Tagged: commodity, commodity currency, economic, economy, fiat, fiat currency, fiat money, gold, gold standard, Government, governments, oil
This topic contains 285 replies, has 29 voices, and was last updated by 
LEO THE WISE 1 year, 8 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
I’m not a huge fan of Stefan Molyneux, but I will say it occurs to me he makes some pretty solid points in this video.
Hundreds of millions of people could propose bills, and the bills that got the most votes would get proposed first.
Well this doesn’t even make any sense…but I’m assuming you mean all bills would get posted somewhere and those that get a certain amount of votes would go to a national vote…in which case…
I hadn’t thought specifically of banning something, but it is ridiculous that people can only vote for those who they are aware of, and paying for mass advertisements makes them aware of candidates who may not necessarily be the best, but are funded by the oligarchy.
Wouldn’t this just happen with bills instead of candidates? You’d get a famous figure or a large corporation publicly pushing a bill, bill would get famous, people would vote for it, it would get its chance to be voted on. Meanwhile the other zillion bills people would be proposing would never get enough votes to go anywhere because people don’t have time to read hundreds of millions of votes, and you’d probably end up with some of the same ideas being propose by millions of different people that never go anywhere because nobody has the time to read through the majority of it.
Immediately sequestering them upon selection and requiring them to take and pass a basic test on civics/geography/math would certainly be an option
I’d love to see this implemented even to just allow people to vote in current elections, I don’t see a problem with people proving they have a basic concept of what they are voting for before they actually vote…but we live in a society where one doesn’t even have to verify their citizenship in order to vote. We have too many people voting for free s~~~ for themselves and sooner or later its going to collapse the system.
Democracy is defacto null and void when candidates are completely corrupt and as beholden to corporate and monied interests as they are.
The ability to create money and loan it according to your whims is a totalitarian power. Considering this and the corrupt human nature of humanity that you acknowledge, this is a power which should definitely be eliminated. Convenience be damned. this is leading us into global totalitarianism.
Why are you ok with it ? Because poor people and their cell phones? I know you must think you’re in the in group.
When we keep putting s~~~ty candidates in office, that’s a problem with a stupid population, not the democratic process.
Besides…weren’t you bashing libertarian types earlier in the thread? If you think the system is broken and corrupt wouldn’t the best solution be to take power away from them? What would your solution be, replace our current system with more socialism or a dictator, so even though you think the system is corrupt they can have more power and control?
It’s not a real democratic process. Big donors control it all The party organizations control it..
Yes. Libertarian types are generally little fascist globalist f~~~toids. I can say that, I used to be one. im in recovery. I used to be this entity known as RtWngAvngr (RWA). I was legendary, but wrong.
Education on all these issues is the first step. Are you on board with helping?
Considering you think I’m a little fascist globalist f~~~toid, yet you want to bitch about totalitarian power while at the same time insult people that want to see the government with less power, and you still haven’t actually suggested what you’d replace democracy with, no, I’m not on board with you.
Look at you guys:
“Oh we have to stick with the system that has ALWAYS FAILED.”
pure retardation.
Its pretty impressive that for a failing system we have been the most dominant, wealthiest, and militarily powerful nation on earth for a couple hundred years that offers its citizens more rights, freedoms, and liberties than you’ll find anywhere else.
not being able to see that = pure retardation
Slowly slowy gently evenly you will all come to me.
Getting pretty creepy there, man. Are you bald, and petting a cat?
"I am is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that I do is the longest sentence?" - George Carlin
Dr.Evil..is that you?
See. You’re stupid because you still see the world as business versus government. That’s from too much talk radio. I know. I used to see it that way too.
I don’t see it as business vs government…I see it as when I don’t like a business I simply stop spending money there, where as if I don’t like something the government is doing I can’t just stop paying my taxes.
If the population can’t regulate a business by getting enough people to stop spending money there, even a limited government would be capable of regulating big businesses if the population didn’t consistently vote back in candidates bought and paid for by those businesses, where as our only choice with a big government is to bend over and grab our ankles.
Did you know that the labor participation rate is at depression era levels? They can paper it over though and paint a temporary rosy picture by pumping in fake money and causing bubbles and malinvestment. Has beens. That’s us.
