Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Downgraded

Page 4 of 5 [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

08 Aug 2011, 6:35 pm

wcoltd wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Blue_Jackets_fan wrote:
Thanks alot, Lord Obamort. Now we can collapse like Greece and Italy.


Is there some initiation into the conservative Republican club that entails killing the parts of your brain that have knowledge on the monetary system of the US? You know, the fact that unlike Greece or Italy, American PRINTS ITS OWN MONEY??! !

The ignorance of conservatives and right-libertarians who want deflationary policies disgusts me.


Why should deflation upset you?
Well, there's that little time in which deflation caused a great depression among other things.


_________________
.


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

08 Aug 2011, 6:49 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
wcoltd wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Blue_Jackets_fan wrote:
Thanks alot, Lord Obamort. Now we can collapse like Greece and Italy.


Is there some initiation into the conservative Republican club that entails killing the parts of your brain that have knowledge on the monetary system of the US? You know, the fact that unlike Greece or Italy, American PRINTS ITS OWN MONEY??! !

The ignorance of conservatives and right-libertarians who want deflationary policies disgusts me.


Why should deflation upset you?
Well, there's that little time in which deflation caused a great depression among other things.


Hyper-inflation isn't exactly good for the economy either, now depending on what currency we technically borrowed money in we could hope for other countries to have hyper inflation and then pay off the debt with a single dollar.

Anyways, in all seriousness, inflation can be just as bad if not worse than deflation.



wcoltd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 756
Location: The internet

08 Aug 2011, 7:24 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
wcoltd wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Blue_Jackets_fan wrote:
Thanks alot, Lord Obamort. Now we can collapse like Greece and Italy.


Is there some initiation into the conservative Republican club that entails killing the parts of your brain that have knowledge on the monetary system of the US? You know, the fact that unlike Greece or Italy, American PRINTS ITS OWN MONEY??! !

The ignorance of conservatives and right-libertarians who want deflationary policies disgusts me.


Why should deflation upset you?
Well, there's that little time in which deflation caused a great depression among other things.


I am well aware that what most people believe, but deflation wasn't the cause of the Great Depression, - the thesis of the book "America's Great Depression", shows how government intervention extended the crisis, which turned the Depression into a Great Depression.

Rothbard shows and correctly identifies how government intervention prevented the markets from reaching equilibrium, causing a caustic and lasting illiquidity in the markets.

Most people don't know that America's greatest boom period (post civil War to early 1900's) was entirely deflationary. Deflation is the natural process of the market, the more efficient goods become produced the cheaper those products become. Deflation is a good thing, the people who save money are rewarded with time. It creates a scenario of low interest rates - and fosters the growth of capital.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

08 Aug 2011, 9:32 pm

Nah, a single book doesn't change history.

Deflation and inflation are equally terrible but in different ways.


_________________
.


wcoltd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 756
Location: The internet

08 Aug 2011, 10:14 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
Nah, a single book doesn't change history.
.


No it doesn't change history, but it may change the way you percieve it.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

08 Aug 2011, 11:05 pm

One should consider Murray Rothbard's rather extreme perspective:

Quote:
He argued that taxation represents coercive theft on a grand scale, and "a compulsory monopoly of force" prohibiting the more efficient voluntary procurement of defense and judicial services from competing suppliers. He also considered central banking and fractional reserve banking under a monopoly fiat money system a form of state-sponsored, legalized financial fraud, antithetical to libertarian principles and ethics.


Taken from the Wikipedia article, which notably does not display the "neutrality disputed" banner. He also argued that people should have the right to sell their children, and other amusing stuff.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


wcoltd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 756
Location: The internet

08 Aug 2011, 11:14 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
One should consider Murray Rothbard's rather extreme perspective:

Quote:
He argued that taxation represents coercive theft on a grand scale, and "a compulsory monopoly of force" prohibiting the more efficient voluntary procurement of defense and judicial services from competing suppliers. He also considered central banking and fractional reserve banking under a monopoly fiat money system a form of state-sponsored, legalized financial fraud, antithetical to libertarian principles and ethics.


Taken from the Wikipedia article, which notably does not display the "neutrality disputed" banner. He also argued that people should have the right to sell their children, and other amusing stuff.

