http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/2 … oesnt-Work
Why are so many of our young people so enthralled by this very dangerous idea?
I am not young, but I am sick to the death of politically correct, humourless bureaucrats, whose heads are firmly stuck up their a___s telling me what to do.
I cannot point to one single government that actually benefitted the people it dictated to.
I try to live my life with the least possible interaction with this crap.
Yes, it probably costs me a lot as I do not bother to claim my "privileges". However, I prefer to be free and left alone to sink or swim by my own efforts.
Actually, it's silly of me to argue with you.
Ron Paul has less chance of winning the Presidency than I do - and I'm not running.
What you and the few others who embrace his foolishness will do, however, is throw away votes that might otherwise help someone equally reprehensible from the GOP side. As that is obviously a good thing, I have changed my mind:
Ron Paul 2012! Hoorah! Listen to Evan! Don't vote for a GOP crazy - choose a Libertarian one instead!
Awww, is oo sad that your president is a tyrant who has failed to deliver so many of his promises? He hasn't demanded any pro-LGBTQ legislation? (Oh, sorry, I meant pro-LGBTQ legislation that was NOT "pro-war").
It's the GOVERNMENT that's preventing Gay Marriage, NOT the free-market.
Obomba has openly embraced the murdering of US civilians without a fair trial!! How about THEM apples! Protect the minority, my fanny!
Ron Paul - Tied for first in Iowa; 2nd or 3rd in NH; and he receives more money from active duty military members than ALL R's put together, and more than Obama.
We have much proof that the libertarian invisible hand of self regulation has failed to improve society. The housing bubble is one manifestation of that and I even have written an ebook about it. Libertarianism was fostered by Thatcherism, and the libertarians are a justification for gambling in the City of London financial district, or also known as the square mile. That gambling makes Wall Street look conservative. And all the world's banks do it there!
MF Global and AIG are two casualties of the City of London and the massive speculation that goes on there.
Oh, and libertarians, even if not racist, want racism to be a civil right. Wacko.
We've had a paternalistic central government for 200+ years, and this system of your God-Like, Glorious courts and legal systems can't even get "hey, maybe we should enforce air pollution laws" through it's bloated corrupt system.
In fact, air pollution laws WERE enforced until the Central Government - around the time of your sacred Abraham "I'm a railroad lobbyist" Lincoln - stopped enforcing them for fears of "economy stagnation".
Deal with it.
For the same reason the other large group of young people are attracted to liberalism. Children don't like rules but more children want their mommies to make them happy. So the libertarian wants to live without rules with little regard for a social order. A social order required for a civil society. The liberal wants his mommy to make the bad things go away and make him feel safe and loved.
The libertarian tends to have more in common with a precocious teenager and is just as unrealistic. Liberals tend to be like pampered and sheltered 12 year-olds. Their unrealistic fantasy resembles play time in which the bossy spoiled child wants everyone else to play by his rules. He throws a tantrum when they do not and starts calling names, eventually spoiling playtime and reeking havoc.
Of the two near pathologies, I will take the unrealistic teenager over the spoiled child. At least the libertarian would leave me alone - unlike the bratty liberal.
Somalia is actually better off than it was with a government. And even this isn't true: theirs is a very federal system of governments run by tyrants, aka warlords.
Just because "the land previously known as Somalia" doesn't have a government doesn't mean that there are no very localized governments.
The problem with the OP is that it's comparing countries that have had relatively free-market governments for 200+ years with ONE that had a stifling horribly oppressive government for 300+ years.
How bout we do this: Governments don't work because "look at Mexico"; or "look at Egypt"; or "Look at any dictatorship ever, fool"
You're comparing apples to oranges. The data shows that Somalia is better off than it was.
Exactly the point: localized government.
That's your Libertarian ideal: little pockets where you can be free to make up your own rules and to hell with anyone else.
"I've got mine". Great philosophy.
Such utter nonsense.
"I've got mine" is what central government loonies want. Except, they want centralization so they can loot more people.
Get off your high horse and see your government for what it is: a bunch of crooks using your emotions to loot you.
Oh, and what was that? You had NO response for "Somalia is better off now than it was"?
That's what I thought. If you admitted this -- the facts admit this, but you don't -- your entire argument goes down the drain.
Keep on truckin'! Those fingers that you keep in your ears are going to need to be washed eventually, and if you keep shouting over me you'll end up getting strep throat.
I wonder how much of that economic growth was funded by ransoms paid to Somali pirates? According to Reuters, "some $240 million was paid to Somali pirates last year (2010)."
I'm not sure you can count economic growth fueled by acts of violence like piracy and kidnapping an example of the success of libertarianism.
I base this conclusion on the idea that piracy and kidnapping are acts of violence and coercion, and the knowledge that one of the core libertarian values is the free exchange of goods and services without fraud or coercion.
I guess I could be wrong about libertarianism being antithetical to coercion. Am I?
No, yours is probably the first valid argument about Somalia and libertarianism on this forum page.
Believe me, pirating is NOT compatible with libertarianism.
However, we must remember that protection from those who do NOT care about property rights is a luxury. This is horrible to say, but it's true. If someone wants to just run around stealing things, then the people need protection from this.
However, the government need not be involved. In fact, it's interesting that the countries that want trade moving around Somalia don't protect the ships moving through.
This almost sounds ludicrous, but it seems that the people of Somalia are claiming the Ocean Space around their country as their property and are exacting a toll. Please don't misconstrue me: I'm merely saying that it SEEMS that way. I know it is not.
Protection from piracy and theft being a luxury, it costs money and infrastructure to afford it; and Somalia isn't really known for being wealthy.
However, Somalia isn't the dump everyone paints it as. Here's a quote from the CIA WorldFactBook:
"Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed to survive and grow. Telecommunication firms provide wireless services in most major cities and offer the lowest international call rates on the continent. In the absence of a formal banking sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the country, handling between $500 million and $1 billion in remittances annually. Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to operate, and militias provide security."
There is also a book, apparently, written about Somali governance. The Law of the Somalis, written by Michael van Notten (1933-2002). I haven't read it, maybe some day I will. But to expect me to be an expert on everything libertarian is to expect too much of me.
Here are some statements I gathered from Yumi Kim, who is someone who HAS read the book:
"Van Notten quotes authorities to the effect that Somalia's telecommunications are the best in Africa, its herding economy is stronger than that of either of its neighbors, Kenya or Ethiopia, and that since the demise of the central government, the Somali shilling has become far more stable in world currency markets, while exports have quintupled."
"Van Notten, a Dutch lawyer who married into the Samaron Clan and lived the last dozen years of his life with them, specifically challenges that portrayal. He explains that Somalia is a country based on customary law. The traditional Somali system of law and politics, he contends, is capable of maintaining a peaceful society and guiding the Somalis to prosperity. Moreover, efforts to re-establish a central government or impose democracy on the people are incompatible with the customary law. Van Notten distinguishes between the four meanings of the word "law" — statutory, contractual, customary, and natural law."
If you read the article, notice how decentralized the governance is. This is VERY libertarian.
And here's one more piece of evidence that Somalia is doing better. I don't think that the enrichment is being paid for by Pirating, but I, nor you, have much data to defend either stance:
Peter Leeson drawing on statistical data from the United Nations Development Project, World Bank, CIA, and World Health Organization. Comparing the last five years under the central government (1985–1990) with the most recent five years of anarchy (2000–2005), Leeson finds these welfare changes:
Life expectancy increased from 46 to 48.5 years. This is a poor expectancy as compared with developed countries. But in any measurement of welfare, what is important to observe is not where a population stands at a given time, but what is the trend. Is the trend positive, or is it the reverse?
Number of one-year-olds fully immunized against measles rose from 30 to 40 percent.
Number of physicians per 100,000 population rose from 3.4 to 4.
Number of infants with low birth weight fell from 16 per thousand to 0.3 — almost none.
Infant mortality per 1,000 births fell from 152 to 114.9.
Maternal mortality per 100,000 births fell from 1,600 to 1,100.
Percent of population with access to sanitation rose from 18 to 26.
Percent of population with access to at least one health facility rose from 28 to 54.8.
Percent of population in extreme poverty (i.e., less than $1 per day) fell from 60 to 43.2.
Radios per thousand population rose from 4 to 98.5.
Telephones per thousand population rose from 1.9 to 14.9.
TVs per 1,000 population rose from 1.2 to 3.7.
Fatalities due to measles fell from 8,000 to 5,600.
Oops, here's the article I pulled those last numbers from:
IT also includes some more quotes that are worth reading:
"Another even more comprehensive study published last year by Benjamin Powell of the Independent Institute, concludes: "We find that Somalia's living standards have improved generally … not just in absolute terms, but also relative to other African countries since the collapse of the Somali central government.""
"It is the largest exporter of livestock of any East African country... A small number of international investors are finding that the level of security of property and contract in Somalia warrants doing business there. Among these companies are Dole, BBC, the courier DHL, British Airways, General Motors, and Coca Cola, which recently opened a large bottling plant in Mogadishu. A 5-star Ambassador Hotel is operating in Hargeisa, and three new universities are fully functional: Amoud University (1997) in Borama, and Mogadishu University (1997), and University of Benadir (2002) in Mogadishu."
"Consequently, the United Nations has by now spent well over two billion dollars attempting to re-establish a central government in Somalia. But here is the irony: it is the presence of the United Nations that has caused virtually all of the turbulence we have seen in Somalia.
"However, we must remember that protection from those who do NOT care about property rights is a luxury. This is horrible to say, but it's true. If someone wants to just run around stealing things, then the people need protection from this."
Right, and who is going to do the protecting? Not the somalis, they're the ones doing the pirating.
"However, the government need not be involved. In fact, it's interesting that the countries that want trade moving around Somalia don't protect the ships moving through."
The US has done a bit of that. The Navy killed a few Somali pirates last summer.
The point is, though, it doesn't look (to me, an outsider) as though people in Somalia really care about property rights. Or at least, they don't care about non-Somali property rights. Of course, the companies whose ships must sail near the Somali coast probably ought to hire well-armed mercenaries to defend their ships, right? Once the pirates realize that they keep getting killed when they attack ships, they'll stop.
On another note, I wonder if my property rights would be respected if I were to pack up my stuff, move to Somalia, and try to make my way. Any guess would be pure speculation, of course, but I wonder. And on the chance that my property rights would not be respected, to whom would I turn to get help in getting my property back? The police? Oh, wait...
I do not know if it is a dangerous option. The two party system has proven to be problematic. Many young people realize that the current two parties are not providing the US with many answers. Anytime we continue to question the old regime, and look for ways to improve the current quality of living is good.
Wow, the Daily Kos. Not propaganda at all. Anarchy can go one of two directions. It can go totally crazy like Somalia or it can go another way entirely. What is that other way? People acting like people, rationally and peacefully.
Look at the difference between the American and French Revolutions. The aftermath of the ouster of the British was relatively peaceful. The aftermath of the ouster of the King of France another matter entirely. This was due to certain groups in France who attempted to "pick up the Crown of France", much as Napoleon did in the early 19th century.
The nascent US, by contrast, had self-appointed leaders steeped in the liberal (what today is known as libertarian) principles that let them, by and large, avoid the bloodletting of the French Revolution. The main reason this happened was because the leaders of the US attempted to allow individuals to set their own destiny, rather than allow an oligarchy to determine what people could and could not do.
Well, mostly, there were people like Hamilton and Adams who wanted to recreate the British system, but with them at the top.
Anarchy CAN go MANY ways.
But to call Somalia "totally crazy" is to suggest that progress is "totally crazy".
I've cited numerous UN studies showing that Somalia is doing better both relative to nearby countries with governments, and relative to how it was doing when it had a government.
I love anarchists. If they are ever really successful at stripping away government I can get all new furniture with my pistol. Anarchy is just as silly a solution to the problem of governing as "Statism." The Anarchist assumes that everyone is an angel, the Statist assumes that those in government are angels. How silly.
"If they are ever really successful at stripping away government I can get all new furniture with my pistol."
Spoken like someone who has never bothered to actually think about Anarchy...
... OR even bothered to think that MAYBE - just maybe- the other person would have a gun as well.
He also never thought that "by pissing off my neighbors, I'm less likely to be respected by my peers", and thus would harm yourself in the theft.
You also never bothered to think about the fact that people are willing to pay to protect property, and thus stealing would be quite difficult.
IN fact, you probably never bothered to even study, at all, Somalia, which is doing better in REAL terms compared to a) their government neighbors, and b) relative to when they had a government.
... if you'd like to start learning about anarchy, here ya go:
PS: Sanctions are an act of war; Iran has never attacked another nation in 100 years; they aren't building nukes; they've let international inspectors in; they don't have nukes; their "enemy" has fusion bombs; and they've never said that they want to wipe Israel off the map.
