The Big Print Is Coming

[pjdude1219]

I'm not sure where THAT came from. Did you know that the Roman Emperor Valens (368 CE) made it illegal to sell oneself into slavery. Why do you think Roman's would want to sell themselves into Slavery?

to become gladitors

[pjdude1219]

The Debt per citizen is $50,000. But, given most Citizens do not pay tax, it works out to about $140,000 per tax payer. Yeah, I see Americans paying THAT back... not. Warm up the Printing Press Benny, Obama's go-n shoppen. First stop, FREE medical. Next stop, Iran.

are you capable of making an argument with out lying. almost every single american pays taxes.

hell even most people pay the income tax which is what your really talking about. unless you think 50% plus one person doesn't pay income tax.


try at least attempting to be intellectually honest

[spidergoat]

In the early Roman Empire the silver coin was 98% silver. At the end it was less than 2% silver. And thus went the Roman Empire.


///.

Maybe they realized that the silver content was irrelevant. Money works without the coins being valuable due to their materials.

[Michael]

are you capable of making an argument with out lying. almost every single american pays taxes.
....
try at least attempting to be intellectually honest

Ah, no, only half of American Citizens pay income tax. Yeah, the other half sure like the roads, but they sure as hell don't want to pay for them through income tax. You know, they were born by sheer luck in the "USSA" and now they feel entitled to FREE roads. So much so they think it's MORAL to use FORCE and make someone else (who happened to be by bad luck born in the USSA) to work and pay for the roads they themselves enjoy using for FREE - without a f*cking care in the world. Yeah, bullshit isn't it? Along with ALL the other Federal "Services" they get for FREE. They just hide under the blanket of "Patriotism" and expect their god-given FREE entitlements the rest of us have to pay for.

There's a whole Corporate Industry that's developed since the "Great Society" of the 1960s specifically to pander to and give more and more entitlements to these NON-PAYING "American" freeloaders - who like to use Government Services but don't like to pay for them. It's called Federal Politics.

But, don't worry, everyone's got to pay at some point. And that Patriotic blanket is big, might want to watch whose under there, as some Citizens make better cannon fodder than other.

[Michael]

Maybe they realized that the silver content was irrelevant. Money works without the coins being valuable due to their materials.

I suppose you have to ask why does money work at all?

In Ancient Rome there was a culture of individualism. You can still see it today. Back then it was a family's point of pride to make 'X' better than some other family. This social competition laid the foundation of Roman culture. Romans were also quite open when it came to letting people into their city - as long as they adopted Roman Culture and added to the City's greatness. Which, without welfare you either did something or you left. Romans were also, to the bafflement of the Greeks, more than happy to extend Citizenship to Slaves. By the height of the Empire most Romans Citizens were or had ancestors who had been Slaves. Slavery could be seen more as an internship. A smithy slave worked for a smithy for minimum wages and food and housing and over time if his craft was good he'd pay his master for his freedom and then go open up business as a smithy and one day he'd take an apprentice slave. That was utterly common in Rome.

By the time of Julius Caesar there was a culture of giving free handouts to the masses/Citizens as a means of pascifying the public as well as buying elections. Caesar, a military hero, did pander the citizens with once off Triumphs but he also kicked 1/3 the city residents off the free public wheat (this knocked about 110,000 citizens off the welfare system). He knew it was corrupting Roman culture of self-reliance and individualism (and in the long run couldn't be afforded - the numbers always grow). He had the clout to do this. Most politicians wouldn't have dared.


Over time later Emperor's would continue to pander to the city residents and soon the number getting free wheat was right up to where it was. Over time being given wheat wasn't enough. They were promised salt. Romans in the Caesar's time were always expected to bake their own bread at home. Sure, they were given a staple of wheat but you take it home and make it into food yourself. In time the State promised to bake it for the Citizens. Then olive oil was promised. And soon pork too. And all the while the numbers keep growing. Never shrinking.

This costs money. Money is first squeezed from the richest. Generally this is good for the State as it takes away any power that might threaten it's rule. Next comes borrowing. Some of Roman's most beloved Emperor's borrowed and blew out the treasury reserves. That needs paid back so, with the wealthiest gone, the business class must be heavily taxed. When the burden is heavy enough they start to decrease in productivity and join the welfare class or leave. The masses pander for more. Expect more. Hence wheat is met with salt, then it must be baked, then olive oil is added and in the case of Rome finally pork is given out too. That costs a lot more. So, the workers are taxed (eventually at the maximum). Finally the State has to resort to debasing its currency. This works in the beginning and usually earns an Emperor love and adoration of the masses on welfare (but is generally hated by the business and working class - some of whom try to sell themselves into Slavery to avoid tax). And, when the coinage can be debased no longer, trade stops and the whole house of cards collapses.

