Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

abPD3kqj2Js

Oh Rick.

The pause and stammer after is more damning than the 'nig' syllable.

Maybe he practiced the speech before with slurs included to get the emotions going and then tried to remove them for show time.

Of course there could be other explanations. In any event I wouldn't be surprised either way if this was just some weird verbal spasm or an actual aborted slur.

I'd really like to have seen that clip before I know what he was "supposed to" have said. Santorum doesn't seem to have mounted much of a defense against the accusation, just "that's ridiculous" and "I won't dignify that with a response" from his staff as far as I can tell.

What other words go there? The idea is that he was going to say "government n*gger" but Obama wasn't on welfare which is what the phrase refers to.

The anti-war government nig- uhh, the coo-, I mean America was something something. Phew!

Can't believe how far America has gone...right back to where it started.

Since people aribtarily identify the half of Obama as "black" I am going to be a rebel and identify the other half as Obama: he's a white guy.


Obama: the cracker-ass in the white-house. Look at me rebel!

Originally posted by lord xyz
Can't believe how far America has gone...right back to where it started.
No that would entail Santorum hunting down Carib Indians and stealing their women to take them back to Spain.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
No that would entail Santorum hunting down Carib Indians and stealing their women to take them back to Spain.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
No that would entail Santorum hunting down Carib Indians and stealing their women to take them back to Spain. Rick Santorum: Indian Hunter would make a decent band name.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Since people aribtarily identify the half of Obama as "black" I am going to be a rebel and identify the other half as Obama: he's a white guy.


Obama: the cracker-ass in the white-house. Look at me rebel!

I never got that, why in this day and age a mixed person is still simply black.

Originally posted by jalek moye
I never got that, why in this day and age a mixed person is still simply black.

The "one drop" rule.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Can't believe how far America has gone...right back to where it started.

That just sounded deep to say, huh.

Originally posted by jalek moye
I never got that, why in this day and age a mixed person is still simply black.

Obama identifies himself as "black", though he's not light-skinned enough as some other mulattoes where they can easily pass for Latino/Hispanic if they so wished, or the rarer Caucasian.

Originally posted by jalek moye
I never got that, why in this day and age a mixed person is still simply black.


because he's not white in the eyes of the tea party (hoodless kkk), and he's not white in the eyes of the left/black people, since they are well aware that a half-black president is better than nothing.

nobody on either side benefits from calling him white. tea party can stoke the flames of good old fashion patriotic racism while the left can take solace in the fact that our society has evolved by some small increment in allowing an unusually tan president to be elected.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
because he's not white in the eyes of the tea party (hoodless kkk) That's just not f*cking true. Some of 'em have hoodies.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
That's just not f*cking true. Some of 'em have hoodies.

But...if they have hoodies...I can kill them and they are to blame, right? Geraldo told me.

safari, mother****er

so, I was helping a student with one of the concepts in intro-psych. iirc, we were talking about how people assign blame or something, and I was describing a guy who had just broken a vase.

Now, what I naturally was going to say was "What a douche", but realized mid statement that this probably wouldn't be the best idea, so instead, tried to say "jerk". I stumbled over the word, and sort of mashed the first phonemes from each word together, making it sound exactly like "Jew".

I'm not trying to defend Santorum, of course, hard to think of what he stumbled over, just sayin'.

Originally posted by inimalist
so, I was helping a student with one of the concepts in intro-psych. iirc, we were talking about how people assign blame or something, and I was describing a guy who had just broken a vase.

Now, what I naturally was going to say was "What a douche", but realized mid statement that this probably wouldn't be the best idea, so instead, tried to say "jerk". I stumbled over the word, and sort of mashed the first phonemes from each word together, making it sound exactly like "Jew".

I'm not trying to defend Santorum, of course, hard to think of what he stumbled over, just sayin'. It's more likely that deep inside you're just a racist, anti-semite little ****, inimalist.

I'm sure the student thinks so...

****in santorum. He's a character.



HJV85DLBL40

js3BYcHmBhE

Ron Paul has put his name to some pretty racial negatives about Black-people.

how dare you try to hold someone responsible for the content of something they published.

Lol not even the media is trying to spam that story anymore


You guys are way behind haermm

It is typical for Paulitions to turn a blind eye to his negatives and just focus on the happy parts.

To be fair though, it's not just the Paulititions, Obamanauts and Bushwhackers do/did the same thing. Pretty much happens when anyone goes balls-deep for a given politician and loses all objectivity.

Originally posted by Robtard
It is typical for Paulitions to turn a blind eye to his negatives and just focus on the happy parts.

To be fair though, it's not just the Paulititions, Obamanauts and Bushwhackers do/did the same thing. Pretty much happens when anyone goes balls-deep for a given politician and loses all objectivity.
I would argue that 'objectivity' in politics is an illusion and isn't even desirable. The only way you can't form opinions about politics is to either not care at all or be ignorant to the very existence of it.

A better term than objectivity would be "perspective".

Originally posted by Robtard
It is typical for Paulitions to turn a blind eye to his negatives and just focus on the happy parts.

To be fair though, it's not just the Paulititions, Obamanauts and Bushwhackers do/did the same thing. Pretty much happens when anyone goes balls-deep for a given politician and loses all objectivity.


haermm okay


Do you even favor anyone? Any idea at least? Or are you just a citizen taking the ass beating without a voice? Do you have a use?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
haermm okay


Do you even favor anyone? Any idea at least? Or are you just a citizen taking the ass beating without a voice? Do you have a use?

Do you feel that being complicit in the electoral process that offers you no true choice whatsoever is a requirement for political opinion and participation?

Which is why I threw in "any ideal at least" in case he favors no candidate at all.

It seems rather funny noticing the abundant amount negative opinions and the lack of any real efficient opinion to measure where one stands. At least to keep an efficient conversation going otherwise it just seems like trolling. stoned

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Which is why I threw in "any ideal at least" in case he favors no candidate at all.

It seems rather funny noticing the abundant amount negative opinions and the lack of any real efficient opinion to measure where one stands. At least to keep an efficient conversation going otherwise it just seems like trolling. stoned
Do you know what the word 'efficient' means?

Was using it to express quality stoned

Rather than wasting time

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Was using it to express quality stoned

Rather than wasting time
I don't think efficient can ever be used to describe an opinion.

And how exactly is a conversation efficient or inefficient? Would you point me to an example of an "efficient" opinion or an "efficient" conversation?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
haermm okay


Do you even favor anyone? Any idea at least? Or are you just a citizen taking the ass beating without a voice? Do you have a use?

I live in California, which is absurdly Blue, so my vote is basically irrelevant. Just as some states are absurdly Red and I'd be in the same boat should I live in S. Carolina.

So my vote is irrelevant; I accept this reality and why I vote Independent; not because I think any given independent will win, but because I believe the only way we'll have the Republicans and Democrats do what they promise and do the will of the people(and not Corporations/Special Interest groups) is by having a strong 3rd party which can threaten(ie take votes) the other two. Is this close to happening? Nope.

That's what I believe.

Now, how are you not taking an "ass beating" like the rest of us? Cos you shout "Ron Paul, Ron Paul" and go to a few rallies? Get Paul in office; it will be business as usual, remove the blindfold, man. Either party and it's candidates have no reason to do anything different than what they have been, which is ass**** America's citizens out of money and impose. Why? Because they know they have about a 50% chance of gaining office in any given election, no matter what they do.

Originally posted by Robtard
I live in California, which is absurdly Blue, so my vote is basically irrelevant. Just as some states are absurdly Red and I'd be in the same boat should I live in S. Carolina.

So my vote is irrelevant; I accept this reality and why I vote Independent; not because I think any given independent will win, but because I believe the only way we'll have the Republicans and Democrats do what they promise and do the will of the people(and not Corporations/Special Interest groups) is by having a strong 3rd party which can threaten(ie take votes) the other two. Is this close to happening? Nope.

That's what I believe.