I fully suspect the labor participation rate to drop even more as baby boomers retire, so whats your point? If you want to look at unemployment rates we are still better off here than 3/4 of the other countries you could be living in. Plus quite a few of the places that do have lower unemployment aren’t anywhere I’d want to live anyhow…I highly doubt I’d want to move to Cuba because there is 2.3% less unemployment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate
You still don’t seem to get it. many of the things government does, with force, that you still must pay for in taxes, are agendas that serve big business. Can you get that? seems you can’t.
I don’t see it as business vs government…I see it as when I don’t like a business I simply stop spending money there, where as if I don’t like something the government is doing I can’t just stop paying my taxes.
I already addressed that…but you know…the fact that I want a smaller government that will have less power in forcing us to serve the agenda of the big donors makes me a fascist globalist lol.
Say it again. I dare you to say the economy is good again.
I never said “the economy is good.” I said we are still better off than most places, and I stand by that. Go ahead and click the link, look at the facts, it won’t hurt you. Tell me how many of those countries with lower unemployment you think you’d actually have a higher standard of living in.
Survivor writes: Did you know that the labor participation rate is at depression era levels? They can paper it over though and paint a temporary rosy picture by pumping in fake money and causing bubbles and malinvestment. Has beens. That’s us.
False. Labor participation rates are NOT at an ‘all-time low’. See links, below. While exact figures for the 1930’s/depression era, aren’t precisely comparable, unemployment rates were around 20-25% — we’re at about 6%. We can quibble over a few percent dropping out of the search, but it doesn’t change the ratio significantly.. Labor participation rates were lower in all years from 1950-1978, than they are now — and all rates post 1948 ARE directly comparable to each other. Of course, participation rates were climbing from the 6o’s to approximately 1990 as women entered the workforce. They leveled off for a while, now they’re in decline. They haven’t been this low, since 1978. But they’re still a far cry from the 193o’s.
Labor participation rates are dropping now as more people are in school pursuing largely useless credentials, the population is aging, and the economy is not spectacular (anemic recovery, in my humble opinion), so, rather than take lower-paying jobs, some people are opting out of work completely. We’re at 62.4% participation. So when I pack my lunch and drive off to work at 6:40am every weekday, I’m paying for the approximately 37.6% of lazy bums that don’t want to work. They’re monkeys on my back, slowing me down. Or albatrosses around my neck, however you want to look at it.
One rarely discussed reason labor participation has been dropping, is the large number of people ‘gaming the system’ collecting disability insurance. I lived in a rural area in the 1990’s and witnessed many able-bodied men and women at the public hog trough, typically for ‘mental’ or ‘back’ issues. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/04/08/how-americans-game-the-200-billion-a-year-disability-industrial-complex/ and http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART for labor participation rates . About 4.9% of the population gets SSDI, many (most) in my opinion, fraudulently, that’s double what it was a couple decades ago. Some of these are legitimate, I concede, but most, are not. Bear in mind, 4.9% = ~5% = one out of every 20!
As for the second part, yes, we will be ‘has beens’ if the labor participation rate continues to drop. I see that as inescapable; i.e., our per capita GDP will necessarily drop relative to other countries with growing or stable participation rates, all other things being equal, they will exhibit higher growth.
Beer writes: Its pretty impressive that for a failing system we have been the most dominant, wealthiest, and militarily powerful nation on earth for a couple hundred years that offers its citizens more rights, freedoms, and liberties than you’ll find anywhere else.
I don’t think we’re necessarily failing, but to say we’re in decline, seems accurate to me. Kids, on average, are doing worse than their parents economically. I would argue we’re not the wealthiest nation on earth if one goes by per capita GDP — though I certainly realize wealth and income are different; there are many metrics, but our per capita GDP is #10 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita Whilst you can argue some of these countries above the US are oil-rich, several are not (e.g. Hong Kong). Similarly, I would argue other countries offer similar or more economic freedom, by the Fraser institute, the US ranks in position #16 http://www.freetheworld.com/2015/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2015.pdf — obviously, civil liberties are another rank. I love the map on the front page of the report color-coding economic freedom on a projection map of the world. I like the US, but I’d like to see us move up in these rankings, especially in labor participation.
You still don’t seem to get it. many of the things government does, with force, that you still must pay for in taxes, are agendas that serve big business. Can you get that? seems you can’t.
And the point is that THE ECONOMY IS NOT GOOD. And it’s not just from retirees, it’s from people being put out of work by globalist stupidities like glutting the domestic labor force with cheaper immigrants, and through outright moving jobs overseas, again to cut costs.