So, it's not just about debasing the currency. That's symptomatic of a sick society. In a healthy society coinage and currency wouldn't be in the process of debasement. If you see inflation/debasement it's a cue to you that something is wrong with the economy and hence with the society.


In the USA we've come up with a nifty little thing called 30 year Bonds sales to the Chinese. See, most societies wouldn't feel comfortable with selling the future labor + interest of their children to satisfy their own selfish needs in the present. Welcome to the BabyBoomers. The reason our economy is sick is because the society is sick. People think it's moral to sell their children's labor. That it's moral to steal the workers labor. The WORKER pays for the privilege of working?!?! That's sick. Then there's the debasement of the currency. Which, at present, is pretty much like those 0.2% silver containing Roman coins - not worth the paper it's not printed on.

And yet the public demand is for MORE not less.

So? Where to from here? Given our sickened culture of entitlement it's probably going to be the Big Print. BUT, the crooks at the Federal Reserve don't want to see their plush lifestyle flushed and so maybe they're just have to raise bond rates and watch as the public riots and burns. But, with the militarily able to subdue the masses inside the States (thank you Bushbama), the USD would be saved. Or, there's always a Big War. That'd get the needed inflation up and going.

Which way will we go?

[quadraphonics]

Ah, no, only half of American Citizens pay income tax. Yeah, the other half sure like the roads, but they sure as hell don't want to pay for them through income tax.

Roads in the USA are not generally paid for by income tax in the first place. Instead, they're mostly funded through taxes on gasoline and vehicle registration fees. I.e., the people who use the roads mostly pay for them - including all the people that don't pay income tax because they're so poor.

But don't let that get in the way of your righteous indignation that a social good that greatly benefits taxpayers might also benefit people who are too destitute to have any money to tax. Obviously, your priorities are totally defensible, and our society would be way better off if we prevented the poor from using the roads. That way, they would be guaranteed to remain poor and... um... step #3 is "Profit," that much I've figured out anyway...

[Michael]

Roads in the USA are not generally paid for by income tax in the first place. Instead, they're mostly funded through taxes on gasoline and vehicle registration fees. I.e., the people who use the roads mostly pay for them - including all the people that don't pay income tax because they're so poor.

But don't let that get in the way of your righteous indignation that a social good that greatly benefits taxpayers might also benefit people who are too destitute to have any money to tax. Obviously, your priorities are totally defensible, and our society would be way better off if we prevented the poor from using the roads. That way, they would be guaranteed to remain poor and... um... step #3 is "Profit," that much I've figured out anyway...

Firstly, my comment about the roads was a dig at the numerous people here who have stated "you use the roads" as the quintessential example of why Income Tax is moral and why me, with my argument opposing taxing the worker of his or her labor, is magically defunct.

You use the roads!

Secondly, if you bothered to read the response it was to show to another poster than no, ALL of the national debt is shouldered by only half of the public. Not nearly everyone.

Thirdly, I noticed you did it again. You put your intellect on hold and went with you gut responce which was akin to Be Gone Yea Heathen!


As soon as the State stepped in with welfare in the 1960s "Great Society" (somewhat akin to Mao's Great Leap Backwards) reduction in poverty STOPPED going down (at a respectable 1% per year) and stabilized and actually reversed course and started increasing! You want to talk about perpetual poverty. Go to a State housing project. If a psychopath could device a means of perpetuating poverty-hell on earth it would be a State housing project. Otherwise known as "The Projects". Where my nieces sociopathic mother was just shot in the guts. That little project the State located directly on top of the old city landfill.

So, don't blame me or the (many multiple types of) libertarian Austrian economic philosophy - blame yourselves for the perpetual poverty. All we've been doing is debasing our currency and paying to KEEP people in State run poverty. The Projects are STATE run progressive hell holes.


Anyway, in regards to the Big Print: The Coinage Act or the Mint Act made debasement of the currency punishable by DEATH. If Ben Bernanke were alive in 1792 he'd have been hung for treason when he stated his GOAL was 2% inflation (which in commodities like food and energy is more like 8-9% and rising).

Just to give you an idea of how serious inflation and currency debasement was taken by the US Government back when it could find it's ass with both hands unlike the clowns that make up Congress today.

[Michael]

Obviously, your priorities are totally defensible, and our society would be way better off if we prevented the poor from using the roads. That way, they would be guaranteed to remain poor and... um... step #3 is "Profit," that much I've figured out anyway...

