There's No Pain-Free Cure for Recession
simple.lan...@gmail.com
There's No Pain-Free Cure for Recession: Peter Schiff's Editorial in
The Wall Street Journal
As recession fears cause the nation to embrace greater state control
of the economy and unimaginable federal deficits, one searches in vain
for debate worthy of the moment. Where there should be an historic
clash of ideas, there is only blind resignation and an amorphous
queasiness that we are simply sweeping the slouching beast under the
rug.
With faith in the free markets now taking a back seat to fear and
expediency, nearly the entire political spectrum agrees that the
federal government must spend whatever amount is necessary to
stabilize the housing market, bail out financial firms, liquefy the
credit markets, create jobs and make the recession as shallow and
brief as possible. The few who maintain free-market views have been
largely marginalized.
Taking the theories of economist John Maynard Keynes as gospel, our
most highly respected contemporary economists imagine a complex world
in which economics at the personal, corporate and municipal levels are
governed by laws far different from those in effect at the national
level.
Individuals, companies or cities with heavy debt and shrinking
revenues instinctively know that they must reduce spending, tighten
their belts, pay down debt and live within their means. But it is
axiomatic in Keynesianism that national governments can create and
sustain economic activity by injecting printed money into the
financial system. In their view, absent the stimuli of the New Deal
and World War II, the Depression would never have ended.
On a gut level, we have a hard time with this concept. There is a
vague sense of smoke and mirrors, of something being magically created
out of nothing. But economics, we are told, is complicated.
It would be irresponsible in the extreme for an individual to
forestall a personal recession by taking out newer, bigger loans when
the old loans can't be repaid. However, this is precisely what we are
planning on a national level.
I believe these ideas hold sway largely because they promise happy,
pain-free solutions. They are the economic equivalent of miracle
weight-loss programs that require no dieting or exercise. The theories
permit economists to claim mystic wisdom, governments to pretend that
they have the power to dispel hardship with the whir of a printing
press, and voters to believe that they can have recovery without
sacrifice.
As a follower of the Austrian School of economics I believe that
market forces apply equally to people and nations. The problems we
face collectively are no different from those we face individually.
Belt tightening is required by all, including government.
Governments cannot create but merely redirect. When the government
spends, the money has to come from somewhere. If the government
doesn't have a surplus, then it must come from taxes. If taxes don't
go up, then it must come from increased borrowing. If lenders won't
lend, then it must come from the printing press, which is where all
these bailouts are headed. But each additional dollar printed
diminishes the value those already in circulation. Something cannot be
effortlessly created from nothing.
Similarly, any jobs or other economic activity created by public-
sector expansion merely comes at the expense of jobs lost in the
private sector. And if the government chooses to save inefficient jobs
in select private industries, more efficient jobs will be lost in
others. As more factors of production come under government control,
the more inefficient our entire economy becomes. Inefficiency lowers
productivity, stifles competitiveness and lowers living standards.
If we look at government market interventions through this pragmatic
lens, what can we expect from the coming avalanche of federal
activism?
By borrowing more than it can ever pay back, the government will
guarantee higher inflation for years to come, thereby diminishing the
value of all that Americans have saved and acquired. For now the
inflationary tide is being held back by the countervailing pressures
of bursting asset bubbles in real estate and stocks, forced
liquidations in commodities, and troubled retailers slashing prices to
unload excess inventory. But when the dust settles, trillions of new
dollars will remain, chasing a diminished supply of goods. We will be
left with 1970s-style stagflation, only with a much sharper
contraction and significantly higher inflation.
The good news is that economics is not all that complicated. The bad
news is that our economy is broken and there is nothing the government
can do to fix it. However, the free market does have a cure: it's
called a recession, and it's not fun, easy or quick. But if we put our
faith in the power of government to make the pain go away, we will
live with the consequences for generations.
Mr. Schiff is president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of "The
Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets"
Econotron
news:402913f3-f4fa-4524...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> source: http://www.europac.net/newspop.asp?id=15036&from=home
>
> There's No Pain-Free Cure for Recession: Peter Schiff's Editorial in
> The Wall Street Journal
>
>
One of the very few voices of reason.
e.
Werner
> <simple.language.ya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I'm sure there were voices of reason before tragedy hit Buffalo. But
reason was ignored in favor of politics as usual.
Dollars in the common treasury are like fish in the common sea -
anyone who can will harvest to extinction. That is why socialism is
fundamentally corrupting and can not work. The Fed is making a lot of
paper fish. This is an illusion of wealth. The real fish are gone.
----
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/how.shtml
Governing has become a way to get privileges for some at the expense
of others.
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/what.shtml
Michael Coburn
> source: http://www.europac.net/newspop.asp?id=15036&from=home
Robert Schiff is a rightarded apologist for the rich.
> There's No Pain-Free Cure for Recession: Peter Schiff's Editorial in The
> Wall Street Journal
>
> As recession fears cause the nation to embrace greater state control of
> the economy and unimaginable federal deficits, one searches in vain for
> debate worthy of the moment. Where there should be an historic clash of
> ideas, there is only blind resignation and an amorphous queasiness that
> we are simply sweeping the slouching beast under the rug.
>
> With faith in the free markets now taking a back seat to fear and
> expediency, nearly the entire political spectrum agrees that the federal
> government must spend whatever amount is necessary to stabilize the
> housing market, bail out financial firms, liquefy the credit markets,
> create jobs and make the recession as shallow and brief as possible. The
> few who maintain free-market views have been largely marginalized.
If they are marginalized then it is because they are lying pigs. The
only thing "free" about current "markets" is the free ride that the
Republican supporters from Wall Street have been getting on the backs of
the American producing class.
> Taking the theories of economist John Maynard Keynes as gospel, our most
> highly respected contemporary economists imagine a complex world in
> which economics at the personal, corporate and municipal levels are
> governed by laws far different from those in effect at the national
> level.