You took that WAY out of context.

Often times Rothbard would say things like that out of a underlying curiosity - he reckognizes the moral apprehension to selling your own children and would never advocate it on a personal basis - he entertained possibilities - for the purpose of amusement. He would do it to emphasize and ask the question where do people's rights begin and end?, he would extend a certain premise - of personal property to as far as it could go, that was nothing more than an academic excersize.

Even if you disagree with my analysis and you think Rothbard is a loon:

I take the perspective that arguments should be judged on their own intrinsic merit, and not on the basis of who once said it.

If hitler once said "brushing teeth prevents cavaties" it doesn't make the statement false by negative association.

So just because Rothbard said something once that you disagree with or think is crazy, doesn't change the merit of the arguments he made in his book.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

08 Aug 2011, 11:25 pm

wcoltd wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
One should consider Murray Rothbard's rather extreme perspective:

Quote:
He argued that taxation represents coercive theft on a grand scale, and "a compulsory monopoly of force" prohibiting the more efficient voluntary procurement of defense and judicial services from competing suppliers. He also considered central banking and fractional reserve banking under a monopoly fiat money system a form of state-sponsored, legalized financial fraud, antithetical to libertarian principles and ethics.


Taken from the Wikipedia article, which notably does not display the "neutrality disputed" banner. He also argued that people should have the right to sell their children, and other amusing stuff.

You took that WAY out of context.

Often times Rothbard would say things like that out of a underlying curiosity - he reckognizes the moral apprehension to selling your own children and would never advocate it on a personal basis - he entertained possibilities - for the purpose of amusement. He would do it to emphasize and ask the question where do people's rights begin and end?, he would extend a certain premise - of personal property to as far as it could go, that was nothing more than an academic excersize.

Even if you disagree with my analysis and you think Rothbard is a loon:

I take the perspective that arguments should be judged on their own intrinsic merit, and not on the basis of who once said it.

If hitler once said "brushing teeth prevents cavaties" it doesn't make the statement false by negative association.

So just because Rothbard said something once that you disagree with or think is crazy, doesn't change the merit of the arguments he made in his book.


Actually, his bizarre notions of correct economic policy do invalidate his critique of mainstream economic policy, in my opinion.
Edit: Setting aside the children thing, privatizing national defense and the police sounds like Snow Crash. Exciting, but best left to science fiction.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


wcoltd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 756
Location: The internet

09 Aug 2011, 12:12 am

jrjones9933 wrote:
wcoltd wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
One should consider Murray Rothbard's rather extreme perspective:

Quote:
He argued that taxation represents coercive theft on a grand scale, and "a compulsory monopoly of force" prohibiting the more efficient voluntary procurement of defense and judicial services from competing suppliers. He also considered central banking and fractional reserve banking under a monopoly fiat money system a form of state-sponsored, legalized financial fraud, antithetical to libertarian principles and ethics.


Taken from the Wikipedia article, which notably does not display the "neutrality disputed" banner. He also argued that people should have the right to sell their children, and other amusing stuff.

You took that WAY out of context.

Often times Rothbard would say things like that out of a underlying curiosity - he reckognizes the moral apprehension to selling your own children and would never advocate it on a personal basis - he entertained possibilities - for the purpose of amusement. He would do it to emphasize and ask the question where do people's rights begin and end?, he would extend a certain premise - of personal property to as far as it could go, that was nothing more than an academic excersize.

Even if you disagree with my analysis and you think Rothbard is a loon:

I take the perspective that arguments should be judged on their own intrinsic merit, and not on the basis of who once said it.

If hitler once said "brushing teeth prevents cavaties" it doesn't make the statement false by negative association.

So just because Rothbard said something once that you disagree with or think is crazy, doesn't change the merit of the arguments he made in his book.


Actually, his bizarre notions of correct economic policy do invalidate his critique of mainstream economic policy, in my opinion.
Edit: Setting aside the children thing, privatizing national defense and the police sounds like Snow Crash. Exciting, but best left to science fiction.


So if the book were retitled, copied and written verbatim under a more respectable person's name, You could then read the book and possibly agree with its conclusions?