Now, how are you not taking an "ass beating" like the rest of us? Cos you shout "Ron Paul, Ron Paul"? Get Paul in office; it will be business as usual, remove the blindfold, man. Either party and it's candidates have no reason to do anything different than what they have been, which is ass**** America's citizens out of money and impose. Why? Because they know they have about a 50% chance of gaining office in any given election, no matter what they do.

Your vote in the primary may not be so irrelevant.

I mean, do you have an opinion on what you don't like about the system? Your opinion on the bail outs and on the federal reserve? Are you mad yet?

We're all taking an ass beating my friend. What I try to express isnt solely about a man, it isnt solely about Ron Paul. Its about an idea and how ridiculously far this country has swayed away from that idea. Mainly the constitution and liberty. Now we live in a debt based system. Financial slavery. Its just about exposing this to people out there who have no clue what goes on behind the curtain and it may not be so surprising but theres quite a lot.

Its possibly the main factor as to why Ron gets a lot of support. The idea.


Personally I dont think we need an election, we'll get stuck with Obama again seeing how Romney is nothing but another Goldman Sachs bought candidate most likely to hand Obama a guaranteed reelection. Some sort of revolution is needed to really fix whats ****ing us over.

"Spreading brushfires of freedom in the minds of man."


Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't think efficient can ever be used to describe an opinion.

And how exactly is a conversation efficient or inefficient? Would you point me to an example of an "efficient" opinion or an "efficient" conversation?

Bringing up out dated calims that have already been debunked seems inefficient to me. Close enough to call it trolling. It possibly wasnt even an opinion at all now that I think about it, just a false statement.

Originally posted by Mairuzu


Bringing up out dated calims that have already been debunked seems inefficient to me. Close enough to call it trolling.
That's not inefficient. A car that gets two miles to the gallon is inefficient. A toilet that uses up an obscene amount of water on each flush (read: pretty much every commercially available toilet in America barring custom/luxury models) is inefficient.

A conversation though can't be inefficient because there's no way to quantify what the desired product of a conversation is, or quantify the inputs, or determine what the ideal payout for the inputs is.

And as for opinions...I almost loled when you called an opinion 'inefficient' because it's like saying a turnip is pedantic or that an intuition is baroque.

If you're going to misuse words that's fine, but don't be smug about it.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Your vote in the primary may not be so irrelevant.

I mean, do you have an opinion on what you don't like about the system? Your opinion on the bail outs and on the federal reserve? Are you mad yet?

We're all taking an ass beating my friend. What I try to express isnt solely about a man, it isnt solely about Ron Paul. Its about an idea and how ridiculously far this country has swayed away from that idea. Mainly the constitution and liberty. Now we live in a debt based system. Financial slavery. Its just about exposing this to people out there who have no clue what goes on behind the curtain and it may not be so surprising but theres quite a lot.

Its possibly the main factor as to why Ron gets a lot of support. The idea.
/B]

No, it's utterly irrelevant.

Except that it's corrupt and any politician I vote for to express my ideals won't because he/she owes his/her place to the powers that be and we're all essentially little piggy-banks to be robbed. No, it's fair and working other than that.

Awesome, so you've told them and they know. Considering it's still going to be either corrupt party in office and they have no real reason to do as they promised, what now?

Because his "fvck the system" rhetoric appeals; not that he'd actually fvck the system which he is wholeheartedly a part of, should he win(he won't).

So I'm throwing away my useless Blue-State vote into an Independent, hopefully someday enough people will do the same and we'll have a 3rd that can realistically compete with the two sh!ts we have now. Call me a pessimist.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, it's utterly irrelevant.

Except that it's corrupt and any politician I vote for to express my ideals won't because he/she owes his/her place to the powers that be and we're all essentially little piggy-banks to be robbed. No, it's fair and working other than that.

Awesome, so you've told them and they know. Considering it's still going to be either corrupt party in office and they have no real reason to do as they promised, what now?

Because his "fvck the system" rhetoric appeals; not that he'd actually fvck the system which he is wholeheartedly a part of, should he win(he won't).

So I'm throwing away my useless Blue-State vote into an Independent, hopefully someday enough people will do the same and we'll have a 3rd that can realistically compete with the two sh!ts we have now.


Okay, thats your take on it.

So you give up? Just wait it out?



Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's not inefficient. A car that gets two miles to the gallon is inefficient. A toilet that uses up an obscene amount of water on each flush (read: pretty much every commercially available toilet in America barring custom/luxury models) is inefficient.

A conversation though can't be inefficient because there's no way to quantify what the desired product of a conversation is, or quantify the inputs, or determine what the ideal payout for the inputs is.

And as for opinions...I almost loled when you called an opinion 'inefficient' because it's like saying a turnip is pedantic or that an intuition is baroque.

If you're going to misuse words that's fine, but don't be smug about it.

This convo is inefficient (toward whats being discussed) haermm

So sure it can be. Its not very productive and wasting time for a decent conversation to take place. Sorry you couldn't get a full laugh out of it though, lol.

Opinions will be opinions.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Okay, thats your take on it.

So you give up? Just wait it out?

Did you not read what I said?

Should I rebel, pick up and gun and fight the government?

Yes, I did read what you said and no where in there did you state what you'd like to do about it therefore I asked, do you just give up?

Do you think picking up a gun and fighting the government would solve the problems we're facing?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Bringing up out dated calims that have already been debunked seems inefficient to me. Close enough to call it trolling. It possibly wasnt even an opinion at all now that I think about it, just a false statement.

you think that the issue is settled, as opposed to nobody paying any attention any longer, given Paul is an insignificant candidate?

Insignificant to who? Lol

http://i44.tinypic.com/34fbcja.jpg

Originally posted by Mairuzu


This convo is inefficient (toward whats being discussed) haermm

So sure it can be. Its not very productive and wasting time for a decent conversation to take place. Sorry you couldn't get a full laugh out of it though, lol.

Opinions will be opinions.
Why? What is being discussed exactly and what's the inefficiency?

Why not just admit that you used a word you didn't (and still don't apparently) understand?

insignificant to the results of the GOP primaries or the federal election

Inefficient to the conversation I'm trying to have. stoned

Why do you care so much? Lol

Originally posted by inimalist
insignificant to the results of the GOP primaries or the federal election

...so the media stops spamming him with questions about the racial news letters since hes not significant according to delegate polls they put out while only half way through the race?

How strange.

Especially how he is favored over Obama, more so than Romney.



By the way, what do you guys read or listen to, to gather your opinions? Just curious.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Yes, I did read what you said and no where in there did you state what you'd like to do about it therefore I asked, do you just give up?

Do you think picking up a gun and fighting the government would solve the problems we're facing?

Except the part where I said I vote Independent, as I'd like a competitive 3rd party for no other reason as to make the other two hold to the promises they make. So that the "do" of what I do.

Nope.

What do you do?

Originally posted by Robtard
What do you do?

Study the system and personalities and formulate action plans for when I run for public office, of course.



"If you want X done, why don't you for public office instead of whining?"

"Okay. "

I do a shit ton of research on a daily basis and I hand out information for people who simply don't know a whole lot about what goes on in government or outside their box. Most people don't even realize the federal reserve a privately owned central bank.



@ DDM. Another good point. I think this whole movement has enspired a lot of people to do exactly that. Its part of the "revolution" it seems. Paul is simply trying to change the country and to wake many from their intellectual slumber.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Study the system and personalities and formulate action plans for when I run for public office, of course.



"If you want X done, why don't you for public office instead of whining?"

"Okay. "

Cool story, bro.

It really is.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
It really is.

Get out of DDM's ass, bro.

You mean off Ron Paul's nuts stoned


Rather not be useless.

You go hand out those Ron Paul leaflets, I have Game of Thrones to watch.

So obedient to the system

Originally posted by Mairuzu
So obedient to the system



I take it you've never see the show, but why shouldn't I be, when you're "rebel" enough for the both of us?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
...so the media stops spamming him with questions about the racial news letters since hes not significant according to delegate polls they put out while only half way through the race?

How strange.

he was never going to win, so it really didn't matter for the media to vet him in any way. Its why the newsletters didn't come up in 2008.