Why would they be prevented from using the roads? If that community could create it's own money, then it's own roads would obviously be available to all.

[quadraphonics]

Secondly, if you bothered to read the response it was to show to another poster than no, ALL of the national debt is shouldered by only half of the public. Not nearly everyone.

That is not true. The national debt is "shouldered" by the economy as a whole, not just income tax revenues. There are plenty of other sources of federal revenue which are paid by poor people and the trajectory of the national debt has as much to do with interest rates as it does tax revenues - and interest rates depend on the expected performance of the economy as a whole. The economy is not cleanly segregated into "those who pay the national debt" and "those who do not."

Meanwhile, the fact that we are running a deficit means that nobody is "shouldering" the debt, to speak of. It's growing, not being paid down.

Thirdly, I noticed you did it again. You put your intellect on hold and went with you gut responce which was akin to Be Gone Yea Heathen!

That's pretty rich coming from you.

As soon as the State stepped in with welfare in the 1960s "Great Society" (somewhat akin to Mao's Great Leap Backwards) reduction in poverty STOPPED going down (at a respectable 1% per year) and stabilized and actually reversed course and started increasing!

That is exactly the sort of laughably superficial and fallacious "analysis" that you have earned a reputation for around here. If this is you with your intellect not "on hold," I fear for you.

So, don't blame me or the (many multiple types of) libertarian Austrian economic philosophy

Austrian "economics" is just so much quackery. I don't "blame" you guys for anything, so much as I think you're complete idiots who can't tell their asses from holes in the ground.

[Michael]

Will you recant if QE3 occurs?
What if poverty is worse in 5 years not better?

What does it take to dislodge you guys from la la land and rejoin the real world? Take a look at Japan. It's economy is a mess. Look at what the Euro brought to Europe. Look out your own window that is the mess that was once a great country.

[quadraphonics]

Will you recant if QE3 occurs?

"Recant" what, exactly?

What if poverty is worse in 5 years not better?

I doubt that you'll be in any better position to have a serious discussion about the causes of poverty in five years, than you are today. Which is to say, not at all.

What does it take to dislodge you guys from la la land and rejoin the real world?

WAKE UP SHEEPLE

You need to understand that you are way out in left field, are often incoherent, frequently contradict yourself, and evince a pathological inability to stay on topic and answer direct, substantive questions. You are the last person to lecture others on delusions or lack of grip on reality.

[Michael]

Why do you think Keynesian economics is so prevalent? Do you think it's because these macro-economic models are so great at predicting social change? Or do you think it's because at the heart of these models it says yes, you politicians SHOULD intervene and do things to 'help' society. Imagine a politician dealing with something like the Depression. Two people offer advice. One says: Yes, my model says you can do something. Another says: My model says you shouldn't do anything.

Which is a politician going to lean towards?

Which do you think a Politicians is going to choose?

Whose career is going up and whose has ended? Whose going to become a Professor at a prestigious University and teach a generation of bankers (those very bankers f*cking up our economy) and who is going to be left as Associate Professor, not tenure and maybe lucky to work at a Bank, not run a bank.

I'm just suggesting you give it some thought as to why you happen to coincidentally think the State's pet economic theory is the right theory.

This is the same theory that advised farmers to kill their livestock and burn their produce as people starved to death. That wasn't Austrian that was Keynesian economics. This is the same theory that says War is Good. WAR... the killing of woman and children (which we ARE doing as we speak)... is GOOD for the economy. You may want to reflect on that.




(Austrian Economists have won Nobel prizes, not sure if that is good or bad, but there you go).

[Michael]

"Recant" what, exactly?

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Recant Heathen Statist!

[pjdude1219]

Ah, no, only half of American Citizens pay income tax. Yeah, the other half sure like the roads, but they sure as hell don't want to pay for them through income tax. You know, they were born by sheer luck in the "USSA" and now they feel entitled to FREE roads. So much so they think it's MORAL to use FORCE and make someone else (who happened to be by bad luck born in the USSA) to work and pay for the roads they themselves enjoy using for FREE - without a f*cking care in the world. Yeah, bullshit isn't it? Along with ALL the other Federal "Services" they get for FREE. They just hide under the blanket of "Patriotism" and expect their god-given FREE entitlements the rest of us have to pay for.

There's a whole Corporate Industry that's developed since the "Great Society" of the 1960s specifically to pander to and give more and more entitlements to these NON-PAYING "American" freeloaders - who like to use Government Services but don't like to pay for them. It's called Federal Politics.