I have thought a great deal about anarchy and know it to be rooted in a flawed idea about government and about human nature. Anarchy presumes that every community will be intimate, polite, interested, aware and engaged - in short, heavenly (or Somalia-ly). It is a nice fantasy for a child, much like the liberal fantasy of a mommy government that will give me a pony and ice cream and keep people from being mean.
It is the fantasy of an idealistic adolescent.
In 1979, Iranians stormed the American Embassy - sovereign American soil and imprisoned the diplomatic staff. That is an act of war. At the height of tensions between the US and the Soviet Union their embassy and ours were still treated as sovereign soil.
We have been at war with Iran ever since - though they have known it and we have not. Every year there is a national holiday and celebration in Iran called "Death to America Day." Perhaps if that lunatic Ron Paul gets in office Iran will have the chance to set off some new fireworks.
I'd say that we've been at war since 1953, when we overthrew their elected leaders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Irani … 7%C3%A9tat
*cough* But, we're not at war with them. Because there isn't a declaration of war.
Yeah, it's funny how Americans tend to ignore the various and sundry nastiness the US has done to provoke anger. And then when someone hits back, we're all, "They started it!"
Any time we send our soldiers (or spies) to interfere with the government of another sovereign nation, that's an act of war, declaration or no.
We can argue about whether such acts are justified, but to pretend the overthrow of Iran's government wasn't an act of war is disingenuous at best.
Maybe as a little pseudo-psychology: young males sick to death of their parents telling them what to do, think that government should likewise not be telling them what to do.
Here's a "young male sick to death" of patriarchs:
And here are some of his quotes:
Speaking of States, and the citizenry:
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?"
Regarding demagogues (like some people on these forums):
"Fear is the passion of slaves."
Regarding Tyranny by Central Governance:
"Give me liberty or give me death."
Regarding the protection of your liberty:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. "
Regarding arguments that to demand freedom is to be evil:
"If this be treason, make the most of it!"
Regarding secrecy and 'closed door negotiations':
"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them."
And, finally, regarding these United States:
"When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object."
By working together we can overcome this plague.
Please enjoy a free slice of delicious blackforest cake.
My son-in-law, Cory, has always been a Republican. He just left my house, and I discovered that he's turned to the dark side. He's now a Libertarian!
Actually, if you study the history of political thought in the US, there are largely only two spheres of thought:
Modern day Libertarian beliefs (Anti-Federalists, the original Republicans, and even the Democrats)
And then the other spheres of thought have always been a corruption of these:
The US was originally a group of states that ruled themselves, then the Federalists came to corrupt it.
The Republicans formed to fight for freedom, and then they became corrupted.
The Democrats were largely libertarian, until they were corrupted - the pinnacle of which was FDR.
And now the Republicans again are showing their corruption.
I might be missing a political party in there, but the pattern remains.
... So your son's "dark side" is actually the founding force of our country. He should be praised, and you should seriously think about joining him.
Evan, I'm sure you realize that comment was tongue-in-cheek. I embrace some of the ideas of the Libertarians - just not all of them.
Oh, the only "tongue-in-cheek" comment was the "nooo" and the "not freedom" thing.
The rest is completely true.
This will be said with absolutely NO malice: Republicans (likely this includes yourself, from what I have read) inherently agree to "some of the ideas of libertarians". The Republican party was FOUNDED on libertarian beliefs. However, they've strayed so far from it that the Libertarian Party is finally gaining support from many Democrats AND Republicans.
When people like Glenn Beck, and other Republican, Neo-Cons say things like "I agree with a lot of what Libertarians have to say, but...", this just shows that they DON'T agree with what libertarians have to say.
If you agree with these two statements: "I respect property rights fully and without any qualifications", and "I reject the use of force, except in the defense against others using force against me", then you can no longer be a Republican OR a Democrat.
The aggressor is always wrong, and so is theft.
Okay, if that's what you want to think. Have you read Lord of the Flies?
A fictional book about a bunch of kids on an island who end up hard-core porn-ing it with a mother boar?
Yeah, I read it. It was good.
As was the Grapes of Wrath.
If that's what you got from reading Lord of the Flies, you need to read it again as an adult. Also, the scene you describe isn't in the novel. The boys kill a sow by thrusting a spear into her anus, however.
Depending on the edition you bought, another author explains how the book is an illustration of the loss of innocence of boys and how that scene is indeed a sex scene.
The scene where they kill the mother sow can VERY easily be -- and is supposed to be -- read as a scene where the children discover sex.
Let us partake of the text directly:
"Here, struck down by the heat, the sow fell and the hunters HURLED themselves at her. This dreadful ERUPTION from an unknown world made her FRANTIC; she SQUEALED and BUCKED and the air was full of sweat and blood and terror. Roger ran round the heap, prodding with his SPEAR whenever pigflesh appeared. Jack was ON TOP of the sow, STABBING DOWNWARD with his KNIFE. Roger found a LODGMENT for HIS POINT and began to till he was LEANING WITH HIS WHOLE WEIGHT. The spear moved forward inch by inch and the terrified squealing became a highpitched scream. Then Jack found the THROAT and the hot blood spouted over his hands. The sow collapsed under them and they were heavy and FULFILLED upon her. The butterflies still danced, preoccupied in the center of the clearing"
It's a hardcore, orgy sex scene. In fact, from the looks of it, the mother was a virgin because blood came out from the first of the "stabbings".
Yes, the scene is symbolic of sex, but you made it sound as if the boys actually had sex with the pig. It also suggests that if there had been any girls on the island, they probably would have been raped by the boys because there were no laws and no strong authority figures to enforce them.
There's a reason there were no girls on the island.
Ugh, I just realized you were talking about your own post, not mine.
Sorry. I can be a bit dull at times.
"If you agree with these two statements: "I respect property rights fully and without any qualifications", and "I reject the use of force, except in the defense against others using force against me", then you can no longer be a Republican OR a Democrat."
Or a Somali Pirate.
Want me to start quoting the theft of governments? Because a few pirates got nothing on government.
... or would you like to continue to ignore the obvious double-standard you're holding?
The obvious double-standard who is holding?
You're rah-rahing the Somali no-government miracle, saying how awesome and libertarian the Somali non-state is (and it's clearly better than anybody expected for Somalis), but it's not really all that libertarian, seeing as how they get a lot of their cash from piracy (that is, taking stuff that isn't theirs by force and by threat of force).
If the pirates stopped pirating, and the Somali economy continued to thrive, standard of living and life expectancy continued to rise, then you'd have a solid pro-libertarian, non-state argument.
As it stands, prosperity funded by piracy isn't libertarian, and therefore, the Somali miracle isn't support for libertarianism.
"Want me to start quoting the theft of governments?"
Tax isn't theft, Evan. It just isn't, not in a representative democracy.
I agree with you that piracy is theft, Jeff. Theft is inherent to mankind. Any ideology that claims it will create "a new man" is a failed ideology (*cough* socialism *cough*). Once again, libertarianism does NOT claim to "make a new man whose heart is free from evil and theft", it merely claims to know the best way of protecting against such evil.
But protection costs money. And obviously the people who are being robbed aren't paying for the obvious need for protection for their shipping. In fact, many of the victims just say "oh, screw it, it's cheaper to pay the bribe".
The government-protected shippers can't seem to pay the price to protect their ships from the non-governmental raiders. The government, who's main job is protection, can't deliver on its promises.
Why can't a government protect it's industry like you want to claim it can? The US Constitution actually gives permission to the US government to define and punish piracy:
"Congress shall have the power... To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas..."
So, once again, the government-supported industries of logistics are being robbed because their government isn't protecting them; and the non-governmental industries inside of Somalia are doing pretty well.
On a personal level, I've felt the sting of "government protection of property". Some jack*ff stole my iPod that my then-fiance got as an anniversary-of-our-first-date present. The cops literally told me "don't bother unless the thing cost more than $2,000".
AVAST, YE SWABS!! It seems thar be less protection on these high seas when governance be available than when thar be nary a bureaucrat in sight! Arrrrr!
I forgot to mention: The victims need to pursue action against the pirates.
"The government, who's main job is protection, can't deliver on its promises."
The US government is protecting its shipping against the pirates. Perhaps you remember the hoopla when a Navy SEAL sniper shot a pirate at a great distance over the sea?
It's other countries that are paying off the pirates.
Of course, "libertarianism ... merely claims to know the best way of protecting against such evil." Paying thugs not to steal your stuff? Okay.
I poked around on the 'net looking for more news about the Somali Miracle. And yes, it looks like there are all kinds of economic progress happening in Somalia. There is also a lot of violence. You may have heard of [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/world/africa/somalia-faces-alarming-rise-in-rapes-of-women-and-girls.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss]Al-Shabab[/i]? So Somalia is great if you happen to run a telecom company, but not so much if you happen to be a young woman of modest means. Shouldn't government be doing something about this? Oh, wait...it can't, 'cos there isn't any.
Somalia is also one of the worst places in the world to be a journalist. It's close to the bottom of the Reporters Without Borders list of countries rated according to freedom of the press. How is that even possible? Without a government to clamp down on freedom, you'd think Somalia would have freer press than the US, wouldn't you?
Except you don't need a government to oppress people. Nongovernmental thugs can even oppress more efficiently and for less money. So, I guess the philosophy of libertarianism does work.
"It's other countries that are paying off the pirates."
Yeah, I know. That's why I said it.
... Sorry that your precious government cares more about its coffers than it does your protection. Don't blame that on libertarianism. That's kind of the whole POINT of libertarianism.
About the rapes: This crap was going on en masse with their government. So quit acting like this is new.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0U … &hl=en
The posts I've made show that violent crimes are DOWN relative to both Governmental times, and also relative to nearby countries.
Or did you forget?
My point isn't that it's perfect, I'm pointing out that its better. Once again, violent crimes are DOWN relative to other government-countries, and relative to when coercive government was in place.
Rapes, human trafficking, and all kinds of evils happen with government as well. This is merely an example of your double standard.
"The posts I've made show that violent crimes are DOWN relative to both Governmental times, and also relative to nearby countries."
They've been going down, but now there's an upsurge. That's my point.
"My point isn't that it's perfect, I'm pointing out that its better."
For some, yes.
"Rapes, human trafficking, and all kinds of evils happen with government as well. This is merely an example of your double standard."
No, it's evidence that a libertarian non-state won't deliver real liberty to its people. But we see evidence of states with functional governments where gangs of thugs don't go around raping women. They're lying around all over the place. Heck, most of those governments try to put a stop to rape, human trafficking, etc. Not because it's profitable to do so or because it's happening to somebody they know and love (the only motivations in a libertarian non-state), but because it's wrong to rape and enslave people.
But since those governments also tax their citizens, they're tyrranical? Not buying that.
Look, if we (meaning the world at large) could let the Somali experiment keep running (and perhaps we should), we would see what would happen in a non-state over time. If you're right about libertarianism, Somalia's prosperity and freedom would continue to increase, and eventually we'd see Somalia rivaling the prosperity of places like Finland and Norway (consistently at the top of the prosperity list). If everyone else is right, Somalia's prosperity and freedom would level out to something like that of medieval Europe, and eventually we'd see Somalia rivaling the prosperity of places like Finland and Norway, but a thousand years ago.
I'd be really interested in how things turn out.
And to those who say, "But it would be inhuman to allow the violence to continue," I remind you that Evan is correct in pointing out that such violence occurred under the last couple governments that Somalia had, too. There is no compelling reason to think that this time we intervene it'll work out better than the last time, and the time before that, etc.
The best thing the world at large could do would be to leave Somalia to its own devices. Buy their exports when Somalis wants to export stuff (if anyone wants to buy them), sell them stuff when Somalis want to import stuff (and can afford it), and when Somali pirates attack international shipping, kill the hell out of them, 'cos that's what you do to pirates in the real world.
Time will tell.
What's that about government countries where mobs of people don't go around raping people?
In the US, the price to JOIN the mobs is rape.
I've also heard about how it's a gang initiation thing to drive around at night with your headlights off, and when someone flashes you to let you know, you're meant to follow them home and kill them.
Also, in places like the US, the government is more powerful than the thugs, and when it catches a thug, and can prove that this thug we're looking for, it puts him in jail.
Look, I'm saying I think you're wrong. But I also allow that you could be right. I'm unconvinced, but the Somalia situation is the best real-world experiment we'll ever get (probably). My prediction is that if left to its own devices, Somalia will level out to a semi-medieval structure, or a series of localized protection rackets, unless they get together and create their own state from within, not have one imposed on them from without.
I'm guessing that your prediction would be about the same, only the localized protection rackets would be a lot more prosperous and free than I predict, and that they'd never band together to create a state, because they'd realize that the various protection rackets are better.