Yes. These views are called _REALITY_. Keynes did not see the creation
of true fiat money and was forced to settle for borrowing. And that was
his only problem.
> Individuals, companies or cities with heavy debt and shrinking revenues
> instinctively know that they must reduce spending, tighten their belts,
> pay down debt and live within their means. But it is axiomatic in
> Keynesianism that national governments can create and sustain economic
> activity by injecting printed money into the financial system. In their
> view, absent the stimuli of the New Deal and World War II, the
> Depression would never have ended.
The problem with this presentation from Schiff is that it is a lie. It
is a lie because money is not being created. It is being borrowed into
existence and the lenders will be feasting on the debtor's for all
eternity until that particular problem (borrowing) is properly addressed.
> On a gut level, we have a hard time with this concept. There is a vague
> sense of smoke and mirrors, of something being magically created out of
> nothing. But economics, we are told, is complicated.
Not complicated at all. As CREATED money is injected into the economy at
the bottom, the money currently owned by the Republican supporters of the
last 30 years of rip off tickle down lying will find the value of their
money declining. I do not see what is so complicated about that. And it
is the primary reason why government is much different from the home
economics and rightarded fundamentalism.
> It would be irresponsible in the extreme for an individual to forestall
> a personal recession by taking out newer, bigger loans when the old
> loans can't be repaid. However, this is precisely what we are planning
> on a national level.
Yep. The proper solution is to simply print the money and not to BORROW
it. That is the option that government has that the rest do not.
> I believe these ideas hold sway largely because they promise happy,
> pain-free solutions.
Nope. If done properly they will be somewhat painful for the Chinese and
the very rich Americans that refuse to invest in America. You know....
The ones that buy the T-Bills instead of building a shoe factory or
paying their rightful share of the taxes.
> They are the economic equivalent of miracle
> weight-loss programs that require no dieting or exercise. The theories
> permit economists to claim mystic wisdom, governments to pretend that
> they have the power to dispel hardship with the whir of a printing
> press, and voters to believe that they can have recovery without
> sacrifice.
Most of the voters have already sacrificed. It is the filthy rich
Republicans that seem to think that sacrifice on their part is totally
unnecessary.
> As a follower of the Austrian School of economics I believe that market
> forces apply equally to people and nations. The problems we face
> collectively are no different from those we face individually. Belt
> tightening is required by all, including government.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The lunacy of this position should be obvious to anyone with even half a
wit.
> Governments cannot create but merely redirect. When the government
> spends, the money has to come from somewhere.
Yes. It can come from a printing press or from a more obvious tax on the
very rich. There is really no other "where" from whence it might come
that does not simply enrich the rich still further.
> If the government doesn't
> have a surplus, then it must come from taxes. If taxes don't go up, then
> it must come from increased borrowing.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The obvious solution as "printing money" seems to have been lost here.
> If lenders won't lend, then it
> must come from the printing press, which is where all these bailouts are
> headed. But each additional dollar printed diminishes the value those
> already in circulation. Something cannot be effortlessly created from
> nothing.
At LAST!!!! Some truth emerges..........
But notice how Schiff does not deal with what this actually means. It is
a tax on the people that have all the money. And the tax impels them to
__**INVEST**__ their money in the real economy or watch as the inflation
monster eats it up and returns them to the ranks of the middle class.
> Similarly, any jobs or other economic activity created by public- sector
> expansion merely comes at the expense of jobs lost in the private
> sector.
The economy of the 90's did not see a huge increase in public sector
jobs. The rich were taxed at higher levels and there was a lot less
speculating and gambling and lot more actual economic development. The
problem in the 70's was the special capital gains treatment and "risk"
treatment afforded the rich as they built shopping centers and such.
That same problem was recreated by the Republican Gingrich capital gains
tax cuts of 1997.
> And if the government chooses to save inefficient jobs in select
> private industries, more efficient jobs will be lost in others.
That is the cost of actual economic development such as alternative
energy. These jobs are not currently "efficient" and government should
make them so by taxing the hell out of crude oil and simply rebating the
tax in the form of a quarterly stimulus.
> As more
> factors of production come under government control, the more
> inefficient our entire economy becomes. Inefficiency lowers
> productivity, stifles competitiveness and lowers living standards.
All of that crap about efficiency is true enough. That is why the tax
system works so well if done correctly. The $25 per barrel tax on crude
oil is a fine example. It would be better if it were $75 a barrel. The
proceeds of the tax should be used to finance the stimulus. Alternative
fuels and CAFE stuff follows from the price of the petroleum based
fuels. There is no actual "job creation" in the public sector.
> If we look at government market interventions through this pragmatic
> lens, what can we expect from the coming avalanche of federal activism?
Hopefully a much better economy that is much less dependent on foreign
suppliers.
> By borrowing more than it can ever pay back, the government will
> guarantee higher inflation for years to come, thereby diminishing the
> value of all that Americans have saved and acquired.
There is no such thing as government not being able to pay when the money
is created by government. This should alert all persons with more than a
couple of neurons that Schiff is an apologist for the rich that will lie
till hell freezes over to protect them.
> For now the
> inflationary tide is being held back by the countervailing pressures of
> bursting asset bubbles in real estate and stocks, forced liquidations in
> commodities, and troubled retailers slashing prices to unload excess
> inventory. But when the dust settles, trillions of new dollars will
> remain, chasing a diminished supply of goods. We will be left with
> 1970s-style stagflation, only with a much sharper contraction and
> significantly higher inflation.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What a lying pig. All those dollars are tucked away in the interest
bearing mattresses of the rich. The only way to restore a proper economy
is to further reduce the value of those dollars while ensuring that the
producing sector of the economy is properly redressed for the theft of
the last 30 years.
> The good news is that economics is not all that complicated. The bad
> news is that our economy is broken and there is nothing the government
> can do to fix it.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There may be nothing that the gutless political whores of Wall Street can
do, but honest representatives of the people can do much to fix it.