But, don't worry, everyone's got to pay at some point. And that Patriotic blanket is big, might want to watch whose under there, as some Citizens make better cannon fodder than other.

now your changing your argument because you got lying. now your saying income tax when before you said tax.

so do us all a favor and just up until your ready to be truthful.



and while are large percentage of american don't pay federal income taxes its still less than half. all you care about is declaring those who don't agree with you evil and your willing to fucking lie to get people on bored with you.



also it should be noted 80% of american pay some sort of federal tax on their income( ie payroll taxes)







but again this still doesn't change the fact your switching to the income tax to cover your lying ass. your just another libertarian leech on society who gains all the benefits but doesn't want others to have same as you had.

[Michael]

It's implicit given the topic I was referring to income tax, no one else seemed to have made that mistake.

Regarding "social services", I'm more than happy to see the poor given a helping hand and this would best be done through private donation. If you think income tax is helping "the poor" you're smoking crack. Income tax helps the wealthy. Social services sucks up 80% of the money in administration with a paltry 20% actually seeing a poor person - let alone "help one". Help the poor remain poor more like it.

So, yeah, if you support perpetuating a poor underclass and feeding fat white middle class American 'Federal Service Providers' that buy landfills from crooked politician donors and build Project Housing Hell Holes - go for it. But don't think you're helping the poor because you're not.

And as we're a representative democracy then it MUST be that most people are in favor of paying to help the poor. If not then the government couldn't legally do it. So, it's a matter of "helping" that's at issue.

[Michael]

I was listening to two "Economists" last night.

The first was of the mind that The Big Print will NOT be coming and as Deflation accelerates "Dynasties will be made" while others collapse and banking houses crumble. I suppose you could say he was a "Cash is King" for those with the guts, brains and fortitude. And luck. He thinks the Fed is powerless in the face of what we're about to see hit us. They simply don't have THAT much cash to manipulate. Particularly as their scheming is coming under the light of day. This MASSIVE debt bubble is Deflating and he sees a flight to cash... if you can get your hands on enough of it.

The other seemed to be thinking along the same lines except he does think the Federal Reserve has the power to print and thus will attempt the Big Print and destroy our currency. And our current monetary system. He suggests those that are quick enough will be able to grab assets pennies on the dollar just before the Big Print.

Which is it? Which will it be?

Big Print or Big Collapse?
Inflation or Deflation?


I suppose the first economist did make the point that at the end of the day, the Fed is a private bank. They'll do what they have to, to secure their own first - which means, no Big Print. Isn't it ironic we live in the "Worlds Greatest Democracy" and have no say over our monetary future. We all have to stand in our stalls and wait to see what Farmer Ben and his Banking Technocratic morons decide to do.

[pjdude1219]

It's implicit given the topic I was referring to income tax, no one else seemed to have made that mistake.

no actually it wasn't. considering prior you always used the phrase income tax. but hey I'm not the one subscribing to a political ideology know for its intellectual dishonesty

[Michael]

I'd suggest the Ancient Greek aphorism "Know thyself".

So? You think Libertarian political ideology is intellectually dishonest? OK, show me where Libertarian Anarchism is "Intellectually Dishonest" because I'm fairly certain that's not going to be the case. Progressive Ideology OTOH actually IS intellectually dishonest. It called for using the power of the State to force other humans to change their non-aggressive behavior. The intellectually dishonesty comes from the idea of "The State". Which is why "Americans" think drug laws are fine "in America" but don't have a problem with the Netherlands lack of similar drug laws "they're not American". As if labeling oneself by the State changes morality.

So, again, I suggest you heed the ancient call to self-knowledge.

[quadraphonics]

Why do you think Keynesian economics is so prevalent?

Because it was successful at addressing the Great Depression, and because we have been dealing with the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in recent year. Keynesianism was not so much in vogue, 10 years ago. It was actually distinctly out of favor for some time, after it was perceived to fail to feal with the recessions in the 1970's.

Do you think it's because these macro-economic models are so great at predicting social change?

Huh?

Or do you think it's because at the heart of these models it says yes, you politicians SHOULD intervene and do things to 'help' society.

Of course, theories of monetary policy that endorse state intervention are bound to be more popular with statists than alternatives.

That doesn't imply that the theories are incorrect as such, though.

One important point is that Keynesian economics only endorses intervention in certain circumstances - basically, when there is a bad downturn in the business cycle and aggregate demand has collapsed. Keynesian economics emphatically does not endorse intervention in general circumstances: you're supposed to prop up demand for a limited time to allow the economy to recover, and then cease all your interventions and pay down the incurred debt. Politicians who advocate constant intervention are not really Keynesians (although they will borrow from the theory to try to justify themselves).