I really hope the world lets Somalia work things out without interfering, not only so we can find out who's right, but also because it's none of our damn business. (That's a libertarian ideal we agree on: self-determination. Right?)
The issue of piracy is an important one to point out with Libya. But the water ways should be considered property just like land should. This is one of the zany ideas of libertarians. A lake, river, ocean, pond, or stream is just land with water over it, and it can be homesteaded just as easily as land.
My points are...
that the water ways aren't privately owned as they should be (thus piracy has free reign);
that one of the minimal allowable powers of governments should be protection of private property, and the governments of the victims aren't enforcing this (regarding the piracy);
that it's foolish to say "if no government exists, then clearly the people are not in society" (this was a Pcunix argument);
that, if you really want to talk about failures of non-government, then we need to talk about failures of government (no one wants to do this because they immediately realize the evils that government has initiated);
that Somalia is doing better relative to its shedding of government AND relative to its neighbors who have government.
Surely we can agree that the individuals of Somalia should be allowed to determine their own future.
It's going on 21 years of Anarcho-Capitalism, and it seems that private courts exist, police exist, and the people are prospering.
Prospering in one of the most violent and poorest states of the world!
I'd rather be poor in a prosperous state than dead in a poor one.
We've discussed why your argument is foolish. Look at my other posts.
I have looked at your other posts and don't know whether to laugh or cry.
By the way, would that be the royal "we" who've discussed why my argument is foolish?
For the 50th time on this forum page:
Somalia is doing better in real terms both after it overthrew its government AND relative to nearby countries.
They're doing better than the countries with governments in a similar situation.
With nearly half it's population living off less than a dollar a day, wow, yes I'm impressed!
Mind you, big business is doing OK and in your book big business is all that matters.
"that one of the minimal allowable powers of governments should be protection of private property, and the governments of the victims aren't enforcing this (regarding the piracy); "
The Indian Navy, the Danish Navy, the Sri Lankan Navy, and of course, the US Navy have all acted against Somali pirates, to varying, but good, effectiveness.
I wouldn't expect anyone in Somalia to do anything about the pirates, since the Somali pirates aren't harming Somalis, and are in fact bringing all kinds of money into the Somali economy.
"Somalia is doing better in real terms both after it overthrew its government AND relative to nearby countries."
This is both true and surprising, but it's also true that Somalia is doing better than its neighbors in the same way that the people of Canada are more prosperous than the people of the US, rather than the way that the people of Canada are more prosperous than the people of Mexico.
What will be the real test is not "Is Somalia marginally better off than its neighbors" but rather "Will Somalia's economy continue to expand over the long haul in the absence of a central government strong enough to enforce its laws over such groups as al-Shabab, and will the people enjoy ever-increasing real liberty (in speech, movement, worship, etc)."
So far, the results of the experiment do seem to favor the "libertarianism, woo-hoo" conclusion (barely). Will the trend continue? Will Somalia continue to become more prosperous and more free than its neighbors? That's the real question.
And a question that has gone unanswered is this: yes, Somalia's economy is growing, but are the Somali people also more free than their neighbors in Ethipoia and Kenya? Can a Kenyan speak against the Kenyan government without fear of persecution? Can a Somali speak against his local chief without fear of persecution? Those questions are unanswered in the CIA factbook, and I haven't got time just now to find out.
It is attitudes such as yours habee that will help the world become a safer and more just society. Taking the time to ponder other's thoughts and make your own determination on what is just/unjust. Not just disregarding a concept simply because you disagree with the label of the messenger.
The exchange of thoughts and ideas is the most powerful ability that we as human beings possess.
Are the things she agrees with are strictly "Libertarian ideas"?
Or are they just some small kernels of sanity, borrowed from others, in a morass of Libertarian crazy-talk?
You are disregarding ideas because you have placed labels on those ideas. This is not happening with younger generations. The youth are sharing thoughts and ideas through social media with no labels. They are determining for themselves what is right/wrong.
They also realize that if the older generations are so wise then why is the world in such a state of utter confusion. Many of them are also knowledgeable of the incurring debt on themselves. Debt/wealth that was stolen from them before they were born.
Debt that they did not consent to being responsible for repaying.
Bob Dylan The Times They Are A-Changin'
Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.
The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.
Where does the debt come from, RB?
Why are we not raising taxes to pay for our wars?
It isn't just the wars you're fighting now (it isn't even just wars, which I'm sure accounts for a sizeable chunk of the debt but not all - not even the largest part of it). It's the wars that have been fought over the last couple of centuries, plus accumulated other debt over that period, which is just growing and growing. Plus the interest that has accrued.
You couldn't begin to raise enough tax to pay off the national debt.
I believe the US national debt is $15 trillion?
With 300 million people in the US, that would mean each person would have to pay an extra $50,000 in taxes. Even if you tried to spread that out over several decades, it would still be a bitter pill for most people to swallow. Plus there would be more government spending and more debt interest in the meantime.
THAT is a typical Right Wing lie. We could pay it off in less than twenty years if we imposed reasonable tax rates on the ultra wealthy.
According to the rich themselves, they re responsible for 40-50% of all the Federal income tax we collect.
On average, they pay 18-20% - some pay more, some pay less, but if we could extract twice as much tax from just them, we would have 33% more revenue every year. Note that I said "extract" - as the wealthy will spend money to avoid taxes, we'd have to raise their tax rates even higher to double what we collect.
If you could double the tax revenue of just the top 5%, we could pay off ALL of our debt in less than 20 years without inflation, without anybody else struggling to make ends meet, without cutting a single social program.
That is reality, but the wealthy have a lot invested in you believing the lie.
OK, I'm guessing that you're basing it on these figures:
So you're saying that instead of paying just over $500 billion per year in tax as they do now, the top 5% of earners should pay $1 trillion. Which multiplied out over 20 years becomes $20 trillion, which is indeed enough to pay off your national debt.
The question is, would the top 5% of earners go for it? Or would they simply move their money offshore or emigrate? My guess is the latter!
Would we keep buying their products if they ran away to evade taxes? Or would we revolt in the streets?
They wouldn't even miss it.
I don't know about that last part. You'd be right that the very, very wealthy wouldn't miss the extra money but most of the people in the top 5% probably aren't very, very wealthy - they're what I would call comfortably off. (I am assuming that income, like intelligence and other things, follows a bell curve type distribution.)
Going back to that Tax Foundation chart, the "split point" for the top 5% of earners is an income of $155,000 per year. I'm assuming that by "split point", they mean what the lowest earner in that bracket earns. In other words, the bottom earners in that top 5% bracket earn $155,000 per year. Even in the top 1%, the bottom earners earn just under $350,000 per year.
If you doubled the income tax of these people, they would most definitely "miss" the extra money. You would be doing a gross disfavour to the economy by taxing such people at the level that you're suggesting. A lot of these people are probably businesspeople, entrepreneurs and other productive types who provide jobs for others, whether through direct employment or by spending on goods/services.
So quadruple it on the top 1% instead. The point is that it is NOT impossible to pay off.
However, study after study has shown that all we need for happiness falls under $100K per year - way under for most of us. They would NOT miss it in reality.
You're still going to find the same situation - the people at the bottom end of the 1% (who will make up the vast majority) will bear the brunt. And as I said, many of these people are the ones who provide most support to the economy in terms of providing employment and spending on goods/services. You might find that the amount of national income lost negates any savings that you make.
Have you ever heard of the broken window fallacy?
That may be true (it is certainly true for me and just as well ), but it doesn't make any difference to the economy.
I agree with EVERYTHING you wrote here.
But you forgot one thing: The entire federal government is in the pockets of the rich.
When the Federal Government realized it could make more money by ignoring the 10th Amendment, it slipped into corruption.
Now Democrats ACTUALLY think that anti-rich legislation will ACTUALLY get passed by the very corrupt politicians they vote for.
if you ACTUALLY want to balance the playing field, vote for the ONLY man who stands up for the 10th amendment (and who can quote it by heart)
Ron Paul 2012.
That is where the line MUST be drawn. When you or anyone else decides that no one needs more than x dollars to survive and be happy you are far, far down the road to socialism, and it never works.
Our economy and country are founded on the idea of capitalism; you earn what you can and more, or better, or smarter, or harder work will earn you more and you get to keep it. Neither you nor I like to see the ultra rich earning hundreds of millions per year, hoarding their gold like misers or spending it on yachts and servants, but it what has raised America to the highest productivity rate the world has ever seen. It's not worth it to throw away our enormous average standard of living by penalizing and taking from the rich what they have earned.
And no, I won't debate the legality of how they got it; we all know of the Madoff's of the country that have stolen their way to riches, just as most of us know that the majority have done no such thing.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/d … nequality/
the top 5% of families earned an average of $314000 in 2010. Assuming each American family has 4 members, there are about 87,000,000 families in the country. 5% of that is 4 million families earning that $314,000. The top 5% thus earn 1.25 trillion per year.
Total confiscation of all the income of the top 5% will produce income of around 25 trillion over 20 years. If 100 percent of that additional income goes to the deficit it still won't pay it off, as we are unable to control the spending of our politicians and they always spend more than they steal from us.
In addition if we could taken in an additional trillion per year it would only mean that govt. would spend an additional 1.5 trillion anyway.
No, PC, taking even 100% of the income from the top 5% won't begin to pay off our deficit in 20 years.
Incorrect. Why do you believe their lies?
The IRS has the truth - see http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table1 and double what the top 5% pays. That isn't confiscating all their wealth, it's just asking those who benefit the most to pay more - as they are the only ones who can.
Take that over 20 years and the debt is gone. Fact, not rich folks lies.
OK - the census bureau lies but the IRS doesn't. If I accept that (a pretty big if) then the top 5% is making about half again what I said. You only have to confiscate 2/3 of their total income to again fail paying what we owe in 20 years.
In addition, if you double what you tax the top 5% pays that means 1/2 trillion per year to the debt; thats 10 trillion in 20 years, or less than 1/2 of what we would owe by then. Note that the FIRST half of what you would steal from the rich is already being stolen and spent, and not to go to debt. You can't steal it a second time for debt.
Again, PC, you have fallen for the popular line that the rich can get us out of debt; THAT is the lie and is one that a little arithmetic has no problem showing. I repeat, total consfication of 100% of the income of the top 5% for 20 long years will make only a medium size dent in the debt, not pay it off. Add in that the politicians will simply spend the extra money and that the rich will leave in droves as their fellow Americans decide to take all that they have and the net result will simply be vastly increased debt, not paying it off.
No, PC, punishing those that have earned large incomes will only hurt the country in the long term, not help it. I know that the liberal agenda promotes it, along with the idea that the rich are evil to have so much while others have so little, but that doesn't mean the concept will work. It won't.
Pcunix, wake up. They won't increase taxes on the rich because both parties let the rich buy government officials.
They're going to print money out of thin air and thus rob the poor and middle class of their wealth to pay it off.
Start buying gold and silver.
... why am I giving you advice when you mock me?
[Go back in time to 2001 and] Start buying gold and silver.
There, fixed it for you.
"why am I giving you advice when you mock me?"
You're advising him to buy a commodity when the commodity is trading at an all-time high. Advice like that is a good return for mockery.
It's going up again. I know you'll just laugh it off.
But the ATBC shows clearly the prices will skyrocket. Not just silver and gold, either.
... in fact, just about every economist understands that prices usually go DOWN in a recession... so they have already gone up.
Some people I know are selling their gold jewelry and other gold objects. And I learned the other day that several big hedge funds lost their ass last year on gold mining stocks.
Every dollar spent is a dollar taxed.
That's the real problem.
Great Dylan poem, newly relevant. I think I heard recently that he was one of the finalists for the Nobel Poetry Prize. The times are indeed changin'.
Some people act as if they've been programmed. They want to have their opinions pre-digested by their favourite newspaper and served up to them with a large dose of hearsay and ad hominem argument. They don't want to go to the trouble of thinking for themselves.
Would not "SaDDOS", "Black Forest" and happiness be an oxymoron.
Why is everything a liberal doesn't agree with a dangerous idea? Could it possibly be because they think they know better than EVERYONE else? Don't bother answering my question, I just did.
Libertarianism IS dangerous. Dangerous to minorities, dangerous to workers, dangerous to almost all of us.
Of course it is, to you, because you know better than the rest of us.
It is the us/them mentality that has allowed our one party system to manipulate the population in a struggle that we all endure together.
The Individual is the highest authority in the United States. Groups have NO Rights!
Labeling human beings and placing them in a fictitious group only creates an easier motor for hatred. There is no such thing as a Republican/Democrat/Libertarian/Communist. These are fictions, all there is are individual human beings with different ideas on how things should operate.
Not everyone will agree on all aspects of life no matter what label is placed upon them there thoughts and actions are unique.
Libertarianism is so dangerous that it was the intellectual justification for the housing bubble and for the repeal of banking regulation. first in the UK and then imported to the US.
