Obama, the anti-war government nig- the uh...

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.

YouTube video

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.

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.

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

Looking at charts of income inequality over time shows some very strong correlations between periods of credit expansion and periods of accelerating income inequality. Figure 2 of the Saez paper shows a spike in inequality right before the 1929 stock market crash followed by a continuous increase in inequality after the U.S. defaulted on the international gold standard in 1969 coupled with the decrease in interest rates by the Fed beginning in the early 1980s. Both periods relate directly to periods of credit expansion by the Fed, leading to an increase in the money supply.

When the government expands the money supply, those who get the new money first get the most benefit. Inflation is the primary mechanism of wealth redistribution in our economy today. Think of the counterfeiter who gets the benefit of the new money he prints before it circulates into the economy and drives prices up. It is no coincidence that we see accelerating income inequality in the U.S. after the creation of the Fed and our defaulting on the gold standard. The type of gold standard we had after the creation of the Fed was not a “real” gold standard in the fact that the Fed could still manipulate the money supply to some degree because the gold was being fractionally reserved.]

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

it also has this:

US income Gini indices over time
Gini indices for the United States at various times, according to the US Census Bureau:
1929: 45.0 (estimated)
1947: 37.6 (estimated)
1967: 39.7 (first year reported)
1968: 38.6 (lowest index reported)
1970: 39.4
1980: 40.3
1990: 42.8
2000: 46.2
2005: 46.9
2006: 47.0 (highest index reported)
2007: 46.3
2008: 46.69
2009: 46.8

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://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".

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.

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?