James Murdoch promoted at News Corp.

Mar 30, 2011 by Chris Lefkow
The youngest son of News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch, seen here in 2007, was named deputy chief operating officer of the news and entertainment giant on Wednesday.

James Murdoch, the youngest son of Rupert Murdoch, was named News Corp.'s deputy chief operating officer on Wednesday in a move that puts him a step closer to potentially taking over from his father.

James Murdoch, 38, will also serve as chairman and chief executive of the news and entertainment giant's international operations in addition to being deputy COO, News Corp. said.

He will move to New York from London and will report to News Corp. deputy chairman, president and chief operating officer Chase Carey and work closely with his father, News Corp.'s chairman, News Corp. said.

News Corp. said James Murdoch will bring "significant operational expertise to bear across News Corporation's broad asset portfolio, collaborating with senior leaders to develop and execute strategies and plans that strengthen and further evolve businesses, extend brands, and build new franchises."

James Murdoch, in a statement, said "I feel extremely fortunate to continue to support News Corporation's international growth and also be given the chance to contribute to important initiatives across the company."

His promotion comes five weeks after News Corp. announced that it has agreed to buy Shine Group, a television production company owned by Rupert Murdoch's daughter Elisabeth, for £415 million ($672 million).

Elisabeth Murdoch, 42, the chairman and chief executive of London-based Shine Group, was named to News Corp. board of directors as part of the deal.

James Murdoch is the younger of Rupert Murdoch's two sons -- his elder brother Lachlan served in a senior role in the company until 2005 -- and the most involved in News Corp. operations.

The Australian-born Rupert Murdoch, who celebrated his 80th birthday on March 11, has two sons and four daughters from his two marriages.

While the promotion of James Murdoch would appear to make him the heir apparent to his father, Rupert Murdoch has shown no signs of slowing down or handing over control of his company anytime soon.

News Corp.'s vast holdings include newspapers in Australia, Britain and the United States, the 20th Century Fox movie studio, the Fox television networks, the social network Myspace and book publisher HarperCollins.

News Corp. is also poised to win control of BSkyB with a £7.5 billion ($12.2 billion) bid for the shares in the British broadcaster it does not already own.

In February, News Corp. launched a subscription-based digital newspaper for Apple's iPad called The Daily.

News Corp. COO Carey welcomed James Murdoch's promotion and said he has "demonstrated in an array of roles that he is a shrewd and decisive operator who can deftly navigate complex issues to transform businesses.

"He has equally shown a unique understanding of the emerging technologies and the digital forces that are reshaping our industry," Carey said.

"As we become increasingly global and consumer focused, we believe there are real opportunities to add new dimensions to our core businesses," he said.

"We are confident that James' deep knowledge of international markets, his proven leadership, and his passionate focus on building consumer relationships make him the ideal person to help us realize these opportunities across all our companies."

James Murdoch is currently News Corp.'s chairman and chief executive for Europe and Asia and has served as executive chairman of News International, News Corp.'s British newspaper operation, since 2007.

James Murdoch served as chief executive of British broadcaster BSkyB from 2003 to 2007 and previously headed News Corp.'s Asian television group STAR.

He joined News Corp. in 1996, working on digital media ventures and corporate development projects as an executive vice president based in New York.

Explore further: Monoprice takes on Amazon in trade of cheap electronics

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Murdoch's News Corp. buying daughter's company

Feb 21, 2011

News Corp. announced Monday it has agreed to buy Shine Group, a television production company owned by News Corp. chief executive Rupert Murdoch's daughter Elisabeth, for £415 million ($672 million).

Former AOL head to run News Corp. digital

Apr 01, 2009

Jonathan Miller, a former head of Time Warner online unit AOL, was named by News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch on Wednesday to oversee MySpace and other digital businesses at the media giant.

News Corp. gadfly wins lunch with Rupert Murdoch

Nov 11, 2010

A group which is a persistent critic of media mogul Rupert Murdoch said Thursday that it had paid 86,000 dollars and won a charity auction to have lunch with the News Corp. chairman.

News Corp. seeks stake in Saudi media company: WSJ

Sep 02, 2009

News Corp. is in talks with Saudi tycoon Prince Alwaleed bin Talal to take a stake in Rotana Media in what would be its first major investment in the Middle East, The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday.

Recommended for you

Chinese tech giant Alibaba set to make a splash with US IPO

3 hours ago

The largest tech IPO of the year will come from a company that many Americans have never heard of. Alibaba Group - a Chinese e-commerce behemoth - has decided to go public in the U.S. after months of speculation that it would ...

Ex-Apple chief plans mobile phone for India

Apr 19, 2014

Former Apple chief executive John Sculley, whose marketing skills helped bring the personal computer to desktops worldwide, says he plans to launch a mobile phone in India to exploit its still largely untapped ...

Airbnb rental site raises $450 mn

Apr 19, 2014

Online lodging listings website Airbnb inked a $450 million funding deal with investors led by TPG, a source close to the matter said Friday.

User comments : 349

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gunslingor1
4 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2011
My strike of New Corp continues. Fox "News" must be reformed or dismantled for this to change. These guys manipulate the thoughts of everyone on the planet, this is thier intent, not news.
CSharpner
4 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2011
That appears to be the intent of ALL news orgs and reporters. I've rarely seen a completely objective report from anyone, anywhere. "Which" news organizations appear biased is usually in the /political/ eye of the beholder.
Moebius
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 30, 2011
Interesting he is promoting the younger son. He must be the more conservative of the two.

It is the intent of all news to manipulate the thoughts of people. The difference is that some do it with the truth and some, like Fox, distort the truth to achieve their manipulation.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2011
Why does anyone care?

"His son Alexander Soros is also gaining prominence for his donations to social and political causes. "

There's no problem with George Soros's son following in his father's foot steps?

"Soros the younger has contributed to liberal political action committees like the league of Conservation Voters and Planned Parenthood, as well as Democratic Members of Congress, including Reps. Dan Maffei and John Hall, both of New York. "
http://www.cnbc.c...Like_Son

But Alex Soros is typical billionaire partier.
http://gawker.com...thampton
Will he take over the Soros empire?
gunslingor1
3.9 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2011
It is the intent of all news to manipulate the thoughts of people. The difference is that some do it with the truth and some, like Fox, distort the truth to achieve their manipulation.

-I don't know if it is far to say that this is the INTENT of PBS and NPR, but it does occur. Fox is blatant about it. They report opinions and pretend it is news. They justify it by saying they think their viewers are educated enough to distiguish opinion from news. I disagree.

Also, there just so dam blatant about it. Like the Ground zero mosque for example. They kept saying "follow the money", implying that the mosque has some kind of connection to terrorism. So, eventually they found out that a large part of the facility is being paid for by Imam Rauf and blantantly pointed the finger of terrorism just for that reason. What Fux did not tell you, Imam Rauf is the second largest owner of FOX NEWS!!!

In contrast, CNN (might be MSMNBC, not sure) is owned by GE, and they nvr fail to mentionit
CSharpner
3.4 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2011
-I don't know if it is far to say that this is the INTENT of PBS and NPR, but it does occur. Fox is blatant about it. They report opinions and pretend it is news

Like I was saying, it's in the political eye of the beholder. The other TV news outlets appear exactly to me as you say Fox appears to you. And yes, NPR most definitely has an intent to bend the news to the left. The difference between NPR and Fox is that Fox is honest about the fact they lean to the right (in their opinion shows). NPR falsely claims they're objective.

They justify it by saying they think their viewers are educated enough to distiguish opinion from news. I disagree.

MSNBC and CNN also have opinion shows and many Conservatives (myself included) also believe that their so called "news" is also a lot of opinion wrapped in "news" clothing.

But, my point is not to argue for or against any, but point out these opinions are in the eye of the beholder. All our comments here are proving that.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 31, 2011
Of course ABCCBSNBCPBS were biased and are biased to the left.
Bias by omission is no different than bias by commission.
Until recently, the NYT controlled what 'news' was fit to print and all others followed. Recall NYT claimed Stalin was NOT starving millions?
All major media ignored Lewinsky until Drudge brought it up.
We all sorts of 'news' about the 'evil' Koch brothers, but nothing about the overt political activities of the 'progressive' Soros. Who is now attacking News Corp.
I bet physorg receives some funding from Soros.
CSharpner
1.5 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2011
Let's not turn this into a pointless argument about who believes which news orgs are biased in which way.

Unfortunately, -=>*NO*<=- one will change their opinion.

The point is, all major "news" outlets appear as biased to one group of viewers/readers or another. I think this thread has already proven that.

Let's satisfy both camps and post links to two opposing sites that present evidence that the other side is biased:

Here's one that's pro right-wing and anti left-wing:
http://newsbuster...s-debate

Now, there's nothing left to say pro or con of any news site that these two sites haven't already said.

You're Welcome!
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (11) Mar 31, 2011
Unfortunately, -=>*NO*<=- one will change their opinion.


Planck was right:
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it"
It is quite a shame as 'educated' people claim to be objective and rational and should always be open to new data.
gunslingor1
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2011
Hey guys, I agree with everyone's post. But really, I don't think anyone in their right mind can honestly say Fox's right leanings are equal in magnitude to NPR's left leaning. REALLY! I mean, I could sit here and site hundreds of examples of how fox blantantly manipulates. Can you really do the same for NPR? Here is a few:

1. NPR anchors do not go to protests as primary speakers.
2. NPR does not hold political conventions on the lincoln memorial (Glene Beck).
3. NPR doesn't call people names like "Nazi". Then claim that they don't.
4. NPR doesn't make religious statements, "the sun goes up, the tieds go in, never a miscommunication", lol, Bill Papa bear Oreilly.
5. NPR doesn't yell at there guests.
6. NPR does not give opinions in the middle of news broadcast, and certainly doesn't do it with saying "this is an opinion".

I could go on and on. I watch all news, but Fox, I honestly start to feel sick if I watch it for more than 30 min, HONESTLY!

Examples for NPR anyone?
CSharpner
2.5 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2011
Here's one that's pro right-wing and anti left-wing:
http://newsbuster...s-debate

Now, there's nothing left to say pro or con of any news site that these two sites haven't already said.

I don't know what happened to the pro left-wing, anti-right wing link I posted, but here it is:
http://mediamatters.org/

*NOW* there's nothing left to say pro or con of any news site that these two sites haven't already said.

You're Welcome! (again).
CSharpner
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2011
I could go on and on. I watch all news, but Fox, I honestly start to feel sick if I watch it for more than 30 min, HONESTLY!

gunslinger, that's why I posted the links to 2 web sites that give examples from both sides of bias. I don't think anyone wants that debate here. They can go to those links and fully engulf themselves in examples pro or con from either side they want.

Yes, NPR is 100 times more left biased than Fox is right biased. I can give plenty of examples... the most recent is the NPR guy that met with someone pretending to be a Muslim front group. The NPR guy made some horrible admissions, including being anti-Semite. Apparently this was another story not reported on by the left leaning orgs and only covered by Fox. Yes, I feel sick listening to NPR and can't for more than a few minutes at a time, including CNN, MSNBC, ABC nightly news, and CBS nightly news.

No matter how much you think one set of news is biased in one way, there are people who think opposite.
gunslingor1
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2011
Yes, NPR is 100 times more left biased than Fox is right biased.

-You really feel this way? Wow, I am honestly speachless. So, who is the NPR equivalent to Glenn Beck? Please answer, I'm just curius who you think is that blatantly left.

The NPR guy made some horrible admissions, including being anti-Semite.

-NPR did report on this, I heard it. I heard it on my way home from work and it wasn't lip service, they gave 5 minutes or so to the story.

http://www.npr.or...al-funds

I spent about 30 minutes looking at your site and didnt find anything related to NPR. Can you be more specific.

I really don't care about left or right leaning news, I am fine with both and watch both sides with intense interest. Sometimes the guys on the right are in fact right in my mind, when they are honest and true. What I cannot tollerate, is lying and manipulating and disregard for truth.
gunslingor1
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2011
NPR, in my mind, is only untrustworthy when it comes to reporting on medical matters because they receive so much in donations from Pharmaceuticals. I don't trust them explicitly, but they are the most unbiased out there. All they do is talk calmly, ask questions and report what happened, nothing more. I can guarantee that there are bad people at NPR, there are bad people in every organization, I don't care about that, I care about the news I receive.

All that being said, the only news anchors I trust explicitly are Jon Stewart and Colbert. It is unfortunate that we have come to the point where we have to watch a comedy show for truthful reporting. But I guess that's historically what happens. I'm not saying these two aren't left leaning, but they are truthful and trustworthy. I cannot say the same about any other news organization, but I can say NPR is the best and fox is the worst, all others fall in between. MSNBC, unforetunately, has recently taken to the Fox business model.
CSharpner
2 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2011
(not a complaint...) You're getting a lot of space here stating your opinion against fox and pro not-fox. It's not possible to respond without this turning into exactly what I presume we all want to avoid (even if it isn't you and me, others will undoubtedly chime in to attack and defend opinions).

Rather doing a a tit for tat, which I'm plenty capable of... just ask around here :) I'd rather just conclude on the point that news that seems to confirm ones political opinions is considered "not biased" and news that challenges ones beliefs is considered "biased".

Let's also accept the fact that neither side accept that the other is honest. I am just as "speechless" as you are, except on the other side, but I have no desire to fight about it. I think we can agree to disagree and accept a general premise as I stated above about perceived bias and perceived honesty/dishonesty.

You can google "media bias" for examples of either side or narrow it to "npr bias" for specifics about NPR.
CSharpner
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2011
BTW, I wouldn't repeat that about John Stewart and Colbert... John Stewart has explicitly stated, multiple times, that anyone that watches him for news is an idiot (his words, not mine). He openly states that he doesn't make an attempt to be fair or balanced or truthful. His intent is to be funny, though based on current news, but not necessarily "real" news. He openly admits (no secret, of course) that he's a liberal and his jokes and such and his choice of what news to base his comedy off of goes through that filter.

There was an interview in the last days of CNN's CrossFire with him and that Conservative guy that wears a bow-tie. The conservative argued that lots of young people get their news from him. He blasted back stating no one does that and if anyone does, they're an idiot.
gunslingor1
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2011
...ones political opinions is considered "not biased" and news that challenges ones beliefs is considered "biased".

-I AGREE! But that isn't what I am arguing. I'm arguing the fact the Fox uses intentionally manipulative tactics. For example, they pose questions... "Was Obama really born in the US? I'm not saying he wasn't, but was he? I haven't seen any proof." That's how that got started.

Okay, I'll stop there.

Trust me, I am aware of those words from Jon, I have been watching him for over a decade. I saw the interview with Tucker Bow-tie Carlson the Douche, very historic interview in mind. Seriously though, I am pretty confident that if Tucker had asked him what news he recommends americans watch, he would have been silent as a ghost...there are none. The fact that he openly admits he is not news and calls his biggest fans idiots is testiment to his trustworthyness and his stories speak for thmselves.

Agreed to disagree, FOX=NPR still blows my mind you think this.
CSharpner
3.5 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2011
Agreed to disagree

Cool! (biting my lip to avoid providing more bait for people to jump in! ;)
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2011
I know the feeling, me too. Later!
COCO
3.3 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2011
check out Russia Today - great web-based newssite - listen to Max Kaiser - kind of a Glenn Beck with a brain.
CSharpner
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2011
check out Russia Today - great web-based newssite - listen to Max Kaiser - kind of a Glenn Beck with a brain.

I'm doing it now. This is CRAP! It's anti-capitalist propaganda. They're making a false claim that the stock market is a zero sum game. Everyone knows that's not true. We had a discussion about that here recently. He tries to claim that when one person gets rich, someone else has to get poor. Completely false. Wealth can be (and is) created and destroyed.

"RUSSIA" Today???? Come on! Of course this is going to be anti-American, anti-Capitalism. Pure rubbish. Who in their right mind would want to learn capitalism from a Russian propagandist web site? Seriously!
FrankHerbert
2.5 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2011
russian = communist = marxist = fascist = liberal = democrat = demon = traitor = kenyan = bad = gay = nazi = muslim = atheist =...

in other words conservatives are morons with no internal consistency. sorry if this hurts your feelings but it's true.

I also think conservative mad libs would be pretty hillarious

President obama is a _adjective_ _adjective_ _adjective_ _adjective_ _adjective_...
rynox
4 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2011
It says a lot about the human psyche that it is easier to believe there is a vast liberal bias conspiracy in the media than to question your deepest beliefs.

The Fox News watchers watch it because it is the only news network willing to reinforce their beliefs. And Fox News does it, of course, for the ratings and advertising.
CSharpner
3 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2011
Cool! (biting my lip to avoid providing more bait for people to jump in! ;)


in other words conservatives are morons...


And... there it is. I won't take the bait and choose to take the high road. I won't be insulting my liberal colleagues here, whom I respect. FH can't help it. He has no self control, nor respect for people he disagrees with. He apparently believes IQ is measured by whether or not you side with his political beliefs. He'll deny it of course, but his past responses show it to be true.
CSharpner
3.5 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2011
It says a lot about the human psyche that it is easier to believe there is a vast liberal bias conspiracy in the media than to question your deepest beliefs.

Interesting... You actually believe that if someone recognizes the blatant media bias, that they do not question their deepest beliefs? IMHO, It says a lot about a psyche that refuses to see it.

If you want an example of someone that DOES question their deepest beliefs, how's this for an example?

I was raised in the buckle of the Bible belt. I went to a Baptist nursery school, a Lutheran grammar school, a Catholic High School, all the while attending a Methodist church and Sunday school most Sundays, visiting a Nazarene, Episcopalian, and 7th Day Adventist churches, having 1 hour of religion class every school day, plus 1 hour of Chapel every Wednesday during the school day and Mass about once a month, in school, during high school.

(continued...)
CSharpner
4.3 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2011
(continued...)

At the age of 13, I was doing the stupid mental exercise they'd been drilling into us... how to debate with someone from another religion or non-believer. I used to think of arguing with someone my own age from some country that may have never heard of MY religion, but was spoon fed some other religion. I used to think, "How sad. His parents have been feeding him that lie his whole life and he's never been exposed to the 'truth'". I'd imagine a debate with him, showing him what MY Bible said and I'd imagine his response, "How do you know YOURS is right and MINE is wrong?". When I stepped back and asked myself that question, I couldn't come up with a good answer. This lead me to consider what is an objective way to analyze these two books to determine which is right? I then tried to come up with an object way to analyze my own and found that now matter how I looked at it, none of them seemed any more objectively "right" than the other.

(continued...)
CSharpner
4 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2011
(continued...)

That's when I self-discovered many things, including critical thinking and stepping out of my own ego and self-examining my own opinions on everything else.

As a result, from the topic of religions, I became an anti-creationist, pro-evolutionist, agnostic. I applied (and continue to do so), the same thought process to all of my opinions. By doing so, I matured and moved from a religious semi-liberal child, to an agnostic mostly conservative man. I judge each topic on its own merits and don't give a crap about which political side any party or talking head touts as "our side". As a result of /that/, I have opinions that some would consider liberal on some topics, some "libertarian" and some "conservative". The majority of them tend to lean to what most would call "conservative" and they are the result of "questioning my deepest beliefs".

continued...
CSharpner
4 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2011
in other words conservatives are morons with no internal consistency

Regarding internal consistency and conservatism, I have a core set of principles (as do many conservatives I know) that my opinions are based upon, driving consistency. Most people on opposing sides believe the other side is inconsistent with their own beliefs. Most people from BOTH sides are inconsistent. It's a waste of bandwidth for either side to say it. Most experienced and mature people already know this. Instead, I respect my liberal fellow humans for believing what they do and attempting to make the world what they believe to be better, even though I may disagree with their methods and sometimes with their target goals. We all want to make the world a better place. Sometimes, we disagree on how to do it or on what is "better". But, one thing I won't do is call all those who have different opinions than mine "Morons". I'll leave that to the small minded, reactionary people (on both sides of the aisle).
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Apr 03, 2011
We all want to make the world a better place.

I don't believe that is true with many 'liberals'.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2011
Sharpie, do you have principles or standards?
If so, what do you think of those who violate those principles and actively oppose them?
Pol Pot thought he was making the world a better place.

CSharpner
1.3 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2011
Pol Pot thought he was making the world a better place.

Good point.
CSharpner
1.5 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2011
If so, what do you think of those who violate those principles and actively oppose them?

For most of them, I give them the benefit of the doubt and presume they have been given false information and/or don't know any better. Few people take the time to research issues, and even fewer with an open mind NOT trying to just justify the opinion they lead into the research with. Ideology is a tough thing to consciously step out of for most people. Because of that, I practice extreme patience.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2011
CSharpner , very reasonable posts. I challenge you to do another self examination exercise.

1. Sit down and listen to NPR. Write down everything you hear that could be considered intentionally manipulative or misleading.
2. Do the same for FOX News.

Come back and post your results. Try to be unbyassed, just what COULD be interpreted that way.

I honestly feel that I am an expert on american news propaganda, and there is no doubt in my mind what they are doing, I need only watch for 30 minutes to find numerous examples of misinformation and audience direction.

You never did answer my question, who is the NPR equivalent to gleen beck?