Here's a libertarian warning against the oncoming bubble with amazing accuracy:
Here's a group of libertarians (jokingly) showing how foolish our current system is:
Here's another libertarian correctly predicting the crash years in advance with accuracy:
Here's a WHOLE LIST of predictions by LIBERTARIANS (and anarchists) predicting SO MANY of the past 112 years' economic conditions YEARS in advance:
SIR!!! If I give up holding my tongue, then I'd call you a liar!!!
Because I know you will not actually click on that last link, I'm going to copy+paste it.
BEHOLD, THE LIBERTARIANS AND ANARCHISTS WHO PREDICTED, YEARS IN ADVANCE, MAJOR ECONOMIC CATASTROPHES OF THE LAST 112 YEARS
The Great Depression
The Great Depression was predicted by several Austrian economists:
In Austria, economist Ludwig von Mises saw the problem developing in its early stages and predicted to his colleagues in 1924 that the large Austrian bank, Credit Anstalt, would eventually crash. He wrote a full analysis of Irving Fisher’s monetary views, published in 1928, where he targeted Fisher’s reliance on price indexes as a key vulnerability that would bring about the Great Depression, concluding: "because of the imperfection of the index number, these calculations would necessarily lead in time to errors of very considerable proportions."
F. A. Hayek published several articles in early 1929 in which he predicted the collapse of the American boom. Felix Somary, who like Mises was a student at the University of Vienna, issued several dire warnings in the late 1920s, and in America economists Benjamin Anderson and E.C. Harwood also warned that the Federal Reserve policies would cause a crisis, and like Somary, they were largely ignored.
End of the Bretton Woods system
The collapse of the Bretton Woods System and the following rise of the gold price has been predicted by several Austrian economists and is covered in the following:
Rothbard, Murray. 1962. The Case for a 100 Percent Gold Dollar
Hazlitt, Henry. 1934 until 1946 From Bretton Woods to World Inflation: A Study of Causes and Consequences (editorials for New York Times)
The Dot-com bubble and its bust was widely foreseen despite the hype:
Anderson, 2000; Corrigan, 1999; Deden, 1999; DiLorenzo, 1999; Grant, 1996A, 1996B; Hülsmann, 2000; Mayer, 2000; Reisman, 1999; Sennholz, 2000; Shostak, 1999; Thornton, 2000.
Anderson, William. 2000. "New Economy, Old Delusion." The Free Market, August
Corrigan, Sean. 1999. "Will the Bubble Pop?", October 18
Deden, Anthony. 1999. "Reflections On Prosperity" December 29
DiLorenzo, Thomas J. 1999. "Regulatory Sneak Attack." September 16
Grant, James. 1996A. The Trouble with Prosperity, May
Grant, James. 1996B The Trouble with Prosperity, Winter 1996, Interview
Hülsmann, Jörg G. 2000. Schöne neue Zeichengeldwelt
Mayer, Christopher. 2000. "The Meaning of 'Over-Valued'", March 30.
Reisman, George. 1999. "When Will the Bubble Burst?", August 18
Sennholz, Hans. 2000. "Can the Boom Last?", July 31
Shostak, Frank. 1999. "Inflation, Deflation, and the Future". October 7
Thornton, Mark. 2000. "Who Predicted the Bubble? Who Predicted the Crash?" (pdf), The Independent Review, Summer 2004
During and after the burst of the Dot-com bubble, these economists predicted the 2000s housing bubble that culminated in the Great Recession from 2008 onward.
Anderson, 2001, 2003, 2007; Armentano, 2004; Beale, 2009; Blumen, 2002, 2004, 2005; Corrigan, 2002; Crovelli, 2006; DeCoster, 2003; Duffy, 2005A, 2005B, 2005C, 2005D, 2006, 2007A, 2007B, 2007C, 2007D; Economics of contempt, 2008; Englund, 2004, 2005A, 2005B, 2005C, 2005D, 2006, 2007, 2008; French, 2005; Grant, 2001; Karlsson, 2004; Mayer, 2003; Murphy, 2007, 2008; North, 2002, 2005; Paul, 2000, 2002; Polleit, 2006; Ptak, 2003; Rockwell, 2008; Rogers, 2005; Schiff, Undated A, Undated B, Undated C, Undated D, 2003A, 2003B, 2003C, 2004A, 2004B, 2005A, 2005B, 2005C, 2005D, 2006A, 2006B, 2006C, 2007A, 2007B; Sennholz, 2002; Shostak, 2003, 2005; Thornton, 2004A, 2004B, 2005, 2006; Trask, 2003; Wenzel, 2004; See also Woods (2009, p. 188 for further bibliography).
Anderson, William L. 2001. "The Party is Over," February 20
Anderson, William L. 2003. "Recovery or Boomlet?" July 07
Anderson, William L. 2007. "The Party is Over – Again," August 30
Armentano, Dominick. 2004. "Memo to Federal Reserve: Increase Interest Rates Now!"
Beale, Theodore. 2009. "The Return of the Great Depression"
Blumen, Robert. 2002. "Fannie Mae Distorts Markets." Mises Daily, June 17
Blumen, Robert. 2004. "All Real Estate, All the Time". March 8
Blumen, Robert. 2005. "Housing Bubble: Are We There Yet?" May 8
Corrigan, Sean. 2002. "The Trouble with Debt". July 01
Crovelli, Mark R. 2006. "Gold, Inflation, And... Austria?" May 31
De Coster, Karen. 2003. "The House that Greenspan Built: Irrationally Exuberant Wall Street Welfare Parasites and Their Fed-God." September 12
Duffy, Kevin. 2005A "The Super Bowl Indicator," February 5
Duffy, Kevin. 2005B. "Honey, I Shrunk the Net Worth," March 3
Duffy, Kevin. 2005C. "Alan, We Have a Problem," August 2
Duffy, Kevin. 2005D. "Panic Now and Beat the Rush," September 24
Duffy, Kevin. 2006. "Are Mortgage Borrowers Rational?" June 24
Duffy, Kevin. 2007A. "It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World," May 22
Duffy, Kevin. 2007B. "For Whom Do the Bells Toll?" Barron’s, June 18
Duffy, Kevin. 2007C. "Financial Markets on Crack," August 22
Duffy, Kevin. 2007D. "Mr. Mozilo Goes to Washington," September 15
Economics of contempt. 2008. "The Unofficial List of Pundits/Experts Who Were Wrong on the Housing Bubble." July 16
Englund, Eric. 2004. "Monetizing Envy and America’s Housing Bubble". July 19
Englund, Eric. 2005A. "Houses Are Consumer Durables, Not Investments," June 8
Englund, Eric. 2005B. "Diminishing Property Rights Will Lead to a Higher Rate of Mortgage Defaults." June 28
Englund, Eric. 2005C. "When the Housing Bubble Bursts, Will President Bush Practice Mugabenomics?" July, 19
Englund, Eric. 2005D. "When Will America's Housing Bubble Burst?" November 4
Englund, Eric. 2006. "The Federal Reserve and Housing: A Cluster of Errors?" April 22
Englund, Eric. 2007. "From Prime to Subprime, America's Home-Mortgage Meltdown Has Just Begun." September 24
Englund, Eric. 2008. "Countrywide Financial Corporation and the Failure of Mortgage Socialism." January 28
French, Doug. 2005. "Condo-mania." July 11
Grant, James. 2001. "Sometimes the Economy Needs a Setback." New York Times. September 9
Karlsson, Stefan. 2004. "America's Unsustainable Boom." November 8
Mayer, Chris. 2003. "The Housing Bubble." The Free Market. Volume 23, Number 8 August
Murphy, Robert P. 2007 "The Fed’s Role in the Housing Bubble." December 28
Murphy, Robert P. 2008. "Did the Fed, or Asian Saving, Cause the Housing Bubble?" November 19
North, Gary. 2002. "How the FED Inflated the Real Estate Bubble by Pushing Down Mortgage Rates: Report As of 2002," Reality Check, March 4
North, Gary. 2005. "Surreal Estate on the San Andreas Fault." November 25, 2005
Paul, Ron. 2000. "A Republic, If You Can Keep It" January 31
Paul, Ron, 2002. "Testimony to U.S. House of Representatives", July 16
Polleit, Thorsten. 2006. "Sowing the Seeds of the Next Crisis." April 25
Ptak, Justin. 2003. "Government Employees, Go Home!" November 12
Rockwell, Llewellyn H, Jr. 2008. The Left, the Right, and the State. Auburn, AL: The Mises Institute, 2008
Rogers, Jim. 2005. "Interview with Jim Rogers on the housing bubble." April 22
Schiff, Peter. "Peter Schiff predictions" (video) Undated A.
Schiff, Peter. "Peter Schiff Was Right" (video). Undated B.
Schiff, Peter. "Peter Schiff was right 2006-2007 - CNBC edition" (video). Undated C.
Schiff, Peter. "Peter Schiff Was Right Again " (video). Undated D.
Schiff, Peter. 2003A. Commentary, March
Schiff, Peter. 2003B. Commentary, April
Schiff, Peter. 2003C. Commentary, June
Schiff, Peter. 2004A. Commentary, May
Schiff, Peter. 2004B. Commentary, June
Schiff, Peter. 2005A. Commentary, April
Schiff, Peter. 2005B. Commentary, July
Schiff, Peter. 2005C. Commentary, August
Schiff, Peter. 2005D. Commentary, October
Schiff, Peter. 2006A. Appearance on CNBC, January (video)
Schiff, Peter. 2006B. Speech to the Money Show Conference, February (video)
Schiff, Peter. 2006C. Speech to the Western Regional Mortgage Bankers Conference in Las Vegas November (video, transcript)
Schiff, Peter. 2007A. Crash Proof: How to Profit From the Coming Economic Collapse (1st edition) New York, N.Y.: Wiley, February 2007
Schiff, Peter. 2007B. Appearance on Fox News – January 12 (video)
Sennholz, Hans F. 2002. "The Fed is Culpable." November 11
Shostak, Frank. 2003. "Housing Bubble: Myth or Reality?" March 4
Shostak, Frank. 2005 "Is There a Glut of Saving?" August 4
Thornton, Mark. 2004A. "'Bull' Market?" February 9.
Thornton, Mark. 2004B. "Housing: too good to be true." June 4
Thornton, Mark. 2005. "Is the Housing Bubble Popping?" , August
Thornton, Mark. 2006. "The Economics of Housing Bubbles.", June
Trask, H.A. Scott. 2003. "Reflation in American History." October 31
Wenzel, Robert. 2004. "Government Isn't God: FDIC Sticks Banks With Bad Loans and Sticks Borrowers With Subprime Junk."
Woods, Thomas E. Jr. 2009. Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse. Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing
The Skyscraper index shows a correlation between the construction of the world's tallest buildings and impending financial crises. While not developed by Austrian economists, it is compatible with their views about the business cycle.
I don't recall guillotines ever being trotted out by the freedom loving.
The statists are ALWAYS the ones ready to kill.
The French trotted out the guillotine many times during their revolution for their freedom from royalist rule. You need to learn history.
I seem to recall that we chopped the head off Charles I as well.
...and then the French revolutionaries instigated the Reign of Terror.
This was my point. They killed a few tyrants, then they turned into tyrants and killed thousands.
Robespierre was in NO way working for liberty. Quit that.
He sure did claim to be.
"The government in a revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny."
He also touted an idea that modern libertarians would probably agree with:
"Any institution which does not suppose the people good, and the magistrate corruptible, is evil."
His crony, Louis St.Juste had similar ideas:
"Insurrection is the exclusive right of the people and of the citizen."
"A people has but one enemy, the government."
Of course, libertarian Barry Goldwater might forgive them their excesses, because, according to him, "Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice."
The French revolution descended into its own despotism, but at its beginning, its ideals were the same as those in the American one.
I wonder if the US would have succeeded as it did if the loyalists hadn't been able to flee across a porous border to Canada, and had to stay and be persecuted as the Aristos did in revolutionary France
He murdered people who disagreed with him. He wasn't a libertarian.
Or would you like me to jump back on my "Hitler was a socialist" thing?
I can not take seriously anybody who claims that Hitler was a socialist.
He called his movement "national socialism" but it bore zero resemblance to what is commonly called or defined by economists or social scientists as socialism.
LOL, well-played. My point, however, was not that the Reign of Terror was a libertarian thing; we both know that's a load of hooey.
My point is that it started out that way, a revolt against the oppression of the old regime (which I'm sure you'd agree is the right of any oppressed people). It turned into something worse than the system it replaced, though, and the early ideals of the revolution were corrupted and perverted into La Terreur.
History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes.
You'll get no objection from me about how "giving people absolute control over military and legislative power" is a bad thing, as is what happened with Robespierre. (Oh, I spelled his name right on the first try this time).