You do realize that more media coverage correlates to poorer results for Paul, yes? Most Americans don't actually believe in his radical ideas. When he can shout, Freedom, Change and Constitution to a bunch of people who don't question him, he does fairly well. When media outlets start challenging him, he loses ground.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Especially how he is favored over Obama, more so than Romney.

? wut?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html

you mean in a single pole he had a lead that amounted to 2%, which seems to reflect poorer numbers from Obama (down to 41 from an average of 47) than good ones for Paul (up to 43 from an average of 39)?

also, Romney polls much better than Paul against Obama

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html



Originally posted by Mairuzu
http://i44.tinypic.com/34fbcja.jpg

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-republican-primary-schedule/

Michigan
Paul - 8.4%

Illinois
Paul - 9.3%

Missouri
Paul - 12%

Idaho
Paul - 18.1%

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/maryland-primary-2012-results-map_n_1401264.html

Wisconsin
Paul - 11.2%

Maryland
Paul - 9.5%

cool pictures though, almost made a good point until you look at data

His low numbers don't matter, cos it's not about winning delegates and the nomination, it's about spreading knowledge, FIGHT THE POWER.

Originally posted by Robtard
His low numbers don't matter, cos it's not about winning delegates and the nomination, it's about spreading knowledge, FIGHT THE POWER.

credit where it is due, Paul's supporters are at least as motivated to get the word out as Obama's were.

What a sad day it is for liberty in here. Sad day indeed.


I guess all I can say is, try not to complain. stoned

Originally posted by Mairuzu
What a sad day it is for liberty in here. Sad day indeed.

Liberty is stronger then that.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
What a sad day it is for liberty in here. Sad day indeed.

I guess all I can say is, try not to complain. stoned

You're going to be one of those "don't blame me, I wanted Ron Paul!" types whenever something negative happens between the (next election) 2012-2016 years.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're going to be one of those "don't blame me, I wanted Ron Paul!" types whenever something negative happens between the (next election) 2012-2016 years.

Come on man, give him the consolation prize, for supporting a man with two first names for president.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're going to be one of those "don't blame me, I wanted Ron Paul!" types whenever something negative happens between the (next election) 2012-2016 years.

I have some decent land. I should be good where I'm at.


I'd say be prepared. The dollars inevitable collapse is ahead.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
I have some decent land. I should be good where I'm at.


I'd say be prepared. The dollars inevitable collapse is ahead.

So, are you trying for that new show, Doomsday Preppers?

You mean a 97% decline of the dollar over the past 99 years isnt enough for you to realize its near collapse?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
You mean a 97% decline of the dollar over the past 99 years isnt enough for you to realize its near collapse?

Something as vapor as money cannot collapse.

Money? as in any commodity? Vapor?

We're talking about the dollar here.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Money? as in any commodity? Vapor?

We're talking about the dollar here.

The dollar has no backing. It is already worth nothing, and it has been that way sense Carter.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Money? as in any commodity? Vapor?

We're talking about the dollar here.

What he's saying and is correct, the value of the dollar is basically made-up. If the dollar "collapses', then the world's economy quickly follows.

Originally posted by Robtard
What he's saying and is correct, the value of the dollar is basically made-up. If the dollar collapses, then the world's economy quickly follows.

Well, here's the good thing about backing up SOME of your money with something useful:


The only way gold will become useless is never. It has an extremely high resistance to corrosion, it is attractive to humans (seems like a natural attraction...not a social one...kind of like beetles to a beer bottle), has one of the highest electrical conductance abilities at STP (silver is another that it can go back and forth with at different temperatures), is widely used in electronics (short of a nuclear war and the wiping out of most humans, gold will remain useful in electronics for hundreds to thousands of years from now...even to a god-like AI that might take over everything), is highly malleable at STP making it easier to mold into things, has really high reflectivity and is used in spacecrafts because of that, used in the medical field due to it not being toxic and the electronic uses (and does not "sublimate" hardly at all at STP), and for uses in ion lasers (laser? **** yeah!).



Gold is only a single example of something that could be used to back money. I used that because of the obvious uses of gold in that particular category, already. Also, because it is relevant to this thread due to Ron Paul's bownar for gold-backed money.

Yes I'm aware the dollar isn't backed by anything seeing how they changed it to "legal tender", but its backed up simply by faith and its that same faith that will soon be dead.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Yes I'm aware the dollar isn't backed by anything seeing how they changed it to "legal tender", but its backed up simply by faith and its that same faith that will soon be dead.

Stupid atheists: killing the faith in everything.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Yes I'm aware the dollar isn't backed by anything seeing how they changed it to "legal tender", but its backed up simply by faith along and its that same faith that will soon be dead.

You're sounding like a conspiracy nut.

fact: there were never any economic collapses, depression, recessions or slowing downs when money was backed by the gold standard.

fact: there was no intelligent reason, or benefit, to switching to a non-gold backed currency.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're sounding like a conspiracy nut.

To you at least. It doesn't bother me. stoned


I've got my ounces of silver ready. You do what you want with your fiat haermm

Originally posted by Mairuzu
To you at least. It doesn't bother me. stoned


I've got my ounces of silver ready. You do what you want with your fiat haermm

Yes. Cool.

I hope you have many a gun and bullets to hold onto that silver, cos when the economy collapses and it's anarchy in the USA, you'll need them. Mitsubishi, BMW and Benz.

No need to worry about me over here. stoned

Originally posted by Mairuzu
No need to worry about me over here. stoned

I'm not when you also fend off werewolves and certain vampires with that silver too.

Certain vampires you say? Which ones?


You poor sheeple.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Certain vampires you say? Which ones?

The ones in the Marvel universe are, so you're cool if they attack you. If it's Twilight vampires, you're ****ed.

I'll just move to texas and defend the land with Ron Paul.

Swoop on them grand daughters.

Bam, in the family.

Originally posted by inimalist
fact: there were never any economic collapses, depression, recessions or slowing downs when money was backed by the gold standard.

fact: there was no intelligent reason, or benefit, to switching to a non-gold backed currency.

(To be read in Data's voice):

I am quite certain that statements like those are of such extreme incorrectness that there is no way you could be serious and I am left with the conclusion that you are using sarcasm. Fascinating.




Use a smilie face, dammit! You're killing me.


Originally posted by Mairuzu
I'll just move to texas and defend the land with Ron Paul.

Swoop on them grand daughters.

Bam, in the family.


crylaugh

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, here's the good thing about backing up SOME of your money with something useful:

The only way gold will become useless is never. It has an extremely high resistance to corrosion, it is attractive to humans (seems like a natural attraction...not a social one...kind of like beetles to a beer bottle), has one of the highest electrical conductance abilities at STP (silver is another that it can go back and forth with at different temperatures), is widely used in electronics (short of a nuclear war and the wiping out of most humans, gold will remain useful in electronics for hundreds to thousands of years from now...even to a god-like AI that might take over everything), is highly malleable at STP making it easier to mold into things, has really high reflectivity and is used in spacecrafts because of that, used in the medical field due to it not being toxic and the electronic uses (and does not "sublimate" hardly at all at STP), and for uses in ion lasers (laser? **** yeah!).

Gold is only a single example of something that could be used to back money. I used that because of the obvious uses of gold in that particular category, already. Also, because it is relevant to this thread due to Ron Paul's bownar for gold-backed money.

Why I'm stocking my garage with as many of these* as I can get, before Mairuzu's "collapse" happens:

* http://thewondrous.com/14-extraoridnary-gold-plated-cars/

facepalm at whoever plated that Smart Car.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
facepalm at whoever plated that Smart Car.

To be fair, they probably need a car with great gas mileage after eating the gold-plating expense.

Originally posted by dadudemon
(To be read in Data's voice):

I am quite certain that statements like those are of such extreme incorrectness that there is no way you could be serious and I am left with the conclusion that you are using sarcasm. Fascinating.




Use a smilie face, dammit! You're killing me.

finally something so obvious even the internet gets it

but no, as I understand it, nations moved from the gold standard because it lacked any real flexibility to deal with complex international markets.