Many rules and regulations, from Family Medical Leave Act, to insurance, apply only when a company exceeds a threshold number of employees. So clearly, not all laws are geared towards ‘big business’. Indeed, small business owners also lobby Washington, delivering the requsite tribute (prostitutes and briefcases full of cash?)
If you look at what comprises federal spending, http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_pie you’ll find most of it is transfer payments to citizens — pensions and individual welfare — rather than corporate welfare. Some of the health care budget goes to big companies (e.g. grants for research), but most is medicare/medicaid. A significant fraction of the 21% defense budget is procurement, and obviously, some of that 21%, does go to large defense contractors and aerospace companies.
I feel as though I’ve already addressed the point about lower labor costs (from immigrants), meaning lower costs of goods and services. Wages in Mexico are low; it’s not coincidence that goods and services are also cheap, because labor is an input to them! Without immigration, US population would be in DECLINE. That is an economic time bomb, due to all our ponzi schemes like social security. So we must have our immigrants unless we Man Up with the single mommies and make more babies.
And, I’d add, a LOT of people DON’T WANT TO WORK. That’s why 4.9% of the population is collecting disability checks. I would say the economy is stagnant insofar as incomes for the middle class. We can certainly close our borders, but that hasn’t worked too well. Good trade relations tend to promote peace and economic prosperity.
Survivor: Of course I agree with you on the 2-party system, it perpetuates an ‘us against them’ mentality between the parties. It’s better than a ‘one party system’ in that you have a watchdog (the party out of power). But both parties work to keep outsiders from getting on the ballot. I’ve worked in 3rd party campaigns, so many signatures are required even for ballot access, it depletes funding. When I’m asked what party I am, I say ‘American’, ‘Independent’, or ‘Libertarian’, then go off on a diatribe about what the founding fathers called ‘factionalism’. It would be great to see all 3rd parties band together to promote proportional voting schemes. 3rd party candidates don’t get much media coverage and are never invited to the major candidate debates, because both parties agree they don’t want them there. 3rd party candidates tend to have higher integrity and are not bought men. Take Ralph Nader. I disagree with his politics almost 100% but he has more integrity than the major party jackasses all put together.
I don’t think we’re necessarily failing, but to say we’re in decline, seems accurate to me.
I’d agree…but when you look at our more successful times compared to where we are headed…the main thing I notice is that government spending as a % of gdp has pretty much been at all time highs for decades now. Stupid people keep voting for more government and more freebies, but at the same time its smothering those who try to do it right.
Just an example…but Obamacare is so dumb it bases subsidies off income only. If you withdraw money from a roth retirement account that you already paid taxes on, it doesn’t count as income. I plan on retiring early…all I have to do is allocate my savings so I have enough to earn me 20-30k a year in taxable income so I qualify for free medicaid or a heavy insurance subsidy and pay practically no taxes, while whatever I want to spend over that level comes out of roth accounts. I’ll also allocate some money to low interest liquid type accounts I have easy access too, like cds, to pad my spending level if I need extra one year…who cares if that costs me some gains while I’m getting free insurance…meanwhile money I don’t touch in my 401k/IRA continues to compound tax free without counting towards my income, and if I miscalculated I can just take a big chunk out one way, take the tax hit, and continue to get my free/subsidized insurance the next year. I’ll be sitting on my ass doing nothing at 45 probably with a 2 million dollar net worth while some 25 year old fresh out of college struggling to get started has to subsidize my life style…anyone want to place any wagers why America is in the decline?
Its just sad when our system is turning into such a system of game it or f~~~ yourself over…the more our government tries to “fix” things, it seems the less of a point there is in trying to actually work hard, save, and pay your own way in life. You can’t fix it by bitching about the corporations or the government when the problem is half the country is voting for memememe and then we end up with dumb s~~~ like the above example in which the government is literally going to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars towards my healthcare while I retire 20+ years before the average person.
Beer writes: Its pretty impressive that for a failing system we have been the most dominant, wealthiest, and militarily powerful nation on earth for a couple hundred years that offers its citizens more rights, freedoms, and liberties than you’ll find anywhere else.
