't make it an unworthy cause.

I'll leave you with a thought from my favorite economist and biggest influence:

"If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action." - Ludwig von Mises
 
Vince, how so you see anarchy and chaos as not synonymous ... especially in a world with 6 billion+ people? I can't see it ... it sounds theoretical to me.

I don't know about you but life in Sydney is not violent, at least not in my circles. The state (in western countries) is less violent than any in history. They certainly could be more sensible, agreed. The war on drugs and incursions into people's private lives generally are counter-productive and unethical, but I think if we chip away at these issues (and the bloody Tea Party doesn't get in) perhaps we can achieve sane policy ... (that applies to the Tea Party's OS equivalents too). Guess you're talking revolution and I'm talking evolution.

Thing is about multinationals, do you think that without state support they would fold? I don't. I suggest that they have the power to be more resilient without state support than smaller, less powerful organisations. The ethics and rules of the free market are no different to any other area of life - might is right.

The less the state is involved as a regulator, the bigger the advantage of economies of scale in the market. You would have a rash of monopolies and cartels. Unchecked, the market will have a constant cycle of bubbles and crashes. Unchecked, the strong in the market would annihilate the smaller players (more so than they are doing now with weak regulation) ... in the same way as the physically strong will prey on the weak without laws to temper people's behaviour.

I feel like you are speculating as to what would have happened if we'd had free market instead of capitalism - and the world didn't have a history of monarchies, dictatorships and feudal societies. Thing is, look at where we are now and imagine what would happen if you stripped the safeguards away. I think the biggest problem is what's always been the problem - the powerful exploit the less powerful. This happens in any system, but states are supposed to temper this tendency to make for more stable society.

One thing that peeves me is everyone seems to be up in arms now that Obama is in. Where were they when Bush was growing the public service at record levels and bankrupting the country with bad policy and military adventurism? It seems that the current US govt is copping a lot of blame for the previous administration's mistakes and in failing to solve wicked problems (which of course, have no painless solution).

I blame Murdoch, who seems to be in love with the Tea Party.
 
There is also of course the fact that Obama, who was elected under the banner of hope and change, has consistantly followed the same course as the previous administration, and gone back on most of his promises. I think people hoped that this eloquent, intelligent man would go where no politician has gone for a long time and actually do what he said he was going to do, and since he's comprehensively failed to do that they have reason to be unhappy with him.


Anarchy = without a ruler, just as monarchy = one ruler. When in human history has a real free market ever been tried? I think America in its infancy was the closest thing in modern times, and that was acknowledged as a threat at the time by the old powers over here in the UK. The interest-free system of credit was too much for them to bear, because they knew it would replace the old system if allowed to continue.
 
Vince, how so you see anarchy and chaos as not synonymous ... especially in a world with 6 billion+ people? I can't see it ... it sounds theoretical to me.

It seems as if you're buying into the overpopulation myth? For some perspective, you could take every living human being on the planet, today, give them all a house and the average American suburban-sized yard, and they would all fit inside the state of Texas.

I see it as backwards, to assume that a larger population requires more centralized oversight and control. This is the antithesis of the empirical evidence we have for human action - how humans behave in markets. Scarcity is best addressed by localized organization and spontaneous order. As the US has grown in size, the central state has grown less and less efficient (and concerned) with addressing the needs of its citizens. The 545 folks in Washington DC are finding it impossible to represent 308 million individual citizens and solve any real problems, as an example. They are destroying the economy, in an attempt to do so. Meeting the needs of consumers means gathering information on the ground and responding to it...not while reading faulty, aggregated data and making blanket rules for all, thousands of miles away.

I don't know about you but life in Sydney is not violent, at least not in my circles. The state (in western countries) is less violent than any in history. They certainly could be more sensible, agreed. The war on drugs and incursions into people's private lives generally are counter-productive and unethical, but I think if we chip away at these issues (and the bloody Tea Party doesn't get in) perhaps we can achieve sane policy ... (that applies to the Tea Party's OS equivalents too). Guess you're talking revolution and I'm talking evolution.

The US is vast and diverse. In states and cities where government has interevened the greatest in markets and engaged in heavy social engineering, violence, unemployment, and decay are glaringly obvious. In places like Idaho, where I live, where the state is relatively small and less influential, it is more peaceful and prosperous. I grew up in W. NY state, an area which has crumbled and collapsed due to the weight of the state. The state itself is insolvent, it's only a matter of time before it's publicly admitted. The War On Drugs is a great example of the law of unintended consequences. The opposite of the intended was (predictably) achieved. You believe that the state creates order when in fact, it empowers and enriches criminals via public policy. Your example only strengthens my arguments. The Tea Party is a faction of neo-conservative fascists and will only make matters worse. The other half of the political duopoly, differs only in rhetoric. Both are only concerned with retaining and building power and wealth for themselves, not helping "the people."

