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
Im for sound currency, or barter. Which are actually the same, but with one layer of symbolism.
Lol…going back to a gold standard would literally do NOTHING to prevent the government from bending you over on behalf of big business or fix your perception of capitalism being unfair.
see. beer is freaked out. He though he fighting just me. Now he realizes he must fight frank too. But he thought frank was on his side. It’s a pickle.
And now I’m fighting Frank because I just agreed with him and expanded on his idea a little. I think a little less time watching youtube conspiracy videos and a little more time expanding on your third grade education would serve you well in life.
Survivor: to some degree I understand where you are coming from, but I’m not entirely sure you understand what a libertarian actually is. Could you please share with us what your definition of a libertarian is? I find it odd that you think it’s an insult.
Theronius: The joke went straight over his head.
Beer: We still don’t have capitalism, and as long as we have central banks and fiat currency we won’t, so you have to pick a side. You are either for fiat currency and against capitalism, or you are for capitalism. You cannot support the ten planks of communism and still claim to champion capitalism. It’s an oxymoron. Central banks are plank number five. I’ve already shown you this. No one is “bitching about capitalism being unfair and not liking it”, we are bitching that we don’t have capitalism in the first place. I have demonstrated to you with indisputable facts as to why, because I posted examples of the exact legislation that constitute it and how they are implemented in the United States. Pick a side sir, you can’t straddle the fence and claim to be capitalist. You can’t advocate each plank of communism individually and still claim to champion capitalism.
It doesn’t work that way, Survivor. I asked you what you believe a libertarian is. I have no idea what “trust busting” is, so that is a separate subject. I’d be glad to discuss that subject with you after you establish what you think a libertarian is, and why you believe a libertarian to be bad. I’m asking you this because I’m a libertarian, and you and I agreed on most of the subjects here, primarily the belief in independence and individual liberties, which is exactly why I’m mystified that you seem to think it’s an insult, or demeaning. Most of your views are libertarian, and yet you seem to call your opponents libertarians as if it were a negative attribute. It makes no sense, sir.
Yes, they do, which is exactly why Theodore Roosevelt busted up Standard Oil back in the day. It didn’t do any damage though; John Rockefeller simply maintained 50% ownership of the shares of each separate company, and controlling interest in all of them. He has a speech entitled “The Right of the People to Rule Themselves”, I’d suggest you have a listen to that speech. Essentially, a libertarian is a person who believes in the right of the people to rule themselves, rather than being ruled by a separate government of elitists (Oligarchs). In order for the people to rule themselves, they must directly decide on the legislation by electing representatives that carry out the will of their constituents. However, now the people have been separated from the legislative process using lobbyists, and often the legislature is directly written by corporations or financiers with absolutely no respect to the thoughts and prerogative of the people. Libertarians are those who believe the prerogative should be shifted back from the government, to the people. It should be our choice to decide what we spend our money on, where we can live, where we can work, etc. As for anarcho-capitalism, with a system like that, coercion would fail, because either the people would boycott the business if it didn’t serve them properly funneling money to would be competition, or they would rise up against them with weapons, which is something extremely difficult to do in the modern day with corporations hiding behind government and deriving all of their advantages from legislation. Police officers are more than willing to enforce unjust laws, and military will obey orders without question.
Libertarians are not fascist..from where would you derive a conclusion like that? That’s one of the most absurd things I have ever seen. There literally is no difference between Communism, Socialism, and Fascism other than how they are established. Fascism was defined by Benito Mussolini as the merger of state and corporate power. Without the state, fascism cannot exist.
Fascism promotes the establishment of a totalitarian state.[158] The Doctrine of Fascism states, “The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.”