I don’t think we’re necessarily failing, but to say we’re in decline, seems accurate to me. Kids, on average, are doing worse than their parents economically. I would argue we’re not the wealthiest nation on earth if one goes by per capita GDP — though I certainly realize wealth and income are different; there are many metrics, but our per capita GDP is #10 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita Whilst you can argue some of these countries above the US are oil-rich, several are not (e.g. Hong Kong). Similarly, I would argue other countries offer similar or more economic freedom, by the Fraser institute, the US ranks in position #16 http://www.freetheworld.com/2015/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2015.pdf — obviously, civil liberties are another rank. I love the map on the front page of the report color-coding economic freedom on a projection map of the world. I like the US, but I’d like to see us move up in these rankings, especially in labor participation.
FrankOne = MVP. I still fail to understand people who brag about how great it is, because of how great it *was*. I have already made that point several times, and even absolute experts at capitalism like Andrew Henderson at Nomad Capitalist make this point as well. America is not the best country anymore. There are a variety of other countries where you can have just as good of a quality of life, if not better, and he talks about all of those, and teaches people how to expatriate and gain passports to those countries. The fact is, that America is slated for economic collapse intentionally because it is the last barrier (or was), as far as the populace goes, to a Rothschild one world government with one currency, as Rothschild proposed in the video I posted of him speaking earlier in this post, from China. https://youtu.be/VMqcLUqYqrs
Beer. government rightfully conducted would be a protection of regular people against anarcho-capitalistic slavery, It has performed that function in the past. Right now what libertarians mean by smaller government is erasing all protections for working people completely, so the governmet is EVEN MORE just the enforcement tool for big business.
For instance, im sure you still want the government to enforce a fiat currency monopoly on behalf of private bankers.
And frank. yeah. Some small business get out of regulations, but the really big guys exempt themselves all together.
And it’s common knowledge local chambers of commerce are mostly all about giving big businesses local advantages.
Actually, as you’ve read from my posts, not only would I prefer the government NOT enforce fiat currency, but that we use gold or a basket commodity scheme. The reason for this is that it would reduce the trade deficit and make borrowing more visible to the public. A more stable currency, is also good for growth and investment, which translates to prosperity.
Typical anarcho-capitalist beliefs include competing currencies and competing States — even competing legal systems. So I’m not sure how that entails slavery? It hasn’t really been tried in a post-industrial revolution economy.
In some areas, large businesses face MORE regulations. For instance, the accounting requirements for public companies. I already cited the Family and Medical Leave Act. The company I work for, has under 100 employees at our factory, but several hundred overall. And we must comply with the same OSHA rules as companies ten or a hundred times our size. I would argue more regulations, while bad for business overall, favor big businesses over small businesses, because they can afford personnel to keep up with the regulations/compliance officers.
Large companies often do get tax breaks for moving operations into an area. Small businesses, do not realize these breaks typically.
Of course Chambers of Commerce act in their Members’ interests. Just as trade associations do. They lobby to reject legislation that will cost them money, and for legislation and candidates that will increase their profits. Some of the activities the Chamber is working on in my state are: encouraging domestic energy exploitation (we’re a fracking State), expanding trade, modernizing the regulatory process, reforming immigration, and improving education (so high schools produce employees with actual marketable skills). I’d agree with most of their agenda; what don’t you like?
Yes, libertarians want to remove all ‘protections’ for working people. If employers wish to discriminate on race or ethnicity, or religion they could do so under such a scheme — just as they could before we had a Department of Labor and labor laws. Obviously, such companies, would suffer a cost to their bottom line for not hiring the best labor. There would be no minimum wage — so the lowest skilled employees could find work and advance. The economy would be more efficient because nobody could sue under the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. We would not have social security disability insurance or unemployment. Private secular and religious charities would fill the void and civil society, would fluorish as it did before the Nanny State. In my opinion, these entities, are more efficient and effective at delivering services than government monopolies. There would be no wrongful termination lawsuits. These changes would make companies more efficient. After all, if you’re qualified, getting a job elsewhere, or striking out on your own, isn’t a problem. The schools would all be privatized. I hardly see that as ‘slavery’ — rather, a one-size fits all system of public education for the 90% of the population that attends them — is that slavery?
You’d be able to use the money otherwise paid into social security, to invest or spend as you see fit. For individuals that are reckless/irresponsible, then, this society (high freedom) is probably a poor choice. For those that are disciplined, it’s a great choice.
I don’t see government as an ‘enforcement tool’ for business, except in contract disputes or issues where one company does not pay another company for services rendered.
Beer. government rightfully conducted would be a protection of regular people against anarcho-capitalistic slavery, It has performed that function in the past. Right now what libertarians mean by smaller government is erasing all protections for working people completely, so the governmet is EVEN MORE just the enforcement tool for big business.