Imagine a politician dealing with something like the Depression. Two people offer advice. One says: Yes, my model says you can do something. Another says: My model says you shouldn't do anything.

Which is a politician going to lean towards?

Which do you think a Politicians is going to choose?

Your hypothetical there ignores the actual history: Keynes developed his theories exactly in response to the Great Depression, and specifically in response to the failure of anti-interventionist, austerity-minded policies (and specifically, adherence to the gold standard) that had not only failed to stem the Great Depression but actually magnified it.

Whose career is going up and whose has ended? Whose going to become a Professor at a prestigious University and teach a generation of bankers (those very bankers f*cking up our economy) and who is going to be left as Associate Professor, not tenure and maybe lucky to work at a Bank, not run a bank.

I'm just suggesting you give it some thought as to why you happen to coincidentally think the State's pet economic theory is the right theory.

But, that all only works out if the theory in question actually works as advertized. Politicians who embrace an interventionist theory that doesn't pan out, and instead makes things worse, end up with egg on their faces and the theory gets discredited. This is why nobody seriously advocates Soviet style central planning or the like, despite the obvious appeal of such to statist-minded politicians. The traction that Keynesianism has is because it has worked before in very dire circumstances where other competing theories failed. So your scare scenario of statist politicians embracing Keynesianism to justify lots of intervention is only scary to the extent that said interventionism is actually effective at boosting economic growth - which is to say that it isn't scary at all, unless you're ideologically committed to non-intervention regardless of the economic consequences.

This is the same theory that advised farmers to kill their livestock and burn their produce as people starved to death. That wasn't Austrian that was Keynesian economics.

WTF are you talking about?

This is the same theory that says War is Good. WAR... the killing of woman and children (which we ARE doing as we speak)... is GOOD for the economy. You may want to reflect on that.

The troubling thing about that assertion is not that it discredits Keynesianism, but that it is correct. WWII really did stimulate the US economy a great deal. This points out that "the economy" is maybe not the best single measure of a public policy. There are plenty of things it does not capture, including the very lives of citizens of countries you might go to war with. Also note that the theory does not suggest that losing a war is a winning economic practice overall, regardless of the war's stimulus of aggregate demand.

That said, Keynesianism doesn't advocate perpetual (victorious) war to boost aggregate demand. It just notes that in a situation wherein aggregate demand is too low, war mobilization can provide a really big, broad - and politically sustainable - boost. Keynesianism would not, however, advocate continuing such stimulus indefinitely. Once demand has stabilized and recovered, the intervention is supposed to stop because it is harmful beyond that point.

(Austrian Economists have won Nobel prizes, not sure if that is good or bad, but there you go).

The Nobel Prize in Economics is kind of a joke to begin with, and the award in question was a joint award to both Hayek and "socialist economist" Myrdal as a sappy "fair and balanced" sort of political award. Which is to say that I do not read that award as a particular endorsement of the Austrian school, nor do I put much weight on the Nobel Prize in Economics in general.

[pjdude1219]

I'd suggest the Ancient Greek aphorism "Know thyself".

you would your the incarnate of libertarian arrogance.

So? You think Libertarian political ideology is intellectually dishonest?

yes

OK, show me where Libertarian Anarchism is "Intellectually Dishonest" because I'm fairly certain that's not going to be the case.

ok not that you going to buy it but what the hell. libertarian anacharism is intellectually dishonesty as it ignores all contradictory evidence. like your claims that the early 1900 late 1800's isn't a strike against the free market and non intervention. it ignores the problems and the damage the ideology causes.

Progressive Ideology OTOH actually IS intellectually dishonest.

care to prove that according to the actual definitions of progressive and intelectual dishonesty and your versions of the definition.

It called for using the power of the State to force other humans to change their non-aggressive behavior. The intellectually dishonesty comes from the idea of "The State". Which is why "Americans" think drug laws are fine "in America" but don't have a problem with the Netherlands lack of similar drug laws "they're not American". As if labeling oneself by the State changes morality.

ok lets for a moment start out with the simple fact you know precisely fuck all about what progressives are or their ideology. and second lets for the sake of argument accept your notion that progressives believe these things still not intellectual dishonesty.

So, again, I suggest you heed the ancient call to self-knowledge.

and I suggest you take your own advice and study up on what the terms you so casually through about actually mean. all you have shown is that you hate what you have projected on progressives( though you'd hate real progressives to because well they believe in helping people and protecting people from those with power)