And finally, one thing I thought of over the weekend: You said I should mention I trust Jon Stewart because he has openly admitted he is not news. Well, guess what, so has fux!! They consider themselves "entertainment" which has given them the justification to blatantly lie under a vail of "entertaining" news.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2011
If so, what do you think of those who violate those principles and actively oppose them?

For most of them, I give them the benefit of the doubt and presume they have been given false information and/or don't know any better. Few people take the time to research issues, and even fewer with an open mind NOT trying to just justify the opinion they lead into the research with. Ideology is a tough thing to consciously step out of for most people. Because of that, I practice extreme patience.

You give people who advocate or use force to violate your right to life and property 'the benefit of the doubt'?
What is there to doubt?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2011
Of course ABCCBSNBCPBS were biased and are biased to the left.
Maybe you perceive it as bias simply because the majority of society is further to the left than you are.

When you go as far right as you have everything is left, akin to how when you're at the North pole, every direction is south.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2011
When you go as far right as you have everything is left, akin to how when you're at the North pole, every direction is south.

-Exceptional post!!! Very insightful, very well versed, very accurate, very pertinent.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2011
Of course ABCCBSNBCPBS were biased and are biased to the left.
Maybe you perceive it as bias simply because the majority of society is further to the left than you are.

When you go as far right as you have everything is left, akin to how when you're at the North pole, every direction is south.

It is not perception. It is fact.
Of course standards and principles are foreign phrases to SH and those who think the there is no socialist bias.
Now that people have alternatives, the gate keepers are going broke. Another reason the statists hate free markets.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.8 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2011
Of course standards and principles are foreign phrases to SH and those who think the there is no socialist bias.
No need for the personal attacks, nor will they assist anyone in understanding your subjective viewpoint.
Now that people have alternatives, the gate keepers are going broke. Another reason the statists hate free markets.
Why would a change in venue, allowing for more wealth creation, be a problem for people that are encouraging wealth creation. Now a days all you need is an internet connection. This is what is putting the old school news market out of business. Anyone, anywhere in the world can be heard. So the essential question here is: What in the world are you talking about?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 04, 2011
This is what is putting the old school news market out of business.

What is putting old school 'liberal' news out of business is their content. Because of the internet and am radio, old school 'liberal' news has competitors prompting statists to promote the 'Fairness Doctrine' and to personally attack individuals of the competition.
Just as this site is doing with this article about Murdoch. Physorg doesn't care a whit about Soros' attacks on media as physorg and SH are sympathetic to Soros socialism.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2011
Because of the internet and am radio, old school 'liberal' news has competitors prompting statists to promote the 'Fairness Doctrine' and to personally attack individuals of the competition.
AM talk radio is not new media, well maybe it's new to you. The FCC Fairness Doctrine simply required that any company that had singular control of a broadcast outlet must promote matters of social importance in a fair and balanced manner. AM Talk radio nutjobs like Michael Savage and el Rushbo can't do that. They're intellectually incapable of doing so. That's not the fault of the law. Are you mad that homicidal psychopaths can't just kill people? After all, they're unable to control themselves.
Just as this site is doing with this article about Murdoch. Physorg doesn't care a whit about Soros' attacks on media as physorg and SH are sympathetic to Soros socialism.
Yeah, lots of socialists make their money through hedge fund management...

Conspiracy theorist Swenson.
gunslingor1
not rated yet Apr 04, 2011
Fox's Glenn Beck is equivalent to Carl Castle?

I'll assume this is your answer until told otherwise...
CSharpner
1 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2011
CSharpner , very reasonable posts. I challenge you to do another self examination exercise.


What you don't understand is that I do this "unofficially" on a daily basis by being inundated with politically left leaning ideology from multiple media sources. Most conservatives will concur (the primary reason Fox is so popular... because it's the only large TV news outlet that doesn't push leftist ideology). I don't need to do this to reconfirm to myself.

My goal here is not to convince you or anyone else that my perceptions are correct. I've already gone through this since the 1980's. I posted 2 links above to polar opposite ideologies, each giving multiple examples of bias from their respective "other" side. That should suffice for anyone from either political ideological camp that there is bias on both sides. I'm not going to repeat their work.

Again, I am not trying to convince you one way or the other about media bias. My point was, and still is,
(continued...)
CSharpner
1 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2011
(continued...)
My point was, and still is, that reporters have opinions... that there's no such thing as a "objective" reporter. All reporters bias' seep through their reporting, in spite of the fact some of them actually believe they're being fair and balanced. It's human nature. It's impossible to avoid. Bias comes in not just what IS said, but HOW it's said, and just as importantly, what's NOT said... what stories are NOT covered.
I honestly feel that I am an expert on american news propaganda

As do I.
You never did answer my question, who is the NPR equivalent to gleen beck?

For multiple reasons:
1. I have no goal to persuade you of my opinion other than my opinion that all news is biased and much of it is in the eye of the beholder.
2. The general principle of bias at NPR doesn't require an anti-Glenn Beck. I've never stated nor implied there's an anti-Glenn Beck at NPR. I have no dog in that fight.
CSharpner
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2011
So, my point is there's so much evidence for media bias from both sides (the 2 links I provided are 2 of many examples) that it's a waste of bandwidth for either of us to try to prove to the other that bias exists on each others favorite news sources. Media bias exists at Fox as well as everywhere else. Fox's bias leans to the right, NPR, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, lean to the left, as do most entertainment media (TV shows, movies, pop music, Comedy Central, etc...)

It's an old debate that's on par with religious debates or abortion. It's almost pointless to debate. Both sides are so fixed to their opinions that all they do is, like the old song, shout, "Hooray for my side".

I've been observing the bias, personally, for most of my life. Writing down examples won't change it (besides, other people are already doing that at multiple web sites, for both sides).

I hope you understand.
Thrasymachus
3.2 / 5 (9) Apr 04, 2011
Bias of individual reporters is not an issue. No one can successfully overcome their own biases all the time, even when they are aware of them. The point is the extent to which bias is institutionalized in the operations of the news organization and its management. Is it conceivable that an outspoken and credible conservative find a place in the news lineup of ABC, MSNBC, NPR, etc.? Of course it is, and there are several examples. What about an outspoken and credible liberal on Fox? The only one that springs to mind is that guy that sat opposite to Hannity, and calling him either outspoken or credible stretches the meaning of those words beyond credulity. And he's gone now. Moreover, Fox isn't even bothering to hide their institutional bias.

Bias on an individual level is inescapable. But bias on an institutional level is corrupting, self-perpetuating, and damaging to others, and it should be assiduously rooted out and banished.
gunslingor1
4.8 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2011
The point is the extent to which bias is institutionalized in the operations of the news organization and its management.

-EXACTLY! CSharp, we are 100% accusing FOX of not only intentionally manipulative there news, but doing it systematically from the top down. The entire organization, 24 hours a day, not one or two slip ups by a reporter.

CSharp, you said that bias is impossible to avoid in media. BullShit, I call Bullshit. It is 100% "possible" to avoid, but it takes a great deal on concious effort on the part of the reporter. Look man, your dodging our point; we aren't claiming that opinions accidentally seep into FOX, we are claiming they are intentionally put there, intentionally hidden under real news and presented as fact, for the sole purpose of propaganda.

You claim NPR is just as bad. I call you out, prove it. I could litterally site hundreds of examples, you cannot site one for NPR? Example must be on air, not an off air personnal opinion.
CSharpner
1 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2011
Once more, I won't be baited into a argument over who's more biased. As much as I try to say that I can agree to disagree and peacefully accept that your opinion is opposite mine, I would request that you could do the same. There ARE liberals on Fox, but this is a pointless discussion. As much as you are convinced that Fox is more "blatantly" biased, I am just as much (or more so) that the others are more so in the other direction. I'm not going to waste bandwidth with examples, as I've said plenty of times now that the two links I posted do plenty of that for both sides. Additionally, I'm not going to do it because I feel no need to convince you to change your mind. I can accept that we disagree.

I say this to BOTH sides: If you're TRULY interested in examples of bias from the news YOU trust, just check out the 2 links I posted. There's plenty of it everywhere. My personal experience tells me there's far more coming from the left, but again, much of that is in the eye of the beholder
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2011
I am 100% accusing FOX of intentional full time manipulation. I am accusing them of taking every story that comes in, analyzing for its effects on their agenda, and spinning it in a blatant fashion to support that agenda. This is propaganda, not news. You say NPR is just as bad, REALLY?!? Show me a single example, that's all I ask. I gave you the mosque example, you cannot give one?

You say you don't care about conviencing us? Well, we aren't stupid and you shouldn't be wasting your time if that were true. I find it far more likely that you have no examples and that you feel that somehow supporting "the only non-liberal news outlet" somehow supports your beliefs and agenda, or that not supporting it will hurt the chances of those beliefs and agenda turning into policy... Well, it won't and it doesn't. One has nothing to do with the other.

In mid-1990s, FOX was actually my favorite news. Wasn't till the end of Clinit that it turned terrible, Bush years it went insain.

CSharpner
1 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2011
Look man, your dodging our point;

You are under the false impression that I'm defending Fox and/or that I'm debating. I'm not.
we aren't claiming that opinions accidentally seep into FOX, we are claiming they are intentionally put there, intentionally hidden under real news and presented as fact, for the sole purpose of propaganda.

LOL. I'm fully aware of what you're saying. I'm just not in a debate with you. You obviously feel the need to argue with someone about Fox. I'm not the one. You can have any opinion you want of Fox. I'm fine with it.
You claim NPR is just as bad. I call you out, prove it.

No. I didn't make an "accusation". I informed you that I have an "opinion". Just because our opinions differ doesn't mean we automatically have to fight about it. Like I've said multiple times, I have no need or desire to convince you. I've /informed/ you of my opinion. I've not debated it and I'm not trying to change yours.
gunslingor1
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2011
You say we are "baiting you in". That implies we have an advantage and it isn't a fair fight, I would agree with that. So, just concede bro, no one honestly feels NPR propaganda... FOX is obvious.

For ANOTHER example, Fox and friends were angry about the nuclear talks that were under way. They pointed to the symbol of the talks as a possible link to al-Qaeda, since they thought it looked like a crestent moon and star. Well, it only took my simple common sense and a single google search to confirm, it was a hydrogen atom for god's sake. Your telling me they didn't intentionally give this false interpretation? That they simply failed to check google or missed it.

I will concede this far: "FOX news is either the most negligent and incompetent news organization in history, or it is the largest propaganda machine in history".

No. I didn't make an "accusation". I informed you that I have an "opinion".

And I'm calling that opinion statement a lie. Give me some basis for it
CSharpner
1 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2011
I find it far more likely that you have no examples

I don't care. You obviously want to fight. I don't. I honestly couldn't care less if you disagree. It's not important. Your repeated attempts at trying to turn a polite discussion into an argument will fail with me. Bait all you want. I'm not biting.

Listen carefully: I DON'T CARE!!! Really. You can hate Fox all you want. I'm fine with that. I honestly, truly, don't care. I'm not saying that in a mean way. It's just that... I don't care. Honestly. You can give all the negative Fox examples you want. I don't care. I have no desire to be pulled in. But now, I'm being pulled into arguing about arguing. Seriously. Stop.

I'll ignore any further attempts to pull me in. I can accept that your opinion is different than mine. For whatever reason, you just cannot accept it and are driven by a desire to argue. I accept you for who you are and I'm OK with it. Tolerance is an important practice.
gunslingor1
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2011
I honestly, truly, don't care.

And this is why the propaganda machine persists, this is why we are in such trouble in this country. The man who supports Fox, doesn't care to defend it. The loudest citizens, the ones who get heard, don't care or have selfish motives.

Don't you ever give an opinion if you have nothing to back it up with. A better answer would have been I don't know or I don't care. And opinion is nothing without support. "My opinion is the sky is red and green stripped"; Bravo! way to add something meaningful to the conversation!

I honestly couldn't care less if you disagree. It's not important.

-One of us is wrong here bro, which means either your a victim of blatant propaganda or that I am wrongfully accusing a news organization of blatant and ILLEGAL propaganda. You don't find this important? As usual, the FOX lovers are impossible to have a conversation with, basing opinions on desires and beliefs, rather than facts and observation.
CSharpner
1 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2011
You say we are "baiting you in". That implies we have an advantage and it isn't a fair fight, I would agree with that.

O h ! M y . . . G a a w w d d ! ! You just don't get it, do you? We're NOT in a debate? How many times do I have to tell you before it clicks with you? You seem to think that just because our opinions differ that we MUST fight. Our opinions are different. DEAL WITH IT! You're like a little badger nipping at my heals. You just don't quit. I accept that our opinions are different and I'm totally OK with it. You REALLY need to learn how to do that. If you really want examples of bias from NPR, Google is your friend. I'm not. I really, honestly, truly, from the depths of my soul, don't care.

And I'm calling that opinion statement a lie. Give me some basis for it


Now, you've crossed the line from marginal civility to outright incivility. Tolerance goes a LONG way brother, and I've been dishing it out is gallons with you.

Now, go away.
gunslingor1
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2011
I accept that our opinions are different and I'm totally OK with it.

I usually do the same, except when someone is afraid to stand behind their opinion and back it up; the only conclusion I can come up with is that your either lying or living is la-la land. I hope you realize, an opinion is an intermediate step; eventually, action is required. My OPINION is that FOX is Propaganda, not news. So yes, I deeply care that there are people who honestly support it. Why is it that, from your point of view, you don't care that I'm listening to the propaganda of NPR?

Okay, go and run off little fishy, sorry for bating you with a real worm. Sorry for not being civil, you just pushed me too far by stating an unreasonable opinion and not being able to back it up; not one example of blatant NPR propagana, not one counter argument for the numerous examples I stated. I honestly dont want to convience you, wouldn't want your type on my side, I was just trying to understand your thinking.
CSharpner
1 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2011
One of us is wrong here bro, which means either your a victim of blatant propaganda or that I am wrongfully accusing a news organization of blatant and ILLEGAL propaganda. You don't find this important? As usual, the FOX lovers are impossible to have a conversation with, basing opinions on desires and beliefs, rather than facts and observation.

You have no idea how tolerant I've been of your rants and accusations. You just keep attacking and nipping at my heels. Just because I'm not debating with you, you try to turn it into bullshit assumptions. You're acting like a teenager. Stop it. Deal with the fact that our opinions are different and move on.

Let me say it in a tone I've NEVER had to use before in my 23 years of online debate (of which, this is NOT one), and to my fellow physorg readers, I do apologize:

GO -- THE -- FUCK -- AWAY!

My God! You're a petulant little shit, aren't you?

Apologies to everyone else.
gunslingor1
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2011
Again CSharp, I appoligize. Its just, there is nothing I can't stand more than someone who refuses to admit when they are wrong, or someone who makes outlandish accusations without any proof. And yes, an opinion is an accusation: "I think your not telling the truth", that's both an opinion and me calling you a lier. Look man, if you really don't care, why respond? You, not me, have dominated this conversation, simply count the posts bro. Unfortunately, all you've done is dodge.

Run off now, unless you really do care and must have the final word.
CSharpner
3 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2011
Well, crap. My last post didn't make it. Let me paraphrase the more important points:

You're making a AWFUL lot of assumptions about why I don't care and why we're not in a debate and 100% of your assumptions are 100% wrong.

But, I can see it's ridiculously important to you to engage in a debate. Even though you don't deserve it, I'll meet you halfway, because I'm a nice guy. In a different forum, I'll be happy to DISCUSS this with you, rationally, and maturely. We'll set ground rules (nothing neither of us wouldn't already presume anyway) and we'll hold each other accountable to those ground rules. If you really want to know why I have the opinion I do, we can do that. Just send me a PM and I'll get it set up. Short, mini posts here, with random strangers piping in with drive-by insults against you or against me make the wrong forum here, which is the primary reason I'm not engaging in this overly electrified topic in a public forum, (aside from the fact I just don't care).
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2011
Those that protest Glen Beck, Palin, Rush, etc. are doing so because they (Beck, Palin, Rush, etc.) are correct AND they are right.
If their commentary and analysis was not spot on and effective, why would the 'liberals' protest so much?

gunslingor1
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2011
All I asked for was a single example of on air blatant propaganda of NPR, something equivalent to the ground zero mosque incident. You obviously didn't have anything, so sorry I YALLED at you, but you should've just said so.

Sorry for wasting your time. I do care, I care about truth, I care about resolution of problems that have findable solution, I care about americans being manipulated and lied to, I care about pushing us forward and aligning one path forward with compromise at the paths center. I do not want to argue, your dodging of my questions and lack of comment to my proof has only angered me. I don't care about leaning right or left, I care about lieing and misreprenting reality. Both yourself and Fox have done this in my eyes. Its unforgivable. The willingness to say something that has far reaching consequences based on nothing more than desires for reality, without caring as you said yourself.

He has no self control, nor respect for people he disagrees with.
gunslingor1
3 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2011
Those that protest Glen Beck, Palin, Rush, etc. are doing so because they (Beck, Palin, Rush, etc.) are correct AND they are right.
If their commentary and analysis was not spot on and effective, why would the 'liberals' protest so much?


Read my previous posts. Because we don't like being lied to and manipulated. Plus, some people actually beleive the crap Glenn Beck says and I honestly feel thats dangerous to society. You see Csharp, you really do seem like a reasonably intelligent yet ethically lackadaisical person. I do not think you would ever come out and say about Gleen Beckler:
commentary and analysis was not spot on and effective


But there are plenty of wakos who trust that son-of-a-bitch. Being that 99.9% of his show is just conjecture with wild outlandish claims and no proof, a guy who says that is dangerous for civilization, he can't even rocognize "entertainment"/fiction from "news"/fact.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2011
Being that 99.9% of his show is just conjecture with wild outlandish claims and no proof,

Why does that bother you?
Do Gore's or Moore's conjectures bother you?
gunslingor1
not rated yet Apr 04, 2011
CSharpner
1 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2011
You obviously didn't have anything

No, we're just not in a debate about it. What part of that do you not understand?
I care about ...

Long list of irrelevant things...

I care about those things too. I just don't give a sh!t about YOUR opinion. Deal with it.

has only angered me


Yes, this is clear. It's unhealthy for your emotions to be based on the opinion of a stranger. I say that with all due respect. You really need to learn to control that. My opinion should have little to no effect on you at all, but you just can't let it go. I stated my opinion for a very simple reason... to show that not everyone thinks the same way you do, not to prove that my opinion is right (though, OF COURSE I believe it is, otherwise it wouldn't be my opinion (duh)). It shouldn't matter to you why *MY* opinion is what it is. I was done a LONG time ago but you keep pulling at my shirt tale nagging "why? why? why?"

(continued...)
CSharpner
2 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2011
(continued...)

Then you start manufacturing reasons in your own little head of why you think I'm not engaging and posting them as if they're fact. There's gotta be some psychological condition with a word for that.

You keep biting at my heels and I keep saying this:

http://www.youtub...gvq98mjc

If you want a reason to post things you hate about Fox, you certainly don't need my permission. Just do it.

But, go home! It's over! Or, accept the proposal I made. You've lost any reason to say I'm dodging, not that you ever had any valid reason to say it anyway.

The accusations and hatred you've been spewing is exactly the kind of rhetoric Obama was asking everyone to stop after the Arizona shooting and judging from your political opinions, Obama's statements have importance to you, so why not heed your guy's words? Stop the hateful rhetoric.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2011
Those that protest Glen Beck, Palin, Rush, etc. are doing so because they (Beck, Palin, Rush, etc.) are correct AND they are right.
About what? The Fairness Doctrine? None of them seemed to understand it. It wasn't a ploy to dismantle AM talk radio. It wasn't censorship. It was a statement of 'suppliment your current views with opposing views on the particular topics of political importance.'

If their commentary and analysis was not spot on and effective, why would the 'liberals' protest so much?
Because at times all three of them don't conform to the broadcast law. Then they lie on topics that are important to society and politics. Hence the Fairness Doctrine. It's similar to how we don't allow homeopaths to get licenses for surgery.
CSharpner
1 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2011
You see Csharp, you really do seem like a reasonably intelligent yet ethically


I just saw my name in a post of yours where you were replying to someone else's comments, so I didn't notice it until just now. I think you were directing that to whomever posted the text you quoted and replied to? I appreciate your recognition of my being reasonably intelligent, but I believe you thought I typed what it was you were replying to?
gunslingor1
4 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2011
Do Gore's or Moore's conjectures bother you?

Its not conjecture buddy is theory, learn the difference. Gore has a fuck load of evidence and credibility on the side of global warming if thats what your refering to; simple lab experiments is one of many, what do you have in support of your faith for Glenn Beck? Tell me, is this talk based on a desire or observation/fact:
http://www.youtub...=related

You really think that is right on the spot eh?

http://www.youtub...zuCU822w

And you really think it is fair journaism to claim someone is a terrorist and all that associate with him are terrorists, without disclosing that this guy is the second largest owner of fox. Really? These are guys you trust for accurate information? These are the most trusted names in news? Why? I really want to know how they've earned it, honestly. Tell me honestly, really, its because their polical goals align with your political goals right?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2011
Beck: conjecture; Gore: theory.
No bias here.