> However, the free market does have a cure: it's called
> a recession, and it's not fun, easy or quick. But if we put our faith in
> the power of government to make the pain go away, we will live with the
> consequences for generations.
>
> Mr. Schiff is president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of "The
> Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets"
He is an apologist for the rich. And if that is not obvious to you then
you are also an apologist for the rich.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Democracy Highlander
> source:http://www.europac.net/newspop.asp?id=15036&from=home
>
> There's No Pain-Free Cure for Recession: Peter Schiff's Editorial in
> The Wall Street Journal
There is no Pain-Free Cure for recession as there is no Pain-Free
recovery from flu.
But there are immunizations which taken up-front are a bit painful but
can prevent
a large number of illnesses.
A such immunization can be to insure that there will never be too much
accumulation of wealth.
To understand the immunization you have to look at how the germ is
working.
The economy is good, the wealthy CEOs and shareholders get the cream
of the cake.
A wealthy individual already can afford before whatever he needs so
most of his money are going to be put on the stock market. The same
shared but more money chase them. As the supply-demand lesson teach
us, the prices for stocks rise. As the stocks prices rise, the
investors expect to be rewarded for the money they did invest in the
economy.
But what are the stock market shares ? They are ownership title for a
part of a business.
If a business does good, it produce profit if not it accumulate
looses. And here is the difference:
case 1: The wages for Joe Average increase the same or better than the
revenue of wealthy
case 2: The wages for Joe Average increase worst than the revenue of
wealthy
case 1: Joe Average increase his consumption at the same rate (or
better) than the increase in the amount investors payed for shares.
The companies have more business, and are profitable.
Investors are happy, the economy keep booming.
case 2: Joe Average do not increase his spending as much as expected
by the investors. The investors are disappointed by earnings and sell.
The market goes down. Companies try hold the stocks cutting cost with
labor, economic activity decline. Welcome to a recession.
The Vaccine:
=======
Insure that the revenue taken home by the wealthy who spend most of
their money on Wall Street always grow at a rate equal or lower than
the median wage per economy.
One way to insure something like this will be to have the tax on
capital gain and dividends BIGGER than the income taxation.
Another way is to have a steeper progressive taxation system for
anything over 4 times median wage.
For people earning over 100 times the median wage, the taxation must
go over 90%. There can be set up a limit (let say 20 times the median
wage after taxation) which shall never be achieved as after tax money,
regardless of how much the pre-tax amount is.
Yes, like a vaccine it will hurt a bit when administrated. But it will
save the economy from countless and worst pains later.
Werner
<democracy.highlan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 7:46 am, simple.language.ya...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > source:http://www.europac.net/newspop.asp?id=15036&from=home
>
> > There's No Pain-Free Cure for Recession: Peter Schiff's Editorial in
> > The Wall Street Journal
>
> There is no Pain-Free Cure for recession as there is no Pain-Free
> recovery from flu.
> But there are immunizations which taken up-front are a bit painful but
> can prevent
> a large number of illnesses.
>
> A such immunization can be to insure that there will never be too much
> accumulation of wealth.
Unfortunately the issue is not about accumulation of wealth. It is
about the accumulation of debt. So a better analogy would be addiction
not the flue. We are addicted to credit. Just as heroin addicts are
not cured with more heroin so credit addicts are not cured with more
borrowing.
Nor are there enough rich to tax our way out of our entitlement
addictions.
Dan in Philly
<snip>
The columnist was wrong when he said that Keynesian stimulus requires money
creation. Increasing the money supply may be a good idea, but it's
orthogonal to Keynesianism.
Consider the housing bust. A couple years ago lots of houses were being
built, an investment that came from people's savings. (including Chinese
people). When we discovered there were too many houses, the industry
shrank. Thus the flow of savings was not being entirely used. The correct
response is for the government to immediately borrow those extra savings --
an amount equal to the drop in housing -- and produce something. But the
govt didn't do that, so we got the multiplier effect: laid off carpenters
spend less, which hurts other industries, more layoffs, etc.
This isn't something for nothing. This is preventing something bad from
coming out of nowhere.
Dan in Philly
Ken T.
> Consider the housing bust. A couple years ago lots of houses were being
> built, an investment that came from people's savings. (including Chinese
> people). When we discovered there were too many houses, the industry
> shrank. Thus the flow of savings was not being entirely used. The
> correct response is for the government to immediately borrow those extra
> savings -- an amount equal to the drop in housing -- and produce
> something. But the govt didn't do that, so we got the multiplier effect:
> laid off carpenters spend less, which hurts other industries, more
> layoffs, etc.
>
> This isn't something for nothing. This is preventing something bad from
> coming out of nowhere.
I hate to disagree, but the correct response was for government to stay
out of it. If the government had stayed out of the housing market to
begin with, we wouldn't have had the bubble, or at least it wouldn't have
been nearly as big.
The government just doesn't do well when intervening in the economy. It
typically causes more problems than it solves. Right now, intervention
may be necessary to prevent the problems of previous interventions from
completely destroying many of the jobs in this country, but once we get
through this crisis, we should seriously consider getting government out
of the business of selecting winners and losers in our economy.
--
Ken T.
http://www.electricsenator.net
Over grown military establishments are under any form of government
inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly
hostile to republican liberty. -- George Washington
Democracy Highlander
> Unfortunately the issue is not about accumulation of wealth. It is
> about the accumulation of debt. So a better analogy would be addiction
> not the flue. We are addicted to credit. Just as heroin addicts are
> not cured with more heroin so credit addicts are not cured with more
> borrowing.
>
> Nor are there enough rich to tax our way out of our entitlement
> addictions.
The problem is too much accumulation of wealth. Unfortunate, we leave
into a world where money imply power. If you allow too much
concentration of power into a few hands, the people in power gets
disconnected from the Joe Average from the street while he keep making
decision that affect him.
This was EXACTLY the same reason Soviet Union collapsed. Too much
accumulation of power into the hands of a small oligarchy which ruled
at their will in total disrespect of Ivan Average.