Maybe if we could say inflation will always be X, no matter what, and growth will always be X, no matter what, and there will never be any interruptions of the market, such a standard may have real benefits. Otherwise, the flexibility a non-bound currency gives is, as far as I've read (I'll make no pretense at being an economist or having a decent understanding of economics), most beneficial for the real world.

X = Shit?

The only growth I see is the expansion of military bases around the world and with thousands of new laws put in place, possibly a lot more jails.



Growth of the wealth gap?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
X = Shit?

The only growth I see is the expansion of military bases around the world and with thousands of new laws put in place, possibly a lot more jails.



Growth of the wealth gap?

I think war is coming, but that is just a gut feeling, and I could be totally wrong.

War has never stopped

Originally posted by Mairuzu
War has never stopped

I mean, war as in WWIII.

War is war. You mean a huge all out ginormous war.


Seems to already be that way between the classes

Every time I hear the phrase "Class warfare" uttered I groan and a little piece of me dies.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
X = Shit?

X equals a constant value that, if the economy could be set and maintained at, would facilitate the benefits of a gold-backed currency.

I'm not sure how you got that... hell, that line was even somewhat in support of the very thing you believe, if with some caveats...

Originally posted by Mairuzu
The only growth I see is the expansion of military bases around the world and with thousands of new laws put in place, possibly a lot more jails.

h-how would the gold standard stimulate growth?

and, to be fair, the fastest growing sectors in the American economy are things like mining, metals/car/technology manufacturing and the government/social services/health industry.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/bill-hobbs/despite-obama-two-sectors-are-helping-drive-obama-recovery

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/02/12-industries-that-are-actually-growing/70641/#slide1

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Growth of the wealth gap?

I'm sorry... you aren't actually suggesting that the wealth gap is a result of a non-gold backed currency, are you? You think wealth inequality is worse now than, say, the 1800s?

Consolidation of wealth among the rich and powerful is a byproduct of capitalism. shit, even Smith talks about it /ffs

Of course, special interest groups get bailed out with tax payer money or they simply print more. Why would not that increase the wealth gap? Inflation itself is a hidden tax. Inflation is profitable to some.



The elite class vs the rest? I see nothing wrong about that seeing how its true.


Are we experiencing growth in our economy? Are we recovering?


Even working in a steel industry I can see there is a major hault.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Are we experiencing growth in our economy? Are we recovering?

iirc, even at the worst periods of the recession, the American economy was still experiencing growth.

the question is, was it experiencing enough growth.

almost all indicators point that the worst of the recession is over, pending Europe.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Why would not that increase the wealth gap?

I know you hate giving a straight answer, but you havent posted any videos on this, so I am confident you may be able to give a simple yes or no:

you are saying, then, that there is more income inequality when there is a non-gold backed currency than when there was a gold-backed currency?

Where was it experiencing growth though? Besides military bases of course. We tend to spend quite a lot on that.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Where was it experiencing growth though? Besides military bases of course. We tend to spend quite a lot on that.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/02/12-industries-that-are-actually-growing/70641/#slide1

also, you have to remember, there is a massive difference between absolute dollars spent and industry growth. If you weren't investing more in defense month-by-month during the recession, the industry wouldn't grow, regardless of how much is spent on it in aggregate. Though, I might point out, compared to other growing industries (health care, social services) the American government spends a very small amount on the military (less than 5% of GDP)

Seeing how we bailed out GM...

and that fiat money is becoming more useless..

these would make sense. This growth means very little the the economy compared to government spending.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Seeing how we bailed out GM...

wait... you just complained about the metal industry slowing down, and now you criticize the US government for saving the auto industry?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
these would make sense. This growth means very little the the economy compared to government spending.

wut?

government spending is what is stimulating growth, which has historically been the solution to every recession/depression ever.

Originally posted by inimalist
wait... you just complained about the metal industry slowing down, and now you criticize the US government for saving the auto industry?

They didnt save the auto industry. They should have stuck with capitalism and let them fall instead of using tax payer money. We're suppose to have capitalism are we not? Whats with the special interest?


Originally posted by inimalist

government spending is what is stimulating growth, which has historically been the solution to every recession/depression ever.

You're going to have to check exactly what kind of spending is really going on. Trillions printed and going where? Wars costing us how much? And many other useless programs.

Congress borrowing money from the fed which only furthers our inflation issue, to fund its shit programs isnt helping. You cant deny whats going on out there.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
They didnt save the auto industry.

Are you saying the auto industry isn't recovering, or that its recovery has nothing to do with the bail out?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
They should have stuck with capitalism and let them fall instead of using tax payer money. We're suppose to have capitalism are we not? Whats with the special interest?

ok, so don't complain when the steel industry fails /sigh

also, there is no theory of capitalism (Smith, Rand, Friedman, etc) that suggests a government must shoot itself in the foot because of ideology.

"Gee, we could prevent economic disaster and get people working, but you know, we have these commandments... the poor and unemployed will understand that we couldn't help them because we didn't think it was important"

Originally posted by Mairuzu
You're going to have to check exactly what kind of spending is really going on. Trillions printed and going where? Wars costing us how much? And many other useless programs.

america spends less than 5% of GDP on the military.

the vast majority of GDP goes to things like health care and social services, which, frankly, if you want to call these "useless programs", I am ****ing ecstatic we will never live in your fantasy world.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Congress borrowing money from the fed which only furthers our inflation issue, to fund its shit programs isnt helping. You cant deny whats going on out there.

sure, I'm not defending every American fiscal policy, but a gold standard wont help balance the budget so long as congress spends more than it takes in. like, it seems like in this scenario you are saying you would rather America borrow foreign currency than domestically. I mean, you haven't mentioned balancing the budget or tax reform, I can only assume you think the gold standard is some weird panacea.

Originally posted by inimalist
Are you saying the auto industry isn't recovering, or that its recovery has nothing to do with the bail out?


If GM, like goldman sachs, recovers, its because of the bail out. Tax money spent where it shouldnt have been spent, more waste of money by the government.

Originally posted by inimalist

ok, so don't complain when the steel industry fails /sigh


I never did... lol

Originally posted by inimalist

also, there is no theory of capitalism (Smith, Rand, Friedman, etc) that suggests a government must shoot itself in the foot because of ideology.

"Gee, we could prevent economic disaster and get people working, but you know, we have these commandments... the poor and unemployed will understand that we couldn't help them because we didn't think it was important"


Goverment must shoot itself in the foot? What do you mean?

Why did you put that in quotes? did you write that yourself?


Originally posted by inimalist


america spends less than 5% of GDP on the military.

the vast majority of GDP goes to things like health care and social services, which, frankly, if you want to call these "useless programs", I am ****ing ecstatic we will never live in your fantasy world.



Are you enjoying inflation? Do you enjoy the value of the dollar decreasing? This is what our monitary policy has brought. If a gold standard isnt going to balance the budget, the monitary policy we have now definitely and absolutely wont.


Pretty good video here. I suggest reading some of his books though. Mises and austrian economics.

q3SOlXxUBLk

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sorry... you aren't actually suggesting that the wealth gap is a result of a non-gold backed currency, are you? You think wealth inequality is worse now than, say, the 1800s?

Consolidation of wealth among the rich and powerful is a byproduct of capitalism. shit, even Smith talks about it /ffs

Finally found a wealth gap measure that goes back past 1970.


http://gccds.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/income-inequality.gif


So it DOES look like the wealth gap may have been higher in 1890-1910.



Can you find something, dude? I would REALLY like to know what the wealth-gap was like when Ron Paul thinks the US was at its best innovative and industrial period with a gold-backed standard.


Why?


Contrary to popular belief, I do not agree with everything Ron Paul says. I think I remember saying I agree with about 70% of his policies.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Finally found a wealth gap measure that goes back past 1970.


http://gccds.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/income-inequality.gif


So it DOES look like the wealth gap may have been higher in 1890-1910.



Can you find something, dude? I would REALLY like to know what the wealth-gap was like when Ron Paul thinks the US was at its best innovative and industrial period with a gold-backed standard.


Why?