Thing is about multinationals, do you think that without state support they would fold? I don't. I suggest that they have the power to be more resilient without state support than smaller, less powerful organisations. The ethics and rules of the free market are no different to any other area of life - might is right.

The less the state is involved as a regulator, the bigger the advantage of economies of scale in the market. You would have a rash of monopolies and cartels. Unchecked, the market will have a constant cycle of bubbles and crashes. Unchecked, the strong in the market would annihilate the smaller players (more so than they are doing now with weak regulation) ... in the same way as the physically strong will prey on the weak without laws to temper people's behaviour.

They would shrink and adapt to the peaceful demand of the market (people), or they would fail, as any smaller competitor would be forced to do, today. Corporations are the commercial wing of the political establishment, as previously detailed. Large corporations are the biggest benefactors to regulations which is why they are first to line up to support them, when they are proposed. They are able to afford or even avoid most of the new laws and their smaller competitors, who may very well be more innovative, efficient, and better meet the needs of consumers...cannot. Through regulations, tax breaks, relief of responsibility for their risks and actions (limited liability), and subsidies (using law to skew consumer dollars in their direction, artificially and by force), large corps are absolutely empowered by the state. None of this is possible in a free market economy. They would be forced to meet the needs and wants of consumers or fail. I invite you to illustrate how *any* entrepreneur can *take* from a customer without first satisfying that customer's needs (mutually beneficial) - outside of state-power. You might say something like trickery, "false advertising", to which I would answer; this is a losing strategy. Since all companies must rely on reputation and repeat business.

A monopoly would very likely not exist in a free market. This is virtually guaranteed by competitive pressure. Currenly, the only way a monopoly can exist is in the context of aggression. Competition simply cannot be eliminated without force, since new entrepreneurs will see the profit incentive to out-compete the older, less consumer-responsive company.

Theoretically a monopoly *could* occur in a free market economy, but only by continuing to please consumers with a superior, less expensive good or service. The reward for pleasing the greatest number of consumers is becoming the top-dog in your industry.

I feel like you are speculating as to what would have happened if we'd had free market instead of capitalism - and the world didn't have a history of monarchies, dictatorships and feudal societies. Thing is, look at where we are now and imagine what would happen if you stripped the safeguards away. I think the biggest problem is what's always been the problem - the powerful exploit the less powerful. This happens in any system, but states are supposed to temper this tendency to make for more stable society.

Free markets are everywhere. Have you ever sold something to another person, privately? Ever been to a yard sale? A flea market? Ever bought and/or sold something on the internet? In the USSR, the black market saved the lives of millions by supplying goods and services to people where the state had destroyed their ability to do it in the open. Again, the powerful already exploit the the less powerful...with the threat of death. This seems as barbaric, anti-social, and un-safe as could be imagined, since they use a monopoly on legal power to justify it and are accountable to no one. This is a subversion of the safeguards and accountability inhertent in voluntary, free market relationships (as illustrated.)

One thing that peeves me is everyone seems to be up in arms now that Obama is in. Where were they when Bush was growing the public service at record levels and bankrupting the country with bad policy and military adventurism? It seems that the current US govt is copping a lot of blame for the previous administration's mistakes and in failing to solve wicked problems (which of course, have no painless solution).

Peas in a pod. The rhetoric changes but the outcome is always the same...chaos, disorder, disunity, a steady reduction of liberty and opportunity for everyone.
 
Libertarians are anarchists. Political "libertarians", such as the partyarchs involved with the LP, are something else entirely. The of libertarian philosophy is the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), which when followed to its logical conclusion, consistently, cannot advocate statism in any form.
[/url]

The current group of people calling themselves Libertarians and the Tea Party are just the Religious Right of the 1980s with a new branding message of "small government." They support government control of reproduction and want to legislate personal values with their interpretation Biblical religious law (Christian Sharia). They're no more libertarians than Hitler and the Nazis (sorry, couldn't help myself, the Godwin's genie is out the box).

Zam, I know you are more pure in your ideology and you've obviously done your homework. So you do not represent the typical Tea Partier, but those are the folks on the ascendancy in some parts of American politics.
 
HA! Touche! 20202020202020

Touche, indeed! You must have missed this post:

http://drummerworld.com/forums/showpost.php?p=767065&postcount=43

The current group of people calling themselves Libertarians and the Tea Party are just the Religious Right of the 1980s with a new branding message of "small government." They support government control of reproduction and want to legislate personal values with their interpretation Biblical religious law (Christian Sharia). They're no more libertarians than Hitler and the Nazis (sorry, couldn't help myself, the Godwin's genie is out the box).