The only difference between a communist and a fascist-libertarian
society is the means used to achieve the finality. The communists take
control over the economic power using political power, while the
fascist-libertarians take control of the political power using
economic power.
But the finality is exactly the same: An autocracy, where a large
majority is ruled by force by a tyrant or a small oligarchy.
In the end, the huge disconnect between the rulers from ivory tower
and realities on the ground drive that the resources are redirected
more and toward satisfying the vanity of the powerful idle. There will
always be a tipping point while diverting too much resource from the
real economy will make the economy unstable and collapsing.
Ken T.
[Snip]
> The only difference between a communist and a fascist-libertarian
> society is the means used to achieve the finality.
[Snip]
There is no such thing as a fascist-libertarian society. The two ideas
are diametrically opposed.
And if the business interests are using political means to achieve their
goals, then it is not libertarian at all. Libertarians find that kind of
thing horribly offensive.
--
Ken T.
http://www.electricsenator.net
Suicide is the most sincere form of self criticism.
Michael Coburn
Michael Coburn
> On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:01:04 -0800, Democracy Highlander wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>> The only difference between a communist and a fascist-libertarian
>> society is the means used to achieve the finality.
> [Snip]
>
> There is no such thing as a fascist-libertarian society. The two ideas
> are diametrically opposed.
That is true enough.
> And if the business interests are using political means to achieve their
> goals, then it is not libertarian at all. Libertarians find that kind
> of thing horribly offensive.
But they still vote for fascist Republicans.
Democracy Highlander
> There is no such thing as a fascist-libertarian society. The two ideas
> are diametrically opposed.
> And if the business interests are using political means to achieve their
> goals, then it is not libertarian at all. Libertarians find that kind of
> thing horribly offensive.
Apparently, if you look only at the surface. However, if you start to
look deeper...things change dramatically.
It may not be what many libertarians want, but it will definitelly be
the natural outcome if libertarian ideology is implemented.
When Russian peasants decided to follow Lenin, do you really believed
that they wanted a society where a criminal like Stalin send their
families to gulag, torture and kill them ? To them, the idea of a
dictator enslaving the population would been at least as offensive as
you say about today's libertarians.
It is very important to understand that the "road to hell is paved
with good intentions" and it will definitely lead to hell sooner or
later if a ANY ideology is embraced with fundamentalism and not
abandoned or at least changed when evidenced prove otherwise.
Regardless which ideology.
And here is where libertarians prove that they are no better than
Russian peasants to reason about the future.
The problem with libertarian ideology is the fanatic opposition to
government. So fanatic than many are even against democracy itself and
oppose any regulation even when that is a mater of survival of the
civilization itself.
On top of this fundamentalism, add the fact that the economic power is
"sticky and additive". The guy with the most money have the power to
control the rules, and he usually bend them in his own advantage.
Without antitrust regulation and actions (gov. intervention) it make
the whole sense in the world for the biggest players to form an
oligopoly to squash everybody else and get absolute power.
And with accumulation of economic power, the people's freedom is
gone.
Imagine me and you on an island. I own the only source of fresh water
and food and I have a gun to protect my property. Then I say to you:
"I give you all the freedom you want on this island. But if you want
MY WATER or MY FOOD you must WILLFULLY AGREE to become my SLAVE". I
say: "I am not coercing you to become my slave. I am not using the gun
to take your freedom, I am just using the gun to protect MY PROPERTY
against a potential thief". Later, when you are dehydrated, starving
and on the edge of death I give you the FREEDOM to become my slave in
exchange of a bit of water and food. I give you a contract to sign
then I can use my gun to enforce your FREELY AGREED contractual
obligations.
But I WILL NEVER COERCE YOU by force to do something for me (as
libertarian say). I just enforce my PROPERTY and CONTRACTUAL rights.
This is a resume of the whole libertarian ideology. They support
property rights enforced at gun point, but put no limitation on wealth
accumulation. They support force enforcement of "freely agreed"
contractual rights, but strongly opposed any regulations or safety-
nets to prevent an individual to be economically coerced to enter into
a deal bad for him but very lucrative for the rich business owner. By
their idiotic opposition to democratic government they create exactly
the basis to exacerbate the ability of the rich to enslave all the
rest of the society.
Libertarians are supporters of fascism regardless if they want that or
not. Those who understand the real implications of their ideology are
obviously fascists. The rest (probably a majority) who have no ability
to real understand what is going on, are deluded victims of the
fascist propaganda.
Ken T.
> On top of this fundamentalism, add the fact that the economic power is
> "sticky and additive". The guy with the most money have the power to
> control the rules, and he usually bend them in his own advantage.
> Without antitrust regulation and actions (gov. intervention) it make the
> whole sense in the world for the biggest players to form an oligopoly to
> squash everybody else and get absolute power.
Most libertarians, including myself, would argue with this premise.
Economic power is sticky and additive only when it is supported by an
interventionist state. You are no longer advocating libertarianism if
you advocate an interventionist state as well.
> And with accumulation of economic power, the people's freedom is gone.
> Imagine me and you on an island. I own the only source of fresh water
> and food and I have a gun to protect my property. Then I say to you: "I
> give you all the freedom you want on this island. But if you want MY
> WATER or MY FOOD you must WILLFULLY AGREE to become my SLAVE". I say: "I
> am not coercing you to become my slave. I am not using the gun to take
> your freedom, I am just using the gun to protect MY PROPERTY against a
> potential thief". Later, when you are dehydrated, starving and on the
> edge of death I give you the FREEDOM to become my slave in exchange of a
> bit of water and food. I give you a contract to sign then I can use my
> gun to enforce your FREELY AGREED contractual obligations.
> But I WILL NEVER COERCE YOU by force to do something for me (as
> libertarian say). I just enforce my PROPERTY and CONTRACTUAL rights.
