That video would be more inspiring if the cops were actually beating people down... But when they are just standing there looking bored it kinda makes him look like a raving lunatic.


Also, the real question this thread should be posing is: Will Nef turn against these protests once they get too mainstream?

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby That video would be more inspiring if the cops were actually beating people down... But when they are just standing there looking bored it kinda makes him look like a raving lunatic. Also, the real question this thread should be posing is: Will Nef turn against these protests once they get too mainstream?

if they become overly politicized and commercialized - absolutely. that would defeat the entire purpose.

If they do not become politicized then how will they affect change? Sorry to break it to ya baby but change = politics, either at the end of a pen or an AK-47.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN that wasn't part of the debate. you insinuated that the private sector could and would provide better services (to everyone) than the UPS. i pointed out that his is demonstrably incorrect.

You can defend the post office all you want. It's a disaster that needs serious restructuring. It's not providing "better services to everyone" operating the way it currently is, at a massive loss.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN so you're part of the looney fringe that thinks citibank should set monetary policy?

Kind of. A free market economy requires a free market of currencies. Managed currency is at the core of central planning. I just don't like the historical track record of fiat money.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN let's just point out that the fed sets inter-bank lending. banks are free to set any interest rate they wish.

Yes, my bad.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN we've already established that the Fed lowering the funds rate in the wake of the dot com bubble set the scene. that didn't force or make people make bad decisions; these decisions were made because the people making them were bad decision-makers.

Those low interest rates brought on bad decisions. Easy credit alters the production structure. The environment of low interest rates gives birth to speculative ventures. (tech stocks, real estate, could be anything). The entire economy is affected. Real capital flows into these speculative ventures and people get screwed. A policy of cheap money discourages saving at the expense of these speculative ventures, and the cycle continues.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN perhaps, but unlikely. what i think the right need to understand is that competition creates winners and losers, and that the winners swallow the losers and get progressively bigger. and bigger. massive corporate dominance is the logical outcome of free market capitalism (given enough time).

Massive government dominance is the logical outcome of a managed, redistributive economy given enough time.

In a truly free market, the "winners" gain all of their "dominance" by servicing their customers. That "competition" is what brings about innovations that make lives much better. People fail at most of the things they do in life. Most businesses fail. I'm ok with this. Nike dominates shoes. McDonalds dominates fast food. I can live with that as long as they don't force me to eat their shit and don't suppress my desire to eat differently.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN you don't recall what happened when the free market created currency? complete abortion.

No, I don't. What happened? When was this? Not even trying to sound snide, I just want to know.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN not to mention the ridiculousness of going to the store and asking for change in 5 coca cola dollars, 3 IBM credits and 50 Walmart cents.

I don't think it's that ridiculous. Banks and retailers and credit cards and institutions would step in to streamline the process.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN there are plenty of people other than paul that want to lower spending.

Not really like he wants to though. Not for military spending. The one thing I really like about RP, which outweighs the things I don't like about him, is that his supporters have picked up the slack since the anti-war left abandoned their principles after Obama's election.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN nobody kept money "on hand" for a possible bail out of banks. and the overall cost of TARP will end up being quite modest. would have loved to see RP in charge when it mattered, see how high he'd let unemployment go and how deep he'd let the financial system collapse before he'd give up his ridiculous ideology. additionally, the fed's activities engendered a record profit to the US tax payer.

An economy that requires perpetual stimulus and nationalization is doomed to fail, whether it fails now or later. A Paul presidency in 2008 might have been as rough as you say. But I think taking the moral hazard out of play, coupled with significantly reducing federal spending would have the economy on better footing moving forward. Without implicit or explicit promise of taxpayer bailouts, large firms wouldn't be as debt-based and wouldn't engage in as many risky activities.

edit: this post is obnoxiously long, sorry

___________________
movies

blog

it's time to party

Last edited by TranceArmstrong on Oct-17-2011 at 17:21

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong You can defend the post office all you want. It's a disaster that needs serious restructuring. It's not providing "better services to everyone" operating the way it currently is, at a massive loss.

I am not sure how its not providing good service, but it is making a huge loss that could be minimized.

I am not one though that believes that all government services should run a profit. They should if they can, but only if it doesn't sacrifice their services to the sector they are in.

The government is there to run unprofitable businesses that provide a core service that private companies will not provide because they can not make a profit off of it. Cops and firefighters do not turn a profit, but their services are essential, same as the post office. Thats the reason we pay taxes, to provide for services that no private person or organization would be able to or willing to take on.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong You can defend the post office all you want. It's a disaster that needs serious restructuring. It's not providing "better services to everyone" operating the way it currently is, at a massive loss.

No arguments from me. im sure most government agencies (around the world!) could do with a re-structure.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong Kind of. A free market economy requires a free market of currencies. Managed currency is at the core of central planning. I just don't like the historical track record of fiat money.

Let’s just point out that a system of free currencies would also be denominated in fiat. Free currencies is a ridiculous idea (even capitalizt retreated from the idea after we bashed him over the head for long enough). I’ll also point out that fiat money has had a much better history than “sound” money in the 19th century and/or free currencies issued by banks.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong Those low interest rates brought on bad decisions. Easy credit alters the production structure. The environment of low interest rates gives birth to speculative ventures. (tech stocks, real estate, could be anything). The entire economy is affected. Real capital flows into these speculative ventures and people get screwed. A policy of cheap money discourages saving at the expense of these speculative ventures, and the cycle continues.