It wasn't censorship.

Yes, it is censorship.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2011
Conjecture:
1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.

Theory:
1.A systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.

Yes, I myself stand by it; Glenn is guessing, gore is theorizing, well, more like summarizing but the work came from scientists with a theory, where did Glenns come from...his brain. I am 100% confident, that Glenn Beck himself would say the same, he has many times.

lol:http://www.youtub...9qODfcZc
WTF is an antigod network?!

http://thinkprogr...olitics/
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2011
Beck's theories regarding the socialists are spot on.
He has done significantly more research on the topic than gunny.
gunslingor1
not rated yet Apr 04, 2011
Who are "the socialists".
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2011
Who are "the socialists".

Anyone who supports govt control of private property.
gunslingor1
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2011
Really? So I personnally support:
1. Regultation of industrial pollutants.
2. Free market regulations.
3. Power line regulations.
4. FDIC bank insurance.
5. Minimum standards for safety in cars and trucks
6. Gun control.
7. Speed limits and driving laws.
8. etc..

Are you telling me I am a socialist? Regulation does not equal socialism.

Besides, it certainly doesn't have to be private property, public property is not exempt from the socialist ideal.

Any successful and modern form of government takes elements from ALL the classical forms of government. Unregulated capitalism doesn't work, everyone would be allowed to print money and steal each others patents. The governement prints money, you don't think they should be allowed to regulate it? Money would be worthless without these rules. I realize it is nice for you to have a single word to represent all those who oppose your view, but this is not an accurate representation of reality.

you sound like an anarchist 2me
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2011
It wasn't censorship.

Yes, it is censorship.

"Going forward, in order for your posts to be read, I must reply afterwards. If I decide to not reply, you are still fully welcome to post and it can be read."

How is that censorship?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2011
Are you telling me I am a socialist?

Yep.
Unregulated capitalism doesn't work,

Because it cannot exist. Capitalism is regulated quite well by its customers.
Money would be worthless without these rules.

That's been proven false. Ultimately the value of money is what people say it is to them.
Somalia has a paper currency and it is used quite effectively. Its value is the cost to make it so counterfeiting is not profitable.
I don't think the govt should print OR control the money supply as they have every incentive to inflate and devalue the money, which they continue to do.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.9 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2011

Because it cannot exist. Capitalism is regulated quite well by its customers.
Demonstrably false.
I don't think the govt should print OR control the money supply as they have every incentive to inflate and devalue the money, which they continue to do.
Because you're a fan of imaginary money. You can't run a family on Disney Dollars.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2011
It wasn't censorship.

Yes, it is censorship.

"Going forward, in order for your posts to be read, I must reply afterwards. If I decide to not reply, you are still fully welcome to post and it can be read."

How is that censorship?

'Fairness' Doctrine applied to time sensitive TV and radio broadcasts. Each unit of time has a value. If the govt forced a station to provide Air America 3 hours to counter Rush, that's three hours of lost revenue as they could not sell advertising for Air America. No one listened. So they would have to charge there other successful programs more money or switch to music.
It is censorship.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2011
'Fairness' Doctrine applied to time sensitive TV and radio broadcasts. Each unit of time has a value. If the govt forced a station to provide Air America 3 hours to counter Rush
That's not what is required. The Fairness doctrine means that for each unit of time you dedicate to one polar viewpoint you must make available to the opposite. If I have a radio show that speaks about education and we engage in a conversation on evolution vs creationism; If I put down 15 minutes of time to speak about the science of evolution and my stance ont he topic, I have to provide an equal amount of time for you to talk about creationism. That's 30 minutes, or, we could spend 15 minutes where you AND I talk about it. Think Hannity Colmes before he dropped Colmes.
that's three hours of lost revenue as they could not sell advertising for Air America.
No it isn't.
No one listened.
Then talk about topics that people care about. Not the govt's fault your fav shows suck.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2011

Because it cannot exist. Capitalism is regulated quite well by its customers.
Demonstrably false.
I don't think the govt should print OR control the money supply as they have every incentive to inflate and devalue the money, which they continue to do.
Because you're a fan of imaginary money. You can't run a family on Disney Dollars.

Why not? If you can trade DD for what you want, it is money.
gunslingor1
4 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2011
Ultimately the value of money is what people say it is to them.

-EXACTLY! And if my money is printed and controlled by a corporation, myself and at least 50% of americans (probably a lot more) wouldn't value it at all! This is what led to the shanty towns of the 20's and was the primary cause of the great depression. A nation with a single currancy is always stronger because of it, always. A world under a single currancy, would be far stronger. But to break it up so each state, area and business has its own currancy, that inherently means you'll only be able to purchase certain things with cirtain types of money. If I'm Walmart and I print Walmart bucks, why would I let those be used at Target when, since there is no regulation, I could simply require they are spent at walmart? You end up with a closed loop, everyone who works at walmart is paid in walmart bucks and they can only buy stuff at walmart. Eventually, everyone ends up working for walmart. Corporate Run Socialism.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2011
If I'm Walmart and I print Walmart bucks, why would I let those be used at Target when, since there is no regulation, I could simply require they are spent at walmart? You end up with a closed loop, everyone who works at walmart is paid in walmart bucks and they can only buy stuff at walmart. Eventually, everyone ends up working for walmart. Corporate Run Socialism.
Actually, that would be Corporate Fascism. Big difference. Socialism would mean that they'
re going to pay each of those workers easily, however, once everyone works for walmart, why would you keep paying them? You already have them dependant on you for everything.

This is what Mr. Swenson suggests, take the power away from a government that is run by and for the people and give it to a company that is run by the people, but for the CEO and shareholders.

Our government is not a business, it cannot run like a business, as the profit is not monetary in nature.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2011
his is what led to the shanty towns of the 20's and was the primary cause of the great depression.

That's BS.
The Federal Reserve was created ~1914 and the govt controlled the money supply.

the profit is not monetary in nature.

If you want to survive in nature you had better learn to make a 'profit' to carry you through lean times like winter or droughts.
And if my money is printed and controlled by a corporation, myself and at least 50% of americans (probably a lot more) wouldn't value it at all

Then it would be in the best interest of the corporation to persuade you and the remaining 50% to value their currency.
That's what credit cards had to do to gain market share. Persuade businesses and customers to use their product.
gunslingor1
4 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2011
-Skeptic, I couldnt agree more... Me and you should meet up =).

rygg, I do truly understand your viewpoint, though I do feel it is uninformed. Correct me if I am wrong, but your view is: "Goverment is an evil business & cannot be trusted. We require pure capitalism w/ little government so that the people, not the government, can regulate themselves." -I somewhat agree and sympathize with this viewpoint. But, and a big but, this point of view takes the assumption that a corporation is far less evil than a government as well as being as intelligent and good as an individual. Before conglomerates I think it would have been true. but there is little difference at this point between govmt and corporations other than there published motives. Corporations motives = profits, Goverment motives = happy citizens. What is good for a corporation is not always good for a citizen and a corporation will NEVER baw to the good of people if it doesn't align w/ their profits, & they dont always align.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2011
his is what led to the shanty towns of the 20's and was the primary cause of the great depression.

That's BS.
The Federal Reserve was created ~1914 and the govt controlled the money supply.
Actually no. Shanty towns existed before the 20's primarily due to the mining and raw materials companies failing. When the employees, who were often paid in company currency, had no company to get actual US currency from, anything they had saved vanished with the company, instantly turning them into beggars.
If you want to survive in nature you had better learn to make a 'profit' to carry you through lean times like winter or droughts.
IOf you want to turn to 'nature' as the justification for your stance, you're going to instantly lose this conversation.
gunslingor1
4.7 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2011
That's what credit cards had to do to gain market share. Persuade businesses and customers to use their product.

-that was a marketing issue, not a feasibility issue. Credit cards are backed and valued by the dollar, they are not corporate dollars.

-look man, the more currencies we have, the more complicated life will be. How many currancies do you want brother? Even if there were hundreds of currancies dished out by every state, county and corporation, what is the real advantage of this and how does it outweigh the disadvantages? I mean seriously, you realize every gas station attendant would have to have someway to convert a can of coke ($1) to hundreds of different values. Who's currancy gets displayed on price stickers at walmart?

Historically, the more currancies a civilization has, the more people have to waste time worrying about which to trust, which can be used where, etc. Economies are far less productive with multiple currancies. I would deal in gold instead.
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2011
Here I thought marjon would have been a gold-standard wacko. He really just wants to privatize the issuing of fiat currency. Apparently, he doesn't realize that the current, government held-monopoly on fiat money, is the result of a long history of the evolution of society's economies, a history that began with what was in essence the private issuing of fiat currency. A common shift to the gold standard was effected to minimize the costs of exchange. The global shift to fiat currency was effected to accommodate the people's changing demands for money as the private sector attempts to maximize use of their productive capacities.

There are democratic controls that help prevent a democratic nation from inflating its currency beyond economically sustainable levels. But the government's relationship with the money supply, and its implications for fiscal and monetary policy, have been badly misconstrued by conservative economists and politicians.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2011
When the employees, who were often paid in company currency, had no company to get actual US currency from, anything they had saved vanished with the company, instantly turning them into beggars.

-Yes, one of the biggest disadvantages of multi-corporate currancies. If the corporation goes under, your screwed. It ends up turning peoples savings accounts into a lottery. Granted, the US dollar could completely plumet/skyrocket at any moment just the same, but there would be no unfair winners and losers internal on average; we dont want our currancy to react like a game of craps, we need a stable currancy so we can fairly trade without questioning the validity of value.

-Look dog, there are already hundreds of currancies out there. You don't like the dollar, go with another; go with gold. You really want WALMART-BUCKS, BESTBUY-BUCKS, BP-BUCK?.... Fine, Buy a freakin giftcard man. No one is stopin you. R U wanting to force people to accept these other currancies in stores?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2011
. The global shift to fiat currency was effected to accommodate the people's changing demands for money

No, it was not. It was to accommodate govt demands for more power over the economy.
If a govt can't print money how can it fund wars or any other mischief it wants to engage in?
we need a stable currancy so we can fairly trade without questioning the validity of value.

No argument there. So why do you trust the govt to keep the dollar stable as govts benefit from inflated currencies.
R U wanting to force people to accept these other currancies in stores?

Govt forces people to accept US currency. Many local economies are now printing their own money.
http://www.berkshares.org/
http://www.npr.or...11749875
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2011
"EVERY fiat currency since the Romans first began the practice in the first century has ended in devaluation and eventual collapse, of not only the currency, but of the economy that housed the fiat currency as well.
Emperors that succeeded Nero liked the idea of devaluing their currency in order to pay the bills and increase their own wealth. By 218, the denarius was down to 43% silver, and in 244, Emperor Philip the Arab had the silver content dropped to 0.05%. Around the time of Romes collapse, the denarius contained only 0.02% silver and virtually nobody accepted it as a medium of exchange or a store of value.

Read more: Fiat Currency http://dailyrecko...IhaMuhbE
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2011
"Under the infallible leadership of President Franklin Roosevelt, it was made illegal to own gold. On March 11, 1933, he issued an order forbidding banks to make gold payments. On April 5, Roosevelt ordered all citizens to surrender their gold no person could hold more than $100 in gold coins, except for collectors coins. He also made it unlawful to export gold for payment abroad, unless done through the Treasury. The penalty for defying Roosevelt was 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine."

Read more: Fiat Currency http://dailyrecko...Ihb5PXfC
This is another answer to an SH question about the govt confiscating private property.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2011
Rygg, I have no personal problem with going back to the gold standard, that isn't the issue. If you had proposed this, I wouldn't be arguing with you. Going to gold would be standard, a standard is always required; thousands of different currancies produced by everyone and there mother inherintly implies there is no standard.

Another thing to consider, the dollar isn't just the US standard, its the global standard. If we do what you propose, this standard would no longer be valid and the world economies would colapse. Besides America's empire is excessively stronger because the dollar is the standard world currancy.

Govt forces people to accept US currency. Many local economies are now printing their own money.

-By pointing the finger back and govmt and saying they do it, I have to assume you are going to do the same and force people to accept any and all forms of currancy, this will not work! It completely takes out the pure capitalistic agenda you are so striving for.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2011
Govt forces people to accept US currency. Many local economies are now printing their own money.
And they're going to jail for it because most of them can't seem to ensure that people don't think it is US tender. They're scamming people.
This is another answer to an SH question about the govt confiscating private property.
You know why that happened, don't you?

Just as with today, citizens of affluence (read:rich) were hoarding gold in Swiss bank accounts. Do you see the year the edict was passed? Do you know the name of it?

The order was an amendment to the "Trading with the Enemy Act". Subsequently, no one was ever prosecuted for the order successfully. Citizens who refused to turn over their gold faced no punishment thanks to the legal precedent set by Judge Woolsey.

What the act did do was prevent US businesses from doing work for foreign enemy governments as many of them would take their payments in gold from Germany, Austria, etc.

Learn your history.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2011
Also Rygg, Other than striving for a pure capitalistic ideal, I see no real advantage for society to implement your agenda. Really! What are the advantages? We have all named a number of disadvantages, none of which you have agrued are not valid. To summarize:

1. Peoples savings accounts are turned into an effective stock market.
2. No global standard.
3. Your solution is only valid if you force people to accept all forms of currancy, thus eliminating the pure capitalistic agenda.
4. Eventually, a single currancy will win out anyway, thus creating corporate facism.
5. World economies would collapse.
6. American world power would be diminished.
7. more time wasted on monitary issues = slower economic growth.
8. many more

So, what are the advantages? How are you going to convience us that this is the best thing to do for America?
Thrasymachus
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2011
A return to a gold standard is unrealistic, and the advantages it provides in terms of price stability are unreliable, and unable to overcome its disadvantages, such as inelasticity in the money supply. Consider for a moment, there is currently more than 8.3 trillion US dollars in circulation. The total amount of gold estimated to have been mined throughout the course of human history is only 142 thousand metric tons. Even if all that gold were somehow able to be acquired to back the money currently in circulation, that would necessitate an ounce of gold to be worth $1660. It's current price per ounce is $1456. You might not think a price increase of $204 an ounce is a big deal, but industrial applications that use gold would feel the pinch.

And then there's the problem of inelasticity. When an economy is in a period of readjustment, it requires more money to facilitate that readjustment. When you use gold, you always have a fixed amount of money, slowing readjustment.
gunslingor1
not rated yet Apr 06, 2011
And then there's the problem of inelasticity.

hmmmm. I feel this is both a problem and an advantage depending on who you ask and when. The ability to elastize money can be a real disadvantage or an unfair advantage for an economy, China comes to mind. I personnal would prefer a 100% stable currancy, but this will only happen when the world is under a single currancy. The only reason to have flexibility really is to deal with population growth/decline. Hopefully, we will not grow much beyond what we are, the planet can't really handle it and niether can our living style; One example, the cost of wood is rediculously high right now, try and find black walnut, its impossible and rediculously more expensive than it used to be.

I personnaly don't care that much about the monitary issue so long as we don't go of an edge with rygg's idea, we have far more important things to worry about. It just needs to be fair and relatively stable. Trade in antimatter particles for all I care.
Thrasymachus
2.8 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2011
And of course, the actual story of switching back to a gold standard is even worse. You can't back money with gold you don't have, so using all 142k metric tons of gold to back U.S. dollars is an unattainable ideal. The U.S. government owned around $250 billion worth of gold in March 2009 (wiki). Accounting for the increase in gold prices since then, and assuming they haven't sold any off, that means that it's currently worth almost $385 billion. Switching to a gold standard would therefore increase the price of gold in the US market by at least 20 times its current value, presuming the US government doesn't acquire any more gold or sell off any gold before it makes the switch.
Thrasymachus
2.8 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2011
When most people say they want a stable currency, they mean they want stable prices. This means that the amount of money in the economy increases as the amount of valuable stuff in the economy increases, and decreases as the amount of valuable stuff in the economy decreases.

In a gold standard economy, the amount of money in the economy is a function of the amount of gold produced (mined and put into reserves). This function is almost completely independent of the rest of the productive economy. If there's a burst of innovation and production in the country, and gold production doesn't keep up, you get deflation. If gold mines dry up, you get deflation, and when gold inevitably runs out, you get runaway deflation. I don't know if anybody's told you, but deflation is bad, much much worse than inflation. In short, a gold standard stifles innovation and productivity.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2011
Eventually, we'll probably see a global currency. That currency will probably be based on time, and the value will be directly affixed to the amount of time you spend doing something compared to your skill set in doing so.

Similar to the incredibly simplistic systems we had in the past. This would make the subject of taxation a moot point. You'd be able to pay a monetary tax or a time based tax of free labor. That way the mechanisms of government are accomplished without a change in ownership of currency outside of effort.

But of course, this system has multiple intricate problems as well. There is no currency system that is free of issues, however to mock the most prevalent and functional system without providing a viable alternative is laughable.
Thrasymachus
2.8 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2011
I don't know how that would work, SH. Gold works in theory as a medium of exchange because it can be exchanged, like for like. Your oz of gold is worth just as much as my oz of gold. Notes substitute for gold only because gold's a bitch to carry around. Time doesn't seem to be something that can be exchanged in the same way, but seems more akin to knowledge. You can give others knowledge, and you can give other's knowledge in exchange for money, but you can't exchange knowledge for money, because you'll still retain that knowledge. I can see where you're coming from, though, a sort of labor theory of value.

And of course, basing a currency on labor would completely undermine the labor market, in the same way that a gold based currency undermines the gold market. Ideally, a currency would be backed by the whole productive capacity of an economy. Functionally, this means a fiat currency administered by a democracy interested in restraining inflation and avoiding deflation.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2011
but you can't exchange knowledge for money
Ah, but you can disseminate knowledge for currency, which is part of what we do now.
And of course, basing a currency on labor would completely undermine the labor market, in the same way that a gold based currency undermines the gold market.
I also think that will change. At some point in time, given the correct circumstance, we're able to free ourselves from labor for survival through technology, the labor market will cease to exist. That will leave many people with a great deal of free time.

What better method to drive innovation than to affix actual market value to new information?
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2011
Thrasym, no comment. What you say isn't invalid, but I don't really care about the details of a monitary system that much.

Skeptic, cool thought, I'd be for soemthing like that.

Anyway, I think it is important for people like rygg to go back to the drawing board and ask themselves a few questions. What is the real pupose of money? and What is the real purpose of America.

The first one is easy, convenience. The value of money is determined by the value of products and services, money doesn't define the value of products and services. Products & services can be traded directly, but obviously it would be a pain in the ass (glad there is no fowl language filter on this site, lol, monkey shit ass balls penis vagina).

The second question isn't so easy, but I personnaly think the purpose of America is to, eventually, create a single world currancy. When I mean purpose, I mean the long term goal we strive for in commonality that will not change with time; we are really almost there
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2011
Ideally, a currency would be backed by the whole productive capacity of an economy.

-You got my vote!

I also think that will change. At some point in time, given the correct circumstance, we're able to free ourselves from labor for survival through technology, the labor market will cease to exist. That will leave many people with a great deal of free time.

-110% agree with you there, man we think alike. Crazy.
-Anyway yeah, this I feel is the purpose of civilization; to make life easier and evolve to the point were work for survival is no longer required, work for self expansion would have to be the new eutopian goal, otherwise we'd all turn into lazy slobs and be a discrace to this phenominon called life.
-I agree Skeptic, this is the goal of society and, so long as we don't desetroy ourselves, it will happen, its inevitable. Thanks to robotics and the internet, we could really do this RIGHT NOW! So it is coming, sooner than most think.

Thrasymachus
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2011
Arguably, the purpose of a government from an economic perspective is to promote full capacity utilization. That is, to help make sure that all the available resources are put to use in the most productive way possible. This is done largely by contributing to aggregate demand, through spending, to put to use those sectors of the economy that are not being or would not be utilized to full capacity with private spending alone. To put it another way, the private sector chooses the most profitable return on their resources, but leaves a lot of productivity on the table at the margins, choosing to save rather than chase that last marginal nickel of profit. Government comes in and spends the rest to put that marginal productivity to work, until no more excess value can be squeezed out of our productive capacity with more spending. And the government can literally print the money to do this without risking inflation up to full capacity utilization.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2011
Thrasym, Sounds good to me =)...... when it works =0; in this country, they claim they do this, but really they are just filling CEOs pockets with our tax dollars >=(. Oil and farm subsidies spring to mind =P, as does military research >=).
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2011
Maybe you perceive it as bias simply because the majority of society is further to the left than you are.


Maybe society is wrong. Or maybe YOU are so far to the left that's how you perceive him and society. That's why the word extremist is one of the most chickenshit in the English language. It's ALL relative and it ALL depends on where you're looking from.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2011
"Goverment is an evil business & cannot be trusted.

Govt is no more evil than a gun.
Govt is a monopoly on FORCE.
The socialist fantasy is that a 'good' dictator will be found to make socialism do what the socialist dreams of.

he purpose of a government from an economic perspective is to promote full capacity utilization. That is, to help make sure that all the available resources are put to use in the most productive way possible.