That's my entire point.
Without a strong central government, who will protect the rights of minorities, of woment, homosexuals, Jews, Catholics in some areas, Protestants in others, Muslims, atheists and so in?
Who will protect our rivers, our air?
Who protects factory workers?
Who will keep our food safe?
The answer is obvious to those who think for themselves, for those of us who don't need protection from ourselves. You, I don't know, ask Santa.
The answers are not obvious. These are real problems and are exactly why we created the rules you hate so much.
I've answered this question so many times. Get the gunk out of your ears.
Really, did you wet yourself while writing that. Wow, I thought you were an adult.
That's insulting and childish.
I have asked serious questions that you have ignored.
No "nanny" makes the rules. We make our own rules and we make them because we recognize that the only way to have freedom from tyranny is to make rules that limit tyrants.
You are free. You just aren't free to hurt other people. A strong central government protects you and me and everyone else from ourselves - and WE create that government.
Now answer the questions like an adult would, if you can.
Pcunix, I've already explained how these things are NOT protected through a failure of government and how a libertarian society would actually protect these things.
But you've just yelled while you put your fingers in your ears. Don't ask questions you already have heard the answers to.
No, you haven't. You've explained how you'd protect YOUR interests.
As to Somalia, that's utterly ridiculous. "Better off"? That's your argument in favor of lawlessness?
... is your argument REALLY "people are better off, but that doesn't matter because there's no government"?
... really? That's your argument?
How do I even begin to argue with someone who can't see beyond "Government = God"
YOU can't argue because there is no rationality to your political stance.
This is EXACTLY what you wrote IMMEDIATELY following my statement "Somalians are better off now than they were under government rule"
"As to Somalia, that's utterly ridiculous. "Better off"? That's your argument in favor of lawlessness?"
Your argument is literally, "sure, they're better off. But they don't have a government. So they're NOT better off".
If you SERIOUSLY want to know, I'll link you the articles and books of people who have honestly sat down and tried to think it all through.
I'll link, but don't waste my time by responding without watching or reading at least a few of these. Before you begin, you must try to see beyond "god = government".
Oh, and also, all of these people (except Hazlitt, who died many years ago), saw the 2001 .com burst and the 2008-9 housing crash years in advance.
These are from Robert Murphy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDkGBOH9 … ure=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hegQyvh … ure=relmfu
This is from Henry Hazlitt. This is the book that convinced me that my previous pro-government stances were complete nonsense. Believe it or not, before I read this book I would have been on here demanding that you were right about libertarianism:
http://mises.org/books/economics_in_one … azlitt.pdf
Here's Walter Block. The first one illustrates perfectly the fallacy of government, especially democracy:
http://mises.org/media/2527/Defending-t … lter-Block
http://mises.org/media/3539/The-Privati … xsrc=video
Here's a fun one (and an altered one of the same) from the Schiff Family:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows … 047052670X
I'll give this a few days to sink in.
I just spend a few minutes in those cesspools.
I can't read or listen to people that are that far out of touch with reality.
I knew I shouldn't have wasted my time on you. I ACTUALLY thought you would listen to or read one of those things.
Jeez, I'm such a fool. "Hey, maybe someone will actually read what I post". Why the hell do I even bother coming on to these forums? Obviously I can't change your mind, as you have no mind to change.
Pcunix: You can't make poverty illegal; governments are what prevent gays from being married; governments are what keep minorities down; and governments have a HORRIBLE track record for 'not killing people'.
That's a wrap. See ya in the funny papers.
Here's my dilemma...although a strong centralized government does protect us and provide us with things we need, at times it can be invasive of our rights, just as it can protect them.
Although a weaker government would be less invasive, it would also be less protective...
No animal is safer than the one in the cage.
After the fall of the Soviet Union there became pretty much emasculated governments there and in the satellite countries. And who took over? The
Waiting for the red light in right lane. Red car zooms in all the way across the walk lane partly
into the cross street, waited for the left turning
cars to pass in front, and then took off and ran the red. First for me. Must have been a libertarian.
I just thought I would toss this out there.
Libertarianism is to Darwinism as...?
No, "we" don't make the rules the politicians make the rules to benefit themselves. Do you really expect to give a group of people the monopoly over the use of force (Remember the government can enslave via conscription, murder via war, steal via taxation. If we as individuals tried this we would be thrown in jail.) and all of the advanced weaponry in the world and say "Please don't be tyrannical"? The U.S. is a centralized state and it has become tyrannical. Look at the Patriot Act, Stop Online Piracy Act, the unjustified wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan etc etc. Wow! Thanks for protecting me government! The centralized state is the greatest mass murderer in history. Look at Mao, Hitler, and Stalin. These people are responsible for the deaths of close to 100 million people.
We are not the government nor do we create it.
Now we are at pollution. The government is the greatest polluter in the history of mankind. They've dropped nuclear weapons, used uranium laced shells overseas, and allow corporations to pollute property(which includes your body) by dumping toxic chemicals into water and pushing them into the air. Of course, the government says well those corporations are there for the "greater good" so we'll allow them to pollute other people's person and property as long as they pay us off. A libertarian society would protect private property rights which would not allow companies to pollute any part of the Earth that was someone else's property which once again includes your body.
Rights of minorities? Please, it was the force of government that allowed the explotation of minorities for hundreds of years through slavery. The Fugitive Slave Acts made it an obligation for slaves to be brought back to their owners which perpetuated slavery in the United States until after the Civil War. Do you know how slavery was ended in Brazil? The government stopped running after slaves who left their plantations. Now, we come to today. The laws don't change peoples minds only one can want to change their own mind when it comes to ending racism. Also, can you imagine what would happen if someone put up a "No Blacks Allowed" sign in a restaurant today? There would be a tremendous outcry from vairious organizations, there would be picketing in front of the restaurant, and the restaurant would be out of business in a matter of a few weeks if not days. See, no government needed here.
Typical selfish responses from the Right - if THEY would be better off,who gives a damn about anyone else?
That's the reality of the GOP and the Libertrarians. Selfish, small minded and cruel.
No, I don't , but there are plenty of people who would suffer misery under your Libertarian society.
Apparently, you just don't care. Either that, or you are extraordinarily naive. So which is it? Is it that you don't care about their misery or you don't believe that without a strong Federal government discrimination would occur?
Is it because you are all too young to remember what was done to minorities, homosexuals, women, Jews, negroes before we had Federal legislation or that you just don't care?
Do you know WHY we enacted OSHA? Do you know WHY we have Federal laws about pollution and workers rights to organize?
It is astonishing to me either way: completely clueless or callously cruel, both seem impossible, but there you are.
There are hundreds of millions that suffered under government.
in HORRIBLE ways.
Also, may I remind you that all of those horrible things were done under the watchful eyes of government.
Government didn't end ANY of those brutal practices. You claim that government needs to be set up to protect the minorities, YET IT HAS FAILED TO SO IN SO MANY WAYS.
You can't possible respond to this. You keep claiming that government protects everyone AND YET IT DOESN'T.
If only you would put government under the same light that you put libertarianism under, you'd see the OBVIOUS fallacy of your argument.
How old are you? Do you have any idea how far we have come in this country with regard to civil rights for people of color, for woman, for homosexuals? I LIVED through it.
We aren't perfect yet - far from it. But we have advanced and it is the power of a central government that has enabled that.
You're acting like GOVERNMENT made people nice to homosexuals
That's complete nonsense, and I won't even entertain it. COMPLETE nonsense.
If anything made people less hate-filled to homosexuals, it was because the market pointed out how foolish hatred is through things like mass-media.
Laws regarding homosexuality - which are nearly impossible to hide - need to be passed with massive approval from the population; the approval of homosexuals came FIRST, and THEN the laws came.
Yes, regardless of your inability to understand the role of government in protecting our freedoms, that is reality.
Absolutely correct. Until enough people came to their senses, we could not make any progress against slavery, enfranchisement of women, homosexual rights or any other civil rights issue.
What you blindly miss is that not everyone has reached that point. There are still people who hate minorities, think women are inferior and would cheerfully go beat up any homosexual they can find. Without a central government to protect those rights, pockets of those ugly people would still run roughshod over rights. We have these problems in many backward states right now even with the laws.. your libertarian lunacy would give them free rein.
Unfortunately, PQ is right. We still have a surprising number of rednecks here in the Deep South who think women, blacks, and Hispanics are inferior to white males. Some also think that homosexuals deserve to be beaten up and abused.
And, equally unfortunately, many States and local governments will turn a blind eye.
They'll also look the other way when a big employer wants to pollute - especially if the crap flows or blows into another State. They'll ignore labor laws for that employer, too and as more companies flocked to those loose States, other States would feel pressure to relax their regulation.
Libertarianism is the province of the naive.
And, what, you think a law will make them act nice?
No. Hate crimes don't end just because a law is passed.
Pcunix: "Until enough people came to their senses, we could not make any progress against slavery, enfranchisement of women, homosexual rights or any other civil rights issue. "
THEN WHY ARE YOU ARGUING THAT GOVERNMENT GIVES PEOPLE RIGHTS? You aren't even coherent!
God what a waste of time: This will be my last attempt to discuss with you. I know you won't read this, so I'm posting this for others to see the fallacy of your argument.
Everyone hated (insert minority). So, the majority used government to take away their God-Given rights. Slowly, through market interaction, the majority came to realize that hating the (insert minority) was foolish. So, they began to relax their tyranny. There are still pockets of people who have not come to like (insert minority), and even if a law is passed, they still won't want to interact with (insert minority).
Government doesn't make people nice, it allows evil to spread.
Pcunix, I'll see you around. Enjoy making freedom illegal.
Would Massachusetts be one of those backward states?
How about New York?
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mc … ate-crime/
Government is quite the nanny huh?
You are just proving my point.
These are crimes. In a Libertarian state, they might not be.
Violently attacking someone is an infringement of their property rights. Such acts would be a crime in a libertarian society.
It's disturbing that, even after I explained libertarian beliefs to you, you still got this wrong.
However, not serving someone in your restaurant because they were [insert minority description] would NOT be a crime.
"Violently attacking someone is an infringement of their property rights. Such acts would be a crime in a libertarian society."
But Somalis violently attack people off the Somali coast, kidnap them, hold them for ransom, steal their property, etc. We don't hear about Somalis getting together and rounding up those pirates to make them answer for their crimes against people's property rights, do we? I suppose it could be happening, but with Somalia's excellent and robust telecommunications network, you'd think it'd hit the news wires, yeah?
Your point is that government would put a stop to these crimes, these crimes happen in backward states. My point is that in two of the most governmental intrusive states these crimes occurred. So much for your theory. In a libertarian state these crimes would be dealt with more harshly, and you know it.
No, my point is that Libertarian society isn't even sociiety. It's not a matter of whether we are good at this now, it is a matter of how awful it would be if you people ever got your way. Not that you will, of course: most people recognize the folly of your stance.
Society can and has existed without formalized central governance many times throughout history.
To produce a list would be pointless because it is beyond clear that society must exist before anyone would ever want to centralize control.
Which makes more sense:
a) "There are a bunch of people working here in peace and prosperity. I'll scare them into thinking there's a threat and then begin to take their money!"
b) "I'll scare people and take their money, THEN people will come and live here!"
Society comes before governance.
That's incredibly naive. The only people who ever live without governance are hermits. Every other society has its rules and the larger the society gets, the more central power is needed.
But that's Libertarianism: naive thinking. No recognition of reality.
Evan and reality are ships that pass in the night.
This is unbelievable!! Filth! Hypocrisy! and vile nonsense!
I can't believe what I'm hearing!
"Those who don't have any governance are hermits".
What complete nonsense. Governance by force (non-libertarian) is completely different than governance by free-association (libertarian/anarchist). This is probably the 90th time I've explained this throughout my ventures on HubPages.
You can't seem to make this distinction, yet you're calling the people who have freedom "hermits".
Pcunix: "I DEMAND GAY RIGHTS!! PROTECT THE GAY RIGHTS!! MINORITIES ARE IMPORTANT!! PROTECT RIGHTS!!! ... if you don't have your income stolen by some people you've never met, then you're a freaking hermit... PROTECT MINORITIES!!"
"Laws regarding homosexuality - which are nearly impossible to hide - need to be passed with massive approval from the population; the approval of homosexuals came FIRST, and THEN the laws came."
Not always. All of the early advances in civil rights for gay people came from court decisions--that is, government.
The People usually freaked out all over the place and moved to overrule the courts by amending their state's constitution or impeaching the judges that had the temerity to rule that gay people deserve the same right as straight people. Iowa's Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality, and now the justices who voted in favor are off the bench.
From the DesMoines Register "Groups that wanted the justices ousted poured more than $650,000 into their effort, with heavy support from out-of-state conservative and religious groups. Campaigns that supported the justices and the current state court system spent more than $200,000."