Contrary to popular belief, I do not agree with everything Ron Paul says. I think I remember saying I agree with about 70% of his policies.

damn, just looked it up, I thought the gold standard (as opposed to gold currency) went back at least to the 1700s. Seems like it was only mainly in effect come mid-1800s...

hmmm, my history on this one wasn't as good as I thought it was. Still, the gold standard was abandoned in roughly the 70s, and wealth inequality didn't rise massively again for another 20/25 years. Not as small a correlation as I thought, but still nothing that shouts to me that a gold standard is better than an equitable taxation policy and rational state budgets.

additionally, I'd much prefer a chart that doesn't only include the top 0.01% as the "wealthy"...

Originally posted by inimalist
damn, just looked it up, I thought the gold standard (as opposed to gold currency) went back at least to the 1700s. Seems like it was only mainly in effect come mid-1800s...

hmmm, my history on this one wasn't as good as I thought it was. Still, the gold standard was abandoned in roughly the 70s, and wealth inequality didn't rise massively again for another 20/25 years. Not as small a correlation as I thought, but still nothing that shouts to me that a gold standard is better than an equitable taxation policy and rational state budgets.

To be honest, I don't really understand what you're talking about. What effect in the mid-1800s? What inequality are you talking about that took 20/25?

I may seem impatient and dumb about this, but it is only because I want to know this information "super bad." I want to be sure on the knowledge I acquire. Basically...I gave up. I stopped looking because I could find NOTHING that went back past the 70s.

Originally posted by inimalist
additionally, I'd much prefer a chart that doesn't only include the top 0.01% as the "wealthy"...

I agree. I want it to cover the top 5% or the top 1%.

Might not have been all that popular of a belief

I haven't finished End the Fed yet but he might mention something in there. I haven't found a specific answer yet but maybe this will help?

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/98738/thumbs/r-GILDED-large570.jpg

http://www.policymic.com/articles/5066/the-1-reap-big-profits-as-the-economy-recovers

Originally posted by dadudemon
To be honest, I don't really understand what you're talking about. What effect in the mid-1800s?

the gold standard

Originally posted by dadudemon
What inequality are you talking about that took 20/25?

the spike that appears to take place between the 80s and 90s

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree. I want it to cover the top 5% or the top 1%.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Might not have been all that popular of a belief

I haven't finished End the Fed yet but he might mention something in there. I haven't found a specific answer yet but maybe this will help?

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/98738/thumbs/r-GILDED-large570.jpg

http://www.policymic.com/articles/5066/the-1-reap-big-profits-as-the-economy-recovers

ya, I think the .01% thing skews that chart a lot. I found the Gini index, which sort of like tries to average a host of different inequality measures:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Gini_since_WWII.svg/720px-Gini_since_WWII.svg.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

it also has this:



So like, with the estimated value, you see things are pretty consistent from the end of the second world war to the 80s, where Reagan era "trickle down" economics started.

I also would sort of take issue with the metaphor the guy uses in that article. If the problem is income inequality, any policy that reduces income inequality would "treat the problem" and not the "symptom".

interesting article though.

Originally posted by inimalist
the gold standard

Yes, I know that part.


What I am wanting is something similar to (but not this exact statement):

"The Gold Standard caused a giant income gap from 1850 to 1920 and it supported by X information and X laws that were passed a bit after 1850."



Originally posted by inimalist
the spike that appears to take place between the 80s and 90s

Oh, I see, now. That inequality was the massive inflation that lead up to black Monday.

It (income inequality) has gone up, steadily, since the low that occurred before 1950.

What I see is an incorrect correlation of gold to anything at all in this "equation". It seems irrelevant.


That means that going back to a gold standard won't do sh*t for income equality.


But what about stabilizing the economy? How could it do that? I have heard arguments either way and I made a thread about it to get some feedback. I am not fully convinced a gold backed standard will help the economy.





Originally posted by inimalist
ya, I think the .01% thing skews that chart a lot. I found the Gini index, which sort of like tries to average a host of different inequality measures:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Gini_since_WWII.svg/720px-Gini_since_WWII.svg.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

it also has this:



So like, with the estimated value, you see things are pretty consistent from the end of the second world war to the 80s, where Reagan era "trickle down" economics started.

I also would sort of take issue with the metaphor the guy uses in that article. If the problem is income inequality, any policy that reduces income inequality would "treat the problem" and not the "symptom".

interesting article though.


I could not find anything on the Ginni index that went back before 1970 and I did not bother looking at Wikipedia. Even then, Wikipedia does not go back before 1950.


How can I get an assessment of what Ron Paul thinks was the golden age of...gold backing? (1880-1910). I know you have no obligation to find something and I do not expect you to. I am asking that question in general.


The quoted piece goes back quite far. lemme read over that crap.

My friend insists that Ron would possibly pick "The Gilded Age" even though the wealth gap was huge because the US was being flooded with dirt-poor immigrants who came here for our economic freedoms and opportunities. However, growth was insane and everybody enjoyed increased standards of living.

Then European banking interests took over our government, and thus began "The Progressive Era".





But a gold standard is deflationary. It gives purchasing power to savers instead of then debtors. It benefits the consumer rather then the bank who profits off of the interest from loans made through fractional reserve lending. Because of fiat currency, the fractional reserve lending process gets amplified, distorting the market to give incentive to debt based consumption rather then saving.

Because of the 95% loss of value in the dollar, it punishes fiscally responsible consumers and rewards the spendthrifts. The debtor "benefits" more from this because they spend the excess money on goods/services before that money loses any further value. This ultimately puts you under the thumb of the banking industry. Both savor and debtor lose purchasing power enlarging the wealth of the lending class.

Originally posted by Mairuzu

Then European banking interests took over our government, and thus began "The Progressive Era".

Yes, with the horrible things like Anti-Trust Laws and the Food and Drug Act that made it illegal to grind up rats and immigrant workers and call it ground beef.

Shame on that Progressive Era and its...progress.

I'm astounded that Ron Paul is a doctor and yet so gung-ho about removing public health and safety regulation in its entirety.

My dad, who like Ron Paul was an Air Force medical specialist (dentist in his case), voted for Ron Paul in 2008 in the Florida primary but said that Ron Paul "let his political principles get the better of his intellect" by opposing regulations on consuming raw milk.

I think that's a pretty fair assessment of a lot of things Ron Paul says and does.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Yes, with the horrible things like Anti-Trust Laws and the Food and Drug Act that made it illegal to grind up rats and immigrant workers and call it ground beef.

Shame on that Progressive Era and its...progress.

I'm astounded that Ron Paul is a doctor and yet so gung-ho about removing public health and safety regulation in its entirety.

My dad, who like Ron Paul was an Air Force medical specialist (dentist in his case), voted for Ron Paul in 2008 in the Florida primary but said that Ron Paul "let his political principles get the better of his intellect" by opposing regulations on consuming raw milk.

I think that's a pretty fair assessment of a lot of things Ron Paul says and does.

Well, the anti-trust law came during the "golden age" that Ron Paul wants to bring back. That's not what Mairuzu was talking about. Ron Paul likes the anti-trust law, iirc. That's part of his golden age vision.


Also, I have no problem with getting rid of the legislation on food consumption. I would like to vote with my the dollar, thank you (to the government, not you). I do not need the government forcing me to do what they think is best. The "milk" example you gave is only a metaphor for lots of stuff like electronic products that UL does just fine assessing for me (not the government), tons of drugs that are illegal that should not be, etc. That particular topic could rage on for hours, actually.


I legitimately argued that topic with an ultra-conservative for about 3 hours straight. We took a break so we could piss. Then decided it was time to go home. I know, random aside...but that's how I roll.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, the anti-trust law came during the "golden age" that Ron Paul wants to bring back. That's not what Mairuzu was talking about. Ron Paul likes the anti-trust law, iirc. That's part of his golden age vision.


Also, I have no problem with getting rid of the legislation on food consumption. I would like to vote with my the dollar, thank you (to the government, not you). I do not need the government forcing me to do what they think is best. The "milk" example you gave is only a metaphor for lots of stuff like electronic products that UL does just fine assessing for me (not the government), tons of drugs that are illegal that should not be, etc. That particular topic could rage on for hours, actually.