NO it is not. Its proper function it to protect the property rights of EVERY individual, equally.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2011
Govt is no more evil than a gun.
Govt is a monopoly on FORCE.
The socialist fantasy is that a 'good' dictator will be found to make socialism do what the socialist dreams of.
Socialism is an economic method, not a method of governance. The political philosophy of socialism, which may be what you're trying to get at, is dictatorless. It is absolutely contrary to dictatorship. The Soviet Union and China are communist, which is a form of governance that attempts to make the two contradictory methods operate together.

It is a method of failure without force. Socialism itself requires no force, merely compassion or empathy.

No wonder you fear it, you're incapable of both.

The good bits of the various religions are typically socialist as they are compassionate acts. Your christian morality is socialist.
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2011
Fiscal policy certainly matters. Governments have to spend their money in the economic sectors with spare excess capacity after private investment in order to prevent inflation. That's why farm subsidies aren't a bad thing. Farm productivity is so high, that even after private spending, there's tons of spare productive capacity. All this spare capacity means agricultural prices can't go up in the face of higher demand, rather, supply will be increased and prices will remain relatively unchanged. It also means that if demand drops, prices and profit fall rapidly. This disincentivizes agricultural investment, as profits are small and hard-won, and diminished investment reduces productive capacity. Without subsidy, productive capacity will diminish until prices and profitability can rise to be worth private investment, which will price some people out of the market, not to mention hamper our ability to produce enough food to actually meet people's needs.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2011
Socialism itself requires no force, merely compassion or empathy.

Of course is requires force when some one does not want to 'share'.
That's why farm subsidies aren't a bad thing.

That's not what they have proven in New Zealand.

Prevent inflation? Govt CAUSES inflation.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2011
Socialism itself requires no force, merely compassion or empathy.
Of course is requires force when some one does not want to 'share'.
No, someone who choses to not share will simply not be shared with. They'd be outside of that society. Didn't you go to school and learn these basic social skills?

Prevent inflation? Govt CAUSES inflation.
No, financial systems cause inflation. More people or more productivity requires more currency. Loans to consumers, which are a fairly decent measure of productivity, cause inflation.

We've been over this, you're kicking a dead argument again.
Thrasymachus
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2011
This is also the problem with wages and labor. There's currently so much excess capacity in the labor market, that wages and benefits won't go up in the face of increased labor demand. It's also why the government could literally employ every unemployed worker looking for a job right now, get them raking leaves or something, and print the money to pay them, without risking inflation. There's so much excess capacity in the economy, that even if you overpaid for the excess capacity in labor, the rest of the economy would soak it up. Inflation might increase initially, as the average velocity of money increases (poor people spend money faster than rich people), but would flatten out as a larger proportion of workers become net savers.
Thrasymachus
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2011
Technically, banks cause inflation. The central bank causes inflation by printing money at the direction of the Dept. of the Treasury, and by paying interest on overnight reserves. Commercial banks cause inflation by charging interest on loans, which has to be covered by the central bank's printing machine or risk a fiscal accounting crisis. Theoretically, commercial banks are restrained in creating money by reserve requirements, however, really, the reserve requirements, together with the support rate, are just risks that are priced in to the loan, and there is no objective barrier to the amount of money a commercial bank can create provided the central bank is willing to back that loan, or there's enough excess reserves in other commercial banks they can borrow from to back it.

Governments that are monopoly issuers of fiat currency can certainly cause inflation. But only if they spend beyond the productive capacity of the market. We're nowhere close.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2011
It's also why the government could literally employ every unemployed worker looking for a job right now, get them raking leaves or something, and print the money to pay them, without risking inflation. There's so much excess capacity in the economy, that even if you overpaid for the excess capacity in labor, the rest of the economy would soak it up.
Ok, that is wrong. The reason why I disagree is due to the mechanics of supply.

There's an excess supply of labor, and low demand so labor is devalued, completely agreed.

So let's say we buy up the excess labor with government. Now let's go entirely hypothetical and assume there's a 0% unemployment figure. The govt is printing the money to pay everyone who doesn't have a job otherwise, and we have some really nicely manicured infrastructure. Now everyone can afford items, that aren't in large enough supply. The cost for everything inflates, and we're right back to where we are now.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2011
Cont.

Effectively, that's the mechanic that frightens people. Hyperinflation ends up making all but the richest into paupers. Then you follow the chaos with rapid deflation and they're broke too. That's what happens when you try to marry singular control with socialism and create communism. Everything is great for a bit, but unless you have an inexhaustable supply of labor and poverty, communism crashes by its own design. You can see it happening in China now. As their poorest peoples gain more and more economic power the singular control has waned, and is starting to fail. We can only hope that the wave of social reform continues, otherwise we'll be looking at another soviet union collapse, with a more sophisticated criminal culture.
Thrasymachus
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2011
The price for those things will inflate only if there's little spare capacity for production of those things. When there's spare productive capacity, prices don't go up much, rather, manufacturers produce more. If there's no spare capacity for increased production, then sure, prices will go up. So once productive capacity is maximized, government should stop increasing its spending, because that will just cause inflation. But until productive capacity is reached, price inflation will be moderate. Don't forget that the spare labor capacity government buys up gets put to use producing an increase in the amount of real valuable stuff in the world. That increase offsets inflation until there's no capacity to increase the amount of real valuable stuff anymore.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2011
Didn't you go to school and learn these basic social skills?

That's what they teach is socialist govt schools don't they.
Why won't you share some of your paycheck? If you know where I live, share.

And the govt DOES cause inflation of fiat currency. They set all the banking reserve rules which controls the money supply.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2011
That's what they teach is socialist govt schools don't they.
As opposed to socialist church schools?
Why won't you share some of your paycheck? If you know where I live, share.
Are you in need? Bad form to ask for a handout, considering your political views. Then again, hypocrisy isn't new to you.
And the govt DOES cause inflation of fiat currency. They set all the banking reserve rules which controls the money supply.
The Federal Reserve, which is a private bank, sets the interest rates. If the government set a rule to loan at an interest rate 5% lower than the federal reserve, they can counter simply by raising the interest rate by approximately 5% making any legislation absolutely useless. You do understand that, don't you? America doesn't set America's credit score. A bank does. Shutting down government would be akin to losing your job. Immediate penalty against the nation's score, making it very difficult to correct.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.8 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2011
The price for those things will inflate only if there's little spare capacity for production of those things. When there's spare productive capacity, prices don't go up much, rather, manufacturers produce more.
But your labor supply is zero. There isn't an infinite amount of production capacity. You have to keep both public and private labor healthy, otherwise the system crashes.
But until productive capacity is reached, price inflation will be moderate.
I can give you examples that are entirely contrary to your statement. For example, every gaming console at release. The Sony PS3 was selling for 4-5 grand on Ebay due to 'shortfalls in production'. That was price inflation on the order of 1000%. That's close to the number that crushed Zimbabwe's currency in a single product that isn't a need, but a want.

Now imagine what happens when that occurs across the board in needs based goods.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2011
Maybe society is wrong.

-Well, we live in a democracy, right or wrong the people can choose ther own destiny.

The socialist fantasy is that a 'good' dictator will be found to make socialism do what the socialist dreams of.

-You obviously have no idea what socialism really is, nor what you are talking about. You never answered my question, what are the advantages for americans to have thousands of forms of currancy?

Of course is requires force when some one does not want to 'share'.

-Lol, hence your lack of compasion and empathy, lol.

Why won't you share some of your paycheck? If you know where I live, share.

-idiot. I pay 35% of my paycheck for the last 5 years to social programs, I'm 100% happy to do so. Thanks to your kind, my generation won't even see the benefits of it when we retire. Your kind is currently trying to steal our tax dollars and give them to insurance companies, not my side.

Skeptic, Thr's proposal is not indefinite.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2011
Skeptic, Thr's proposal is not indefinite.
I understand that, but merely creating the framework for that system to arise would result in calamity. The discussed hypothetical is almost impossible. You'd never be able to begin to erect a framework of that nature because of the inherent destabilization necessitated
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2011
Hmm... not that important to me personally. Stable convenient currancy is all I personally require, other than that plan the furture as you all see fit. I've got bigger problems to solve.

Holly shit, ryggesogn2=marjon. I had my suspicions. I know there couldn't be THAT many of you out there.
Thrasymachus
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2011
Actually, in both of those cases, inflation occurred because productive capacity had been reached. It was limited production in the case of the PS3, and it was the destruction of agricultural productive capacity in Zimbabwe's case through poorly administered land redistribution.

I agree that the labor market needs to remain flexible to shift to a changing economy's demands, and that this necessitates a certain number of people who are out of work and looking, i.e. unemployed. But spending on labor is the least inflationary economic stimulus possible because the real product of that labor will always back at least some of the money they are paid. Inflation is caused by creating money that has less or no backing relative to previously created money.

Hyperinflation is almost always caused more by a destruction of productive capacity more than by printing more money.
gunslingor1
not rated yet Apr 06, 2011
Thras, what do you do for a living?

Same with you Skeptic and Rygg/marjon?

I'm an engineer.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2011
Contract metrologist, I guess you'd call it a research engineering field.

Mr. Swenson won't tell you what he does, it would dismantle all of his arguments. Either that or he'll lie and tell you he's a farmer.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.8 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2011
But spending on labor is the least inflationary economic stimulus possible because the real product of that labor will always back at least some of the money they are paid. Inflation is caused by creating money that has less or no backing relative to previously created money.
True, but our money is realistically only backed by GDP. Meaning inflation should have a direct relationship to GNP. It doesn't, and I think this conversation could go on for a few weeks before we saw each other's intricate points on the topic.
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2011
Inflation will only have a direct relationship to GNP if money creation is stable. Suppose the central bank sets its money creation policy such that they will print 3% of the existing monetary base and inject it into the economy to account for growth. If the economy itself grows more than 3%, you get deflation, if it grows less than 3%, you get inflation.

If money creation is somehow tied directly or indirectly to GDP, as it is meant to be in tying money creation to the interest on loans, then there shouldn't be any inflation or deflation at all that can be sourced to money supply, depending on how well the money creation mechanism tracks actual increases in productivity.

Inflation across the whole economy is a function of the ratio of money to productive capacity, and the average velocity of money. If money creation keeps up with real growth, or lags behind, inflation must be caused by increased velocity. (cont)
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2011
But where we are now, thanks to poor fiscal spending decisions by the government and lax regulation of banks and financial institutions, is much lower than average overall money velocity, as private actors are holding on to money while they wait for the next real opportunity. There's lots of room to spend more money without causing inflation, and doing it will help motivate those private actors to get out there and make more money on the margins, reducing the amount of money you need to inject.

But it does matter where you spend the money, because spending it poorly can cause temporary inflation. Giving money to people who are already spending as much as they care to is bad spending. That causes inflation. Giving money to people who would spend more if only they had the cash is good spending. That doesn't cause inflation, it increases production.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2011
If the economy itself grows more than 3%, you get deflation, if it grows less than 3%, you get inflation.
Yes, and my reasoning for this mechanism is to ensure stability in the wage and resource value markets. It would create transparent pricing, removing the speculatory flux of goods pricing and need for government intervention. See, my financial stance is classical liberalism. If you create a stable and backed currency you do create a functional economy. The difference between me and Mr. Swenson is that I see a free market as the free market was in the 10' and 20's. Now that we have better knowledge of impact on the public and private lands and air resources, I support strict EPA regulation of pollution.

I'm big on private property and small government, but the people need an enforcer to exact their will on impersonal entities. A rule of law type of guy.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2011
Federal Reserve, which is a private bank,

Of course it is. Ever read '1984'?
Is that why the chairman of the Federal Reserve is appointed by the US government?
You obviously have no idea what socialism really is, nor what you are talking about. You never answered my question, what are the advantages for americans to have thousands of forms of currancy?

Never said there was an advantage to multiple currencies, unless they are fungible and then it doesn't matter.
It is a hassle for businesses to keep multiple currencies and change. With credit cards, it doesn't matter. What does matter is the stability of the value of the currency. If Saudi Riyals were tied to a quantify of oil instead of a dollar, their currency might be worth something.
Its obvious many here don't really understand socialism. Bastiat defines socialism in The Law, Hayek describes socialism well in The Road to Serfdom and Mises in Socialism.
You won't like their descriptions because you are a socialist.
CSharpner
2 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2011
You see Csharp, you really do seem like a reasonably intelligent yet ethically


I just saw my name in a post of yours where you were replying to someone else's comments, so I didn't notice it until just now. I think you were directing that to whomever posted the text you quoted and replied to? I appreciate your recognition of my being reasonably intelligent, but I believe you thought I typed what it was you were replying to?


I got voted a 1 for THIS?!?!? Clearly, someone's just running through, seeing my name, and voting 1 on everything. And in THIS thread, the majority of my posts are just saying, "I'm not in an argument... Please just leave me alone".

LOL! Incredible! Oh well.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2011
Never said there was an advantage to multiple currencies, unless they are fungible and then it doesn't matter.
So you believe in barter only. Just ridiculous.
gunslingor1
4.3 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2011
Told you he really sounded more like an anarchist. Really. I mean he hasn't been super pro business, definitely not pro governement, he doesnt want to compromise so he isnt on the side of 90% of america, what else is there?

ANyway, this guy never admits when he is wrong, he doesnt even know what he is saying half the time. Why he is interested in this site I'll never know. I guess I'd call it Bush Fox syndrome, either uncomprehendably incompetent or plan evil, NAZI!!! JS, marjon is not a nazi, I'm not Fox.

Wasn't this the guy who claimmed that the large ice burge that broke off from antartica was being claimmed as caused by global warming? He actually pointed the finger at a specific climatologist and claimed that his negating remarks were changed and covered up. I contacted the climatologist, he posted that marjon was a moron and to stop making slanderous accusations about his institution. Of course, he did not admit his mistake.

He is unsincere.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2011
Never said there was an advantage to multiple currencies, unless they are fungible and then it doesn't matter.
So you believe in barter only. Just ridiculous.

Don't you barter with money?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2011
It't quite surprising now many here who claim to have a technical background support socialism.
Science, math, engineering all are based upon standards.
I guess Heinlein was correct in that some people want to control others and the rest do not.
Those that do not want to control others have a standard that individuals have inherent rights that no other individual or group of individuals (govt) can take.
Those who want to control others don't support the standard that individuals have inherent right as that interferes with their plans to mold 'humanity' into the society they desire. As humanity is more important than humans to these people, individual rights must be subservient to 'humanity'.
Maybe its the deterministic education that gives the controllers, the planners, their arrogance.
Or maybe it is a mental disorder as Doc Savage suggests. A Napoleonic type complex.
Nature, climate, human society are emergent, not deterministic systems.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2011
Nature, climate, human society are emergent, not deterministic systems.
All of which are constrained by rules.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2011
Nature, climate, human society are emergent, not deterministic systems.
All of which are constrained by rules.

Rules that govern the individual components of the system.
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2011
Clearly, according to marjon, it is better to not try to understand emergent systems, and god forbid you try to tweak the inputs to make it better. Obviously, what you should do is slap an ideological name on that emergent system, dogmatically make some unsupported and unsupportable claims about that system, demand that everyone worship the "natural" state of that system (defined as natural by your dogma), and defame anyone who does try to understand that system or work to tweak it to make it better.

If only we'd understood marjon's message earlier, we could have applied it to more stuff as well. Who'd have thought we'd increase our agricultural yields if we didn't till the soil or add fertilizer or pull the weeds? After all, "natural" is better! And we'd probably better stop actually planting seeds in the first place. Too much human intervention in the natural plant cycle. [/sarcasm]

I hope you realize how stupid you sound, marjon.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2011
The Austrian School of Economics IS a study of an emergent system.
The problems start when you try to plan the system from the top down.
The Soviets tried to tell all their farmers when to plant, how to plant, what to plant, when to harvest, etc. The Soviets starved and would have collapsed much sooner had they not been bailed out by American farmers who made their own decisions (mostly) about what to plant, when to plant, when to harvest, etc. American farmers feed the nation and much of the world.
It is happening now in Zimbabwe as the govt confiscated the farms.
If you want to tweak an emergent system you need to take care what and where to tweak.
Ever wonder why Romania had so many orphans. The communist leader banned contraception and abortion in an attempt to increase the population.
And you know of how the Chinese people have responded to the govt's one child policy: million of aborted females.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2011
Another classic example of failed central planning by Congress:
"In 1990 the Joint Committee on Taxation projected that the 1991 revenue yield from luxury taxes would be $31 million. It was $16.6 million. Why? Because (surprise!) the taxation changed behavior: Fewer people bought the taxed products. Demand went down when prices went up. Washington was amazed. People bought yachts overseas. Who would have thought it?

According to a study done for the Joint Economic Committee, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. So the net effect of the taxes was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means the government projection was off by $38.6 million.
"
http://www.jewish...2899.asp
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2011
And weather modification:
"It was recognized that the possibility of liability for damage from cloud-seeding experiments was a very worrisome hazard in this new form of cloud experimentation. Since such a threat to the share owner's money would not be balanced by any known gain to the Company's products or business, there was a great reluctance to incur risks of uncertain but potentially great magnitude."
"On 13 Oct 1947, the U.S. Military (as part of Project Cirrus involving General Electric) dropped 80 kg of dry ice into a hurricane in the Atlantic Ocean, safely off the eastern coast of the USA. (Havens, Jiusto, Vonnegut, 1978, pp. 41-42) The hurricane changed direction and traveled inland, where it did extensive damage to property in Georgia. The U.S. military classified the data from the seeding of this hurricane to frustrate litigation. (Ball 1949, pp. 225-226, p. 233) "
http://www.rbs2.com/w2.htm
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2011
Why does anyone care?
The vile alien entity sometimes known as Rupert Murdock severly damaged the Dodgers.

That is reason enough and it is hardly the only reprehensible thing he has done.

Bribing Newt Gingrich was pretty much par for the course but it was still exceedingly reprehensible.

gunslingor1
Holly shit, ryggesogn2=marjon. I had my suspicions.
I am embarrased for you. Many of us have been using his original name since shortly after he created the new account. He has used another account on the Creationism threads because he likes to pretend that he isn't completely insane.

Hey Marjon. You are NOT forced to pay taxes. You have the Right of Departure. You can move to Somalia anytime you want that live in that AnnRandFantasyLandTM you claim is so desirealble.

"I'm not in an argument... Please just leave me alone".
Since you ARE in an arguement that is why I am giving those comments ones. Gave you some fives as well.

Ethelred
gunslingor1
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2011
I guess Heinlein was correct in that some people want to control others and the rest do not.

-Hmm, he must be refering to warrantless wiretapping. Moron.
gunslingor1
4.4 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2011
Boy talk about controlling people, have you guys seen what the republicans are trying to do with this medicare/medicaid bill? They actually tried to put a stipulation in the bill saying that if the senate doesnt vote on the bill by the end of the week, it becomes law. Shows you how stupid some people are, not only would that be unconstitutional and invalid, its unethical to even propose such a thing. I mean for god's sake, this is a democracy and John Baner seems to be trying to make it into a dictatorship. he should be thrown in jail for even proposing this.

Oh man the democrates responses were funny as hell. "This is a bill, the bill sits on capital hill... I guess we should have shown sesame street to the new congress". Or, "this is a child's book explaining how US government works and explains the constitution, I've sent a copy to John Baner and Rinse PreBus, so hopefully they understand how democracy works now."

Who is trying to control who here?
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2011
Gunslingor1, Heinlein was dead before Dumbass became President.

And even RAH never claimed that governments were stealing when they taxed. He had some pretty silly ideas but that is not one of his.

http://en.wikiped...Heinlein

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2011
thrown in jail for even proposing this.

Like the democrats forcing votes on bills no one has read?
gunslingor1
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2011
Like the democrats forcing votes on bills no one has read?

(a)Its not the democrates fault you and your party cannot read.
(b)Forcing a vote is GREAT! This is democracy, we are supposed to reach a compromise bill and vote on it, we aren't supposed to "force" a no-vote, we aren't supposed to debate on bring a bill to the floor we are suppose to debate the bill. Niether action is illegal or unconstitutional, what the republicians tried to do was blatantly unconstitutional, so your counter arguement isn't only not applicable but its invalid. Also, you cannot complain about something, then do that something, then point the finger and say they did it so why can't we; its call hypocracy and it seems to be seeping from your bones.
(c)You claim these guys understand and support the constitution... obviously they don't.
(d)Yes republicans use the filibuster completely imappropriately and use it as a loop hole to subvert the constitution.

God your digressive tactics are pitiful.
CSharpner
not rated yet Apr 07, 2011
Ethelred
"I'm not in an argument... Please just leave me alone".

Since you ARE in an arguement that is why I am giving those comments ones. Gave you some fives as well.

Well, I was in an argument about not arguing, that's for sure. Just out of curiosity, what was it you didn't like about the ones you voted down? (appreciate the 5's BTW)
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2011
Gunslingor1, Heinlein was dead before Dumbass became President.

And even RAH never claimed that governments were stealing when they taxed. He had some pretty silly ideas but that is not one of his.

http://en.wikiped...Heinlein

Ethelred


Not refering to Heinlein's comments, never heard of him. I was refering to Marjon's claim that we want to control people and he wants people to be free. Of course, he is pro wiretapping, but doesn't view this as a form of control.. he views social security and medicare as forcable control of a population, but not wiretapping. Makes no sense.