So government tried to support liberty, but powerful, wealthy nongovernment interests worked against liberty.
You forgot the last part of your story:
"And then government gave up trying to enforce equality because, in situations like these, you need the approval of the people before you can govern them".
Which then proves my point.
"And then government [temporarily] gave up trying to enforce equality because" it had been bought and co-opted by a wealthy and powerful group who didn't believe in equality under the law for minorities they don't like.
By the way, I really wish we lived near each other. I'd really enjoy talking with you over coffee, or beer.
Well, Habee, I'm sorry, but there aren't enough of you to change the color of the paint. Your party is polluted by this and if you can't see what they are doing to our country and are not speaking against it, you are part of the problem.
You are absolutely right. There are many Republicans who are just as squishy and silly as Democrats. Perhaps this election will push more of them out of office also. The 2010 election saw several Republican weenies pushed from office along with their colleagues across the aisle. Republicans like John McCain have been the ruination of the country ceding the ideological battle ground to a political class that has brought the country to the edge of disaster and continues to push. It is the same political class that has brought Europe to an economic disaster that Europeans do not have the political will to fix. It is the same political classs that seeks to sap the will of Americans to resist the all encompassing state.
Be squishy in the face of an economic "philosophy" that does not understand humanity, economics or the nature of either and you are broad minded and kind. Resist the foolishness and cruelty that strips individuals of their natural rights and their liberty and you are mean and narrow minded. There is nothing more cruel than the grinding mediocrity of the all encompassing state - the state the liberals love and squishy moderates permit.
But the political class that has brought Europe to its knees is the right wing who see no reason to fix a system that makes them a lot of money.
Left-wing: "Let's steal trillions from our population, and then throw it away on unprofitable ventures"
*a huge thunderous crash occurs*
"Damn those right-wingers!"
I was unaware that Angela Merkel was a Social Democrat, I thought she was Christian Democrat. Ironically Germany is about to gain control over the Eurozone without firing a shot. To ad to the irony, it all depends on what the Bavarians decide.
Sorry I don't fit PQ's description of "selfish, small-minded, and cruel." I help others whenever I can. I think we do need a "safety net" for some of our citizens - I just think the net needs to be smaller and more selective. Also, I don't think we should just throw money at problems without a real attempt to "fix" the root of the problem.
You still haven't refuted any of the arguments for libertarianism. You're giving nothing but ad hominem fallacies such as "your selfish" "clueless" or "your cruel". It's ok though statism is dying and liberty is rising.
Excuse me? I asked who will protect minority rights without a strong central government. The original post referenced an article that shows what Libertarianism has brought in actual practice. I asked who will protect our food, our air, our water, the safety of workers.
But then you pop in making this claim? So typical - did you even READ any of this thread or did you just jump in here?
From my first post. Rights of minorities? Please, it was the force of government that allowed the explotation of minorities for hundreds of years through slavery. The Fugitive Slave Acts made it an obligation for slaves to be brought back to their owners which perpetuated slavery in the United States until after the Civil War. Do you know how slavery was ended in Brazil? The government stopped running after slaves who left their plantations. Now, we come to today. The laws don't change peoples minds only one can want to change their own mind when it comes to ending racism. Also, can you imagine what would happen if someone put up a "No Blacks Allowed" sign in a restaurant today? There would be a tremendous outcry from vairious organizations, there would be picketing in front of the restaurant, and the restaurant would be out of business in a matter of a few weeks if not days. See, no government needed here.
Voluntary action by individuals is the most moral and efficient than the use of force through government to achieve social goals. You see, you suffer from the same fallacious thinking people did in the 1830's when they said, "If we get rid of slavery then who will pick the cotton?" First and foremost it doesn't matter. Slavery is wrong. Second, the cotton must get picked. People want their rights protected. The use of force (via the government) or threatening to use force to achieve social goals is wrong no matter what. This is the non-agression principle of libertarianism. Lastly, the government when trying to achieve these goals does something called taxation which is theft since nobody voluntarily pays taxes.
And, to follow up from my "Somalia is doing much better without a government than it was WITH a government" post...
... here's why Socialism fails:
Here are the victims of Famine, which was used by the leaders to kill dissenters:
... Here's why Democracy fails:
NIXON!! MAO ZEDONG!!!
PUTIN!! KWAME NKRUMAH!!
and so many more! (See, "Democracy, the God that Failed")
I could go on, but I think you get my point. Every step towards "centralization" is one step closer to a dictatorship.
Why, just the other day the Federal government arrested some people for smoking weed when it was legal in their state.
Really? No response to the OBVIOUS argument: "government ain't so great"?
Oh, and here's another wonderful device that was used once a tyrant was put in place into a government position! They found it was MUCH easier to use it than to govern justly.
Aww, no response for "government has a horrible track-record for defending freedom and prosperity"?
Do we work for the Government or does the government work for us?
Are we not all human beings or is there a higher level of being which rises above the Law of equality? Are these beings infallible? Are all government personnel of this higher grade of humanity?
It is still "We the People" right?
In the mid 90, I used to go to Libertarian meetings in South Africa. Everybody was doing well financially - either self employed or fairly highly placed in the corporate world. They were also all men - with some very strange sexual appetites.
It didn't take me long to realize that these people were blinded by their own intense desire to do exactly what they liked in areas that were currently regulated against.
For instance, they enjoyed porn and wanted it deregulated so that they could watch it without breaking the law.
One guy was a pedophile and he loved something that he didn't want regulated. He thought all regulations in this are should be removed because it was a personal matter.
When I questioned a very rich man who has since become an ex-friend, he was adamant that industry would look after the environment and that people who owned companies (he owned many and was very, very rich) would ensure that the environment was protected.
For reasons beyond me, it never occurred to any of them that if one deregulates, a lot of people would commit many crimes. They were all of the opinion that human beings were very good people, that didn't do wrong things, and that deregulation allowing everybody to do exactly as they liked would make everybody prosperous.
And, of course, they all raved about Ayn Rand. I have to tell you that I read every single Ayn Rand book in the 60s and 70s, and the series of book retains the unflattering comment that they are and remain the most boring and stupid books I have ever read.
My opinion of the Libertarian philosophy? Well, if people were saints, it might work. Unhappily, people are not saints. Well, except for me and Pcunix.
If you think that a pedophile will keep kids away from him when it's against the law...
... just look at the Catholic Church and Penn State for immediate dismissal of your obviously incorrect premise.
Molesting children is an abuse of their God-Given right to ownership of their body. If the government or church can't secure these rights, then they've failed their duty.
Quoting crazy people over and over doesn't negate their insanity, Evan.
Way back in the mists of time, I studied for (and somehow passed) a science degree.
Part of my studying involved learning a bit about the scientific method and how prediction is a vital tool for testing the strength of a hypothesis.
It strikes me that if libertarian economists are the only ones who consistently predict economic downturns while the other types of economist have no idea what is coming to hit us even a year or two down the line (as Evan's Peter Schiffer YouTube clip graphically demonstrates), then perhaps you should take off the blinkers.
I'm not a libertarian myself (chance would be a fine thing in Britain anyway), but you don't have to be a libertarian to acknowledge that libertarians are totally correct when they say things like "having an economy that's based on debt and consumption is a really crap idea".
You think that's a Libertarian idea?
That's an opinion and not even one that is universally shared. However, as an opinion, it is at least respectable.
It's their solution that is insane. Abandon most of government and let business and individuals make their own rules???
Blah blah blah - the libertarians got it right. Take off your lampshade headdress and see the world for what it is.
I quoted you over 200 individual predictions of economic matters by major libertarian schools of thought that ALL came true with resounding accuracy.
Arguing with you is pointless. I'm responding to your statements for the benefit of others who want to see the truth.
Empress Felicity. ""having an economy that's based on debt and consumption is a really crap idea".
Not even the Democrats or labor believe that it's a good idea to have an economy based on debt and consumption. Having an economy based on consumption is strictly a Libertarian and Republican (conservative) idea.
The debt is a result of spending money on war and other daft ideas instead of on education (number 1). Everything else flows as a result of a lack of education.
Actually there are people who think consumption is a good idea. They have to be at least partially right - if we were all self sufficient, we wouldn't have much of an economy. I think that's a laudable goal (self sufficiency) but there are some wrinkles in the fabric.
The war thing is utterly stupid. Not necessarily the wars themselves - I'm not able to say with certainty that we should have or shouldn't have. I tend toward "shouldn't", but I don't get a PDB every morning.
What is undeniably stupid is fighting wars and refusing to pay for them with increased taxes. Right now, THAT stupidity falls mostly on Republican shoulders, though the Dems have done their share of evasion in the past.
I certainly wasn't advocating a return to complete self-sufficiency for everyone - that would be the total opposite end of the spectrum!
But even you have to acknowledge that our consumption-heavy economies are bound to run out of steam sooner or later.
I read somewhere that in Britain, the average adult is something like £10K in debt, and that's not including any mortgage borrowing! As long as you've got a job and a regular income coming in, it's not a problem. But if enough people lose their jobs (as is starting to happen now), then it has a knock-on effect. Jobless people can't afford to take on any more debt, so the market for all that nice shiny stuff in the shops shrinks, and with it, the retail industry. It's a domino effect. And because in Britain at least, we don't seem to make that much ourselves any more, we don't have enough of a manufacturing/production base to fall back on and at least mitigate the effects of the downturn. And people don't grow much of their own food or - in a lot of cases - even know how to cook. We are living in a dependency culture, and most of us don't realise just how dependent we are.
You might think from reading what I've just said that I would advocate trade tariffs and isolationism, but I don't. I think the whole production/consumption/debt thing is something that people will have to work out for themselves, because most government "solutions" (AFAICT) cause yet more problems down the line.
People are working it out. Savings are way up and consumption is way down..
Savings is a form of consumption in a normal economic system.
In fact, the entire Austrian Business Cycle Theory explains how this works. Hayek won a Nobel Prize for the explanation.
I'm sure I won't convince Pcunix of my argument, he's long gone. I post this for the other readers who want to understand the world.
As saving increases, two things happen:
a) Interest rates go down: as more money is available to loan, the price of lending money goes down!
b) Stuff is cheaper: Because people aren't buying things, prices naturally go down due to a decreased demand.
Because these things happn, long term projects can be undertaken and sustained. Building a Skyscraper takes many years -- from the construction of the shovels that dig the iron out of the ground, to the final steel beam being put into place perhaps 10 years go by.
This is perfectly sustainable.
However, if money is created out of thin air then only ONE of the previously listed things occurs:
a) Interest rates go down: with more money available to lend, interest rates go down.
b) however, prices do not decrease: because the decreased interest rates are only available because there is more money, this does NOT mean that people are consuming less.
This means that more people are buying things. As demand increases, prices go higher. As prices go higher, the long-term investments made end up costing more and more as time goes on. Eventually a bust occurs.
Libertarians aren't on the right.
The goal of an economy isn't employment OR GDP.
Watch and read the links I posted and you'll see the truth.
I don't think so - the consumption/debt thing has been with us for quite a while now, regardless of which party is in office.
War is one of the things that we go into debt over, sure. But so is education. Ask anyone who is in hock up to the eyeballs with a student loan.
Yes. But the Right wing keeps blaming our debt on social programs rather than placing the blame where it belongs. They are also currently refusing to raise taxes to pay for it, preferring to gut social programs and ignore needed infrastructure repairs/improvements instead.
As usual, brilliant plan.
Read Economics in One Lesson to understand why your argument is feeble and will never convince anyone except the young and naive.
The Seen vs. the Unseen: You see the man fixing the newly broken window, but you don't see the new coat the man who had to pay to fix the window COULD have bought.
Empress, thank you for defending the OBVIOUSLY impeccable record of the Austrian School of Economics.
I would suggest not wasting your time arguing with Pcunix, he has clearly disowned the ability to change his mind.
I quoted 200+ specific accurate predictions made by the school, yet he still claims they're wrong.
"It strikes me that if libertarian economists are the only ones who consistently predict economic downturns"
Hmm, libertarian economists have predicted ten out of the last three recessions. Maybe we should start listening to them.
Nonsense. Show me a supposed recession they falsely predicted.
Ones that are currently in the process of being realized are not fair game.
If you predict that a downturn will come, you're right. It's just a question of waiting.
So many things can alter the timing of a collapse that deciding on a date is foolish.
If you read the quotes provided regarding the Austrian School of Economics, they predict things without dates, but they explain how it will happen. Then when the exact events they said would happen actually do happen, people say "bah, it could have been any time. You just said 'things will crash', but didn't tell us when".
Watch these videos of Ron Paul and Peter Schiff. There's no way you can even begin to say they didn't see it coming.