I legitimately argued that topic with an ultra-conservative for about 3 hours straight. We took a break so we could piss. Then decided it was time to go home. I know, random aside...but that's how I roll.
I'd be very surprised if Ron Paul was opposed to Trusts, he seems to be an Economic Darwinist.

Voting with dollars is haphazard at best because people will buy unsafe, downright poisonous products if they're marketed well.

I only disagree with food regulation insofar as it violates a reasonable person standard, e.g. the ban on salt that some people in New York City were pushing for. For the most part there's no better way of ensuring public health and safety than passing laws that make it illegal to buy and sell certain dangerous foods.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Voting with dollars is haphazard at best because people will buy unsafe, downright poisonous products if they're marketed well.

You mean people shouldn't be allowed to kill others just because they make a profit at it? Madness. Surely this will lead us into totalitarianism.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'd be very surprised if Ron Paul was opposed to Trusts, he seems to be an Economic Darwinist.

Oh sh*t, you're absolutely correct. I remembered wrong.



"The prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory which holds that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti-trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer." -Ron Paul


Originally posted by Omega Vision
Voting with dollars is haphazard at best because people will buy unsafe, downright poisonous products if they're marketed well.

And why is that a problem for you?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
For the most part there's no better way of ensuring public health and safety than passing laws that make it illegal to buy and sell certain dangerous foods.

I don't know...it's hard for me to really care about what people want to do to their body. Sure, there is probably some happy medium between anarcho-capitalism and socialism (what we have now might be close) but I would like a shift closer to anarcho-capitalism.

I think you should be able to eat as much MSG and Trans-Fats as you want. I think you should be able to eat fish that has a sh*t-ton of mercury in it if you want. I also think you should be able to trip balls on some shrooms and then follow that up with some cocaine.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You mean people shouldn't be allowed to kill others just because they make a profit at it? Madness. Surely this will lead us into totalitarianism.

Good point. I change my mind on abortion: it should be illegal.

But if I actually entertain this point...

What's the difference between what happens now and what a freer market would create? Not much. It is not the government that releases the studies that point out something deadly in food (You think the FDA does all of those studies? ha!)

I want both. I want what you imply I should be getting but also the freer market. You think it is impossible with a freer market. I disagree because it is already there and in place. Do you think I go to the FDA's website when I want to know if a new protein powder is any good/safe? Do you think I go to the FDA's database for studies down on the long-term affects of aspirin use? Do you think I go to the FDA's website to learn about the cut of meat at my local grocery store? Do you think any of my fellow shoppers even look for the FDA sticker or do they look at the quality of the product and reputation of the seller? Even if the FDA sticker is on those cut of meats (how many of you know to look for those things? exactly), it still does sh*t to inform me or protect me as I could still die from eating it.


I need value added. I need legit returns on my investments with my taxes. Not an empty peace of mind that you think is the absolute best thing since sliced bread.


We both want the same thing...an informed decision in how to consume. We just disagree on how it is possible go go about getting that information.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And why is that a problem for you?

Many people feel that clever methods of murder are at least as bad as blatant methods of murder. Companies can and will profit from deceiving people about the dangers of their products.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Good point. I change my mind on abortion: it should be illegal.

Fascinating.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Many people feel that clever methods of murder are at least as bad as blatant methods of murder. Companies can and will profit from deceiving people about the dangers of their products.


Granted, it's murder to sell a product that you know will kill someone.


So why does that lawful fact get magically abolished in a system that allows more freedom in purchasing?


I do not see your point as being relevant at all. It is...wait for it.... a strawman.



And do you think that the government is there to discover these dishonest peddling practices of businesses? Almost always, it is after the fact that we find out something sh*tty happened. Other than being sued (because a freer market would still allow a company to be sued for knowingly deceiving and selling deadly products), what does the government do that protects you any more than a freer system? A fine? Have you looked at the fines. The criminal laws would still exist...so if that is your argument, it does nothing to support your position.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Fascinating.


Indeed. We should protect everyone from each other because no one can make decisions for themselves. No more abortions. Protect everyone and everything with as many laws as possible. Get the bill-press warm because there's a lot more things we can legislate.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Granted, it's murder to sell a product that you know will kill someone.

Maybe you're not a Libertarian.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So why does that lawful fact get magically abolished in a system that allows more freedom in purchasing?

Did you miss the whole "can and will deceive" part?

Its quite possible for no one to ever notice. In fact exactly that kind of thing does happen. Formaldehyes are a very serious carcinogen risk. I'm sure glad the free market is reacting to protect people from this!

(oh, wait, almost no one knows about the issue except regulatory agencies)

Originally posted by dadudemon
And do you think that the government is there to discover these dishonest peddling practices of businesses?

Nope but I prefer having that as an extra avenue of protection against mass poisonings and other damages.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Almost always, it is after the fact that we find out something sh*tty happened.

And in the "free" system it is only ever after something shitty happens.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Other than being sued (because a freer market would still allow a company to be sued for knowingly deceiving and selling deadly products), what does the government do that protects you any more than a freer system? A fine? Have you looked at the fines. The criminal laws would still exist...so if that is your argument, it does nothing to support your position.

For starters it means I don't have to spend a tremendous amount of time personally doing chemical analysis on the products I buy to make sure they don't have dangerous chemicals in them. There are no private firms I know of that offer such a service to me, either.

In the "free" system: I eat poison meat and die then the company gets fined and continues to sell poison meat because it has billions of dollars to absorb the hit and has a marketing team that knows how to manipulate consumers. Furthermore other companies who haven't been caught yet continue poisoning customers.

In the "government" system: A few things can happen. Government regulators can find the poisons before the product goes out and prevent me from dying in the first place. Alternately the toxic products go out and I die. Then the company gets fined, and ignores the fine because they have billions of dollars, and stops killing people because the government makes them. Then government regulators can go out and stop other groups from poisoning people.

I know the standard Libertarian argument here: "Those people who were tricked into buying poison deserved to due." At this point we part ways on a fundamental issue.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Maybe you're not a Libertarian.

You are correct: I am a registered republican.

Registered that way last November.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Did you miss the whole "can and will deceive" part?

Did you miss the part about that particular argument being irrelevant because it happens anyway but the freer market would still allow for criminal and civil suits?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Its quite possible for no one to ever notice. In fact exactly that kind of thing does happen. Formaldehyes are a very serious carcinogen risk. I'm sure glad the free market is reacting to protect people from this!

Are you trying to prove my point? I do not think you meant to prove my point...but you just did.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
(oh, wait, almost no one knows about the issue except regulatory agencies)

No, that's not true. The chemiluminescence method was developed and employed by non-government entities for the detection of formaldehyde in foods.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nope but I prefer having that as an extra avenue of protection against mass poisonings and other damages.

You mean a false sense of security of protection against mass poisonings and other damages, right?



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And in the "free" system it is only ever after something shitty happens.

Incorrect. There would be very little difference between what we do now and what would happen in a freer system. The only difference is we would not waste billions and virtually useless institutions and the consumer market would increase a bit to fill the perceived void. A very small void, to be exact.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
For starters it means I don't have to spend a tremendous amount of time personally doing chemical analysis on the products I buy to make sure they don't have dangerous chemicals in them. There are no private firms I know of that offer such a service to me, either.

I believe this is a strawman argument. No where did I claim and no where is it implied that you would have to do such an undertaking, yourself. As a fact, and you know this already, it would be done by professionals that people can trust...like the ones I talked about concerning formaldehyde in food.

And if you are not aware of any private organizations that do product safety testing and analysis for you, you live under a rock and have not made an adult purchase in your life (this is also not true...you definitely have and I would venture to guess that you are among the smarter consumers out there...correct me if I am wrong, of course).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In the "free" system: I eat poison meat and die then the company gets fined and continues to sell poison meat because it has billions of dollars to absorb the hit and has a marketing team that knows how to manipulate consumers. Furthermore other companies who haven't been caught yet continue poisoning customers.

Make sure you quote me correctly: freer, not free. A free system is anarcho-capitalism which is something I do not advocate.