Can you elaborate on what those protections are people want to do away with? I don’t hear anyone screaming to get rid of the 40 hour work week or OSHA. I’ll admit some people want to do away with minimum wage…but at the same time we have other idiots on the other end of the spectrum demanding a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage…I’m not sure which one is worse.
When I want government to have less of a role in business, do you know what I want to see? I want to see less government investment in stupid things like ethanol and then legislating what % the gas we pump in our cars has to be ethanol.
Besides for that…just because I say I’m libertarian leaning doesn’t mean I 100% agree with the libertarian view on everything, especially considering since any of the parties on their own can’t even come to a consensus on some issues. Its like I already said, I don’t know how many more times you want to beat a dead horse…yes, I understand the government forces us to do things we don’t want….business can’t do that unless they have the government doing it for them. If the government wasn’t forcing me to support businesses I didn’t want to, I could instead just look at that business and say f~~~ off, I’m not giving you my money…as in above example with ethanol. If the government wasn’t forcing ethanol down our throats we’d have higher quality gasoline that is better for our cars and food costs would go down. Businesses are here to serve the people until the government legislates we have to serve the businesses.
Besides…you haven’t actually offered any way to fix the system. You just say “educate people.” Great, what are you going to educate them on…how stupid people like them are ruining the democratic process by voting for s~~~ty candidates, yet you’d probably just look at them dumbfounded if they asked you what message a good candidate would campaign on.
For instance, im sure you still want the government to enforce a fiat currency monopoly on behalf of private bankers.
I don’t have a problem with a fiat currency nearly as much as I have a problem with the government doing things like legislatively forcing banks to give out sub prime loans and then turn around and bail them out when the sub prime loan market implodes and banks start going under.
Frank, my point is that libertarians think they have no use for government. But I’m sure the dudes on here shrieking about deviating from government enforced monopoly fiat currency are libertarians, in their own mind.
I’ve already said multiple times in this thread I recognize a need for some government, just not as much as we currently have.
Libertarian =/= anarchist. Try again kid.
I don’t think we’re necessarily failing, but to say we’re in decline, seems accurate to me.
I’d agree…but when you look at our more successful times compared to where we are headed…the main thing I notice is that government spending as a % of gdp has pretty much been at all time highs for decades now. Stupid people keep voting for more government and more freebies, but at the same time its smothering those who try to do it right.
Yes, government spending is the single most important measurement of ‘good’ vs ‘bad’ governance in my opinion. Sure, you can still have corruption and mismanagement, but if it comprises a smaller piece of the pie with a smaller ratio, growth is going to be higher. In 1902, it was 7%; now it’s nearly 40%; http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/past_spending — it’s been *relatively* flat the last 30 years, but of course for the spike of the Great Recession when GDP went down and government spent like a drunken sailor. So are we really that much better off having government five times larger than it was a little over a century ago?
Combined Federal, State, and Local employment now comprises 14.5% of the employed workforce http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm — those employees, and their families, are going to tend to vote for bigger government. As for the people who ‘do it right’, we just need to shut up and pay our taxes, right? Haha. There are more GOVERNMENT jobs than manufacturing jobs now in America — 8.1% vs 14.5% see http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm — NOT a good sign. I work in manufacturing so I better up my productivity, haha.
So frank, are you an anarchocapitalist? i am not. I do not believe in the purity of free markets, or the perpetual fairness of markets. Once business reach monopoly status or can organize into cartels, all alleged benefits of competition (for everyone but the cartels or monopolies) are gone.
So rather than just bitch about capitalism being unfair and you not liking it, why don’t you tell us what you’d rather replace it with, because I’m pretty sure whatever you come up with, we will have a long list for you of why that system sucks and is not fair.
At the end of the day we have a government that has the power to break up monopolies and regulate parts of the economy, but again, it just boils down to stupid people electing s~~~ty politicians.
and …. zip it.
Right after you’re done!
"I am is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that I do is the longest sentence?" - George Carlin
So are we really that much better off having government five times larger than it was a little over a century ago?
No sir, the government is awfully good at picking winners and losers, but they suck at actually fixing problems or making things better or more efficient.
Take for example…Obamacare. Some people got spanked with higher taxes and costs, others got “free” medicaid and subsidies…but in the end it didn’t do a damn thing to fix the actual problem….the actual cost we have to pay for care and drugs.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
