Fiscal Cliff

[Michael]

Joe, more more time, maybe you missed my question?

Some Founding Fathers (example: Alexander Hamilton) made the argument that Civil Rule under an elected autocrat for life would create an economy that was extremely stable. Obviously without having to deal with a Senate seeking re-election time and time again, such a system WOULD allow from must more control over the economy and be much more 'Stable' when compared to the Democratic Republic we currently live with.

If 'Stability' is so important to you, then Autocratic Rule must be very compelling to you as well?

So, my question is: If an unelected autocrat was as good or better than an elected autocrat, and given the prime important you place on economic stability, over civil liberty, wouldn't you therefor be in favor of autocracy?

 

[Michael]

All the perplexities, confusions, and distresses in America arise, not from defects in their constitution or confederation, not from a want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation.

John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, August 25, 1787. — The Works of John Adams, ed. Charles Francis Adams, vol. 8, p. 447 (1853).

 

[joepistole]

I will agree with you that Washington had a penchant for stronger central government and, under the influence of Hamilton, even attacked free-citizens not paying their taxes to the State. He murdered them, and later stated he greatly regretted it.
It's lucky for us the Government COULDN'T exert force over the People. Very very VERY few people born into this world can resist the temptation to use force against those around them when given half the chance. Which is why even a wonderfully insightful person like Thomas Jefferson - held Slaves.
It's not REALLY important what individuals said, as this is appealing to tradition, appealing to history and appealing to history - all of which are logically fallacies no different than appealing to the Gods.
Yes, us Libertarians are AGAINST the use of force. This is true Joe. I admit it. That's what you mean when you say "Stronger Government". What you mean, if we were to unpack that statement is: MORE legal force to use against so-called Free Citizens. When you say a "Single Currency", what you mean is to use even MORE FORCE AGAINST FREE PEOPLE so that they are not allowed to use their own currency. In short, at the end of the day, you're arguing for the use of force. You think peaceful free exchange is bad and violence and force is good.
It's a mental sickness that has afflicted humans generations after generation. Which is why you support a POTUS who called in a drone strike that murdered an innocent child. That's what you want. More of that.

That is all gibberish Michael. First you try to use George Washington as a Libertarian spokesperson by misquoting him, attributing writings to him that he never wrote and ascribing political positions to him that he never held. When that was definitively disproven you go on with this gibberish and accuse George Washington of murder. George Washington was not a murder. And I see you are back to rewriting the dictionary again, misusing words in the dictionary in order to make sense of your ideology.

And when I say single currency, I mean single currency. A single currency to replace the multiple currencies in place prior to the Constitution had nothing to do with violence. It had everything to do with facilitating and promoting interstate commerce. It had nothing to do with force or violence or drone strikes. The problem with multiple currencies is one of the major reasons the founding fathers drafted and voted to accept the Constitution as the ruling document for this nation. They tried it your way, and it didn’t work.

If your Libertarian ideology were all that great, you wouldn’t have to misattribute, deceive, misrepresent and lie in order to make sense of it. If your Libertarian ideology made sense, you could make a cogent argument for it using real facts and reason. But you can’t, that is the bottom line Michael.

 

[joepistole]

All the perplexities, confusions, and distresses in America arise, not from defects in their constitution or confederation, not from a want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation.

John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, August 25, 1787. — The Works of John Adams, ed. Charles Francis Adams, vol. 8, p. 447 (1853).

You don't learn do you Michael? You are just digging your hole deeper. Misrepresenting George Washington was not good enough for you, so now you are moving on to John Adams? John Adams and George Washington held similar political positions, they were Federalists. They each supported a strong federal government and a single currency for the nation.

Adams in his letter to Jefferson was referencing the previously mentioned problems with multiple currencies. The letter was written prior to the implementation of the US Constitution when the nation was governed by the Articles of Confederation with a weak central government and multiple currencies as you have and continue to advocate for. The bottom line here Michael is the founding fathers were not Libertarians. They tried it, it didn’t work. That is why the elected to replace the weak central government and multiple currencies with a strong central government and a single currency.