Saving is overrated! but I do agree with you. I don’t think there was an issue with setting the rates low necessarily, it was keeping them that way for so long that proved problematic. But I disagree it was as important as you’re making out; subprime loans could and would have still been marketed to people who couldn’t afford them.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong Massive government dominance is the logical outcome of a managed, redistributive economy given enough time.

Perhaps, but we recognise that issue. Most people do not recognise the logical outcome of big business.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong In a truly free market, the "winners" gain all of their "dominance" by servicing their customers. That "competition" is what brings about innovations that make lives much better. People fail at most of the things they do in life. Most businesses fail. I'm ok with this. Nike dominates shoes. McDonalds dominates fast food. I can live with that as long as they don't force me to eat their shit and don't suppress my desire to eat differently.

I don’t need a lesson on free market talking points 101. At no stage have I advocated against free markets. Just free markets with rules that everyone must abide by (and that the majority of mistakes that caused the GFC occurred in the private sector).

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong No, I don't. What happened? When was this? Not even trying to sound snide, I just want to know.

Research the history of bank panics in the US before the fed was created. Banks created their own currencies and routinely collapsed, taking their customers’ deposits with them.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong I don't think it's that ridiculous. Banks and retailers and credit cards and institutions would step in to streamline the process.

Well, except when im at a shop that doesn’t accept my Nike dollars. How many different denominations do you think fit on a price tag?

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong An economy that requires perpetual stimulus and nationalization is doomed to fail, whether it fails now or later.

How is either the stimulus or nationalisation “perpetual”? Including nationalisation is particularly strange- do you think these businesses will remain shackled forever? Of course not. At some time in the future, when it will be to government advantage, these businesses will be sold off for profit. Hardly ideal we know, but better than financial collapse.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong A Paul presidency in 2008 might have been as rough as you say. But I think taking the moral hazard out of play, coupled with significantly reducing federal spending would have the economy on better footing moving forward. Without implicit or explicit promise of taxpayer bailouts, large firms wouldn't be as debt-based and wouldn't engage in as many risky activities.

Well, they engaged in risky activities before they were bailed out and moral hazard was at play so not sure what you mean (there was definitely no implicit or explicit promise for bailouts either). RP would engender significant cuts in government expenditure? I presume he would be in charge of a completely separate house and senate? much expenditure is already baked into the cake.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN I don’t need a lesson on free market talking points 101. Research the history of bank panics in the US before the fed was created. Banks created their own currencies and routinely collapsed, taking their customers’ deposits with them.

Sorry for the talking points. Incidentally, I'm verging off into "looking up Hayek writings" territory right now which is a sure fire sign that an internet argument has gone on too long. I know there were bank runs and panics. But Fed-initiated stimulus/expansionary credit policy and currency debasement has brought on its own host of ills. I maintain that a government monetary policy that sets out to both stimulate the economy while curbing inflation will only lead to **more volatility

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Well, except when im at a shop that doesn’t accept my Nike dollars. How many different denominations do you think fit on a price tag?

I think this could be solved. Retailers would pretty much be forced to accept whatever currencies people were using. Backed by gold, silver, bitcoins, nike, whatever. I think some kind of 'forex' exchange would emerge on a more local scale. It does sound a little heretical, I admit.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN (there was definitely no implicit or explicit promise for bailouts either).

I think there was some of that

___________________
movies

blog

it's time to party

Last edited by TranceArmstrong on Oct-18-2011 at 17:33

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong Sorry for the talking points. Incidentally, I'm verging off into "looking up Hayek writings" territory right now which is a sure fire sign that an internet argument has gone on too long. [/qutoe] Hayek sucked massive testicles. [QUOTE]Originally posted by TranceArmstrong I know there were bank runs and panics. But Fed-initiated stimulus/expansionary credit policy and currency debasement has brought on its own host of ills.

Correct, however even factoring those concerns in the financial sector is far more stable and reliable than it was before central banking.


I maintain that a government monetary policy that sets out to both stimulate the economy while curbing inflation will only lead to

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong I think this could be solved. Retailers would pretty much be forced to accept whatever currencies people were using.

How very FREE market of you!

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong Backed by gold, silver, bitcoins, nike, whatever.

Backing money with anything is silly. Money is “backed” by the faith in the government it is issued by that the currency can be used to satisfy all debts denominated in that currency. Currently money is “backed” by what people are willing to pay for it (pretty free market imo).

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong I think there was some of that

Hadn’t heard the term “greenspan put” before but I disagree it could be labelled as the government keeping money aside to bail banks out.

___________________

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Oh, preese, so sorree for intorrerance fwum esss russer. He maka fun of you because you tarking in racial stereotype. I aporogize for heem. He not know how behave. Preeze accept aporogee. Ching chang chow yun fat, Mr. Roboto.

jesse jackson is down at the camp. he just locked arms with people as the police tried to forcibly remove the medical tent, and the police walked away, they seemed to have disobeyed their officer's orders because they started yelling at one another, or else they talked sense to the officer. no one wants to arrest jesse jackson lol.

reggie jackson would have beat all those pigs.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Oh, preese, so sorree for intorrerance fwum esss russer. He maka fun of you because you tarking in racial stereotype. I aporogize for heem. He not know how behave. Preeze accept aporogee. Ching chang chow yun fat, Mr. Roboto.