Thank you. So you see, the concept of libertarianism, and the concept of fascism are literally polar opposites, sir. As I said earlier, (Communism, Fascism, Socialism) they all are really just different names for the same thing: Oligarchy. I am with John F. Kennedy when he said this:
“No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers–I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.”On the contrary, Survivor, Oligarchs are beating people into submission with the government club. The legislation that provides them with the business advantages, or their competitors with a disadvantage, comes directly from the corporate or financial lobbyists. Therefore, the people are not authorized to fight back, because they are framed as traitors for taking on the businesses. Catch my drift? This is *not* libertarian, it’s authoritarian, which is the complete opposite. I seriously don’t see where you are coming from. I’d really like to know what information you derived your opinion about libertarians from. The people you are talking about, are not libertarian, at all. They are not individualists, they are collectivists. They do not believe in individual liberties. Even Wikipedia says that’s the opposite:
Libertarianism (Latin: liber, “free”) is a political philosophy that upholds liberty and the non-aggression principle[1] as its principal objectives. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.[2][3]
Yes you have. I am a libertarian, who is against fiat currency, and I acknowledge fascism because it and communism are essentially the same thing, and I’ve already outlined the exact legislation that put those in place, and how the stock market is manipulated to make these things possible. There is literally no difference between communists, socialists, and fascists. They are all authoritarian, and that is the exact opposite of libertarian. Libertarians seek either the end or the minimization of the state, to prevent it from being used to control the market, just like it is being used now. The people are defenseless against the state…when the state is turned against the people, the only option becomes revolution and the people always lose the revolution by depopulating themselves, and recreating the exact same circumstances that caused them to be slaves to the government to begin with.
If you think he was communist, you clearly didn’t listen to the speech I posted about the right of the people to rule themselves. I’m starting to think that you are here to win an argument, rather than to learn something. Did you actually listen to the speech? Communists think the government should rule the people. Communism is state control of the means of production. TR didn’t confiscate the business for the state, he simply had them broken up into separate competing companies.
They are mistaken at identifying themselves at libertarians if they support authoritarian government. They were either lying to you, or they didn’t actually understand what libertarianism is. I have offered irrefutable proof that libertarianism and fascism are complete opposite ends of the spectrum: the first is anarchy or minimum government, the second is authoritarianism or total control by government. libertarianism and fascism are polar opposites.
I’d say I’m libertarian, but sympathetic to anarcho-capitalism. I’d rather we shrink government to 10% of GDP; after that we can argue whether it should go down to 3%.
Competing currencies to me, just means I can agree to pay you, or Company X, in pesos or silver, should we so agree, rather than in dollars. I understand the government would still likely demand its ‘cut’ in a single common currency, e.g. income taxes.
This concept may seem crazy to many readers here, but we did it for decades in the mid-1800’s, with State-chartered banks issuing notes against specie (gold and silver coins) in the so-called ‘Free banking’ era.
I don’t believe fiat currency is the be-all and end-all of our economic problems, but I do believe it contributes to trade deficits and is easier to manipulate than standards based on physical assets, be they gold, silver, or property.
Veniversum: I’ve worked in the petrochemical industry my entire career, so I’m familiar with the history of Standard Oil. It’s a complicated subject, but prices actually FELL as the industry exhibited consolidation. It had a lot of positive benefits as refining is very capital-intensive, it helped develop new technologies, and realize economies of scale, and standardizing grades; they developed markets for ALL the byproducts of refining, unlike smaller operators — even acid sludge. Prices stabilized and the boom-bust cycle in the industry leveled off. Had Standard Oil attempted to raise prices, there were still alternatives — vegetable oils for lighting and lubrication, artificial gas and electricity for lighting, etc. And kerosene could be imported from overseas if Standard Oil raised priced above market — or new refineries opened — predatory pricing isn’t very effective as a long-term strategy against competition. Also, Standard Oil never controlled or monopolized extraction. It dealt in refining. The [rail] freight discounts were logical; Standard did the loading and unloading, and filled many cars and had a routine, predictable schedule. Standard’s market share had declined from about 90% to about 64% when the Ohio case was decided against them — so clearly, they had competition. So I’m against the Sherman anti-trust laws. The monopolies I’m aware of, are sanctioned by the government nowadays — NFL is a good example.
As for libertarian, I think this is a decent definition: The libertarian or “classical liberal” perspective is that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by “as much liberty as possible” and “as little government as necessary.”
Lol…going back to a gold standard would literally do NOTHING to prevent the government from bending you over on behalf of big business or fix your perception of capitalism being unfair.