 

[joepistole]

Joe, more more time, maybe you missed my question?

Some Founding Fathers (example: Alexander Hamilton) made the argument that Civil Rule under an elected autocrat for life would create an economy that was extremely stable. Obviously without having to deal with a Senate seeking re-election time and time again, such a system WOULD allow from must more control over the economy and be much more 'Stable' when compared to the Democratic Republic we currently live with.

If 'Stability' is so important to you, then Autocratic Rule must be very compelling to you as well?

So, my question is: If an unelected autocrat was as good or better than an elected autocrat, and given the prime important you place on economic stability, over civil liberty, wouldn't you therefor be in favor of autocracy?

The operative word being “some”, Hamilton’s suggestion of an elected president and senators for life with exceptions for miscreant behavior was rejected by most of the founding fathers. That is why we elect the president every 4 years and senators every 6 years. Further stability doesn’t mean autocratic rule. It means stability. That is just more of the illogical thinking you are so good at.

 

[Michael]

The operative word being “some”, Hamilton’s suggestion of an elected president and senators for life with exceptions for miscreant behavior was rejected by most of the founding fathers. That is why we elect the president every 4 years and senators every 6 years. Further stability doesn’t mean autocratic rule. It means stability. That is just more of the illogical thinking you are so good at.

I'm not asking about what Hamilton nor Washington nor Jefferson or anyone else.

I'm asking you, if you cherish economic stability over civil liberty (and you do), and given autocracy is much more stable compared with democratic republic - would you therefor be more inclinded to support an autocratic government over that of a democratic government? I'm asking you about YOUR opinion. You seem to return time and time again to how 'stable' the economy is. As if stability is some how better than instability. That's a personal preference Joe. An aesthetic argument. Like saying I like blue more than green. Or chocolate more than vanilla.


So, again, given autocracy is much more economically stable when compared with democratic republics - would you therefor be more inclined to support an autocratic government over that of a democratic government?

 

[ElectricFetus]

So let me get this straight an unstable economic where people are dying of poverty is as good as a stable economy where people are all cared for? I'm more then willing to give some civil liberates for stability, just depends on the civil liberties I'm giving up: like if I'm going to have to pay taxes for stability yeah sure Ok I give up my right not to be taxed.

 

[Michael]

So let me get this straight an unstable economic where people are dying of poverty is as good as a stable economy where people are all cared for? I'm more then willing to give some civil liberates for stability, just depends on the civil liberties I'm giving up: like if I'm going to have to pay taxes for stability yeah sure Ok I give up my right not to be taxed.

No, stability only means stable. Unstable is just that, unstable. Prosperity is a different question.

Would you be willing to live on a Farm, say a cotton plantation, if you were guaranteed a job (picking cotton) and a small house and a meal on the table each and every day. You didn't really have too much to worry about - just pick the cotton. Master's going to look after all them little worries you have. VERY stable society you're going to live in.

Communist China was very stable. Life under the European Aristocracy was VERY stable outside of war. As a matter of fact, that was the main goal in feudal China and India. That was the whole point in having a stratified society where each person knew their place in society in India - a legacy they're still dealing with. And Chinese to this day prize stability as a measure of a just government. The Leader's ability to maintain a stable society has always been of great importance to humans. Egypt took stability to a whole new level. An amazing level. They didn't change anything for millennial, to the point it was part of the religion. Each statue HAD to be the same dimensions. The flood of the Nile was seen by those primitive people to be seen directly tied to maintaining social stability. They were one and the same. In America, the nation was simply too big for the Federal Government to rule over. It could never offer stability. I personally think this was the real reason why we had a government that gave so many freedoms to the people living in the USA, they pretty much had to. It was too big.


Anyway, prosperity is a separate question. Stability doesn't equate to prosperity. Stability is just that, stable.