Most libertarians, like Locke, would argue that a contract for perpetual
servitude is invalid on its face. Your argument is also flawed in a
number of other ways. There is no single entity that controls all the
food or all the water and has no needs of its own. This can't happen in
the real world.
> This is a resume of the whole libertarian ideology. They support
> property rights enforced at gun point, but put no limitation on wealth
> accumulation. They support force enforcement of "freely agreed"
> contractual rights, but strongly opposed any regulations or safety- nets
> to prevent an individual to be economically coerced to enter into a deal
> bad for him but very lucrative for the rich business owner. By their
> idiotic opposition to democratic government they create exactly the
> basis to exacerbate the ability of the rich to enslave all the rest of
> the society.
You don't understand the theory of libertarianism, nor to do you
understand basic human nature very well.
I agree that their may be flaws in the theory. But it has worked in many
places and times throughout history and has served us at least as well as
we are being served by the current system and much better than we were
ever served by socialism.
I think it is quite likely that one day we will look back at the current
system and mock the fact that the people didn't realize that they were
supporting themselves by borrowing from their children and that when the
collapse came they wondered why?
> Libertarians are supporters of fascism regardless if they want that or
> not. Those who understand the real implications of their ideology are
> obviously fascists. The rest (probably a majority) who have no ability
> to real understand what is going on, are deluded victims of the fascist
> propaganda.
I'm am no supporter of fascism. The current parties are far more likely
to take your rights away than any candidate the libertarian party is
likely to run.
If you value your freedom you should vote libertarian.
On top of that, if you want markets that function well, and encourage
investment, you should vote libertarian.
If you want to live high on the hog for a few years until the currency
eventually collapses because of excess borrowing and poor monetary
policy, then you should vote for one of the other two parties.
If you want warrantless wiretaps and no knock searches and people being
force to shut up by jack booted thugs when the disagree with the major
parties, you should vote for them.
--
Ken T.
http://www.electricsenator.net
I could never learn to like her, except on a raft at sea with no other
provisions in sight.
-- Mark Twain
Michael Coburn
> On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:08:06 -0800, Democracy Highlander wrote:
>
>> On top of this fundamentalism, add the fact that the economic power is
>> "sticky and additive". The guy with the most money have the power to
>> control the rules, and he usually bend them in his own advantage.
>> Without antitrust regulation and actions (gov. intervention) it make
>> the whole sense in the world for the biggest players to form an
>> oligopoly to squash everybody else and get absolute power.
>
> Most libertarians, including myself, would argue with this premise.
> Economic power is sticky and additive only when it is supported by an
> interventionist state. You are no longer advocating libertarianism if
> you advocate an interventionist state as well.
You _ARE_ the interventionist state. Government is a Libertarian
standing over "his" land claim protecting it with a sharp stick.
>> And with accumulation of economic power, the people's freedom is gone.
>> Imagine me and you on an island. I own the only source of fresh water
>> and food and I have a gun to protect my property. Then I say to you: "I
>> give you all the freedom you want on this island. But if you want MY
>> WATER or MY FOOD you must WILLFULLY AGREE to become my SLAVE". I say:
>> "I am not coercing you to become my slave. I am not using the gun to
>> take your freedom, I am just using the gun to protect MY PROPERTY
>> against a potential thief". Later, when you are dehydrated, starving
>> and on the edge of death I give you the FREEDOM to become my slave in
>> exchange of a bit of water and food. I give you a contract to sign then
>> I can use my gun to enforce your FREELY AGREED contractual obligations.
>> But I WILL NEVER COERCE YOU by force to do something for me (as
>> libertarian say). I just enforce my PROPERTY and CONTRACTUAL rights.
>
> Most libertarians, like Locke, would argue that a contract for perpetual
> servitude is invalid on its face. Your argument is also flawed in a
> number of other ways. There is no single entity that controls all the
> food or all the water and has no needs of its own. This can't happen in
> the real world.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Wealth of Nations B.I, Ch.6, Of the Component Parts of the Price of
Commodities" -----------------------------------------------
As soon as the land of any country has all become private property,
the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed,
and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest,
the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which,
when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering
them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed upon them. He
must then pay for the licence to gather them; and must give up to the
landlord a portion of what his labour either collects or produces. This
portion, or, what comes to the same thing, the price of this portion,
constitutes the rent of land (...) [9].
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>> This is a resume of the whole libertarian ideology. They support
>> property rights enforced at gun point, but put no limitation on wealth
>> accumulation. They support force enforcement of "freely agreed"
>> contractual rights, but strongly opposed any regulations or safety-
>> nets to prevent an individual to be economically coerced to enter into
>> a deal bad for him but very lucrative for the rich business owner. By
>> their idiotic opposition to democratic government they create exactly
>> the basis to exacerbate the ability of the rich to enslave all the rest
>> of the society.
>
> You don't understand the theory of libertarianism, nor to do you
> understand basic human nature very well.
>
> I agree that their may be flaws in the theory. But it has worked in
> many places and times throughout history and has served us at least as
> well as we are being served by the current system and much better than
> we were ever served by socialism.
RUBBISH!
> I think it is quite likely that one day we will look back at the current
> system and mock the fact that the people didn't realize that they were
> supporting themselves by borrowing from their children and that when the
> collapse came they wondered why?
Do you really believe that it is possible to borrow money from the
unborn? That is imbecilic. The money is being borrowed from the rich
who direct government to spend it on wars or whatever else it might take
to destroy real wealth. The objective is to create a society of
indentured servants; a society in which government collects taxes to pay
the descendants of the rich. The current government has been directed by
the fascist Republicans who are voted into office by the Libertarians.
>> Libertarians are supporters of fascism regardless if they want that or
>> not. Those who understand the real implications of their ideology are
>> obviously fascists. The rest (probably a majority) who have no ability
>> to real understand what is going on, are deluded victims of the fascist
>> propaganda.
>
> I'm am no supporter of fascism. The current parties are far more likely
> to take your rights away than any candidate the libertarian party is
> likely to run.