Well, I was in an argument about not arguing, that's for sure. Just out of curiosity, what was it you didn't like about the ones you voted down?

-I beleive you would have responded without diversion, if you had been right. I beleive you 100% knew you were wrong, but dont like to admit it, so you digressed. This is why I voted 1.
gunslingor1
3.5 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2011
Why are we even bothering? Really!! Marjon knows, for a fact, that he has been proven wrong many times on this site and we know, for a fact, that he doesn't admit his mistakes. So WTF, what use is the conversation? How old are you marjon? What do you do for a living? Where did you go to college? If you don't respond, I'll have to assume you are 12 years old, work in a turd factory, and went to school at FOX and Friends elementary school.
CSharpner
not rated yet Apr 07, 2011
Re: Wiretapping:

Can someone point me to some sources so I can learn more on this (I don't mean the political head banging that's been going on for years, but the actual text of the law)? My understanding has always been that it was only if the conversation met these 2 properties:

1. At least one of the people in the conversation was a suspected terrorist.
2. One of the people were outside the United States during the call.

If that's not what the law does, I want to know. I'm more interested in the truth as opposed to trying to lay blame (or credit, depending on your point of view) to one party or another. They're both responsible since they both voted it in and the current administration has kept it.

I don't like "domestic only" wiretapping any more than anyone else, but my understanding was this was not the case. I'd like to know the truth though.

I entered "Obama wiretapping" into Google and this was the first hit:
http://www.nytime...tap.html
CSharpner
not rated yet Apr 07, 2011
gunslinger:
I beleive you would have responded without diversion, if you had been right. I beleive you 100% knew you were wrong, but dont like to admit it, so you digressed. This is why I voted 1.

I already knew why you voted one and you're 100% wrong on your assumption. According to that logic, anyone who's asked to be in a argument must accept or they'll always be 100% wrong if they don't feel like arguing. Of course, we all know that's not true, as do you. Let's not argue about arguing, please. You've accepted my invitation to discuss this in private e-mail, so we'll pick up there.
gunslingor1
not rated yet Apr 07, 2011
Agreed that Obama has been very disappointing on this issue.

The two rules do sound familiar, but a few points.

a) these rules where not always in place, it took a rage of public outcry and this was the compromise.
b) The rules are often bypassed easily. Why and how you may ask? Because if you answer yes to those two questions, thats it you can do it, you don't have to be right with those answers. Warrrantless means just that, it means they can tap your phone without a court order, without oversite, without verification that the tap is WARRANTED. In other words, those rules are legally uninforcable.

I am fine with phone taps, I just think you should have to go before a judge to prove it is justified and necessary.

According to that logic, anyone who's asked to be in a argument must accept or they'll always be 100% wrong if they don't feel like arguing.

-don't instigate arguements then. Just drop it if you dont care.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2011
Guess what!! Glenn Beck was asked to leave FOX news today!! His ratings suck!!! His show was canceled!

See, I guess my boycott of FOX is working.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2011
Just out of curiosity, what was it you didn't like about the ones you voted down?
Claiming you weren't in an argument when you were in the argument in question and had been for some time.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2011
gunslingor1
Not refering to Heinlein's comments, never heard of him.
That you hadn't heard of him was clear. But you DID refer to him when you said

-Hmm, he must be refering to warrantless wiretapping.
So I pointed out that RAH could not have been doing so. Though it is very likely he would not have been fond of that.

Of course, he is pro wiretapping, but doesn't view this as a form of control.
Only if it was business that did it. If it was, oh say, the DeBeers company, he would say it wasn't a monopoly and ignore the wiretapping part.

Makes no sense.
Very little that Marjon says or quotes make any sense in context. Accidents occur of course.

How old are you marjon?
Looks to be in his fourties.

What do you do for a living?
Farming or at least receiving farming subsidies and politics.

work in a turd factory
Possibly. Some farms do produce such things in large amounts. Even more politicians.

Ethelred
gunslingor1
not rated yet Apr 07, 2011
LOL. Nice. I don't really care any more. It is inherently impossible to have a conversation with someone who does not have the ability to admit when they are wrong.

It is a very happy day for me =), Glenn is gone from mainstream media, lets not ruin it with more pointless conversations with marjon.
CSharpner
not rated yet Apr 07, 2011
don't instigate arguements then. Just drop it if you dont care.

I didn't, but you kept badgering me. Anyway, I'm working up an intro to our off-forum discussion. I'll be sending it to you shortly.
CSharpner
not rated yet Apr 07, 2011
I mean, "did didn't instigate... I did drop it".
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2011
I'm going to give one more reason why trying to balance the federal budget at this time is stupid ideology ignoring reality.

There is a tautology in macroeconomics accounting that makes the reality clear. Net private savings (savings-investment) is equal to the government deficit (spending-taxes) plus net exports (imports-exports). Politically and economically, we're not in a place where we can change the import/export balance to contribute to private savings, and that number is pretty highly negative (i.e. we import much more than we export). If the private sector wants to be net savers (though since about 2005, they've been largely unsuccessful), they're not gonna get the surplus they need from exports. The only other place they can get it is from government deficit spending. But if we politically force the deficit to be zero while we leave the export/import picture unchanged, net private savings, which is already negative, must fall further. (cont)
Thrasymachus
2 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2011
This falling net savings rate puts pressure on banks who, on aggregate, cannot meet the reserve requirements in a negative net savings environment. Banks will have to borrow money from the Fed to make up for the net private savings shortfall at the overnight support rate. This makes the net savings picture even worse, as now there's more debt to be serviced, necessitating an even greater demand for borrowing.

And if your monetary policy is so tight as to insist that every dollar the fed loans to banks to meet their overnight reserve requirements has to be backed by an issued bond, then you're gonna throw the government right back into deficit, necessarily.

When you've got a private sector that wants to save, and you import more than you export, government must run a deficit equal to the net savings rate plus net imports. Denying the private sector its savings will limit their investments, destroying productive capacity and risking inflation far more so than deficit spending
CSharpner
not rated yet Apr 07, 2011
Just out of curiosity, what was it you didn't like about the ones you voted down?
Claiming you weren't in an argument when you were in the argument in question and had been for some time.

Ethelred

Then our definition of "argue" is different. Anyway, Thanks for answering my question, regardless. Gunslinger and I will actually begin an actual discussion off-forum. And, if things go according to plan, it'll be a discussion, rather than an "argument".

gunslingor... You'll be getting my initial message shortly.
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2011
And CS, if you weren't interested in pursuing a debate on the issue you brought up (bias equivalence in the media), you were certainly doing a good impression of someone who did. After all, you could have simply stopped replying. To steal from a certain Elizabethan playwright, methinks thou doeth protest too much.
gunslingor1
2.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2011
Thrasym, you must be an economist, way over my head... But my impression is that your statements are valid. I do agree that it will be impossible to bring down our deficit while buying so many disposable products from China.

No worries folks, I do plan to post the conversation here when complete, at least the highlights. Hopefully he'll provide hard fact examples of how NPR manipulates news in an equal way to Fox, hopefully he'll explain why he thinks Palin is of "average intelligence and would make a good president".

GLENN IS GONE GLENN IS GONE, THANK GOD OH MIGHTY GLENN IS GONE AT LAST!

To steal from a certain Elizabethan playwright, methinks thou doeth protest too much.

Agreed. Hes written pages and pages of why he doesnt want to dicuss the issue, when he could have just provided a single example. Diversionary tactics do not work on a physics blog.
CSharpner
not rated yet Apr 07, 2011
After all, you could have simply stopped replying

I responded to personal attacks.

if you weren't interested in pursuing a debate on the issue you brought up
.
I made a simple statement and provided 2 links that showed bias on both sides. I was done. People are free to continue the discussion without me. They can disagree and provide why, but to pull me in is not necessary, which I never did come back in on that... I continued to defend myself. I had to continue to respond to personal attacks.

Anyway, can we end this discussion about the discussion about a debate which didn't exist? Or, is it really important to anyone here? If it's really important, respond, otherwise, drop it.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2011
And, if things go according to plan, it'll be a discussion, rather than an "argument".


An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

- Michael Palin in Monty Python's Argument Sketch.

The relevant section
http://www.youtub...lv3ripSM
The full sketch
http://www.youtub...KtI6gn9Y

And please tell me that Gunslinger was wrong about you vis vis Sarah Palin. I can see the average intelligence part. I can't see how she could even remotely make a good President.

Ethelred
Thrasymachus
2 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2011
Economics is a hobby of mine, I am a professionally trained philosopher, and my current employment is as a cost estimator for structural and architectural concrete construction for public (mostly) and commercial construction projects. Not that any of that makes a lick of difference for the validity of anything I've said.

All of the economic relationships I've mentioned, as well as the accounting identity formula I used above, can be found and verified on Wiki. The conclusions I've drawn from those relationships are in line with a monetary theory known as Chartalism or Neo-Chartalism.
CSharpner
3 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2011
No worries folks, I do plan to post the conversation here when complete, at least the highlights.

It's a private conversation between me and you. I won't be posting anything you say because I'll be respecting your privacy and so will you, or it won't happen. If I wanted the discussion here, I'd have had it here. I'll be respectful of you if you do the same.
Hes written pages and pages of why he doesnt want to dicuss the issue, when he could have just provided a single example. Diversionary tactics do not work on a physics blog.

Enough with this. As you know, there were no "tactics" and I was not "diverting". I was stating quite straight forwardly, I'm not engaging in that debate here because it's a poor forum with limited space and filled with drive-by-insults against us both which invites "diversionary tactics".

As a courtesy to you, I'm agreeing to a private discussion with you on the topic. Please read the initial post I've already sent to you privately.
CSharpner
3 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2011
And please tell me that Gunslinger was wrong about you vis vis Sarah Palin. I can see the average intelligence part. I can't see how she could even remotely make a good President.

Gunslinger is not respecting my privacy. I gave a VERY LONG discussion about the question he requested of me in a PRIVATE message HE sent. I ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY will NOT go into it here. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to have a rational conversation about it here concerning how strongly the politics felt are here.

Gunslinger, in spite of the fact you've posted a snippet of my private message, that I gave to you, at your request, in a private message you sent me, I will NOT be posting your private messages publicly because I respect your privacy.

Private messages are just that "private". If you cannot respect that, then I will rescind my offer to have a private discussion. As of now, it's still open.

Look, I realize you're young and idealistic, but there are boundaries you need to learn to respect.
gunslingor1
3 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2011
I'll check out yur email when I go home, but this is a public discussion. The only reason you gave for not wanting to discuss it is that you didnt want people chiming in, so I'll post it when the conversation is complete. If you don't want this, we can just skip it, my opinion of your statements isn't the only one that matters.

Yes, Ethreal, i was just curious and asked something along the lines "do you think Palin is intelligent, do you think she would make a good president". I got a 3 page response, determined importing into word, but the gist was that 'she was of average intelligence and would make a good (or great, I don't remember which) president'. Though he did say he might vote for someone else in the primary. But then again, he said Tina Fey, not Sara Palin, is to blaim for her reputation of stupidity; He even went so far as to claim Tina Fey, not Palin, coined the phrase "I can see russia from my house, therefore I have foreign policy experience".
Thrasymachus
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2011
I'm sorry CS, your explanation doesn't fly very far with me. Judging from your responses above, you were responding less to gunslingor's insults (which were pretty mild if present at all) and more to his expressed incredulity. Further, you made two claims, the first that bias in media institutions was equivalent, that left-leaning institutions were just as biased as right-leaning institutions. Second, you made the claim that the appearance of bias was entirely subjective, so there was no way to sort out whether one institution was more biased than another. Despite the fact that these two claims are prima facia incompatible at least, and contradictory at most, you nonetheless use the second claim to support the first, and to give you a reason for your persistent refusal to defend either claim. Then you claim you'll have the debate in private only, and bristle at the notion of your conversation being made public. Seems you care more about your opinion being respected than the truth
gunslingor1
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2011
Look, I realize you're young and idealistic, but there are boundaries you need to learn to respect.

-You do realize you are on the internet right now? lol

Gunslinger, in spite of the fact you've posted a snippet of my private message, that I gave to you, at your request, in a private message you sent me, I will NOT be posting your private messages publicly because I respect your privacy.

-I did not see a disclaimer on your email, sorry.
-PLEASE DO, POST MY COMMENTS. I'm not afraid to have my words heard.

Thrasymachus, I really like your posts man, well thought out and intelligent. Wish there was a way I could friend you.

CSharpner
not rated yet Apr 07, 2011
I'll check out yur email when I go home...

All I ask is that you just read it before you post anymore about it here. You'll see why. And of course, I'll continue to respect your privacy, in spite of the fact you're continuing to not respect mine. Please respect mine.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2011
views social security and medicare as forcable control of a population,

I view these programs as typical mismanaged, wasteful govt programs that expand without end and used by the govt to scare people.
All the socialist here don't seem to have a problem with govt waste, fraud and abuse.
As for wiretapping, the socialists like it:
"Tellingly, the existence of the program was confirmed not by the New York Times or the Washington Post or by any other American media outlet these were the Clinton years, after all, and the American media generally treats Democrat administrations far more gently than Republican administrations but by an Australian government official in a statement made to an Australian television news show.

The Times actually defended the existence of Echelon when it reported on the program following the Australians' revelations."
http://www.americ...led.html
CSharpner
1 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2011
I'm sorry CS, your explanation doesn't fly very far with me. Judging from your responses above, you were responding less to gunslingor's insults (which were pretty mild if present at all)

I stopped reading there. Really, this is pointless.
CSharpner
2 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2011
Look, I realize you're young and idealistic, but there are boundaries you need to learn to respect.


-You do realize you are on the internet right now? lol


Private message are private. Public ones are public. I know you understand the difference.

I'm not afraid to have my words heard.


Then publish the contents of your sent box. People talk differently between private and public forums. We all know that. Again, just read the message I sent to your personal e-mail address before you post anymore here. It'll make much more sense and I think you'll like what's there. It's TOTALLY different than what's here.
Thrasymachus
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2011
I stopped reading there. Really, this is pointless.

What was pointless was this reply. If you're not interested in engaging, you're not going to do a very good job defending that position by continuing to engage. Insults or perceived insults over the internet don't matter, they are worth less than the electrons it took to transmit the data, and they don't require your response. That you continue to respond to them in the way you do shows that you care more about how people think of you and your opinions than what your opinions actually are.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2011
All the socialist here don't seem to have a problem with govt waste, fraud and abuse.... As for wiretapping, the socialists like it

-Really? That is literally the stupidest thing I ever heard.
a) Yes I do have a problem with goverment waste, but that doesn't mean I think we should systematically dismattle the government or these programs. I do think we should dismantle farm and oil subsidies.
b) You call us socialists and presume to know our opinions, even though we posted to the contrary. Your reach above and beyond the grasp of reality brother.
Thrasymachus
2.9 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2011
Marjon wouldn't know good government spending if it jumped up and smacked him in the nose. And he ascribes bizarre opinions to others because he couldn't tackle a real argument with the whole NFL to help, so he constructs strawmen. As it is, he can barely handle his own strawmen.
CSharpner
not rated yet Apr 07, 2011
That you continue to respond to them in the way you do shows that you care more about how people think of you and your opinions than what your opinions actually are.

Close, I care what people think of me (as does anyone... duh) and I care less about what people think my opinions are. Yes, I've stated that quite clearly.... over and over and over. Why do YOU keep responding? We're not even talking about YOU. The ones being talked ABOUT have much more reason to respond than those talking about others.

Let's see just how good YOU are at just letting it go. It should be MUCH easier for you because none of this has been about you.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2011
systematically dismattle the government or these programs.

The ONLY way to fix SS is to get it OUT of the reach of Congress. If everyone contributing to SS could put their 4-6% into even a passbook savings account at the local bank we would all be better off as the 1)Congress can't spend it 2) the money is YOURS or your family's.
Sure, lets end ALL subsidies for agriculture, oil AND 'green' technology.
For those who are offended by being labeled a socialist there is hope. Maybe you will take a closer look at your uncritical support of statist solutions.
gunslingor1
4.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2011
Csharp, I skimmed your email, man what an essay on the rules of debate; please try to be a bit more concise in the future. Most if looks fine and reasonable to me, rules I try to live by actually, I'll review in detail this evening. I won't post the conversation now that I know you dont want me to, however, I will consult and discuss it via PMs to both skeptic and Thras, unless you have a problem with them particularly?

If everyone contributing to SS could put their 4-6% into even a passbook savings account at the local bank we would all be better off as the 1

-I don't disagree with this at all, I think the same is true for any form of insurance. But history has shown lower classes do not save, so it would have to be forced savings (otherwise we end up paying for their retirement). My belief is that if there is any monetary requirements set forth by law, they should not be put in the hands of coorporations. So, I am 110% fine w it, so long as my account is maintain by govmt.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2011
Marjon wouldn't know good government spending if it jumped up and smacked him in the nose. And he ascribes bizarre opinions to others because he couldn't tackle a real argument with the whole NFL to help, so he constructs strawmen. As it is, he can barely handle his own strawmen.

Good govt spending is....what?
If that spending is done for the protection of property rights for all, for the defense of all, for the benefit of ALL on an equal basis, that is what govt SHOULD spend OUR money on.
CSharpner
not rated yet Apr 07, 2011
Csharp, I skimmed your email, man what an essay on the rules of debate; please try to be a bit more concise in the future. Most if looks fine and reasonable to me, rules I try to live by actually, I'll review in detail this evening. I won't post the conversation now that I know you dont want me to, however, I will consult and discuss it via PMs to both skeptic and Thras, unless you have a problem with them particularly?


Check your e-mail for my response.

------------------

Does anyone care if I just declare an end to this sub-thread on this thread? Or, am I so important that it requires more posts?

We'll see judging by what does or doesn't get posted here shortly.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2011
Csharp, we all agree you are done here.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2011
Csharp, we all agree you are done here.

Funny! I fived you.
Thrasymachus
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2011
Once again, marjon expresses his lack of understanding of the SSI system. SSI was never meant to maximize the rate of return on the money paid into the system. It was meant to maximize the stability of return on the money paid into the system. That's why the SS trust doesn't play in the stock market or commodity/money markets, and instead buys Treasury notes with a low, but fixed and guaranteed rate of return. When you need money to retire, it's better for your investment to be stable and reliably generate no losses than it would be for you to have a 50% chance of doubling your money accompanied by a 50% chance of losing it all. But by all means, let's dismantle the most stable source of retirement funds and disburse the payments back to the employers, who can give that money back to their employees or not, depending on their whims and market conditions. It's been three generations since we've seen old people starving to death in the streets. Apparently, we need a reminder.
Thrasymachus
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2011
Good government spending is spending that puts to work the spare productive capacity of the economy left on the table at the margins by private actors. This spending is necessary to prevent financial imbalances and deflation that would destroy that productive capacity. When government spends its money in sectors of the economy that respond by increasing production in the face of this increased demand, that's good. More people make more money and there's more valuable stuff to go around. When government spends its money in sectors of the economy that respond by raising their prices, that's bad. Fewer people make much more money and there's the same amount of valuable stuff to go around. When the government refuses to spend, on aggregate, nobody makes money and over time, less and less valuable stuff is made, as productive capacity left on the table at the margins is destroyed through deflation.

Where government spends its money matters. Conservatives don't understand that.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2011
T, utilitarianism fails.
It's not up to the govt to decide.
Where government spends its money matters. Conservatives don't understand that.

Of course they do. It's important because most of the time the money is wasted and could have been put to better use by the private sector.
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2011
This is not utilitarianism, this is simple economics. If you leave money creation and finance to the private sector alone, they will eat each other's seed corn and put each other in debt, massively inflating circulating money while at the same time diminishing productive capacity. The private sector alone, because of competing and conflicting internal interests, is incapable of economy-wide growth without the public sector taking responsibility for money creation to keep up with the growth in real output and maintaining the productive capacity left at the margins by the private sector. As soon as productive capacity left at the margins is destroyed by not spending to utilize it, the next most marginal productive opportunity becomes too marginal to sustain private investment, and overall productive capacity is destroyed in a cascading effect. Government deficit spending is an absolute necessity if you want to preserve productive capacity.
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2011
And I suppose you could argue that the private sector would have spent the money better, but only because the private sector at the current time is a net spender (i.e. they're in deficit). But the reason they're in deficit is because we import much more than we export and the government refuses to deficit spend at the levels necessary to support private savings. What you don't apparently understand, marjon, is that every U.S. dollar in circulation was put there by government spending, or created by borrowing against the deposits made possible by government spending. Private actors don't create dollars.

When private actors are net savers, they certainly wouldn't spend the money better, because they're already not spending everywhere they could, instead, they're sitting on the cash. Utilizing productive capacity requires spending. When the private sector is done spending, and there's still capacity to use, it's time for the government to step up and make use of the rest.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2011
It was meant to maximize the stability of return on the money paid into the system. That's why the SS trust doesn't play in the stock market or commodity/money markets, and instead buys Treasury notes with a low, but fixed and guaranteed rate of return

I accidentally voted you a 1 when I intended a 4 on that statement (fat fingered it on my mobile). I don't agree with all your points you're making, but that one deserves points and I publicly apologize for the false 1.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2011
T, socialist to the core.
Private actors don't create dollars.