 

[ElectricFetus]

No, stability only means stable. Unstable is just that, unstable. Prosperity is a different question.

Would you be willing to live on a Farm, say a cotton plantation, if you were guaranteed a job (picking cotton) and a small house and a meal on the table each and every day. You didn't really have too much to worry about - just pick the cotton. Master's going to look after all them little worries you have. VERY stable society you're going to live in.

I would be if the alternatives were worse. Already millions of people do horrible jobs simply for the stability it provides, think those sweet shop workers were force to work there? No they just wanted a little money so they would not starve to death! Fundamentally our economy is based on that principle: work or live without stability, live on hand outs from day to day on the edge. In short we are technically slaves already, we must work, for someone or for the money overlord its self, without which it not easy to get food, shelter, cloths, etc. In short stability is at least a minimum level of prosperity. Without stability there can be no hope for lasting prosperity.

Communist China was very stable. Life under the European Aristocracy was VERY stable outside of war. As a matter of fact, that was the main goal in feudal China and India.

I would not call things that no longer exist stable. Feudalism collapsed, the Chinese communist are nothing but communist in name only. Feudalism, serfdom and slavery could not adapt to technology making slaves and serfs obsolete or worse money holders. Communist could not adapt to the fact that humans are not hive mind superorganisms like ants. Our present economy and society will have to change again to something new if technology continues to progress and all human labors can be replaced: then if we play our cards right we can be free of all labors, we can "work" purely for gratification without the need to labor to necessities, prosperity and freedoms farther above us today then we are above 18th century slaves! If we play our cards wrong we will all die violently Terminator style.

 

[wellwisher]

The United States was an experiment that deviated away from the traditional royal leadership, in favor of the people. After the revolution, some people wanted George Washington to be king, but he refused, since royal control was what they were fighting against. Even if he could be a good king, the next king could be self serving or incompetent.

Democrats seem to still favor royalty over free citizens, with Obama ignoring law due to his divine right as king. Obama was not reelected due to objective standards, such as record or competence, but because the subjectivity of faithful subjects.

Communism also tries to head back to royalty, since it limits the power competition by controlling the wealthy people who can fight back in a free culture. The king can also explain the main stream propaganda wing of the democratic party. The royal angle is not about objectivity but about stereo-typical pomp and ceremony. This also explains all the royal edicts designed to control the riff raff. The serfs and slaves need to be treated like children to keep them in line less they rebel.

When you have royalty, it is not about competence but blood line. With royalty the peasants hopes for not too much corruption or strangulation of freedom. He also hopes an occasionally honest monarch ,who is competent enough to progress the utility of the country. But latter is rare, which is why royalty was removed in the first place.

 

[Billy T]

... Democrats seem to still favor royalty over free citizens, with Obama ignoring law due to his divine right as king. ...

You seem to know nothing about the last elections. One candidate was a poor black boy, raised mainly by his Grandmother as his dad had split. The other was a billionaire, born with a silver spoon in his mouth; yet the black guy won as he seemed interested in helping the masses, not the supper rich with continuation of GWB´s tax relief for them.

 

[billvon]

Obama was not reelected due to objective standards, such as record or competence, but because the subjectivity of faithful subjects.

He was, of course, elected due to both his record and the voters. He presided over the economic recovery; his stimulus bill worked. He was Commander-in-Chief of the team that killed Osama bin Laden. He ended the war in Iraq. He passed a healthcare bill that will allow everyone to get private insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions.

That was his record. Apparently most voters liked it, since he was elected by an overwhelming number of electoral votes and a significant majority of the total vote.

 

[joepistole]

I'm not asking about what Hamilton nor Washington nor Jefferson or anyone else.

Nor am I, I responded to your misrepresentations of those individuals and the words they wrote.