Correct. Adoption of the Gold Standard would not impact on other government boondoggles like mandated 10% ethanol in gasoline. I’ve actually dealt with thousands of gallons of the compound used as an oxygenate to prevent knocking, before Ethanol was used — MTBE or Methyl Tert Butyl Ether. It was great, but the farmers and agribusiness successfully lobbied Congress to use Ethanol, on the dubious grounds of toxicity and water contamination from MTBE. So it went down just like you said — government picked the winners and losers. The results: Higher food costs, higher fuel costs, wasted energy to distill Ethanol, and it’s bad on your engine and has lower fuel value per gallon than gasoline; it is also problematic to convey in pipelines as it’s miscible with water. Corn Ethanol (what we do in the US) is particularly insane. Ethanol derived from sugar cane, as is done in Brazil, does make economic sense, but it doesn’t grow here.
My question about whether we were better off with a government 1/5 the size of the present one, was of course, rhetorical; while we do have some better services now (e.g. roads), to me, the expansion of the State has been a detriment to economic growth and personal liberty. And when I say the ‘State’, I don’t just mean taxes, and entitlement programs, but also, the large standing army we maintain. I’d rather go back to defending the country rather than foreign expeditionism, which has also proved insanely expensive in the post-colonial era.
I probably disagree with many posters, on OSHA and the regulatory state. I would rather see private insurance companies insure factories and construction companies to THEIR standards — i.e. charge insurance based on the plant safety, based on actual accident likelihoods, than a government monolith and prescriptive regulations. Most of the *actual* useful guidelines, are not produced by the government, anyway — they are produced, in my industry, by entities such as the American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). I’ve worked for companies that had fires and explosions so this is a subject near and dear to me…
As for Obamacare, firstly, I find the Republicans so hypocritical, in that THEY expanded Medicare and Medicaid, THEN want to say they’re against socialized medicine! That said, I AM against socialized medicine. There once was an era when hospitals posted rates, people paid out-of-pocket, and there was competition. I believe we’d be better served by LESS insurance, both government and private sector. As well as caps on liability suits, allowing nurses to perform more procedures, and other reforms. And speed up drug approvals. Obamacare is just more transfer payments from dumb f~~~s like me that get up and go to work, to people who don’t. Gaming it later in life to get some of my money back sounds like a plan.
Now be honest frank, would the libertarians you know accept FDR as a libertarian?
Just for the record, I reference Theodore Roosevelt, not Franklin. I know very little about FDR
Thank you for your insight into the Oil industry, FrankOne. For the most part, I think you and I see eye to eye. So far, the only difference we have is that I’m almost certain that Standard Oil had it not been broken up, would have become a monopoly and detrimental to the public. However, I do have to yield to your knowledge of this specific subject because I believe it to be much greater than mine. There is so much information out there, and when it comes to history, it’s difficult to determine what is true and what isn’t, since in the end we all take it on faith based on hearsay of bystanders or researchers with no knowledge of their motives. I suppose in those days, a man wouldn’t be a success unless he were a cutthroat bastard..because if he didn’t cut someone else’s throat I suppose they would cut his. Competition on the level of using violence, arson, sabotage, blackmail, etc doesn’t really benefit society in the end. The stakes are too high, and when the average man has to decide whether to benefit himself, or society as a whole, he will usually benefit his self to the detriment of all others. This is why I hope that someday, in business, we can figure out ways to collaborate instead of competing. I am probably a foolish idealist though. Those who compete with you will defeat you if you choose not to defend yourself..
1. is he in favor of fiat currency.
I’m not opposed to a fiat currency if its properly managed…but no, I wouldn’t consider how ours is currently being managed proper. Society would have headed down the same path whether we stayed on the gold standard or not, and even if we went back to the gold standard tomorrow it wouldn’t fix the underlying issues, which are the s~~~ bags we as a stupid population continuously re-elect, and the fact that our government spending as a % of gdp is over 40%.
2. is he for trust busting.
3. is he a libertarian.