Paul specifically mentions Fannie and Freddie, and Schiff points to the housing bubble.
"The Federal Reserve credit created during the last 8 months has NOT stimulated economic growth..."
... sound familiar? The Fed has created $20 Trillion out of thin air. Give it a while to show where the next bubble will be.
"Paul specifically mentions Fannie and Freddie,"
Who didn't start the process, and only got into the game when the bubble was well under way. Their participation was minimal, their effects equally so.
The housing bubble is government's fault inasmuch as government repealed Glass-Steagall, allowed the unregulated creation of toxic assets, and didn't investigate securities fraud or prosecute those responsible. I'm with you that far. And of course, government ineptitude is guilty of creating the bailouts and TARP as an ill-conceived response to the bubble popping.
But neither the government nor quasi-governmental corporations caused the bubble. That happened when people in private mortgage-lenders figured out that they could sell off bad loans to unsuspecting investors if they bundled them together and pretended that the bundle wasn't made of mortgages that should never have been written.
No. the Crash was because of credit expansion under the Federal Reserve.
Where'd the money come from? People weren't suddenly interested in being ultra-greedy all of the sudden. They chose to use the money that flowed like mana from heaven, and the government put a funnel into the housing sector.
If you can show me some sort of "greed index" which shows a dramatic increase in the amount of greed in the hearts of investors, I'll begin to consider your argument.
Sorry Pcunix, the libertarians were right.
Deal with the fact that they predicted every major economic and political event of the last century.
Economics isn't a science because Humans have the ability to think. This is why things like "double blind" testing have been introduced to medicinal studies.
I'll see ya in the bread lines. I'll be the guy buying steaks with the silver coins I've collected.
This is a portion of the speech that President John F. Kennedy gave at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel on April 27, 1961. "The President and the Press" before the American Newspaper Publishers Association.
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."
http://www.thepowerhour.com/news3/jfk_s … script.htm
The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
Mathematically Impossible To Pay Off The U.S. National Debt", has created a ton of controversy and has generated over 100 comments so far. Much of the discussion has been about the role of the Federal Reserve and how they create money and debt. The truth is that the Federal Reserve system is a very complex subject that is very difficult to get a handle on. One thing that the Federal Reserve is NOT is a government agency. In fact, it is about as "federal" as Federal Express. It is a private central bank designed to make money for the people who created it. In fact, the Federal Reserve was the culmination of an effort by the international banking elite to force a permanent private central bank on the American people that began all the way back during the days of our Founding Fathers.
But don't just take our word for it. The following are famous quotes about the Federal Reserve and central banking from past presidents, congressmen and other notable historical figures....
"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States."
-Sen. Barry Goldwater
It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
"The regional Federal Reserve banks are not government agencies. ...but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations."
-Lewis vs. United States, 680 F. 2d 1239 9th Circuit 1982
"The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the International bankers."
-Congressman Louis T. McFadden
“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson.”
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt
"As soon as Mr. Roosevelt took office, the Federal Reserve began to buy government securities at the rate of ten million dollars a week for 10 weeks, and created one hundred million dollars in new [checkbook] currency, which alleviated the critical famine of money and credit, and the factories started hiring people again."
"This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill."
-Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. , 1913
"When you or I write a check there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money."
-Putting it simply, Boston Federal Reserve Bank
"We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it."
-Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932
“The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it’s profits or so dependent on it’s favors, that there will be no opposition from that class.”
-Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863
"While boasting of our noble deeds were careful to conceal the ugly fact that by an iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery."
"The Federal Reserve bank buys government bonds without one penny..."
-Congressman Wright Patman, Congressional Record, Sept 30, 1941
"...the increase in the assets of the Federal Reserve banks from 143 million dollars in 1913 to 45 billion dollars in 1949 went directly to the private stockholders of the [federal reserve] banks."
"The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board administers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money"
-Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., 1923
"Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money and control credit, and with a flick of a pen they will create enough to buy it back."
-Sir Josiah Stamp, former President, Bank of England
"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation."
"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce."
-James A. Garfield, President of the United States
"A great industrial nation is controlled by it's system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world--no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men."
-President Woodrow Wilson
"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance."
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
“The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.”
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws"
-Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
Are you starting to get the picture?
The Federal Reserve is at the center of a controversy over central banking that has been around since the very beginning of the United States. But unfortunately, the Federal Reserve system is so incredibly complex and the American people of today are so uneducated that the vast majority of people out there simply do not even understand enough about what is going on to get upset about anything.
But that is changing. An increasing number of people are starting to wake up. Instead of thinking that "we'll get this debt under control if we could just get the right person in the White House", more Americans than ever are realizing that it is the Federal Reserve that is the root of our debt problem.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/arch … al-banking
If you had even the faintest grasp of history... oh, never mind. You don't and never will.
I am a little surprised by this statement? Oh well Pc, have a nice new year.
Go learn WHY we created the Federal Reserve and what horrible financial turmoil it was designed to fix.
Is it perfect? No. Has it been misused at times? Of course. But we need it just the same and anyone who says otherwise doesn't know beans about it.
We may disagree, that is fine. My ignorance of the subject is a fallacy. Are you sure that your post is relevant to your beliefs?
"The United States People Was Betrayed In 1913 By The Federal Reserve Act Manipulating The USA Money Supply"
Please do not read but do not state that I have no knowledge of the subject?
That is exactly why I say you are ignorant of why we created this institution. Just the use of "betrayed" tells me that instantly.
No, it tells you that we disagree. Declaring me ignorant only reflects on yourself for not being accepting of the fact that there are those that disagree with you.
Pc, your arguments fall very short when you have to resort to an attack of a messenger instead of responding to the message. In your "I know best and everyone who does not agree with me is stupid" attitude is why your kind is slowly finding themselves irrelevant and inevitably extinct.
Keep holding on to your beliefs of Fictions all the while judging others for their beliefs.
We are Legion!
Oh really, you must of gotten the "Official" version of why we have The Un-Federal Reserve
"we" didn't create the federal reserve. This shows utter ignorance on your part:
Once again, Pcunix is lost. I post this history lesson for those who want to know why milk used to cost a nickel, and why Pennies no longer have copper in them.
The federal reserve was created through a piece of legislation written, literally, by the very banks who would be controlling it. The legislation was passed just before Christmas because the few congressmen who were paid off by the banksters stayed and made sure Congress wouldn't adjourn. The legislation was passed when a handful of congressmen were there to vote.
Here's more information about our banking system and how the Fed works:
This video was brought to you by the Austrian School of Economics, that is, those who predicted the housing bubble years in advance.
Libertarians are wannabe anarquists who want the protection of the government and the institutions to protect their wealth and opportunity to become wealthy while denying opportunities to the less fortunate. they want the fox roaming free inside the chicken coup where the chicken are also free.
The federal reserve was created by private bankers
who then the same year created the federal income tax, since the government would have to borrow all its money from them, and needed a revenue stream to pay the interest.
"The Four Horsemen of Banking (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo) own the Four Horsemen of Oil (Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP and Chevron Texaco); in tandem with Deutsche Bank, BNP, Barclays and other European old money behemoths. But their monopoly over the global economy does not end at the edge of the oil patch."
"According to company 10K filings to the SEC, the Four Horsemen of Banking are among the top ten stock holders of virtually every Fortune 500 corporation."
Society is organized around two central values: Freedom and Justice. which align with Individualism and Communitarianism. Liberty ultimately must imply responsibility and limits. The limits are determined ultimately by community. It is hard to keep these two crucial values in mind simultaneously when shaping one's political philosophy. I tend to agree with libertarians that government has become overweening, paternalistic and intrusive. Even worse it is trending toward totalitarianism. However, it is also clear to me that people need to come together to regulate corporate power. We need environmental laws. We need labor laws. We need mechanisms for sharing educational opportunity more fairly. We need all kinds of community oriented activities that need to REQUIRE participation of everyone in order to be fair and effective. I agree with Ron Paul that we need to shrink the military, give up our imperialist fantasies, and BE a example of freedom rather than try to impose it on others. On the other hand, he carries libertarianism too far when he seems to want to move us back to a kind of 19th century social darwinism or frontierism where everyone carries a gun to enforce his or her own idea of justice.
to say that Ron Paul wants us to revert back to social darwinism is misinformation at best and a lie at worst.
As I read Paul, he argues for: deregulated free-market capitalism and a return to the gold standard. But his idea of free-market capitalism Is not sufficiently attentive to the history of exploitation it represents. It seems to me that he still wants to sneak monopolistic business in under the skirts of "freedom." It's true that he doesn't like the conjunction of big business with big government, but he seems a lot more worried about big government than big business. Libertarians tend to decry big government while giving corporations a pass while they destroy the planet. Meanwhile Paul attacks some of the most successful social programs in history such as social security.
I don't mean to be overly critical of RP because in many ways I am aligned with his views. I just wish he would talk a bit more about justice and a bit less about liberty. His opinions about gun control are neanderthal. Again, an example of sacrificing justice for liberty. I am appalled by how our media and the politicrats in the Republican Party try to marginalize Paul....as they do Kucinich in the Democratic Party. But, if Paul were the Republican Nominee and Kucinich the democratic nominee, I would vote for Kucinich. And if it were a 3 way race between Bernie Sanders, independent, Kucinich and Paul....I would vote for Sanders.
Show me ONE example of REAL monopolization that was BAD for the consumer that did NOT have governmental-regulations to make it possible.
You're gonna have a hard time.
The idea of enforced community participation sends shivers down my spine. Reminds me of the things my mother told me about growing up in Nazi Germany.
Each time you pay your taxes. Each time we pave our roads. Each time you obey speed limits, pay parking tickets, build a public school, use a public utility, keep a public library open, hire a teacher, pay a public official's salary you have an example of enforced community participation. Perhaps the locution "enforced community participation" was an unfortunate turn of phrase with unpleasant resonances.
Each time you buy a sandwich, each time you buy a screwdriver, each time you buy anything, each time you talk with someone, each time you pay your rent, each time you buy doritos, each time you buy a pencil, each time you enjoy a privately owned institution, each time you... (the list could go on for decades).
Each time you engage in the free-market, you're doing the EXACT SAME THING but through FREEDOM.
Your argument is DOA because, just like the OP, you fail to put the same expectations against the government as you do the market.
Would that we could simply do away with governments. Maybe we will in some ideal future, thousands of years hence.
"Your argument is DOA because, just like the OP, you fail to put the same expectations against the government as you do the market."
"The government" and "the market" are different animals.
Take public education. Leaving aside the philosophical argument about why it's my responsibility to pay for your kid to learn to read (and why it's good for me that your kid is literate), let's talk about the practical arguments that "prove" private schools are "better" than public ones.
Those arguments fail because a private school can control whom it teaches, and can require parental involvement. A public school must teach all comers, whether their parents are involved or not (the best predictor of student success), whether the kid is smart, average, stupid, or cognitively impaired, whether the kid comes from a wealthy family with all his creature needs met or a poor one with constant hunger and poor medical care.
Plus, public schools have to deal with the fact that there are a lot of people who believe that government can't possibly work, and then get elected and do their best to prove it.
When you show me a private school who accepts all students who apply, regardless of the parents' ability to pay or be involved in school activities, regardless of the kids' academic ability or level of physical, mental, or emotional disability, and is run by a group of people, about a third of whom have a vested interest in the school failing, and it still outperforms public schools, then I'll concede that government has no place in educating our kids.
I was at a nearby school recently, and the Principal was talking about all the wonders and glorious things their public school has accomplished.
Then I heard her say "If one more handicapped student enters our school, we'll be downgraded and will lose funding".
This is a travesty.
And, I mean this with absolutely NO malice, many people don't use the education they get. College is nearly worthless, I'm sure you sat in many of you classes and thought "jeezus, these kids don't actually care what their professor is saying."
Many of my fellow students, even in Grad school, were more eager to leave than to listen to their professors.
Many of the people who "need" educations actually don't.
Most of my friends who have great jobs openly admit that they don't need half of what they learned even in High School - for daily life OR their job. I have yet to see any of my schools offer computer programming as a class, yet this is where the jobs are.
Indeed, many private schools DO get to choose who they teach.
But one reason why they're so picky is because they're competing with mandatory education.
Oh, and guess what, colleges can pick who they accept, yet a huge number of people have bachelor's degrees.
Education is NOT a right -- even though I'm sure you'll say it is -- because you do NOT have the right to other people's labor and property.
Is education important? Yes of course.
Is food important? God, yes. Much more than education.
"But one reason why they're so picky is because they're competing with mandatory education."
How does that work? They have a product that people are required to buy! (Or provide for themselves.) Parents must educate their kids in some way. They're not competing with mandatory education. If anything, the mandatory education requirement is helping the private schools. It's not like parents can decide not to send their kids to some school or other (well, they can home-school, but this is a lot harder than most people realize).