But, to address your point....you actually did not bring up a point that contradicts what I am saying. If anything, you are supporting my position because that's the same point I am making: it happens in both systems.

Current System: you consume poisonous meat, you die, and the company gets a massive fine and a criminal prosecution will be conducted against the company if enough evidence is there to get an indictment of some sort. If that fails, your family or legal interest can still use tort.

The proposed freer system: you consume poisonous meat, you die, and the company gets a massive fine and a criminal prosecution will be conducted against the company if enough evidence is there to get an indictment of some sort. If that fails, your family or legal interest can still use tort.




Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In the "government" system: A few things can happen. Government regulators can find the poisons before the product goes out and prevent me from dying in the first place. Alternately the toxic products go out and I die. Then the company gets fined, and ignores the fine because they have billions of dollars, and stops killing people because the government makes them. Then government regulators can go out and stop other groups from poisoning people.

Here's where you go wrong:

In the freer system, the independent regulators can find the poisons before the product goes and and prevent you from dying in the first place. The difference being that the independent assessors will do it more efficiently and in a timelier fashion. The company still gets fined but the fine could be much larger if they wish to keep that assessors seal of approval on their products. They still run the risk of going to both civil and criminal court, as well.

Then the consumers are made aware that the company had x-poison in their food and will be aware of it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I know the standard Libertarian argument here: "Those people who were tricked into buying poison deserved to due." At this point we part ways on a fundamental issue.

No, I do not think the person deserved to die. That's silly.





You do know that the FDA has been shown to be "bought" by those same companies that you claim you are being protected from, currently, right? What does it matter moving it into a third party's hands? Here's what: the third party is not on my tax dollars, failing me and being corrupted. I do not have to buy products with their logo if I think they are doing crappy.


The government shouldn't be directly regulating. IMO, they should be regulating the regulators...on this particular topic, at least.

DDD, the whole reason we have government regulation today is because "voting with dollars" utterly failed to protect the public interest during the "golden age" that Ron Paul seeks to emulate.

As Jon Stewart astutely pointed out in his interview with Rand Paul: government regulation didn't form in a vacuum, there was a valid social context to why this came about.

I think there might actually be some logic in what DDM is saying though. He isn't saying no regulation, he is saying the government should only regulate some type of private sector regulators.

In many industries, private safety and health standards are much higher than government mandate. There are obvious counter-examples, but certainly it isn't impossible for industry to regulate itself in an effective manner, so long as there is a government agency enforcing some basic norms that can crack down on it absolutely in a violation of these standards.

Some private regulation company that gives you a seal of approval? Do we all forget about AAA rated toxic derivatives?

Originally posted by dadudemon
What I am wanting is something similar to (but not this exact statement):

"The Gold Standard caused a giant income gap from 1850 to 1920 and it supported by X information and X laws that were passed a bit after 1850."

I didn't say that. My point would be closer to "The gold standard doesn't protect against massive wealth inequality", unfortunately, I thought the gold standard went back closer to the time of the industrial revolution, where wealth inequality would have been even more exceptional.

Mairuzu's point about the massive influx of immigrants increasing the gap, in America, back then is probably relevant to the period you are talking about.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I could not find anything on the Ginni index that went back before 1970 and I did not bother looking at Wikipedia. Even then, Wikipedia does not go back before 1950.

the measure didn't exist before the 60s and records on these sorts of demographic or statistical things didn't start to be collected on a massive scale until, idk, ww2?

the specific stuff you are looking for doesn't exist outside of projections. You would probably have to contact people directly to access the type of stuff you are looking for, unless someone has specifically done the projections about the specific thing you are looking for.

I'll do the triple post because I missed replying to something similar to this with Mairuzu earlier and it has sort of come up again.



Paul's views, and sort of extreme libertarianism in general, are like, being on a boat and seeing someone drowning, and determining that you can't save them, not because it is too risky, not because you can't for any reason, but because you shouldn't, it is just not your job to help this person, especially if they are drowning because of mistake they made.

/spam

yeah republicans can back this douche but Herman cain, the man who did nothing..,well we can't back him becausee makes sense and hey, the people seem to actually care about what he's sayin. lol global leaders runnin this country not the declaration of independence.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
DDD, the whole reason we have government regulation today is because "voting with dollars" utterly failed to protect the public interest during the "golden age" that Ron Paul seeks to emulate.

As Jon Stewart astutely pointed out in his interview with Rand Paul: government regulation didn't form in a vacuum, there was a valid social context to why this came about.

Inimalist pretty much replied with what I was going to.


I want to move away from direct regulation and put laws in place for how the commercial regulators should operate. And entire industry dedicated to various areas of regulation already exists an in a robust form. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act could equally apply to regulators. Criminal prosecution could occur if there is corruption in their regulation. Basically, regulate the regulators but don't regulate.


I cannot take credit for that idea: that came from Penn Jillete.


Originally posted by inimalist
I didn't say that.

I think you misunderstand my intentions. My intentions are not to back you into a fact corner and say, "AHA! Gotcha, b*tch!"

I tried to make that as obvious as possible with me, "I don't agree with everything Ron Paul says".


My point is to get some information on a gold standard to see why it is not all it is cracked up to be. My macroecon professor gave a huge-ass lecture/presentation on why a gold backed standard is not a good idea in this modern world and he gave a shit ton of reasons. I don't remember most of them, lol. But, I was wanting to get to the meat of why Ron Paul's "heyday" golden age isn't really...all that golden.


Originally posted by inimalist
My point would be closer to "The gold standard doesn't protect against massive wealth inequality", unfortunately, I thought the gold standard went back closer to the time of the industrial revolution, where wealth inequality would have been even more exceptional.

Well...the gold standard was used as far back as the 1790s when they passed the Mint and Coinage act. We should be able to see some data on exactly what you're looking for but the data itself does not go back very far so we can only have informed speculation. I don't think we incorporated income into our censuses until the last century. I could be wrong.

Originally posted by inimalist
Mairuzu's point about the massive influx of immigrants increasing the gap, in America, back then is probably relevant to the period you are talking about.

Oh shit, you're right. I should have thought of that considering my great grandparents, on my father's side, where those immigrants.



Originally posted by inimalist
the measure didn't exist before the 60s and records on these sorts of demographic or statistical things didn't start to be collected on a massive scale until, idk, ww2?

Oh no, I know that. I was talking about the Ginni index, specifically, not extending before 1970 on all the places I looked.

The Ginni Index started being used in the early 50s, iirc.


Before the GI, there is still things like the census information we can pull from. But I do not think income data was collected before ......1920? 1930? Well, possibly that census information was not collected until after the Great Depression. I am speculating, of course.

Originally posted by inimalist
the specific stuff you are looking for doesn't exist outside of projections. You would probably have to contact people directly to access the type of stuff you are looking for, unless someone has specifically done the projections about the specific thing you are looking for.

Possibly. But some comparisons exist in text books and are common knowledge to economists and political pundits. The latter makes it their business to know stuff like that for talking points.

I am quite sure an analysis of income has been done and projected well passed 1920 (going in reverse). Someone has to have done it...



Originally posted by inimalist
I'll do the triple post because I missed replying to something similar to this with Mairuzu earlier and it has sort of come up again.



Paul's views, and sort of extreme libertarianism in general, are like, being on a boat and seeing someone drowning, and determining that you can't save them, not because it is too risky, not because you can't for any reason, but because you shouldn't, it is just not your job to help this person, especially if they are drowning because of mistake they made.

/spam

Actually, your example is quite good. Except that the person WOULD help the other person. It is the government that would not help the person. Basically, Paul would say, "That person in the boat shouldn't call the FBI to help a drowning person. That's how the system is run now. The person should get up and help them of their own accord IF they want to. There should be no legal obligation to do so."

Your example is definitely Randian but it is not in line with Ron Paul's "let the person, don't have the government force choices" approach to policy.

If we were to extend the metaphor inimalist used it wouldn't be the FBI they cannot call to help, it would be the crew of the boat that is forbidden from saving anyone on their ship. History also tells us that in practice the person would be left to drown and that only Libertarians are really okay with that (Conservatives are at least upset).