Zam, I know you are more pure in your ideology and you've obviously done your homework. So you do not represent the typical Tea Partier, but those are the folks on the ascendancy in some parts of American politics.

Absolutely correct.
 
There is also of course the fact that Obama, who was elected under the banner of hope and change, has consistantly followed the same course as the previous administration, and gone back on most of his promises. I think people hoped that this eloquent, intelligent man would go where no politician has gone for a long time and actually do what he said he was going to do, and since he's comprehensively failed to do that they have reason to be unhappy with him.quote]

Myunderstanding is that he has been opposed by Congress at every turn. You can only make changes if you're allowed to do so. Vince, if it's two peas in a pod it's because most of the govt personnel are the same, even if the Pres has changed.

Also, as said earlier, an ocean liner can't be turned around straight away - major policy directions determined in the past need to be worked through.

Vince, you say a monopoly might not exist in a free market but that's only if you start with a level playing field. However, the way things are the major players hold all the aces and any freeing will only allow them to entrench their power at a faster rate.

As I say, it's a wicked problem, old bean.
 
There is also of course the fact that Obama, who was elected under the banner of hope and change, has consistantly followed the same course as the previous administration, and gone back on most of his promises. I think people hoped that this eloquent, intelligent man would go where no politician has gone for a long time and actually do what he said he was going to do, and since he's comprehensively failed to do that they have reason to be unhappy with him.quote]

Myunderstanding is that he has been opposed by Congress at every turn. You can only make changes if you're allowed to do so. Vince, if it's two peas in a pod it's because most of the govt personnel are the same, even if the Pres has changed.

Also, as said earlier, an ocean liner can't be turned around straight away - major policy directions determined in the past need to be worked through.

Vince, you say a monopoly might not exist in a free market but that's only if you start with a level playing field. However, the way things are the major players hold all the aces and any freeing will only allow them to entrench their power at a faster rate.

As I say, it's a wicked problem, old bean.

Opposed by Congress? I think not. Both parties are interested in the same thing but his own party has had control of both the Senate and the House, and obviously, the Executive. The predictable outcome of the next few years will be a dramatic swing back to the "right", which will again prove to be ineffective and destructive, causing another swing back to the "left", and so on, as it has always been. The positive thing to glean from this is the overall continuing loss of faith in statism.

The difference in the next few years will be that there will be no inflationary tides to ride and grow power upon. As this thread began - the FED will indeed hyperinflate the dollar. I could go into immense detail on this (even more so than I already have) and provide plenty of clear information as to why I believe this to be true. The thing to remember here is (and this is what I tried to point out to Harry); the American state won't survive the second Great Depression, not in its current form, at least. All of Europe, and indeed the entire world, faces the same type of social disintegration. This is the global "crack-up boom" that Austrians have always talked about.

I'm just happy that I'm hip to this now, so I can do the best I can to prepare my kids for the immense challenges they're going to face, as adults.

Edit:

From today's Financial Times:

"Pessimistic Fed to slash growth forecasts"
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b92ecb0c-f596-11df-99d6-00144feab49a.html#axzz15xq7IbFK

Rising prices and unemployment. Bad news!
 
Corporations only have power through money. If the financial system collapses they will be in no state to monopolize anything.

Opposition from Congress or not, you only have to look at Obama's cabinet upon taking office to see how very smooth the transition was from the Bush administration. Robert Gates even stayed on, the only Secretary of Defense in US history to stay on from one administration to the next! How that represents change with regards to foreign policy I do not know.
 
The cartoon implies that the Fed didn't understand the economy during the period of the past twenty years.

That simply isn't true!

Allan Greenspan began issuing warnings about high consumer credit debt, low consumer savings balances, over valued stocks, high real estate values, jobs moving overseas, poor banking policies, and many other things way back in the early 90's.

Basically, The only power that the Fed has to try and control the economy is to set interest rates, print and distribute money, and make speeches that make recommendations to banks and industry leaders.

The Economy is really up to all of us!
We are the consumers that take the loans and credit risks that bring ourselves into debt.
We are the owners of companies that move our manufacturing to China.
We are the realtors and sellers of homes that inflate the value to outrageous proportions.
We are the people that work for large investment firms that make bad decisions.
We are the bankers that write bad loans.
We are the people that allow our corrupt government to exist without revolting in civil war.

We did this to ourselves!
We now expect the Fed and the US Gov to bail us out!
We didn't deserve to be bailed out for our own stupidity!

I'm sorry to be the wet towel that puts it all into truth.

But the truth is the truth!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top