Only the govt can legally print money.
It is the private sector that creates the wealth.
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2011
The private sector creates stuff, goods or services that people find valuable for one reason or another, and which they exchange for dollars. The government creates dollars. The private sector accepts dollars (which in themselves are worthless) for stuff because other private actors are willing to exchange their stuff for dollars and because the government requires the private sector to pay taxes in dollars, and the second reason is the cause of the first. When government spends money, it gets goods and services in exchange for its money, that it can then use to pursue its purposes, which for the purposes of this discussion, involves maximizing economic output.

If government doesn't print dollars and spend those dollars, nobody gets any dollars, and there's no effective medium of exchange to maximize productive output. Money is the representation of wealth. If government doesn't print and spend enough money, wealth is inadequately represented, minimizing its impact.
gunslingor1
4.4 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2011
rygg, it is 100% clear to everyone here that Thrasymachus
knows infinitely more about economics than you do. Your out of your league brother.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2011
The private sector accepts dollars

There in NO choice.
The govt has NO money until it TAKES it or prints it.
The govt now TAKES and spend 25% of GDP. Why shouldn't the take and spend more? The economy is doing SOOOO well now.
Thrasymachus
2.5 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2011
Taxes only take currency out of an economy. It doesn't take any valuable good or service away from anybody who has it. Spending takes valuable goods and services out of the economy and uses them in exchange for dollars. Unless you, like that conservative wacko in Nevada who lost to Reid, think you can pay your bills, including taxes, in chickens.

The government doesn't force anybody to accept dollars in exchange for their goods and services*. It requires people to pay their taxes in dollars. This gives people an incentive to exchange their stuff for dollars so they can pay their taxes.

*Lenders are required to accept loan payments in dollars. This is because lending, being backed by the Fed's control on the money supply, is a quasi-public activity. But if you wanna trade your stuff for someone else's stuff, without trading any dollars at all, you're quite free to do so, just so long as you pay your taxes on that exchange, which must be in dollars.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2011
Taxes only take currency out of an economy.

YOU JUST SAID CURRENCY REPRESENTS WEALTH!
Then the govt doesn't need to collect taxes, they can just print more currency to buy what they want.
The more they print, the more they spend the bigger and better the economy, right?

But it's not working.
Thrasymachus
2.2 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2011
Currency represents wealth, it is not wealth itself. If I have 5 pieces of paper and 5 cars, and I by fiat declare that right now, each piece of paper represents one car apiece, then I take one of those pieces of paper and tear it up, how many cars do I have? Apparently, according to marjon, I lost a car by tearing up a piece of paper.

And government does not need to collect taxes to pay for their spending. It needs to collect taxes to make people want dollars in exchange for their goods and services. Taxation does not in any way affect the real wealth of a nation. Spending can, because spending removes real resources from an economy in exchange for dollars, but only if those resources that are bought are used in unproductive ways. A person can create a lot of wealth with real resources like cars, equipment and people. Nobody can do anything useful with only dollars, except maybe make some pretty origami or nice stacks of bills. I might give you some rice for an origami swan.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2011
Nature, climate, human society are emergent, not deterministic systems.
All of which are constrained by rules.

Rules that govern the individual components of the system.

And?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2011
If I have 5 pieces of paper and 5 cars, and I by fiat declare that right now, each piece of paper represents one car apiece, then I take one of those pieces of paper and tear it up, how many cars do I have? Apparently, according to marjon, I lost a car by tearing up a piece of paper.

If someone would accepted your paper for one of their cars, you just lost 5 cars.

And government does not need to collect taxes to pay for their spending.

Sure, all they need to do is print more money.
Taxation does not in any way affect the real wealth of a nation.

It is certainly affecting the wealth of CA and IL. It drives away those who would create wealth.
Bloomberg is afraid to raise NYC taxes as only 40,000 people pay most taxes in the city.
Wwealth flees high taxes.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2011
"That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create. "
"The power to tax entails the power to take up to 100 per cent of the income from any undertaking. No undertaking, no matter how well it is financed, can survive indefinitely if all its income is drained away in taxes. Hence, any and every human undertaking, short of breathing, can be destroyed by taxation. "
"Any level of taxation will make some undertakings unprofitable or submarginal. In practice, any increase in taxes will drive some people out of business, prevent them from going into business, or make it difficult or impossible for them to sustain themselves by whatever they are doing."
http://www.thefre...destroy/
If you don't have the currency to pay your taxes, the govt will take your wealth.
Thrasymachus
2 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2011
What happens to your real resources that are seized by the government when you can't pay your taxes? That's right, they get auctioned off to private bidders, so those real resources go right back into private economy, in exchange for dollars, which is the only thing the government cares about when it comes to taxes, that their taxes are paid in dollars. So once again, I repeat, taxation has no major direct effect on the distribution or amount of real resources in an economy. Taxation removes currency from an economy. Private individuals choose to increase or remove valuable goods and services from the economy in response.

Currency gets into the economy when the government spends, either in social programs or in loans to banks. If you're not getting your hands on enough currency to pay your taxes, you can blame banks for cutting you out of private finance flows, or the government, for not having enough social programs to include you.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2011
auctioned off to private bidders,

At reduced value.
Ever hear of depreciation?
The cash for clunkers program should have really increased net wealth, right?
Loans to banks is 'spending'? Don't the banks have to pay it back? It's a LOAN.
Govt has NO wealth unless it TAKES if from someone else.
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2011
Of course a loan to a bank is spending. Just like a loan to your brother is spending, or buying yourself dinner is spending. You have cash, you give it to someone else in exchange for something of value. You use those valuable things to help you generate more cash down the line. That's called productivity. Wash, rinse repeat. Learn some basic economics.

Wealth is the ability to command real resources. Governments have a monopoly on force within their sovereignty. That means they can command every resource within their sovereignty. That doesn't mean nobody else can command resources within that sovereignty. When the real wealth of the members of a nation increases, the real wealth of that nation increases.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2011
How does wealth increase?
It's NOT because of money or govt.
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2011
Real wealth increases when people use real resources to create more real resources than they had before. Money is used to exchange for real resources so they can be distributed to the people who will best use them to create new resources. Without a money supply adequate to distribute real resources to where they can most productively be used, real output falters, real resources are used without being replaced, and wealth is destroyed. Without a government to insure an adequate money supply through spending, injecting money into those economic sectors that need real resources to be more productive, the efficiency of real resource creation is severely limited, destroying wealth. Modern private wealth creation relies on government money creation to be possible.

And the government can certainly create wealth, it's called public wealth. The interstate highway, electrification programs, clean air regulations, etc. all contribute to a growth of real resources open to the public for use
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2011
The govt has NO money until it TAKES it or prints it.
This is an utter lie. The US federal government owns most of the land in the US. That We The People own the land not some bizarre Nazi Commie Pinko Socialist Tyrannical monster. WE own it. That land has value and the WE have a the right to print paper based on that value.

You have made the totally idiotic claim before and it hasn't magically become true just because you repeated again and again. Since you hate OUR government so much why are still here pissing and moaning and lying about it. Somalia fits your definition of the right kind of government.

Govt has NO wealth unless it TAKES if from someone else.
And the exact same lie again. WE own LAND.

Ethelred
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2011
Land isn't even the most valuable thing the US government owns. Much of that land is unusable or at least impractically usable. The government also owns $11 billion in gold (priced by statute, not by the market), $2 trillion in securities held outright, which include over a trillion dollars in mortgage backed securities. And in off the balance-sheet assets, the Government holds $3.3 trillion in marketable securities in custody for foreign officials and international accounts, and $2.2 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities. The U.S. government is by far the wealthiest actor in the world economy, accounted in terms of the exclusive command over real resources.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2011
Real wealth increases when people use real resources to create more real resources than they had before.

I agree. What is required to do this? Money is not required and neither is a govt.
How did Hong Kong become wealthy? They have only one significant natural resource.
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2011
Money IS required because money is what is used to distribute resources to those who can most productively use them. Without money, modern markets are impossible. The people of Hong Kong became wealthy the same way everybody else gets wealthy. Their government prints money and spends it through lending to banks so they can lend to people or through direct spending on government projects. The people use that money to buy real resources, which they then use to produce more real resources than they had before, that they can then exchange for more money because their government prints and spends more money to account for the additional real resources they created. Without money, there is no effective exchange, and without exchange the people who can best use real resources have virtually no access to them.

A government monopoly on fiat money is the result of a natural evolution of currencies and markets that began with private competitive fiat money.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2011
Marjon wouldn't know good government spending if it jumped up and smacked him in the nose. And he ascribes bizarre opinions to others because he couldn't tackle a real argument with the whole NFL to help, so he constructs strawmen. As it is, he can barely handle his own strawmen.
Well, according to the article
http://www.physor...ain.html

-Your brain suffers from a similar though diametrically-opposed imbalance, and as such your judgment is also similarly suspect. This is evinced by your compulsion to use hyperbole like the above.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2011
A government monopoly on fiat money is the result of a natural evolution of currencies and markets that began with private competitive fiat money.

I guess if you mean by 'natural', the rule of the jungle, the strong dominate the weak.
Govt is force so it is 'natural' for them to take as much power and wealth as they can without destroying themselves.

Money is a great economic tool, but it is NOT required, or really even desired economically, for the govt to control the money supply.
Somalia has no recognized govt and they do have and use paper money. Its value is the cost to print it.
There is a site called e-gold that facilitates the use of gold and silver as money. Govt don't like it because they can't track people as easily or tax them.
There is no trust in fiat currencies which is why gold and silver prices are booming.
It's too bad history is so poorly taught. According to T, without govt there was no wealth creation or trade. Evidence abounds to the contrary.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2011
According to T, without govt there was no wealth creation or trade.
Without government there was little wealth and less trade. Lots of piracy, murder, robbery fear of travel and pretty much no wealth at all.

See Marjon's wonderfull AnnRandFantasyLandTM commonly known as Somalia for the single best modern example.

Or you could look at the poverty of pre Bank Of England Britain. Which allowed England to become wealthy by borrowing on land and financed trade.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2011
piracy, murder, robbery f

Socialists are the experts in violence.

"monarchs and rulers used the striking of coins whether in gold or silver to represent their authority over their own people and their neighbouring states."
http://www.art-ar...oins.htm
Nothing has changed.
"the control of money enables governments to have access to the society's wealth without having first produced anything to acquire that money in exchange. Controlling the printing press enables government to be a consumer without first being a producer. "
"money is not the creation of the State. Historically, money evolved in society out of the interactions of a multitude of buyers and sellers searching for ways to overcome the difficulties of barter. Commodities such as gold and silver were found by individuals to possess the qualities and attributes most useful in providing a sound and stable medium of exchange. "
http://www.fff.or...290b.asp
Thrasymachus
2 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2011
Marjon, if you think money is not a necessity in the modern economy for the creation of wealth, you are welcome to try it without any.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2011
"Can we trust the Federal Reserve System? The Austrian School's answer: no. Why not? Because the Federal Reserve System substitutes the judgment of monopolistic central planners for consumers and investors. It substitutes the decisions of people with job tenure and little accountability for the decisions of people who put their own wealth at risk. It substitutes the judgments of non-owners for owners. We find that academic economists, either tenured or seeking tenure, side with Fisher. The textbooks side with the academic economists.

You would be wise to side with Mises. "
http://www.lewroc...666.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2011
Marjon, if you think money is not a necessity in the modern economy for the creation of wealth, you are welcome to try it without any.

It's NOT a necessity, it is a convenience in order to trade wealth that is created.
You do understand that the sources of wealth are agriculture (or solar) and mining. Energy and ingenuity are added to these products by people to add value making the products people need and want. Many money systems were created to facilitate trade. The only requirement for that money was that it holds its value. Gold was a great candidate for money as it was was scarce, but still available to mine and it did not corrode and was difficult to counterfeit.
And there is NO requirement for any govt to print or control the money for wealth to be created.
Thrasymachus
2 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2011
Well, you'd better get to work then. I hope you already have a pickaxe and some seeds for that mining and agriculture you'll be doing, because, if you're not using any money, it'll be hard to get a hold of of that stuff.

I still find it fascinating that you don't realize how stupid it is to hold up Somalia as some sort of capitalist utopia. It's certainly capitalist, but it's no utopia.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2011
Socialists are the experts in violence.
Notice how the only thing Marjon responded was something he wanted to lie about. He ignored the FACT that the US Federal govenment has wealth despite his lie that it did not.

Typical evasion with a typical intentionly inflamatory lie to hide the evasion.

I noticed Marjon. The Feds own the land and thus the WE have wealth as a nation.

So if you have to lie and evade the truth what is there in your thinking that is actually based on reality?

he Austrian School's answer: no. Why not?
The why they make the claims they do is the real point. They believe in magic. Gold is the magic they believe in. There isn't enough gold in the entire world to run the US economy much less the entire world's economy. Scarcity is what it makes an inherently stupid idea to use it as THE medium of exchange.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2011
Somalia is not utopia. Capitalists don't believe in utopias like socialists do. Somalia disproves the claim that govt is required to create and use money.

The reason the federal govt 'owns' land is no one could make a living on it 100 years ago. The govt does quite a poor job of managing that 'wealth' though. How much income does the govt derive from the lands 'we the people' own?

Gold isn't magic but it is solid money that people value. Govts value gold too. Why do they keep gold reserves?
In a market economy scarcity leads to alternatives like copper and silver. Now platinum would be an option and today, titanium would be a fine alternative.
Scarcity also raises the value of gold inspiring people to sell their jewelery, recycle electronics, and if the federal govt would allow it, promote mining on 'its' land.
The issue is not gold per se but the fact that the US money supply is based upon faith.
And so many socialists are atheists. How do they reconcile such faith?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2011
Well, you'd better get to work then. I hope you already have a pickaxe and some seeds for that mining and agriculture you'll be doing, because, if you're not using any money, it'll be hard to get a hold of of that stuff.


Not long ago many people didn't have money, but they had products from the farms they homestead to trade. There is still gold in those hills and people still are panning.
Many people have started with zero money, but with hard work they were able earn money or borrow the capital tools required.
Farmers used to make their own tools and use animals to plow. They would save seeds to plant for next year. Didn't need money to create wealth.
Those people who can understand how to live of of the land without money will fare much better after the govt fiat economies collapse.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2011
The why they make the claims they do is the real point.

The 'why'?
The Austrian school predicted the failures of the fiat govt economies. Don't you want to know why and fix it?
But the fix takes power away the the state, so that is a non-starter for socialists.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2011
Not long ago many people didn't have money, but they had products from the farms they homestead to trade.
They also died around age 50, unless they were women who often died in childbirth, or a child who often died from poor dental hygene or a burst appendix, or polio, etc.

Times change, you'd do well to not only recognize that, but at times embrace it.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2011
Times change, yes.
But the claim that govt and money are REQUIRED to create wealth is FALSE.
Socialist fools have forgotten how our ancestors created wealth.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2011
Fox News now has John Stossel and Lou Dobbs, each with one hour shows.
Both are long time libertarians and demonstrate that ABC News was at one time less biased when 20/20 was a good show.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2011
But the claim that govt and money are REQUIRED to create wealth is FALSE.
Not my claim. My claim is that a standardized and enforced ruleset is required to create a sustainable marketplace.
Socialist fools have forgotten how our ancestors created wealth.
By killing their neighbors and taking their stuff.
Fox News now has John Stossel and Lou Dobbs, each with one hour shows.
Both are long time libertarians and demonstrate that ABC News was at one time less biased when 20/20 was a good show.

People change jobs for offers of more money all the time. That doesn't necessarily speak to anything other than their rate of pay.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2011
standardized and enforced ruleset is required to create a sustainable marketplace.

A govt is not required for that.

What's wrong with deflation? Govts don't like it but it is a better deal for people.
That's what happens in the technology field. A new top end computer may cost $5k now but in 2-3 years the price will deflate to $1k.
Would you expect the govt to inflate the dollar to keep the price of that computer at $5k? That's what happens when the govt tries to keep prices constant. It punishes innovation end efficiency.
Thrasymachus
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2011
What's wrong with deflation is it discourages production. It's not a better deal for the people, either. When real resources are becoming cheaper over time, it makes more sense to sell real resources now, including firing off labor resources and hoard cash. When people lack real resources, they lack the means to be productive. People lose jobs and industry loses the means of production to get those jobs back.

Moderate inflation encourages production and growth in production. As real resources cost more dollars over time it makes more sense to exchange real resources for dollars now and use them as productively as possible, to maximally increase the stock of real resources.

From an economic perspective, the whole point of a government is to maximize economic productivity, which is equivalent to maximizing resource utilization. Currently, more than a third of our most valuable resource, our labor force, is unutilized or underutilized. Because of conservative policies.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2011
What's wrong with deflation? Govts don't like it but it is a better deal for people.
You're an idiot.

How much do you owe on your car or house? Can you afford to pay it all off right now? If you can't, deflation would take that property from you.

Let's say you owe 10,000 on your car and 150,000 on your house.

The currency deflates. Your wages WILL go down as the purchasing power of the dollar goes up. The amount you owe will not go down. Now the house you have, let's say the initial value was 400,000. Well now your house can be bought and sold for far less, and you'll end up underwater on your mortgage with no way out.

So tell us how deflation is good for consumers.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2011
"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."
-Einstein
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2011
What's wrong with deflation is it discourages production. It's not a better deal for the people, either.

It works very well in the high tech industries.
Computer and flat screen TV prices drop every day.

The currency deflates. Your wages WILL go down as the purchasing power of the dollar goes up.

So? What does it matter if the purchasing power stays the same?
Under inflation, wages go up, prices go up.

Deflation will discourage long term credit buying. What's wrong with that? All the socialist 'liberals' here keep complain we all consume too much. Deflation will discourage consumption and encourage savings.

you'll end up underwater on your mortgage with no way out.

That's what happened to many people now under the inflationary housing bubble.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2011
Currently, more than a third of our most valuable resource, our labor force, is unutilized or underutilized. Because of conservative policies.
\
No, its because the govt is sucking up all the money from the private sector.
If inflation is so great then make the minimum wage $100/hr with annual increases of 10%. Mo money mo productivity you say.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2011
No, its because the govt is sucking up all the money from the private sector.
Total government tax revenue in 2010: est 2.4 trillion.
Total GDP: 14.6 trillion.
Yep, that's a confirmed lie. You should be adding #NotIntendedAsATrueStatement to that comment.
If inflation is so great then make the minimum wage $100/hr with annual increases of 10%. Mo money mo productivity you say.
Did you pick the two simplest numbers for the equation intentionally?

There's plenty of money left in the private sector. In fact tax revenue was at an all time low this year. The last time it was this low was 1950.
That's what happened to many people now under the inflationary housing bubble.
No, the exact opposite happened. The housing prices crashed while the interest rates went up due to lack of faith in consumers.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2011
"Consider the 2001 tax rebates. Washington borrowed billions from the capital markets, and then mailed it to Americans in the form of $600 checks. Rather than encourage income creation, Congress merely transferred existing income from investors to consumers. Predictably, the following quarter saw consumer spending growth surge from 1.4 percent to 7.0 percent, and gross private domestic investment spending drop correspondingly by 22.7 percent[10] The overall economy grew at a meager 1.6 percent that quarter, and remained stagnant through 2001 and much of 2002."
http://www.herita...c-Growth

In fact tax revenue was at an all time low this year.

With 15-20% unemployment, what a surprise.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2011
Consider the 2001 tax rebates. Washington borrowed billions from the capital markets, and then mailed it to Americans in the form of $600 checks. Rather than encourage income creation, Congress merely transferred existing income from investors to consumers.
Yeah, Bush sucked. He used that whole you're with me, or you're with the terrorists line to force the wimpy Democrats to pass his budget. Same shit is going on right now with Boehners boys and girls playing anti-Obama games.
In fact tax revenue was at an all time low this year.
With 15-20% unemployment, what a surprise.
Oh look, brand new imaginary numbers.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2011
"Left unchecked, such spending could cause major deficits to emerge, propelling the government's debt and interest expenditures to unprecedented levels. The total cost of government, including interest expense, could more than double as a share of the economy, rising from 19 percent of GDP in 2002 to 40 percent in 2075."
http://www.cbo.go...p;type=0
If the govt borrows all the money, what's left for the producers?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2011
"An even clearer negative verdict on Obama's approach comes from the much-maligned market for credit default swaps. These swaps function like insurance contracts that pay off if a borrower fails to make good. That insurance gets more expensive when the likelihood of default increases. The idea of a U.S. government default has recently gone from "unthinkable" to close to 10 percent over the next five years. "
"The upshot is that the United States has serious long-term fiscal challenges, between the downturn, an aging population, and major entitlement programs. None of the options for getting out of the mess looked particularly palatable. "
http://shadow.for..._edition
Thrasymachus
4 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2011
The U.S. government is sovereign in its own currency. A "fiscal challenge" is one where no one wants to loan you any money, or the interest rates they want to loan you money at is too high. It is impossible for a nation sovereign in its own currency, that has the ultimate and sole authority for creating money in the first place, to have a "fiscal challenge" or "fiscal crisis" or any sort of fiscal trouble at all. They will always be able to print the money they want to buy whatever they want to buy, as long as the private economy continues to use that money as the medium of exchange, which they will as long as the government levies taxes that are only payable in the money the government prints.