I'm asking you, if you cherish economic stability over civil liberty (and you do), and given autocracy is much more stable compared with democratic republic - would you therefor be more inclinded to support an autocratic government over that of a democratic government? I'm asking you about YOUR opinion. You seem to return time and time again to how 'stable' the economy is. As if stability is some how better than instability. That's a personal preference Joe. An aesthetic argument. Like saying I like blue more than green. Or chocolate more than vanilla.

I answered that question. You just didn’t like the answer. Your question is a false choice, a false dilemma – one of those many illogical arguments you love so much Michael. We can have both economic stability and civil liberty. They are not mutually exclusive. They are not even inconsistent. In fact, they enhance each other. Economic stability promotes civil liberty. Civil liberty promotes economic stability and history shows as much. In the United States we have had both economic stability, growth and prosperity and civil liberty. And our civil liberties have grown over that last two centuries with our economy. So my answer is both. For the last 80 some years we have enjoyed the greatest civil liberties that man has ever known along with unprecedented periods of prolonged economic stability and growth. I guess you missed the whole Martin Luther King civil rights movement thing in the 1960’s and the national holiday we just celebrated in his honor.

So, again, given autocracy is much more economically stable when compared with democratic republics - would you therefor be more inclined to support an autocratic government over that of a democratic government?

No that is hogwash, and like almost all of your notions, not consistent with known history. It is just more right wing fantasy existing in a world totally divorced of fact and reason. I guess you missed the last 80 some years in this country where we have had both unprecedented and prolonged periods of expanded civil liberties and economic growth and prosperity. Racial discrimination is no longer the law of the land. Sexual discrimination, race discrimination and age discrimination are now illegal. Tax rates are at historic lows. Life spans have never been longer. Health services have never been better or more available. Gay folks don’t need to remain in the closet. Hell in some states they can even get married.

By the way, autocracies have a terrible record for economic stability and prosperity (e.g. North Korea, Cuba, Syria, Myanmar, Belarus, Eritrea, Libya, Maldives, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Sudan, Egypt, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, the former Soviet Union and client states, fascist Germany and Italy, etc.). So again your notion that autocracies are paragons of economic stability, like your other notions, exist only in the imagination and machinations of the American right wing.

 

[joepistole]

You seem to know nothing about the last elections. One candidate was a poor black boy, raised mainly by his Grandmother as his dad had split. The other was a billionaire, born with a silver spoon in his mouth; yet the black guy won as he seemed interested in helping the masses, not the supper rich with continuation of GWB´s tax relief for them.

More than that Billy T, Wellwisher appears to have missed the last century.

 

[Billy T]

If you ever wondered how the stock market bounced up like a cat on a hot tin roof since 2009 then just think of that $3 trillion in government debt that the Fed has bought up and remember that the Fed buys up over 85% of the debt now. For all the crying about borrowing money from the Chinese, what should really be raising more eyebrows is how the Fed is propping up Obama's 'recovery' with funny money it is creating out of thin air. ...

Stocks are priced in dollars, whose value ultimately is set by supply and demand, like everything else.

With huge supply increased the dollar´s value is going down and will rapidly do so when the thin-air money actually enters the economy, instead of being used by banks etc. to help Fed buy Treasury paper. Stock prices tend to anticipate so they, being expressed in declining value dollars, will continue to rise and rapidly so when the thin-air money enters the economy (as will the NOMINAL price of everything, from cans of beans to gold).

If one trillion new dollars are annually created, as is the present rate, then in a few years US will have run-away inflation.

 

[joepistole]

Stocks are priced in dollars, whose value ultimately is set by supply and demand, like everything else.

With huge supply increased the dollar´s value is going down and will rapidly do so when the thin-air money actually enters the economy, instead of being used by banks etc. to help Fed buy Treasury paper. Stock prices tend to anticipate so they, being expressed in declining value dollars, will continue to rise and rapidly so when the thin-air money enters the economy (as will the NOMINAL price of everything, from cans of beans to gold).

If one trillion new dollars are annually created, as is the present rate, then in a few years US will have run-away inflation.