Yes, and yes, I’d consider myself a libertarian. I agree with their overall message that government is too big and powerful, but no, I’m not 100% libertarian on all issues, if such a thing even exists.
How would you define a republican or a democrat? Are you excluded from being a republican if you are pro choice, or excluded from being a democrat if you are pro gun? Of course not…you are just smart enough to draw the distinction that ok, this is the party I mostly agree with, so it is what I will identify as, but I’m not going to agree with that party or vote for them 100% of the time. I rarely even have a libertarian candidate to vote for, so I just end up voting for whichever candidate is more in favor of smaller government and lower taxes.
I doubt I’ll ever vote for any candidate that I agree with 100% of the time because unless I’m running for office myself and vote for myself such a candidate will never exist, but I’d rather support someone I agree with 80% of the time than see someone I agree with 20% of the time get into office.
I was looking for beer’s quote about a gold standard doing nothing to improve the system.
couldn’t find it/ got tired looking. but here’s my response.
Of course it would improve the system. Any limit to currency creation would also put a limit on the degree of economic fantasy they can create to manipulate society and people.
Except…we had debt while we were on the gold standard, and a run on the banks to convert dollars to gold collapsed banks and helped kick off the great depression, so clearly even the gold standard wouldn’t magically have kept us debt free, be free of any of its own problems, or somehow magically balance our budget if we adopted it tomorrow.
Plus the value of gold is down about 40% since 2011. It peaked around 1,880 an ounce and is currently less than 1,100 and ounce. Kinda funny you think its the ultimate tool against inflation and whatnot when it can’t even hold a stable price. Gold is simply a commodity no less prone to speculation and manipulation than oil or a fiat currency.
Is working in a factory superior to being a farmer after you get fired from the factory?
You have more control over your own life as a farmer. This is why the american banks declared war on family farms in the 20s and 30s.I respectfully disagree. There were a complex set of causes to this economic dislocation. Farms boomed before the 2o’s; they supplied grain to Europe during WWI, and made record profits providing our allies Britain and France on a regular basis. The sinking of transatlantic freighters, added even more to this demand. Then the market for foreign grain collapsed after the war, as it was grown domestically in Europe. Unfortunately, the farmers’ credit was over-extended. Canada also began producing more grain. Prohibition ruined raising barley for mash.
Once again, government policy made matters worse. The Fordney-McCumber tariffs made exports FROM Europe very expensive. This exacerbated matters, in that foreigners then had no dollars with which to purchase US Foodstuffs. This may sound very strange, but remember, I am talking about an economy a century ago; there can be NO long-term trade imbalances without GOLD going across the Atlantic. Long term trade balances, like what we have with China, are un-sustainable in this other-world of the Gold Standard that prevailed a century ago. So I think you made another point for abandoning fiat currency, albeit, inadvertently. As well as a case for international trade with minimal barriers. Remember, the dreaded ‘globalism’ isn’t just about Mega Corporations, it’s also about benefiting family farmers.
One in four farms failed. Man-made fibers began to displace cotton (technological innovation — most notably nylon — ‘disruptive technology’ as the wonks call it in 2015), and the dust storms started, later to become the dust bowl. So the causes of this horrendous economic dislocation was not a ‘war on family farms’, a Zionist conspiracy, or any other of what I would call in aggregate ‘populist nonsense’.
I guess my question is, what were the banks supposed to do when they didn’t receive payments? They would either have to be bailed out by taxpayers, or go belly up. Bear in mind these are many small banks, and that 20% of American workers in this era, made their living off farming. I think if the banks just ignored it and said ‘pay us in 5 or 10 years’, there would have been a liquidity crisis, and runs on the banks, they had to take the farms and re-sell them.
I’m not so sure you’re more in control of your life as a farmer. Most farmers have large debt burdens on expensive machinery such as tractors and combines, and mortgages on land. Seed and fertilizer are often bought on credit. If they have successive crop failures without insurance, they are often doomed. So I may not be fired if I own a farm, but I can still lose everything to the debt monster.
In summary, increasing productivity has meant we need fewer farmers — not some banking conspiracy.
- 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