It doesn't matter who says something, what matters is what is being said.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

09 Aug 2011, 12:42 am

wcoltd wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Blue_Jackets_fan wrote:
Thanks alot, Lord Obamort. Now we can collapse like Greece and Italy.


Is there some initiation into the conservative Republican club that entails killing the parts of your brain that have knowledge on the monetary system of the US? You know, the fact that unlike Greece or Italy, American PRINTS ITS OWN MONEY??! !

The ignorance of conservatives and right-libertarians who want deflationary policies disgusts me.


Why should deflation upset you?


Next you are going to argue that high unemployment shouldn't upset anyone. After all, a large reserve army of labor promotes a better work ethic through fear which ultimately increases productivity and lowers costs. Also, it is only natural that the unemployed should languish in the streets. All the useless eaters need to be excised for the benefit of the economy.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

09 Aug 2011, 12:56 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
Nah, a single book doesn't change history.

Deflation and inflation are equally terrible but in different ways.


Deflation is actually a good thing for people like retirees or people that have money in savings, because suddenly their money is worth more.

Deflation means your country's currency suddenly has more purchasing power.

In all honesty, wcoltd is right, deflation did not cause the Great Depression, it was government intervention that turned a bad recession into a depression. While liberals try to claim deflation is what caused the depression, there is more evidence to suggest that raising taxes in a recession caused it to turn into a depression. Government interventions also arguably caused the Depression to be prolonged, and it took a World War to bring us out of the depression.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

09 Aug 2011, 3:04 pm

There's so much wrong with that it's not even worth listing. Keep the faith, Inuyasha.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

09 Aug 2011, 3:27 pm

wcoltd wrote:
So if the book were retitled, copied and written verbatim under a more respectable person's name, You could then read the book and possibly agree with its conclusions?


I find that as laughable a hypothetical question as I have ever heard. If a Respectable Person (TM) held such absurd views, she would lose that title.

wcoltd wrote:
It doesn't matter who says something, what matters is what is being said.


I am so saving that for another time. Any others on the extreme right care to agree?


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

12 Aug 2011, 12:23 am

wcoltd wrote:
It doesn't matter who says something, what matters is what is being said.

Hell yeah it does matter who says something. Quacks don't suddenly reform and become good at stuff. That you are trying to divert attention from stating that the guy is full of bizarre notions and is probably not very well educated and turned it into a "OMG ad hominem I am offended" does say something.

Precedents matter. And I think it is wrong to pretend they don't. It makes people less responsible for their actions. The idea that you can come saying utter BS on Saturday and then expect people to take you seriously on Monday because we should care about "what is being said" and not your history, is really offensive to me.

No, if you say BS on Saturday, you should expect proper retribution in the form of disbelief the next time you say something.


_________________
.


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

12 Aug 2011, 2:06 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
wcoltd wrote:
It doesn't matter who says something, what matters is what is being said.

Hell yeah it does matter who says something. Quacks don't suddenly reform and become good at stuff. That you are trying to divert attention from stating that the guy is full of bizarre notions and is probably not very well educated and turned it into a "OMG ad hominem I am offended" does say something.

Precedents matter. And I think it is wrong to pretend they don't. It makes people less responsible for their actions. The idea that you can come saying utter BS on Saturday and then expect people to take you seriously on Monday because we should care about "what is being said" and not your history, is really offensive to me.

No, if you say BS on Saturday, you should expect proper retribution in the form of disbelief the next time you say something.


I both agree and disagree. On the one hand, I often warn people here about how becoming known as a partisan is bad for your long-term credibility; if you're known to have an agenda and not deviate from it you can hardly expect to be taken objectively. On the other, I do think arguments should be considered on their own merits rather than on what you think of the person making them. Sure, you can use personal history as sort of a filter for whether to investigate someone's claims further, but to simply dismiss them without further contemplations because of who said them is just lazy.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

12 Aug 2011, 2:29 am

LKL wrote:
There's so much wrong with that it's not even worth listing. Keep the faith, Inuyasha.


Inflation means more money has been printed and so the value of the currency is less, in other words it has less purchasing power.

Deflation means that there is less money in circulation, which often makes the value of a currency increase, in other words it has more purchasing power.