>
> If you value your freedom you should vote libertarian.
Why? That is like pissing in the wind.
> On top of that, if you want markets that function well, and encourage
> investment, you should vote libertarian.
Why? That is like pissing in the wind.
> If you want to live high on the hog for a few years until the currency
> eventually collapses because of excess borrowing and poor monetary
> policy, then you should vote for one of the other two parties.
Nope. All you need do is allow the Republicans to run the government by
wasting your vote on a Libertarian candidate.
> If you want warrantless wiretaps and no knock searches and people being
> force to shut up by jack booted thugs when the disagree with the major
> parties, you should vote for them.
Gee.... That sounds like the Republicans. In Georgia the Libertarians
just elected another Republican senator. They tried to elect a
Republican (P)resident.
Democracy Highlander
> Most libertarians, including myself, would argue with this premise.
> Economic power is sticky and additive only when it is supported by an
> interventionist state. You are no longer advocating libertarianism if
> you advocate an interventionist state as well.
Now you do not understand same basics stuff. This is what drive most
of the people toward libertarianism: lack of understanding. They find
very easy to recite empty slogans instead of actually making an effort
to think.
Let consider an economy with 2 actors driven exclusively by food and
wine.
You work a hour to make a day worth of food, I work an hour to make a
day worth of wine.
We exchange a day worth of food for a day worth of wine. The economy
is stable.
Now, one day from the sky (luck) I get a week worth of food.
Next day, when you came with your food basket I say:
"I want 2 days worth of food for a day worth of wine".
You say ***** and leave. Next day the same.
On third day you are dehydrated and can not take it anymore, you
agree.
Now, I get much more food than before and I start to build some stocks
of it.
Then, using the leverage provided by the accumulated wealth I can push
on you more and more until
I have you work all day to barely survive in poverty while I get obese
barely working at all.
Unfortunate, this is how the markets work. The free-market economy it
is unbelievable unstable.
Any advantage on one side, can be exacerbated and too much wealth
accumulation will lead others to poverty.
The naive may say: "If you say that, I go to the other wine maker to
exchange".
Well, this assume that the other wine-maker have no clue about my
offer to you. Unfortunate for you, companies can find info about
competition.
If they do, they will try to offer you not 1/2 exchange rate but
1/1.8, the next one 1/1.5 and will probably sell it for 1/1.2 in the
end. But continue this on the long run, the wine makers will all of
them accumulate more, stocking and in the end the same situation will
be reached but into a loooonger time.
Even if both me and you are keeping secret, he will observe that
untill today, you never came to him, so he will figure out that
something went wrong. Will not offer you a 1/1.8 at first but a 1/1.2.
But if you keep coming day after day, he will figure out that the
supply of food is bigger than the demand for it.
I may not be the one to get rich despite the fact that I got the
surplus fallen from the helicopter. But one more market savyy than me,
will use my fortune to profit from the unbalance and tell you nice
lies so you keep trading with him more. But in the end, the unbalance
is GUARANTEED to propagate and provide opportunity for (some) wine-
makers to get rich while sending most of the food-makers in poverty.
As bigger the market, as longer will take for an imbalance to bring
poverty into a previously balanced and prosperous market. But in the
end, the market rules will work their unfortunate magic: UNREGULATED
MARKETS ARE GUARANTEED TO CREATE POVERTY AND CONCENTRATE WEALTH.
> Most libertarians, like Locke, would argue that a contract for perpetual
> servitude is invalid on its face.
I do not call it slavery, I call it free-market trade. I just set the
price so that you have to work day long for the amount of food and
water I "freely trade" for your work.
Tell Locke that he is a drunk day-dreamer. It is free market, not
slavery regardless that the outcome is exactly the same.
> Your argument is also flawed in a number of other ways. There is no single entity that controls all the
> food or all the water and has no needs of its own. This can't happen in
> the real world.
Try the example above with N producers of wine and N of food. One wine
maker will always accumulate enough to gain some leverage over the
food producers and in time, the unbalance will always generate poverty
if all the wine makers target profit only.
For a larger society the amount of extra wealth required to trigger
the system out of balance will be bigger than a the 3 days of
individual survival, but for a certain threshold it is always going
happen. This is the reason any civilized sustainable society must put
limits on how much wealth/power one entity is allowed to accumulate.
> You don't understand the theory of libertarianism, nor to do you
> understand basic human nature very well.
Nope. You do not understand it. Libertarians are always slogans empty
of any content but that sounds good. And libertarians who believe they
understand that are just victims of slogan-ization. Exactly like the
shopper who see a commercial on TV then run to the store to buy that
product regardless if they needed or not.
This is why I always recommend thinking about the issues. Because
thinking is the best libertarian repellent ever.
> I agree that their may be flaws in the theory.
There are, and they are huge.
> But it has worked in many places and times throughout history and has served us at least as well as
> we are being served by the current system
The libertarian theory served anybody except the pirates from
Somalia ?
There is the only place where the libertarianism has been experienced
due to lack of a functional government.
I just fail to see Somalia as a economic paradise. Sorry.
> and much better than we were ever served by socialism.
Socialism is yet another unworkable theory exactly as libertarianism
is.
Socialists are extremists in one sense and libertarians are extremists
on the other sense.
None of them is better than the other, both are fundamentally flawed.
A decent system can be found somewhere around middle.
> I think it is quite likely that one day we will look back at the current
> system and mock the fact that the people didn't realize that they were
> supporting themselves by borrowing from their children and that when the
> collapse came they wondered why?
Of course you are right here. I agree 100%.
But don't forget how all this mess started:
"The government is not the solution, The government is the problem",
said the economic illiterate who
started the deregulation and tax cuts revolution in modern times. Yes,
the roots of current crisis has been planted in 1981 by a supporter of
the "small government theory" and by a true believer in tax cuts.