Liberal: People drowning is bad, thus I'll advocate that boats like this should have rails to limit the number of people who fall over and the crew should make sure at least one of them knows how to save a drowning person in case someone falls over nonetheless.

Conservative: People drowning is bad, thus I'll personally save him and try to get my buddies to join in.

Libertarian: Saving people who are going to drown will only encourage others to drown themselves, thus I'll write a self-satisfied blog post about how its such a terrible, unjustifiable crime that the captain delayed the trip by five minutes to save that person.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
When did Haidt make that study? That doesn't sound at all like Paulites.

Libertarians are devoted anti-empiricists. The whole point of Austrian economics is that facts are another form of communism. For them the fact that predictions don't match reality means that reality is wrong about itself.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, your example is quite good. Except that the person WOULD help the other person. It is the government that would not help the person. Basically, Paul would say, "That person in the boat shouldn't call the FBI to help a drowning person. That's how the system is run now. The person should get up and help them of their own accord IF they want to. There should be no legal obligation to do so."

Your example is definitely Randian but it is not in line with Ron Paul's "let the person, don't have the government force choices" approach to policy.

this is why I wanted to do a longer parable...

its not as literal as you make it. the people on the boat are meant to represent the collective will of the people, not individuals. The point is that, we as a society are saying, we shouldn't do anything to help you, though you might get lucky and convince someone to, but hey, its probably your own fault anyways.

its meant to be a metaphor, not a thought experiment. A large degree of what I object to with libertarian philosohpy is the idea that they oppose things that demonstrably raise standard of living based on the fact they don't think that is what the role of the state is. Sure, its nice to have principles, but the idea that it is better to sacrifice a certain portion of the population to the whims of the market or other individuals when we could easily do something about it doesn't work for me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's like...you don't have the slightest clue what a "libertarian" actually is.


"Taking the scores on these cognitive and emotional measures into account, Haidt and his colleagues note, 'Libertarians are high in Openness to Experience and seem to enjoy effortful and thoughtful cognitive tasks. In combination with low levels of emotional reactivity, the highly rational nature of libertarians may lead them to a logical, rather than emotional, system of morality.'"

"I find Haidt’s account of the birth of libertarian morality fairly convincing. But as a social psychologist, Haidt fails to discuss what is probably the most important and intriguing fact about libertarian morality. It changed history by enabling at least a portion of humanity to escape our natural state of abject poverty. Libertarian morality, by rising above and rejecting primitive moralities embodied in the universalist collectivism of left-liberals and the tribalist collectivism of conservatives, made the rule of law, freedom of speech, religious tolerance, and modern prosperity possible. Liberals and conservatives may love people more than do libertarians, but love of liberty is what leads to true moral and economic progress."

http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/02/the-science-of-libertarian


How does this translate into inimalists though experiment? Easy: the libertarian will calmly and logically asses the situation and see if it is safe to save the drowning person. The liberal will jump in, head first, without thinking. The conservative will do the same a the liberal...if the person drowning is not gay.


What I found interesting about that article was how it talked about how liberals respond much more emotionally, than rationally, to moral situations and the like. This fits well with the irrational knee-jerking we have seen with the Zimmerman and Martin situation.

ya... again, not meant to be a literal scenario, but a metaphor for how society as a whole, as represented by the policies of the state, is willing to let people die because it feels they shouldn't help.

Universal health coverage, for instance, is a shouldn't help situation, as it is something that is both possible and beneficial, yet opposed by libertarians on the ground that it is something government shouldn't do.

also, going to the actual article's abstract:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1665934



This would suggest libertarians would be the least likely to jump in, were the situation literal.

(an N over 150 000?)

Originally posted by inimalist
This would suggest libertarians would be the least likely to jump in, were the situation literal.

(an N over 150 000?)

Not at all. That's non sequitur to jumping in and saving someone. Just because they do not wish to rely on others for help and vice versa, does not mean they are less likely to jump in and save a drowning person. On the contrary, they would probably arrive at their decision to save the person faster than the other two.

Why? Because the ol' train morality question was posed to libertarians and they were quicker to answer and had less problems making the decision: save 5 by killing one.


Yes, a lot of it was web-based feedback. Good stuff. The interwebz are useful for more than porn and arguing.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Libertarians are devoted anti-empiricists. The whole point of Austrian economics is that facts are another form of communism. For them the fact that predictions don't match reality means that reality is wrong about itself.


From that study, it would appear that you are wrong about that, as well: they seem to be the strongest empiricists of all three groups: thinking rationally, pragmatically, and fact based rather than emotionally.


No wonder you loathe libertarians so much: you have no clue what they really are about and the things you thought they were about, they weren't about at all.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not at all. That's non sequitur to jumping in and saving someone. Just because they do not wish to rely on others for help and vice versa, does not mean they are less likely to jump in and save a drowning person. On the contrary, they would probably arrive at their decision to save the person faster than the other two.

Why? Because the ol' train morality question was posed to libertarians and they were quicker to answer and had less problems making the decision: save 5 by killing one.


Yes, a lot of it was web-based feedback. Good stuff. The interwebz are useful for more than porn and arguing.

I know, it was more tongue in cheek than anything

also, you might not be able to say anything about the speed, as the gravity of such a situation blah blah blah, experimental validity and real world generalization, yadda yadda.

The web based thing doesn't strike me as an issue, with an N of 150000, even a large spread of scores will produce minuscule standard deviations, making it much more likely that they would find differences between the groups that may not exist outside of such statistical measures (idk, I'd have to actually find the article and see what the distributions were like, and I don't care about it all that much)

Originally posted by dadudemon
From that study, it would appear that you are wrong about that, as well: they seem to be the strongest empiricists of all three groups: thinking rationally, pragmatically, and fact based rather than emotionally.

I just want to point out, thinking "non-emotionally" is not the same as thinking effectively or being a better decision maker.

Quite the opposite in fact, people with damage to the emotional areas of the brain make very poor decisions. Logic and emotion aren't opposites.

Originally posted by inimalist
I just want to point out, thinking "non-emotionally" is not the same as thinking effectively or being a better decision maker.

I do not believe I said the opposite nor did I imply it.

"Thinking effectively" is an extremely subjective statement, by the way. It is almost completely meaningless. But, generally, a non-emotional response to a decision is also not the same thing as making pragmatic and logical decisions.

Originally posted by inimalist
Quite the opposite in fact, people with damage to the emotional areas of the brain make very poor decisions. Logic and emotion aren't opposites.

They were not void of emotions, on average. Quite the opposite. They just didn't score as high as the other two groups in the "emotional decisions making" process.


Additionally, emotional decision making can be quite bad in the same way that someone may lack logic or fact based decisions. In other words, it is a two-way street.

Originally posted by inimalist
also, you might not be able to say anything about the speed, as the gravity of such a situation blah blah blah, experimental validity and real world generalization, yadda yadda.

Oh, I know. Just the same as seeing a gun in a room may not make people more violent, despite the study showing they had more violent thoughts with the gun present. It is a bit of a jump in both cases to assume the study results begat seemingly consequential actions to those thoughts and decisions.

Originally posted by inimalist
The web based thing doesn't strike me as an issue, with an N of 150000, even a large spread of scores will produce minuscule standard deviations, making it much more likely that they would find differences between the groups that may not exist outside of such statistical measures (idk, I'd have to actually find the article and see what the distributions were like, and I don't care about it all that much)

Well, as I have pointed out to SC on multiple occasions, Libertarians are an extremely diverse group. So there would be several flavors of libertarians that would be obvious deviations. That might get lost in the label "libertarianism" at some point and skew the results. I am quite certain that there are libetarians whose emotions rule just about every decision they make: they are not logical, nor are they pragmatic. They could be easily lumped in with the most extreme liberals. These "voices" get lost in that sea. Those voices may also skew the results and libertarians may also be more cold and calculating than it seems.


It cannot be known unless we knew all the data and could talk to all 150,000 individuals. Well, maybe not all of them...just a random sample (learned that this semester in stats....lol).

Had a few giggles so far about the drowning person example haermm