Anybody that tries to tell you anything different is trying to sell you something, and it's not something you'll appreciate buying.
Thrasymachus
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2011
Given your notorious attitude towards government, marjon, I cannot help but feel as though your most recent incessant deficit hawking is nothing more than an attempt to undermine the full faith and credit of the U.S Government. I'm not that surprised, however. Conservatives and capitalists have always been traitors and seditionists.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2011
The U.S. government is sovereign in its own currency.

So?
What happens when no one outside the US wants US dollars?

undermine the full faith and credit of the U.S Government.

The socialists in the US govt are doing a fine job of that all by themselves. They don't need my help.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2011
In 1983, I visited Leningrad. The $1.50 would buy 1 ruble, the sovereign currency of the USSR.
When you made the official exchange you obtained a receipt.
On the street, people would offer 100 rubles for a pair of Levis.
They also had stores well stocked with western cigarettes, liquor and USSR products that would not accept rubles, only western currency.
A chicken kiev dinner with caviar, vodka and cost us each about 17 rubles. Not bad compared to a pair of Levis but quite expensive at the official exchange rate.
So one could take the risk sell a few pair of Levis or even dollars and eat and drink quite well. But when you tried to leave and exchange those rubles back to dollars and you had more rubles than your official receipts, you might be in a bit of trouble.
The Soviets had plenty of currency. They just didn't have anything to purchase with them as no one wanted their currency.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2011
"Treasury has forecast that the limit will be reached by May 16. After that point, Treasury can take emergency measures to avoid hitting the debt ceiling. But those actions will only give the United States about a two-month window before Treasury is unable to issue debt to fund government operations."
http://www.reuter...20110413
No, the govt doesn't spend too much does it.
Thrasymachus
4 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2011
You mean people in France, or England? They only want dollars to buy goods sold by Americans, or to lend to Americans. What good is a dollar to a Frenchman? They'd much rather have francs, or more recently, euros. Who cares if nobody outside the US wants US dollars? You're just worried that people will stop using the dollar as the reserve for their own currency. So what if they do? Besides, as long as the US is the leading consumer nation, and as long as they have the most valuable real goods, they'll have no incentive to switch their reserve. It's the strength of the American economy that backs the dollar, and thus every other currency based on it. The U.S. government, as the sovereign issuer of the dollar, holds all the cards in that relationship.

Scaremongering about nonexistence fiscal worries is the first sign of a con.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 14, 2011
But when you tried to leave and exchange those rubles back to dollars and you had more rubles than your official receipts, you might be in a bit of trouble.
The Soviets had plenty of currency. They just didn't have anything to purchase with them as no one wanted their currency.
No, the reason why they'd check your receipts and verify your ruble count was because of smuggling, ie: criminal enterprise, which you're implicitly indicating that you were guilty of. You're such a moron. 87.6% of your posts are someone else's opinion verbatim. Are you really so unable to process information that you need other people to speak for you? How can you possibly be free if you can't even form your own opinion?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2011
According to T, this is a lie:
"The world's banks face a $3.6 trillion "wall of maturing debt" in the next two years and must compete with debt-laden governments to secure financing, the IMF warned on Wednesday."

http://www.cnbc.c...42582344
Govt debt, borrowing or spending as no effect on the economy right T?
Thrasymachus
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2011
It certainly is a lie. Not in that there isn't $3.6 trillion in maturing debt over the next two years. There certainly is, and when that debt matures and the debtors can't pay it back, then those private banks will have to pay the piper for their mismanagement or get governments to bail them out again. It's a lie that public borrowing "crowds out" private borrowing. Central banks that print the money of their nation have no fiscal concerns, it is impossible for them to have fiscal concerns by definition.

The size of government debt has no effect on the economy. Government borrowing has a slight deflationary effect and allows the central bank to control interest rates which has a profound effect on the economy, and it matters where the government spends its money, as some applications of money are more productive than others. Government's responsibility is to fill the spending gap between private spending and productive capacity.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 14, 2011
The size of government debt has no effect on the economy.

Prove it.
FrankHerbert
4 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2011
You made your accusation first ryggesogn2. Why don't you name a mechanism by which the debt harms the economy. Just one would be nice.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 14, 2011
You made your accusation first ryggesogn2. Why don't you name a mechanism by which the debt harms the economy. Just one would be nice.

"The world's banks face a $3.6 trillion "wall of maturing debt" in the next two years and must compete with debt-laden governments to secure financing, the IMF warned on Wednesday."

http://www.cnbc.c...42582344
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2011
You made your accusation first ryggesogn2. Why don't you name a mechanism by which the debt harms the economy. Just one would be nice.


The interest we have to pay on it...

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2011
You made your accusation first ryggesogn2. Why don't you name a mechanism by which the debt harms the economy. Just one would be nice.


The interest we have to pay on it...


I remember when Perot ran for president. His financial statement should all his money was loaned to the govt: T-bills, safe, tax-free returns.
It's amusing when the socialist want to take all the billionaire's money when most of them are already loaning it to the govt.
Why not just default on the debt. It would be easier then to keep everyone's money.
Oh, but then no one will ever trust the US govt and no one will ever buy govt bonds again.
I hear the Federal Reserve is 'buying' ~70% of the new govt bonds. Which means the govt is printing money.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2011
The size of government debt has no effect on the economy.

Prove it.
You have your cause and effect backwards.

The state of the economy affects the national debt. The National debt has little to do with the health of the economy. If private citizens are spending money on goods and services, the economy is healthy, wages are granted by employers and taxed by the government resulting in lesser debt.

If the economy is toxic, wages contract, resulting in lower tax revenue and higher public debt.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2011
If the economy is toxic, wages contract, resulting in lower tax revenue and higher public debt.

Then we have a toxic economy which is controlled by SH's Regulatory State.
But it does matter how private citizens obtain their spending money. As I noted, the people in the USSR had plenty of money. They just had nothing to buy.
If he source of private citizens money is from redistribution and not productivity, its like drinking your urine to satisfy your thirst in a desert. It keeps you alive for a while, but you will eventually die of thirst.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2011
You made your accusation first ryggesogn2. Why don't you name a mechanism by which the debt harms the economy. Just one would be nice.


The interest we have to pay on it...

This is one more thing that reminds me of the state of the world before ww2. Germany was strapped with crushing reparations from ww1 which ruined it's economy and gave cause for national socialists to fix it. We do have the tea party which could go fascist given the right conditions.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2011
The US is fascist now.
Tea parties are trying to weaken that form of socialism.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Apr 16, 2011
The US is fascist now.
Tea parties are trying to weaken that form of socialism.
Your affection for -sits and -isms has you confused. Fascism is where a sizable portion of the population is turned into an army in order to combat an external and/or internal threat. In the Weimar republic the threat was Rotfront communist cells taking orders from Moscow. It was the same in Spain, Italy, Romania, and wherever else fascism emerged.

Here it may very well be religious extremism. Much grumblings already throughout europe. A caliphate would be no different in substance than Stalinism or medieval Catholicism. Same thing, different -ism. For the rubes. A caliph would first round up all the pure ideologues and have them killed, as did Stalin. No arguing over semantics would be allowed to obstruct his Mission of cultural destruction.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2011
The US is fascist now.
Tea parties are trying to weaken that form of socialism.

You're so ignorant.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Apr 16, 2011
The cultures destroyed in the 20th century were religious and monarchic. Those targeted for liquidation this time around might again be religions throught southern Asia. But considering the potential for Renovation and Remodeling which exists in the world at the moment, we (some of us) might well see the end of capitalism, at least on the planet. It is after all a ruinous and wasteful state which is showing many signs of having run it's course, don't you think marjon?

Capitalism needs new markets to function cleanly and there are none left here on earth. This makes it difficult to prevent it from turning into a mush of corruption as there are no longer enough profits to go around.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2011
The US is fascist now.
Tea parties are trying to weaken that form of socialism.

You're so ignorant.

The 'progressive' FDR was quite fond of Mussolini's Fascism as are most statists.
SH wants to nationalize banks. That's national socialism.

"By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it. To many who have watched the transition from socialism to fascism at close quarters the connection between the two systems has become increasingly obvious, but in the democracies the majority of people still believe that socialism and freedom can be combined."
""Conservative socialism" was the slogan under which a large number of writers prepared the atmosphere in which National Socialism succeeded. It is "conservative socialism" which is the dominant trend among us now. "
http://jim.com/hayek.htm
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2011
Capitalism needs new markets to function cleanly and there are none left here on earth.

What new gadget or gizmo, that does not yet exist, will you have to have in 5 years? You don't know, do you? A capitalist does.
What was the market for Ipods 10 years ago? IBM did not see any market potential for PCs.
Market potential is unlimited and capitalism, free markets,innovation is required to fill those markets.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2011
What new gadget or gizmo, that does not yet exist, will you have to have in 5 years? You don't know, do you? A capitalist does.
You consider yourself a capitalist. Name such a device. Ah that's right, you have no idea either. So you're jsut full of shit, as usual.
What was the market for Ipods 10 years ago?
Absolutely huge. iPods were invented in 2000, announced in 2001. Portable music players have been all the rage since the 60's and 70's.
IBM did not see any market potential for PCs.
Until an OS was produced that could utilize the hardware for something other than home programming.

You might not want to comment on things that you don't know or understand.
SH wants to nationalize banks. That's national socialism.
No, it would be nationalization. National socialism would not be considered socialism. The 'National Socialist Party' was not socialist. It was racist, similar to the TEA party and their tendency towards nationalism.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2011
National socialism would not be considered socialism.

I know today's socialists don't like being reminded that fascism is socialism.
Denying reality and history is a comment socialist tactic.
State uber alles.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2011
The 'progressive' FDR was quite fond of Mussolini's Fascism as are most statists.
Well sure. Many were watching what stalin was doing and saw fascists as their only protection.
What new gadget or gizmo, that does not yet exist, will you have to have in 5 years?
Why do we keep having to buy new gadgets we dont need? I know, its to force innovation and the development of vital new technologies (like 3d smartphone displays) No seriously, capitalism forces this as no other system can.

But we should reach a self-sustaining plateau pretty soon and we will no longer need the ruinous Thruput of consumerism. Capitalism is doomed. It is based on a lack of trust and cooperation. It is smelly, like that old buick in your driveway. In space no one can smell your buick. Competition should grind up the inner system quite nicely.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2011
I know today's socialists don't like being reminded that fascism is socialism.
Marjon is an ism-ist. Doesnt matter what theyre CALLED marjon, its what they DO, which matters. Communism is martial law. Fascism is the mechanism of total war. Capitalism is techno R&D. Socialism is logic and sense. Empire is the thing which makes all this work in the proper place at the proper Time, and makes you fall for it all.

What was the difference between communism and NSDAP, Stailn and hitler? None. Their flags were the same color. The details didnt matter. Its what they DID throughout eurasia which defines them. Both destroyed cultures. Both destroyed each other. If for some reason the nazis had won their reich would have looked exactly like the USSR only the music would have been better.
FrankHerbert
4 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2011
In the US, fascism will come wrapped in the flag, carrying a bible.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Apr 16, 2011
In the US, fascism will come wrapped in the flag, carrying a bible.
Wont be these guys. Posers.
http://www.nj.com...t_t.html
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2011
National socialism would not be considered socialism.
I know today's socialists don't like being reminded that fascism is socialism.
No, we're just tired of hearing the same old bullshit statements made by people who are intellectually incapable of being able to abstract. It's like talking to a neanderthal. No amount of explanation will ever get into your rhetoric bubble until you attempt to understand something that conflicts with your delusional reality.

Denying reality and history is a comment socialist tactic.
Exactly. The problem is preconception and misinterpretation due ignorance or willful mental rigidity due to advanced age and disadvantaged intellect is depressing. Hence why people shouldn't live in environments, similar to old age homes.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2011
its what they DO

I agree.
Socialists,fascists,communists,statists,collectivists all DO want to use state power to plan, guide and control the lives of individuals.

Call it whatever you want. I just want to point out that fascism and socialism both want to DO the same to free individuals.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2011
It's like talking to a neanderthal.
I made a mistake with this statement. Neanderthals could abstract. The evidence of burials and art mean they very well could abstract to the point of using symbology at a minimum.

I replace my statement with 'it is like talking to a sub-mammalian creature.'

Exhibit A:
Call it whatever you want. I just want to point out that fascism and socialism both want to DO the same to free individuals.
Even though you've been told several times that fascism is state control of property and socialism is popular control of the means of production.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2011
I have no interest is abstracting govt tyranny.
Why do so many here want to do so?

fascism is state control of property

That's Mises definition of socialism, state control of property.
A 'popular' tyranny is still tyranny.
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2011
How is the interest on the national debt in any way at all a burden? The interest on the federal debt is payable only in U.S. dollars, as is the principle of that debt. The federal government owns and controls the production and distribution of U.S. dollars, and the cost of that production is for all intents and purposes nil. If you owed a debt to someone, and they told you you could pay it all off by making comment posts on physorg, would you consider that a burden?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2011
The govt has two ways to get money. Print it or take it.
If it prints money, which it prefers to do, it dilutes the value of the money, inflation.
If it takes it (taxes), it removes that money from those who would use it to create wealth, the private sector.
If the national debt is no burden, then lets borrow 100 trillion more dollars. It doesn't matter,right T?
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2011
Sure thing, print it or take it. And you're making an assumption that the private sector would be using that money to create wealth. They might just be saving it, in which case, it's not creating any additional new wealth.

Do you know where you'd spend 100 trillion more dollars? Printing the money is not the problem, spending it is. More precisely, where does government spend the money that it does the most good in terms of increasing real output? As long as the national domestic economy is growing in its real output, the printing of additional money does not cause inflation. Adding money to an economy only causes inflation when real output is stagnant or falling. Real output in the US is the highest in the world, and continues to grow every year. Inflation is not a problem in the US. Excess and highly unequal private savings combined with a trade deficit will prevent any attempt to balance the budget anyway, and attempts to do so will only harm real output.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2011
the private sector would be using that money to create wealth. They might just be saving it, in which case, it's not creating any additional new wealth.

Wealth is created either way.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2011
"Arrogant complaining about airport security is one indicator Transportation Security Administration officers consider when looking for possible criminals and terrorists, "
http://www.cnn.co...omplain/
Lesson: don't complain about your govt 'service'.

Fortunately, some semblance of federalism exists.

"Believing that the federal Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has gone too far in an assault on individual and states rights, a new, national, bipartisan legislative caucus is emerging to take action."
http://www.hawaii...ions/123
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2011
Wealth is created either way.

Bull. Wealth is only created through the creative combination of real resources to produce more valuable resources. Money is only the most convenient medium of exchange, and thus measure of relative value. You're mistaking the measuring stick for the thing it measures.

The loans made to individual households out of savings must be paid back plus interest. Those individuals who borrowed the money and used it to purchase real resources which they then creatively combined into new resources they then traded for more money so they could pay back the loan would have created just as much wealth as if the government just printed the original money and gave it to the borrower. And that individual would have been better off because he wouldn't have to pay back the interest, meaning he would have retained more of the excess value he created than if he had borrowed that money from a private lender. Money is not wealth.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2011
T, looks like the Fed disagrees with you:
"The Fed wants idle cash flowing into stocks, bonds, real estate and other assets as a way to stimulate the economy."
http://www.latime...1.column

Money is not wealth.

That is true. Everything else was BS.
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2011
Looks like the Fed agrees with me. There's too much money sitting in the private sector just gathering dust, not being invested. There's a difference, marjon, between savings and investment. Investment involves facilitating a creative enterprise in the hopes of generating real resources with more value than the real resources purchased by the investment. Buying a commodity and sitting on it in the hopes its price goes up is not investment, it's savings. Investment involves a risk of the creative enterprise failing to produce the hoped-for real resources, as well as the risk that those real resources actually produced aren't as valuable as they were projected to be. Savings doesn't involve a risk of creative failure, because it involves no creative activity. It involves the risk that whatever it is you're sitting on will be less valuable in the future than it is now. That's why the government targets mild inflation, so people are less inclined to save money over investing.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2011
"Trade, or exchange, is engaged in precisely because both parties benefit; if they did not expect to gain, they would not agree to the exchange."
"Saving and investment can then develop capital goods and increase the productivity and wages of workers, thereby increasing their standard of living. "
http://www.econli...ket.html
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2011
Trade, or exchange, is engaged in precisely because both parties benefit; if they did not expect to gain, they would not agree to the exchange
Aftger the exchange is made, neither has any object of value to the other. Wealth is not created, resources are distributed. Production of resources is the increase in wealth. The exchange is meaningless.
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2011
Your first adage is only true in direct bartering. In trades where money is involved, the party who gets money defers their satisfaction in the hope that the money can be traded for the real resources they actually desire at some point in the future. That involves a risk that such a future trade may not be possible. Money introduces risk to the mutual benefit of the trade, in exchange for greater overall trading flexibility.

Instead of searching online encyclopedias and the wiki for quotes you can hurl, you would do better to actually read and try to understand them. Your second quote is taken from a paragraph clearly talking about investment, and uses savings and investment interchangeably, as you do. Savings can be useful for investment, because it accumulates capital resources that can then be made available for investment. But savings (accumulation) is not the same as investment (purchase of real resources to enable their creative combination).
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2011
If is save my money in my credit union is my money idle?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2011
the hope that the money can be traded for the real resources they actually desire at some point in the future.

That's true when the money is controlled by a govt that continues to inflate its value to suit its quest for power.
If that money is stable, the only hope is the product desired exists and is affordable. That's when the entrepreneurs step in to use 'idle' cash to invest in the capital to create those desired products.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2011
"The University of Texas Investment Management Co., the second-largest U.S. academic endowment, took delivery of almost $1 billion in gold bullion and is storing the bars in a New York vault, according to the funds board. "
Central banks are printing more money than they ever have, so whats the value of money in terms of purchases of goods and services, Bass said yesterday in a telephone interview. I look at gold as just another currency that they cant print any more of.
http://www.bloomb...ars.html
FrankHerbert
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2011
I'm not going to address the multitude of crazy ryggesogn2 posted except that fascism is not defined as "state control of property". But I guess in lala land we get to define all the -ism's however we want.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2011
I'm not going to address the multitude of crazy ryggesogn2 posted except that fascism is not defined as "state control of property". But I guess in lala land we get to define all the -ism's however we want.

It's hilarious to watch him call other people out as fascists when he's the one trying to push national identity, military dominance, anti-liberalism, and anti-marxism.

There's no end to his ignorance.
FrankHerbert
4 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2011
Fascism is a lot like racism in the sense that virtually everyone realizes they are bad things, even those that perpetuate them. Most fascists don't realize they are fascists, just as most racists don't realize they are racists. Even most KKK members try to rationalize away their racism.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2011
Fascism is a lot like racism in the sense that virtually everyone realizes they are bad things, even those that perpetuate them. Most fascists don't realize they are fascists, just as most racists don't realize they are racists. Even most KKK members try to rationalize away their racism.

As do most 'progressives'.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2011
I'm not going to address the multitude of crazy ryggesogn2 posted except that fascism is not defined as "state control of property". But I guess in lala land we get to define all the -ism's however we want.

It's hilarious to watch him call other people out as fascists when he's the one trying to push national identity, military dominance, anti-liberalism, and anti-marxism.



Does that not depend upon the national identity? A nation that respects the rule of law embodied in a Constitution that protects every individual's rights, including property rights, is morally equivalent to a socialist/fascist state?

SH likes and wants the Regulatory State or fascist state as the govt capriciously controls everyone's liberty and property.
He doesn't argue that his Regulatory State promotes individual liberty or respects individual right to property. One reason is he asserts those rights are bestowed upon the subjects of the state by the state and not inherent.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2011
I'm not going to address the multitude of crazy ryggesogn2 posted except that fascism is not defined as "state control of property". But I guess in lala land we get to define all the -ism's however we want.

"Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek focus on the measures taken by the governments of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany to combat the effects of the Great Depression. Both countries engaged in very strong collusion between business and government, with the result that businessmen had a degree of control over state policy, and the state had a degree of control over the economy. "
"Hayek and von Mises saw most of these policies as being socialist, because the policies exercised what they believed to be excessive control over the means or production. However, this argument is rejected by all self-described socialists;"
http://en.wikiped...ideology
Self-described socialists here are true to form.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2011
"The Fed is called independent because it was created to insulate monetary policy from political pressures. But it was created by Congress, which can do what it wants with the Fed. "
{And I have been told the Federal Reserve is private. What is the definition of 'private'? }
"Furthermore, the Feds current chairman, Ben Bernanke, speaks of the Feds tasks of economic management and economic engineering. (See his Sept. 24, 2010, speech at Princeton.) Such language, Hoenig says, is the language of a central planner."
"Is it, he is asked, mere coincidence that the Great Depression was (a) Americas longest slump and (b) the one combated by the most government activism? Hoenig answers: There were a lot of government activities that caused people to hesitate. "
http://www.washin...ory.html
Central planning: socialism.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2011
"Given uncertainties, including those created by government policies, investors freeze up and pull back. When you dont know, you go still. He says, Capitalism isnt a straight line, its a zigzag, and when you introduce policies to eliminate the zigzag you can introduce instability.