"Oh, and guess what, colleges can pick who they accept"
Sure, because when you're going to college, you're an adult, and considered competent to make your own decisions about how much education you need. You don't have to go to college. Heck, you don't have to finish high school if you turn 18 before you graduate.
And you're absolutely right that most people don't use their degree directly every day, in private or professional life. But I wouldn't say that college is worthless. It's not so much the facts or figures that we learn that helps us out, its the practice thinking about what those facts mean, and articulating those thoughts (or making good decisions based on them) that helps in work and daily life.
" have yet to see any of my schools offer computer programming as a class,"
My (public) high school offered computer programing in the 1980s, and the (also public) one my kids will attend offers it now.
Another critical flaw to the education requirement is that the private school prices are inordinately high. If there was actual market competition and no official requirement, there would be more incentive to lower prices and increase quality of education.
In Michigan everyone is required to have car liability insurance. This seems quite reasonable to me, and it works quite well in the public interest.
Here is an interesting critique of Ron Paul along the lines of some of my earlier comments about Justice and Liberty.
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/03/race_li … _ron_paul/
Did the Civil Rights Act of 1964 put America on the path to a police state? The answer is yes, according to Ron Paul, the Texas Republican Congressman and candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, Paul explained that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “destroyed the principle of private property and private choices” and “undermine[d] the concept of liberty.”
Ron Paul is beyond the pale. He should go back to delivering babies.
It's funny that you act like that, when the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA have both passed our legislative and executive system. TSA, Homeland security....
They have nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act except that all of them were supported by a majority of both parties. That doesn't make them good law as is the Civil Rights Act. Slavery was not questioned by most of our founding fathers, and women were chattel. Does that make it right? We are gradually becoming more civilized. The Civil Rights Act is just one more point on the road toward civilization.
"Women were chattel" That would have been news to most Yankee women of the times.
Women were not allowed to vote, and under law they were disadvantaged in several ways involved with inheritance, property ownership and in their spousal relationships.
Here's a UNICEF treatise on "women as chattel."
Untrue. Women were voting in colonial times. Women voted after the Constitution was written. A woman ran for President, despite the perfect and pure Federal government of the United States denying women the vote. Women in Wyoming Territory were regular voters until Wyoming became a state.
Seems to me the common denominator in women losing the vote is the federal government.
There was a profound disagreement among the Founders about slavery to the point of nearly sinking the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. In an effort to stem the power of slave state the much misrepresented - by liberals - 3/5ths provision was written.
Slavery was a profoundly controversial subject that boiled until the Civil War. If it wasn't than why all the legislation and rules about new states joining, limits on importation, transportation and disposition of slaves.
"Seems to me the common denominator in women losing the vote is the federal government."
Nicely done, good sir.
The slavery issue is an important one because the Federalists were so power hungry that they sacrificed the humanity of an entire race of people just so they could get their centralized government.
"But then the central government ended it!", say the detractors.
Sure, but Lincoln didn't want to help the slaves, he wanted to deport them to another country. He openly stated that a mixed race republic can't work.
... oh, and he waged total war on the citizenry, abolished free speech, imposed martial law, never freed a single slave, and hunted down a congressman who disagreed with him.
Again, yes, we all know that governments reflect prevailing thought.
But what you never understand is that is an argument against the little pockets you think are "freedom". We have a wide and varied culture and that is what has caused us to protect the rights of individuals. Those protections will never come from your little Libertarian pockets because each pocket will have its own group-think policies.
We need a strong Federal government to protect and ensure liberty for all. We may never do it perfectly, but we'll do it better than Libertarian pockets will, and that is why MOST intelligent people see Libertarianism and Doctor Paul for what the are: a danger to freedom.
We have had a strong federal government for a very long time, what have we actually received from it? Our economy is a mess and it is directly attributed to policies emanating from your God-like federal government.
Please vote responsibly from now on.
No, our economy is a mess because right wingers have prevented us from imposing the taxes to pay for our expenditures.
I'm not saying all of that expense was justified, and I'm not saying that the right wing was solely responsible for the stupid wars or our failure to pay for them. They are, however, MOSTLY responsible.
Democrat Bill Clinton signing into law Glass–Steagall.
I find it Ironic the latest monster bureaucracy also is coming from Frank/Dodd, they have created a new boondoggle to clean up their first boondoggle. This should turn out well.
Yes, I understand that you are incapable of seeing much beyond your narrow view of the world.
Fortunately, most of us are not incapable. Obama will be re-elected, not because he is the the best possible choice, but because the alternatives only appeal to a very small group of very narrow minded people.
You calling me narrow minded is a lot like Rosie O'Donnell calling Dom Delouise fat.
I'd expect you to think so,
Unfortunately for you, MOST of America doesn't see it that way. We see that we need a strong Federal government and our fiscal problems are mostly on the lack of revenue side. We're all aware that waste exists, of course, but we know it isn't the most important aspect.
In another thread, i corrected someone who mentioned our "bleeding economy". I said that it isn't bleeding at all; the problem is that its blood is being sucked away by vampires.
You think the "vampires" are the evil Democrats and our dumb liberal policies. That's your misconception and misinterpretation of reality. I know nothing I can say can change your mind: unlike most of America, you are incapable of change.
But America IS changing. Smart people are seeing the GOP lies for what they are. Your world is becoming more and more insignificant.
Rant on, please. I have better things to do.
I'm waiting for you to tell me what bill a president can't veto, this should be interesting.
I can hardly believe this.
In America, a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate is veto proof. You seriously didn't know that?
No, it's some game you want to play. It has to be. Nobody is THAT ignorant.
Oh wow, a two thirds vote can overide a PREVIOUS VETO, nice try though.
I knew it.
I KNEW that was what you wanted to do - silly, pointless games with words.
Good for you. Are you beaming all over now?
Ok then, you had to go back and look at wikipedia huh? You liberals love wikipedia. It would be easier to say you were wrong, but that won't happen.
For those who don't understand the American system, this silly bit of pedantry is due to a bit of unimportant trivia.
While common thought might assume that a Presidential veto kills a bill, that's not technically accurate. What it actually does is force reconsideration. If the Congress and Senate are then mostly of a mind to do it anyway, they will.
This is very typical of the type of distraction that the Right loves to throw into arguments. Meaningless trivia.
Oh goody, you learned something new, but here is what usually happens. A veto will kill a bill if the congress really wants the bill to pass they go back and tweak it so it is palatable. The only distraction is when you say things that are blatantly wrong and then try to pass yourself as all knowing. Thank you for proving once again that liberal knowledge comes from websites only after they are schooled.
Oh goody, you learned something new, but here is what usually happens. A veto will kill a bill if the congress really wants the bill to pass they go back and tweak it so it is palatable.
Um, no. That's what ought to happen.
What usually happens, is this: if the bill doesn't have enough support to get a 2/3 majority, and the president vetoes it, then it usually dies.
If the bill does have a 2/3 majority support, the president usually won't veto it, because he knows congress will just override the veto.
Does congress sometimes change a bill the president vetoes to make it more acceptable to the president? Sometimes, sure.
The only distraction is when you say things that are blatantly wrong and then try to pass yourself as all knowing.
Heh, he didn't say anything that was 'blatantly wrong.' Neither did you, really. But you're not any righter, and you look pretty silly pretending to be so.
Thank you for proving once again that liberal knowledge comes from websites only after they are schooled.
He didn't prove anything of the kind; nor did you.
But thank you for proving that liberals don't have a corner on the smugness and pedantry market.
Let me guess: you want to play the "He vetos it and then the House and Senate can then overide the veto, so it's technically a veto, nyaah, nyaah", right?
Typical childish silliness.
Not Veto Proof. The Bill still has to be voted on and sent over for the President to sign. He can veto it but the veto can be over ridden. There is a veto and a vote to over ride. The Bill must first be passed and presented. There is only theoretical veto proof - that is if 2/3rds majorities in both houses approve the legislation. In that case the President still receives the bill for his signature and he can still veto it.
It is possible for a 2/3 majority supported Bill to go to the President, be vetoed, and fail a veto over-ride vote. Two votes must occur. The first sends the legislation to the President for a signature or a veto. The second is only taken if the President vetoes the bill. This vote is no more guaranteed a 2/3 majority vote than the initial vote.
Vetoes are rarely overridden.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un … ial_vetoes
Thanks again for the snotty condescension - what would one of these forums be without it. (Are you sure you aren't a 12 year old girl?)
"One man can change it all, the president can veto any bill coming from congress."
As I said, that's not correct as written. One man can try to change things, and yes, technically his "veto" is still a veto even when ineffective, so y'all won your unimportant little game. But the statement as it stands was incorrect.
Rant on. I'm looking forward to hearing you all next January as you try to explain what happened.
If Obama wins the explanation is simple. Too many twits voted for him.
He can veto any Bill coming from Congress which requires his signature to pass into law. If a Bill is vetoed and overridden it automatically passes into Law.
It is okay to be wrong, as a liberal you should be very used to it by now.
You don't hear me proclaiming that Obama will be beaten. I actually wish the Democrats had retained the level of power they had at the beginning of 2009.
When has a tax increase ever netted a reduction in debt or even the funding of expenditures. Tax increases are always accompanied by spending increases. Nancy Pelosi used the term Pay-Go as a catch phrase for how responsible Democrats would be in fiscal matters. Spending rose faster than tax collections while Pelosi was speaker - is that what you mean? Tax more so more can be spent? or Do you mean tax more and spend only what is received as revenue? or Do you actually mean - who cares rich bad, government holy, tax tax tax, spend spend spend - Barry will pass the fishes and loaves and all will be made whole.
As the National Debt topped $15 trillion Barry requested another $1.2 trillion - from where? What is the value of the entire American economy?
http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/201 … epression/
The sum total of all Federal action since 1928 has destroyed the economy. It has been Democrats mostly but there have been some great Republican Presidents push the economy in the swamp, as well. George W. Bush never met a dollar he didn't mind Congress spending. Richard Nixon championed something the Democrats just loved in the 1930s and 40s, and no doubt would impose again, Wage and Price controls. Herbert Hoover supported another beloved Democrat idea - Tariffs and helped trigger a Depression that FDR just made worse and last longer.
The Republicans like the three mentioned above have been wimps but the Democrats have turned stupid policies into vast destructive machines that gobble up and incinerate economic wealth. FDR, Jimmy Carter and Barrack Obama took stupid and destructive policies and multiplied their impact reducing limping economies to crawling ones.
A federal government is very different than a central government. The liberal wants one powerful government - to end the federal state with a unitary one. The 10th Amendment has been undermined for decades and much like the 2nd Amendment, not even considered when liberals talk about Constitutional Rights.
The states cut their own throats when approving the 17th Amendment. If there is any hope to repair the Federal government it must be a repeal of the 17th Amendment. That will never happen, just as term limits will never happen. The cooperation of an elected nobility in the Congress virtually guarantees that we will never reassert the limitations on Federal power nor the sovereignty of the individual.
We are finished as a free and prosperous people and the only ones we have to thank for it is our selves. Over 40% of every dollar spent is borrowed. Those borrowed funds are building the People's Liberation Army of China while acting as a drag on our own economy. We will face rationing, shortages and inflation unparalleled in our history. There is insufficient will in government and the electorate to make the necessary changes to avert disaster.
No, the level of greed remained more or less constant. I'm not saying that suddenly everyone became more greedy. I'm saying that suddenly they were allowed to do things with the money they had which had previously been illegal, and this allowed the banks to create new financial instruments that were unregulated (many of which would, if you could make a picture of them, be excellent illustrations of "securities fraud" in the dictionary), and many of which were of questionable legality and ethically unconscionable.
They yearn for a simpler world we might all be able to understand.
by James Smith3 years ago
The modern left/right dichotomy is essentially a scam - an identification as either one is incoherent, and to say that cherry-picking from each 'side' is somehow 'moderate' is patently absurd. Every 'moderate' I've ever...
by Don W7 years ago
Would a free market have prevented this from happening?I'm guessing the libertarian argument would be that the failings of state regulation was a contributing factor. Those failings stemming from the fact that the...
by DTR00056 years ago
http://georgedonnelly.com/libertarian/t … sm-america
by James Smith4 years ago
This is partially a joke - everyone thinks Jesus agrees with them. A question to consider though: although Jesus advocated compassion, charity and liberty, he did not advocate the use of violence to achieve any end,...
by Gary Anderson5 years ago
Hey Even, Mises said big business was not evil. To be fair, he did not live to see the TBTF banks, but I am waiting for his libertarian followers duped by this stuff to say the TBTF banks ARE evil. Say it Evan!Here is...
by Sooner284 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/world … odayspaperhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/world … wanted=allEmployees work in dangerous conditions, are paid a pittance of a wage, and don't even have the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.