Then, we borrowed from the kids to pay for the tax cuts taken home by
the rich, because the economic illiterate brainwashed all the weak
minds to believe that "deregulation is good".
> I'm am no supporter of fascism. The current parties are far more likely
> to take your rights away than any candidate the libertarian party is
> likely to run.
I am not afraid of a libertarian candidate to take my rights away.
I am afraid of him permitting to some greedy crooks to accumulate
enough power to take all my life away, all the rights included.
A 2003 statistics (no newer one available) said that over 18000
Americans die each year from preventible causes because they can not
afford health care. No government took away their right to live.
Insurance companies and BigPharma did what no government official dare
to do: Kill US citizens for a profit.
> If you value your freedom you should vote libertarian.
>
> On top of that, if you want markets that function well, and encourage
> investment, you should vote libertarian.
Unregulated markets are unstable by default and doomed to crash.
It take an idiot to want unregulated markets. I want regulated, fair
markets.
> If you want to live high on the hog for a few years until the currency
> eventually collapses because of excess borrowing and poor monetary
> policy, then you should vote for one of the other two parties.
Without the Reagan and Bush imbecile tax cuts and deregulation this
disaster wouldn't be here.
Why borrow when you have enough revenue ? It was their infect ideology
of "Starve The Beast" which in purpose destroyed US economy. And this
is exacxtly what libertarians support and want more of it.
> If you want warrantless wiretaps and no knock searches and people being
> force to shut up by jack booted thugs when the disagree with the major
> parties, you should vote for them.
Well, a proponent of tax cuts, deragulation and small government
started the warrantless wiretapping.
He is a neocon not libertarian, true.
But except a few points of view like wiretaps and marijuana, neocons
and libertarians share a lot of ideology together.
Ken T.
>> Most libertarians, including myself, would argue with this premise.
>> Economic power is sticky and additive only when it is supported by an
>> interventionist state. You are no longer advocating libertarianism if
>> you advocate an interventionist state as well.
>
> You _ARE_ the interventionist state. Government is a Libertarian
> standing over "his" land claim protecting it with a sharp stick.
It certainly is not. If you think we live in a Libertarian paradise now,
you aren't paying attention. Government at all levels controls something
like 40% of GDP right now. Libertarians are completely against this.
>> Most libertarians, like Locke, would argue that a contract for
>> perpetual servitude is invalid on its face. Your argument is also
>> flawed in a number of other ways. There is no single entity that
>> controls all the food or all the water and has no needs of its own.
>> This can't happen in the real world.
>
> BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> "Wealth of Nations B.I, Ch.6, Of the Component Parts of the Price of
> Commodities" -----------------------------------------------
> As soon as the land of any country has all become private property,
> the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed,
> and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest,
> the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which,
> when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering
> them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed upon them. He
> must then pay for the licence to gather them; and must give up to the
> landlord a portion of what his labour either collects or produces. This
> portion, or, what comes to the same thing, the price of this portion,
> constitutes the rent of land (...) [9].
OK, but the landlord must also eat, must drink milk, has needs he must
fulfill by getting others to trade with him willingly. He can't simply
hold them over a barrel and extract whatever he wants. In addition, he
is in competition with other potential landlords. You are missing half
the equation here. The landlord is not king.
>> You don't understand the theory of libertarianism, nor to do you
>> understand basic human nature very well.
>>
>> I agree that their may be flaws in the theory. But it has worked in
>> many places and times throughout history and has served us at least as
>> well as we are being served by the current system and much better than
>> we were ever served by socialism.
>
> RUBBISH!
I can't find fault with an argument of this eloquence.
> Do you really believe that it is possible to borrow money from the
> unborn? That is imbecilic.
Our children will be expected to pay back this debt either directly, or
more likely, through the devaluation of their currency.
> The money is being borrowed from the rich
> who direct government to spend it on wars or whatever else it might take
> to destroy real wealth.
The rich you refer to includes the Chinese government. It also includes
investors from all over the world. Do you really think that they are
providing the money so we can destroy real wealth?
> The objective is to create a society of
> indentured servants; a society in which government collects taxes to pay
> the descendants of the rich. The current government has been directed
> by the fascist Republicans who are voted into office by the
> Libertarians.
It seems to me that at least in recent times I have had more of my rights
eroded away by well meaning Democrats that want to protect me from myself
than I have from Republicans. That said, I'm not happy with the
Republicans either. I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries and Bob Barr
in the general election. I don't see how that kept the Republicans in
power. I certainly wasn't going to vote for Obama. He supports
wiretapping and taking money from my kids.
>> If you value your freedom you should vote libertarian.
>
> Why? That is like pissing in the wind.
The socialist never won an election but their agenda has been nearly
completely enacted into law. There is no need for a single libertarian
candidate to win in order to convince one of the two major parties to co-
opt their platform.
> Nope. All you need do is allow the Republicans to run the government by
> wasting your vote on a Libertarian candidate.
It seems you should be happy I voted Libertarian. I wouldn't have voted
for Obama.
>> If you want warrantless wiretaps and no knock searches and people being
>> force to shut up by jack booted thugs when the disagree with the major
>> parties, you should vote for them.
>
> Gee.... That sounds like the Republicans. In Georgia the Libertarians
> just elected another Republican senator. They tried to elect a
> Republican (P)resident.
Obama supports warrantless wiretapping. He supports most of the Patriot
act. He is no friend to freedom.
--
Ken T.
http://www.electricsenator.net
Suicide is the most sincere form of self criticism.
Michael Coburn
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 03:54:29 +0000, Michael Coburn wrote:
>
>>> Most libertarians, including myself, would argue with this premise.
>>> Economic power is sticky and additive only when it is supported by an
>>> interventionist state. You are no longer advocating libertarianism if
>>> you advocate an interventionist state as well.
>>
>> You _ARE_ the interventionist state. Government is a Libertarian
>> standing over "his" land claim protecting it with a sharp stick.