Or stagnation. Or the faux dynamism created by a buy now spirit fueled by inflation expectations. They are inevitably unleashed by dramatic, protracted expansion of the money supply because confidence in fiat money eventually varies inversely with the quantity of such money."
http://www.washin...ory.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2011
"Gas prices are rising due to the declining value of the dollar and to expectations of future supply. We could fix both of these, if we wanted to.

Oil and gasoline prices are set in world markets. If the value of the dollar falls, prices rise. The dollar is weakened by excessive Federal Reserve liquidity and our high budget deficits -- not only this year, but stretching into the future. Inflation is picking up. This weakness is reflected in the dollar prices of all commodities, not just gasoline.

We need to cut government spending to stabilize the currency, and the Fed needs to phase out quantitative easing.

Further, if we want less of something, we tax it and regulate it. That's what we're doing to domestic oil and gas exploration and production. The oil industry would bear the highest tax increases under the Obama budget. Drilling has still not resumed in the Gulf a year after the BP oil spill. EPA insists on regulating carbon. It doesn't have to be this way, but it is." Politico
Thrasymachus
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2011
Spaghetti conservatism: Google random phrases you think have something to do with the topic at hand. Skim the pages that come up until you come across something that tickles your fancy, or seems relevant to the topic at hand. Cut, past, post, and hope that something sticks rather than being recognized as irrelevant, strawmen, a repeat of previously debunked claims, etc. When all these things are pointed out to you, call everybody socialists and fascists, deny, rinse and repeat.

When you have an original thought, marjon, and some interest in understanding this topic, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. But since you're only interested in trying to score ideological points and having the last word, go right on ahead. Nobody but you cares.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2011
T, I keep waiting for your defense of a state planned economy and evidence for its success.
This is a site that is supposed to have some basis in science.
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2011
Try to keep a single topic in your head for longer than a minute, marjon. I know its hard for conservatives to do that, as self-absorbed as they are.

This discussion is about the importance of a federal deficit to overall productive output. You're living in the nation that provides some of the best evidence that persistent deficits do not negatively impact productive output. The US has had a balanced or surplus budget for all of 2 years out of the last hundred, while productive output has risen dramatically during that time. Simple accounting shows that as long as savings > investment and imports > exports then federal spending must be > federal revenues in order to prevent deflation and falling real output. But to understand simple accounting, you must understand addition, subtraction, and the relationship between accounts.

And considering the amount of time you spend on this site attacking science, from evolution to cosmology to economics, your last statement is quite ironic
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2011
Marjon don't you ever get tired of constantly lying about anything and everything? Your posts are a tiresome pack of lies with the rare accidental truth.

Get it over with and move to AnnRandFantasyLandTM commonly know as Somalia.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2011
This discussion is about the importance of a federal deficit to overall productive output.

Data indicate a large debt, cumulative budget deficits, DO affect productive output.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2011
"The same principle applies to money that came from selling government bonds, thus adding to the national debt. People who bought those government bonds had other things they could have invested in, if those government bonds had not been issued.

As the Congressional Budget Office puts it, if the national debt continues to grow out of control, a "growing portion of people's savings would go to purchase government debt rather than toward investments in productive capital goods such as factories and computers; that 'crowding out' of investment would lead to lower output and incomes than would otherwise occur."

Just paying the interest on a growing national debt can require higher tax rates, which "would discourage work and saving and further reduce output," according to the CBO."
http://www.realcl...585.html
The magnitude of the debt has no effect on the economy?
Thrasymachus
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2011
Sure they do. Nice imaginary data you got there. Here's some facts. Only two years out of the last 100 saw the federal government running a budget surplus. Every other year saw a deficit, sometimes quite large ones, and one year saw a deficit greater than the GDP that year. Over that same time, real output has risen over 146 times its original amount.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2011
Debt is the sum of the annual deficits, plus interest, on those deficits.
Continuing to incur deficits add to the total debt.
To pay that debt the govt inflates the currency to continue to 'afford' such debt. Inflation is taxation without representation.
If deficits don't matter, then the govt should keep printing money like the Germans did in the early 20s.
CSharpner
not rated yet Apr 17, 2011
Holy crap! 300 messages and still going! I'm going to have to check in to PhysOrg more frequently to see about the status of OTHER articles I've responded to because they keep getting rolled off of my recent activity list, with this thread dominating all the others.
Thrasymachus
4 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2011
The fact that you think printing money was the sole cause of Germany's hyperinflation in the 20's shows how little you know of both economics and history. Yes, printing money played a role, but the bigger role was the oppressive treaties forced upon them at the end of WWI that forced them to export more real resources than they were capable of producing. Destruction of the real economy always causes more inflation than printing more money, but destroying your real economy while increasing your production of money is the only recipe for hyperinflation.
FrankHerbert
4 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2011
This discussion is about the importance of a federal deficit to overall productive output.

Data indicate a large debt, cumulative budget deficits, DO affect productive output.


No, no they don't.
FrankHerbert
4 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2011

http://en.wikiped...ideology
Self-described socialists here are true to form.


(From Wikipedia on the above article)

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since December 2007.
It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since March 2008.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2011
Destruction of the real economy

"The government's debt rose from 38.6 billion in January, 1919, to 176.6 billion in May, 1921, the banknotes in circulation rose in the same period from 23.647 to 71.863 billion. If the public did not take over a large part of the debt, the money supply could have been even higher. The exchange rate to the dollar rose from 7.95 to 65.18 in this time. "
http://wiki.mises...Republic
Govt debt caused the inflation.

So govt debt is not a worry if the debt does not have to be repaid?
That was the implication from T. Because Germany was saddled with debt, war reparations, hyperinflation resulted.
If a govt is saddled with debt it won't control, like mandatory entitlements and interest on the debt, what is the difference?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
It's hilarious to watch him call other people out as fascists when he's the one trying to push national identity, military dominance, anti-liberalism, and anti-marxism.

Does that not depend upon the national identity? A nation that respects the rule of law embodied in a Constitution that protects every individual's rights, including property rights, is morally equivalent to a socialist/fascist state?
No, your constant bang on about national identity, anti-marxism, anti-liberalism, etc is an example of fascism, you twit.
SH likes and wants the Regulatory State or fascist state as the govt capriciously controls everyone's liberty and property.
Then we get your orwellian nonsense where you change the definitions to suit your argument.
He doesn't argue that his Regulatory State promotes individual liberty or respects individual right to property.
No it doesn't. Society does. Your rights come from society, not government.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2011
they keep getting rolled off of my recent activity list
Hit the SUBSCRIBE button and then you will be emailed notifications. This thread generates a LOT of notifications. You can just delete all the emails and then check Email notifications here or maybe you could change your email address to a bogus one if you don't want to be emailed.

Any thread that Marjon becomes interested in gets a LOT of idiot posts from him. I know he is an idiot because when I tempted him with Somalia he actually tried to support piracy. He really should move there. The food shortage would do his health good.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
"Standard & Poor's cut its ratings outlook on the U.S. to negative from stable while keeping its Triple-A rating on the world's largest economy. "
http://www.market...18-91500
As I have been told, the fault of the mortgage bubble was due to fraudulent reports by bond rating companies, this report must be fraudulent, too.

change the definitions to suit your argument.

I have very clear and consistent with my definition of fascism and socialism and I have sourced those definitions.

And, again, SH can't accept that human rights are inherent, which mean they do NOT come from 'society', and lead him, and others, down the path to his socialist Regulatory State.

SH, define 'society'?

Regarding Newspeak, the 'progressives' do this quite well. Since the TR started the 'progressives', they have changed their name to 'liberal' and then back to 'progressive'. And neither word matches what they support.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
I have very clear and consistent with my definition of fascism and socialism and I have sourced those definitions.
Indeed. You have consistently used false definitions based on an intent to evade reality. Sources from idiots that lie or that you mindlessly misinterpret do NOT constitute anything anyone else is obligated to agree with.

This is why you get ones every time you misuse words like

Socialism
Communism
Fascism
Statism
Liberal
Progressive
Economy
Money
Capitalism
Definition
Source
Fact

As soon as you stop misusing those words you might get higher rankings. More likely you will be in Somalia.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
I was using the definitions provided the Nobel Prize winning economist Hayek.
"It seems to me that this failure of the economists to guide policy more successfully is closely connected with their propensity to imitate as closely as possible the procedures of the brilliantly successful physical sciences - an attempt which in our field may lead to outright error."
"The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men's fatal striving to control society - a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals."
http://nobelprize...ure.html
Fascism/communism/statism are systems designed to control society. A goal many here aspire to.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2011
This is why you get ones

Why should I care?
Maybe that is a fatal flaw in the way science is indoctrinated today.
PhD students must conform to the opinions of their adviser to graduate, not to any objective standard.
This attitude must persist in their careers as so many here are worried about the rankings.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
Maybe that is a fatal flaw in the way science is indoctrinated today.
We allready know you hate science. You are a Creationist. Thus you hate science that has proved your beliefs false.

And I don't care if nonsense came from a Nobel winner. Its still based on nonsense AND your idiotic interpretations of anything. There is no possibility of there being ANY culture involving humans that functions above the hunter-gatherer lever without there being some kind of control on what the lunatics do. You count as one of the lunatics. Much like Glen Beck.

Ethelred
Thrasymachus
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
Opinions are not facts, marjon, and no matter how much you want your opinions, and vonMises, and Hayek's, and Rand's opinions to be taken as them stating some sort of facts about the world, they were in fact giving their opinions about how they thought the world ought to be, attempting to justify that opinion with how things seemed to be to them. They were wrong, as are you, not only about how things ought to be, but about how things really are. Not one of them (including you) entertained the notion that they could be mistaken, and they never, ever looked for evidence that they were wrong. And when presented with evidence, they did the same things you do, deny, obfuscate and change the subject. They, and you, are not scientists, they do not have access to any truth the rest of us lack, and they are not the epitome of ethics and respect for the human condition, indeed, rather opposite of that.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
Looking at the facts on the ground T, I would suggest that the Austrians and Randians have been far more predictive and accurate than the socialists like yourself.
And the reason why is they recognize the economy is an emergent system which must include ethics,human behavior and the rule of law that protects property rights.

I don't hate science. What I do want to point out is too few scientists understand systems thinking.

T, back to the discussion of debt. You claimed national debt doesn't matter so why shouldn't the treasury keep creating money to pay off the debt?
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
They should. Real output in the US economy is growing, and more real resources are imported into the economy than exported out of it. Failing to print money to keep up with the increase in real resources means deflation. Deflation means individuals tend to save money, rather than invest it or spend it to acquire real resources they can use to create more real resources. Growth in real resources diminishes and will go negative in a deflationary environment.

Only real resources matter. Money is unimportant except in its role as a medium of trade. Private money eliminates any advantages of efficiency in trading the use of money is supposed to bring, but retains the risk the the mutual benefit of trading will not be realized a risk that the introduction of any monetary medium of exchange brings.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
I have very clear and consistent with my definition of fascism and socialism and I have sourced those definitions.
No, you have simply said they are the same and depend on centralized control. Both stances are false in some if not all cases.
And, again, SH can't accept that human rights are inherent, which mean they do NOT come from 'society', and lead him, and others, down the path to his socialist Regulatory State.
Rights are not inherent. If they were there would have been no need of a Constitution or government in the first place.
SH, define 'society'?
The intrinsic individual drive moderated by culture and other individuals.
Regarding Newspeak, the 'progressives' do this quite well. Since the TR started the 'progressives', they have changed their name to 'liberal' and then back to 'progressive'. And neither word matches what they support.
You must not speak English.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2011
Real output in the US economy is growing,

Not by much.
GDP is measured in dollars. How is inflation accurately accounted for in GDP?
And the govt debt is growing faster.

People are saving money because they don't know what the govt will do to them in the future with taxes and regulations.
Private money eliminates any advantages of efficiency in trading the use of money is supposed to bring

Why? Not if that private money is trusted and readily usable.
e-gold could be a very trusted and usable form of money as more people are able to use PEDs as paypoints.

Rights are not inherent.

Yes they are. That is an axiom of the US Constitution so stated in the Declaration of Independence.
Of course inherent rights interfere with a confiscatory Regulatory State so they must be rejected by collectivists of all parties.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
Yes they are. That is an axiom of the US Constitution so stated in the Declaration of Independence.
Inherent meant 'available from birth' within the context in which the document was written. Inherent did not, nor does it today mean 'inborn'.
Of course inherent rights interfere with a confiscatory Regulatory State so they must be rejected by collectivists of all parties.
You don't have an inherent right to property by either the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
I don't see how food and energy prices can be excluded from inflation measures.
Especially food. In the US, farmers were able to increase productivity to help keep the price of food stable as measured in current dollars
"Live hog prices in 2011 are expected to exceed $60 per live hundredweight,"
We sold hogs in the late 70s at $63/cwt. How can a farmer make real profit if hog prices are constant for 30 years and his costs keep climbing? One was was to reduce costs by mass producing hogs in confinement. But regardless, there is a fixed, recurring cost to raise hogs. When the point is reached, the market price must rise or the farmers will be forced out of business. Unless, of course, govt steps in and subsides farmers and consumers to hide the inflation. This adds to debt increasing inflation.....
Thrasymachus
4 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2011
Not by much.
GDP is measured in dollars. How is inflation accurately accounted for in GDP?
And the govt debt is growing faster.

Some is better than none, and 3.5% of $14 trillion is almost half a trillion dollars. The very fact that you ask how accurately inflation is accounted for in GDP shows how little you know about what those numbers reflect. Real GDP is always inflation adjusted, and is reported in dollars because an actual list of all real resources, their sources and current owners would be prohibitively long and impossible to compile.

The advantage of money in trading is that you don't have to bother with a whole bunch of exchange calculations to figure out how much of x you should ask for your y so you can then get z. Private money eliminates that advantage, while retaining the risk that the guy offering z wants more x than you thought he did when you traded y for x.

And your opinions on the nature of rights is not only irrelevant, but contrary to observation.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Fifth amendment is a part of the Constitution.

And your opinions on the nature of rights is not only irrelevant, but contrary to observation.

Private property rights, including the right to yourself, is fundamental to any economy. Except a socialist one.
People have inherent rights that the govt is supposed to protect. When the govt controls the money, it controls everyone's property rights.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Fifth amendment is a part of the Constitution.

That would be the moratorium on seizure of individually obtained property by government, not a right to ownership.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
What does 'individually obtained property' mean?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it anarchy and tyranny commence. If Thou shalt not covet, and Thou shalt not steal, were not commandments of heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free. (John Adams) "
"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own. (James Madison) "
http://www.fff.or...811e.asp
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
What does 'individually obtained property' mean?

Do you read and understand English? The above is not a difficult term to understand. Just string the words together as a native English speaker would.

Example: The Constitution states the Congress cannot take your car away if you've bought and paid for it. You do not have the right to acquire a car.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
I can do that too, Mr. Swenson.
Laws for the liberal education of the youth, especially of the lower class of the people, are so extremely wise and useful, that, to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant.
and another
Men must be ready, they must pride themselves and be happy to sacrifice their private pleasures, passions and interests, nay, their private friendships and dearest connections, when they stand in competition with the rights of society.

Both by John Adams. What a 'dirty socialist' he was.... Here's one of my favorites.
Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
You do not have the right to acquire a car.

Why not?
I would agree no one has a right to force someone else to buy him a car or housing or food or medical care or....

What are the 'rights of society'?
FrankHerbert
5 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
Didn't John Adams pass the nations first Universal Health Care law? Socialist.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2011
"Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun in one of his well-known dissents

The most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men is the right to be let alone, and the concept of privacy embodies the moral fact that a person belongs to himself and not others nor to society as a whole.

then one must also accept that a laborer should not have to surrender his wages to support another person, subsidize a business, or augment his neighbors standard of living. For it is a simple and undeniable fact that forcing Americans to give up every single penny of their earnings from January through March, and deep into April, forcing them to work, and toil, and labor for better than 110 days of every year, largely for the benefit of others, is indeed telling them how to live their lives, is indeed legislating morality, and is indeed trampling on personal rights. "
http://www.fff.or...811e.asp

ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
Didn't John Adams pass the nations first Universal Health Care law? Socialist.

I doubt it very much.
FrankHerbert
5 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2011
Oh sorry. He didn't pass the first "universal" health care law, but he did pass the first health care mandate. Socialist.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
Oh Marjon, you silly person. It appears you've intentionally smashed a quote into the essay author's opinion. I'll show you where:
...not others nor to society as a whole.
And that's the end of the statment. This bit:
then one must also accept that a laborer...
Is a clip of the essayists interpretation of the statement.

You've been caught being intellectually dishonest again.
FrankHerbert
5 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2011
No surprise SH. Nice find though. I usually don't read his comments with much attention.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
No surprise SH. Nice find though. I usually don't read his comments with much attention.

You always have to check his sources. 9 out of 10 times he does either a quote smash, or a quote mine. In the few instances he doesn't, the author is typically someone of intense controversy, or it's garbage he got in a chain letter.
FrankHerbert
5 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE OBAMAS SECRET PLAN TO DESTROY ARE COUNTRY !!!!
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
Now he'll run off for a few hours and surface on another thread spouting the exact same nonsense. He's an older gentleman who does this for kicks and attention. Never grew out of his terrible 2's.
Thrasymachus
4 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2011
Nah, he'll be back here. He's got to have the last word, you see. He can't win an argument on the merits, so he usually tries to win through attrition. What I'm rather interested to know is whether he's using government resources to make these posts, since we know he's a government employee, and it's the middle of the day and all.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2011
What I'm rather interested to know is whether he's using government resources to make these posts, since we know he's a government employee, and it's the middle of the day and all.
Wouldn't matter. He's in town government. He's probably surfing the interwebs from home and attending a meeting once a month or week to collect a pittance of a check for 'local service' while he collects SSI or a pension from being a Union employee.
Thrasymachus
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
Unless he's sitting in the Agricultural extension office fielding phone calls about how what kind of flowers do best, and whether a certain chemical should be used on a vegetable garden, surfing the tubes in his downtime because there's so little to do. If he is at work, using government resources to engage in this pleasant little pasttime of his, it would be a criminal offense. At the very least, it would be an issue for his prospects of re-election.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2011
If he is at work, using government resources to engage in this pleasant little pasttime of his, it would be a criminal offense. At the very least, it would be an issue for his prospects of re-election.
Not in a town. Especially Chelmsford.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
Oh sorry. He didn't pass the first "universal" health care law, but he did pass the first health care mandate. Socialist.

Did you ever wonder why this tax was on every master or owner of a US ship arriving from a foreign port? It sounds like a way to pay for the protection of the population from communicable diseases.
Also note the funds were directed to specific, defined uses and were not placed into the general fund to be spent for other purposes.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2011
Also note the funds were directed to specific, defined uses and were not placed into the general fund to be spent for other purposes.
The man who believes himself to be a master of economic theory says budgetting is for r-tards.

I haven't a thing to say about it.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
Also note the funds were directed to specific, defined uses and were not placed into the general fund to be spent for other purposes.
The man who believes himself to be a master of economic theory says budgetting is for r-tards.

I haven't a thing to say about it.

What's wrong with a budget?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
Orwellian?
"Framework for Shared Prosperity and Shared Fiscal Responsibility"?

BHOs 'budget':
"a speech, along with a roughly 15-page fact sheet that is unlikely ever to get placed under the CBO microscope"
"Americas debt problem is one of too much spending, not too little revenue. By offering a tax-heavy fiscal fix that keeps Big Government firmly in place, Obama offers Americans a clear choice of economic futures"
http://blogs.reut...ax-hike/
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2011
What's wrong with a budget?
That'd be my question to you.
http://blogs.reut...ax-hike/
See how it says 'blogs' at the lead in to that URL? It's an indicator that the statements you're citing are opinion.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
What's wrong with a budget?
That'd be my question to you.
http://blogs.reut...ax-hike/
See how it says 'blogs' at the lead in to that URL? It's an indicator that the statements you're citing are opinion.

Everyone has their own heuristic.

Facts:
"Framework for Shared Prosperity and Shared Fiscal Responsibility"
"15-page fact sheet "

Theory supported by many:
"Americas debt problem is one of too much spending,"
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
Everyone has their own heuristic.
So you're going to construct your reality based on someone else's? That doesn't sound too free to me.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2011
MARJON,

"A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new. "
-eINSTEIN

More news stories

Growing app industry has developers racing to keep up

Smartphone application developers say they are challenged by the glut of apps as well as the need to update their software to keep up with evolving phone technology, making creative pricing strategies essential to finding ...

Making graphene in your kitchen

Graphene has been touted as a wonder material—the world's thinnest substance, but super-strong. Now scientists say it is so easy to make you could produce some in your kitchen.