>
> It certainly is not. If you think we live in a Libertarian paradise
> now, you aren't paying attention. Government at all levels controls
> something like 40% of GDP right now. Libertarians are completely
> against this.
Libertarians are for smaller governments and lots of them. They tend to
name them something other than governments, but the facts still remain.
The reality is feudalism and it has already been tried and rejected.
>>> Most libertarians, like Locke, would argue that a contract for
>>> perpetual servitude is invalid on its face. Your argument is also
>>> flawed in a number of other ways. There is no single entity that
>>> controls all the food or all the water and has no needs of its own.
>>> This can't happen in the real world.
>>
>> BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>
>> "Wealth of Nations B.I, Ch.6, Of the Component Parts of the Price of
>> Commodities" -----------------------------------------------
>> As soon as the land of any country has all become private property,
>> the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed,
>> and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest,
>> the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which,
>> when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of
>> gathering them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed
>> upon them. He must then pay for the licence to gather them; and must
>> give up to the landlord a portion of what his labour either collects or
>> produces. This portion, or, what comes to the same thing, the price of
>> this portion, constitutes the rent of land (...) [9].
>
> OK, but the landlord must also eat, must drink milk, has needs he must
> fulfill by getting others to trade with him willingly.
No. They have no choice but to give up a share of their labor for access
to the land that is naturally there and which has simply been
appropriated (i.e. stolen) by the landlord from the rest of the people.
> He can't simply
> hold them over a barrel and extract whatever he wants. In addition, he
> is in competition with other potential landlords. You are missing half
> the equation here. The landlord is not king.
He is in competition with the rest of the landlord thieves to be sure.
But all the rest are also thieves. They prevent the use of that which
without them ever existing would have been free for their use.
>>> You don't understand the theory of libertarianism, nor to do you
>>> understand basic human nature very well.
>>>
>>> I agree that their may be flaws in the theory. But it has worked in
>>> many places and times throughout history and has served us at least as
>>> well as we are being served by the current system and much better than
>>> we were ever served by socialism.
>>
>> RUBBISH!
>
> I can't find fault with an argument of this eloquence.
It has never "worked well". Feudalism was tried and rejected. The fault
is that the proposition is a lie.
>> Do you really believe that it is possible to borrow money from the
>> unborn? That is imbecilic.
>
> Our children will be expected to pay back this debt either directly, or
> more likely, through the devaluation of their currency.
They do not have any currency to be devalued. They are not yet born or
barely born and not yet able to EARN. And to whom would they pay a
debt? There must be lenders if there are borrowers. The royal "we" does
not suffice.
>> The money is being borrowed from the rich who direct government to
>> spend it on wars or whatever else it might take to destroy real wealth.
>
> The rich you refer to includes the Chinese government. It also includes
> investors from all over the world. Do you really think that they are
> providing the money so we can destroy real wealth?
Yes. That is the secret of lending. The objective is to enslave those
who borrow and to do that you must destroy wealth. Actual investment
creates wealth and thus offers no benefit to lenders in that the
borrowers are not turned into serfs. The objective of the lender is
always to improve the station of the lender vis a vis the rest.
>> The objective is to create a society of indentured servants; a society
>> in which government collects taxes to pay the descendants of the rich.
>> The current government has been directed by the fascist Republicans who
>> are voted into office by the Libertarians.
>
> It seems to me that at least in recent times I have had more of my
> rights eroded away by well meaning Democrats that want to protect me
> from myself than I have from Republicans.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is not democrats
who are the moralizing, rights denying fascist. It is not Democrats who
want to teach creationism, and abstinence only, and who deny the women
the right to decide what to do with their lives. It is not the Democrats
that launched the Patriot Act or who want to increases the imperial
authoritarian nature of the (P)residency.
> That said, I'm not happy with
> the Republicans either. I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries and Bob
> Barr in the general election.
I voted for Ron Paul in 1988. Things change. I say it did no good. I
voted for Ross Perot in 1992. I found that the Republicans became so
repugnant that I had to vote Democratic just to try to get them out of my
life. I will henceforth attempt to do nothing other than keep
Republicans out of office and out of my life. If that means that a vote
for Satan is necessary then so be it.
> I don't see how that kept the Republicans
> in power. I certainly wasn't going to vote for Obama. He supports
> wiretapping and taking money from my kids.
And frogs cause warts.
>>> If you value your freedom you should vote libertarian.
>>
>> Why? That is like pissing in the wind.
>
> The socialist never won an election but their agenda has been nearly
> completely enacted into law. There is no need for a single libertarian
> candidate to win in order to convince one of the two major parties to
> co- opt their platform.
It is more important to keep Republicans out of power than to vote for a
Libertarian. The House finally has a large enough cushion and I can
actually look at voting my current Democratic representative out of
office even if it means supporting a Republican. That sounds
contradictory but it isn't. The Republican would only last 2 years and
after that I would get a real democrat as opposed to a Republican dressed
in a Democrat suit.
>> Nope. All you need do is allow the Republicans to run the government
>> by wasting your vote on a Libertarian candidate.
>
> It seems you should be happy I voted Libertarian. I wouldn't have voted
> for Obama.
In that case I am pleased that you voted for a Libertarian. All persons
who hate democracy should vote for Libertarians.
>>> If you want warrantless wiretaps and no knock searches and people
>>> being force to shut up by jack booted thugs when the disagree with the
>>> major parties, you should vote for them.
>>
>> Gee.... That sounds like the Republicans. In Georgia the Libertarians
>> just elected another Republican senator. They tried to elect a
>> Republican (P)resident.
>
> Obama supports warrantless wiretapping. He supports most of the Patriot
> act. He is no friend to freedom.
Politics is not that cut and dried. Obama took the middle and that is
what he had to do because it is what the majority of Americans wanted.
That is what it is about. It is about compromise and synthesis. And
_THEN_ it is about education and transition. And, of course, the
Republicans don't support any of that Patriot act and wiretapping now, do
they?