Come on now Billy T, you keep using the “thin air money” misnomer. You even wrote that “thin air money” was a falsehood as the currency is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government and economy.

* It is totally FALSE to call the newly printed money at this necessary for commerce rate "thin-air money" as it is backed by the growing economy - that is where all of the "full faith and credit" of the US actually comes from.

Two, you were previously provided with the money supply numbers for The United States. And those numbers do not support your claims. The US money is not growing at a trillion dollars per year, nor is it doubling every two years as you previously asserted.

Three, as previously pointed out to you, just as the Fed can increase the money supply by buying assets with newly minted money as it has been doing, it can shrink the money supply by selling those assets.

Four, your notion that investors will just stop buying debt assets is bogus as well. As long as there is a reasonable expectation that interest payments and principal will be received (i.e. US Republicans do not cause an intentional and unnecessary default by failing to raise the debt ceiling), there will always be a value for the asset and there will always be a buyer, though the price will vary depending on market conditions.

 

[Billy T]

... You even wrote that “thin air money” was a falsehood as the currency is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government and economy.

No. Not true! You need to learn to read correctly.

You correctly quoted me in your post 216. I said: It is false to call it thin-air money WHEN PRINTED AT THE RATE NECESSSARY FOR COMMERCE* as then it is backed by the growing economy. I also said that printing a new trillion dollars annually is certainly printing thin air money.

*I even defined "rate necessary for growing economy" as about the same as the GDP growth rate (< 2% now)
I also noted that the growing economy is the foundation of "where all of the 'full faith and credit' of the US actually comes from."

The numbers DO support my claim, not yours. QE3 is Fed buying 85 billion per month - that is more than a trillion per year as I said.

I have admitted that conceptually the Fed could sell assets to remove money from circulation, but in fact it can not even stop printing more thin-air money under announced QE3. Not even the Fed thinks it can. Almost all agree that it is only the expansion of Fed´s balance sheet that is delaying a current economic collapse or at least return to recession. The Fed even claims it is having success with printing money (QE1, QE2 & now QE3) as it has prevented the return of recession.

 

[joepistole]

No. Not true! You need to learn to read correctly.

You correctly quoted me in your post 216. I said: It is false to call it thin-air money WHEN PRINTED AT THE RATE NECESSSARY FOR COMMERCE* as then it is backed by the growing economy. I also said that printing a new trillion dollars annually is certainly printing thin air money.

You are contradicting yourself Billy T. I did quote you accurately and completely. There was no qualification as you now inserting. Even so, just who determines what is “necessary for commerce”? That is sort of vague. If you asked the Fed and most economists, I am sure they would say, as I would say, that the Fed’s expansion of the money supply has been and is currently necessary for commerce. You know the Fed and their economists don’t just wake up one day and say “Hell I am bored today so I’ll add of billions to the money supply today”. The Fed only increases the money supply to promote commerce. They don’t increase or shrink the money supply just because they feel like it. It is a very deliberative process.

*I even defined "rate necessary for growing economy" as about the same as the GDP growth rate (< 2% now)

Isn’t that what the Fed has been doing? Inflation is about 2% and growth has been about 2%.

I also noted that the growing economy is the foundation of "where all of the 'full faith and credit' of the US actually comes from."

Is there a point?

The numbers DO support my claim, not yours. QE3 is Fed buying 85 billion per month - that is more than a trillion per year as I said.

No they don’t Billy. I gave you links to the Federal Reserve’s Money Supply numbers. And the money supply numbers using either the narrow measure or the broad measure of money supply does not support your contentions that the money supply is growing Zimbabwe style – growing by a trillion dollars a year and doubling every 2 years. That is sheer fiction Billy T. Here is your error, you are taking one or two Fed programs and making a set of assumptions, some of them erroneous, and totally ignoring everything else in the economy and other actions of the Fed. The bottom line is, the money supply is not and has not expanded at the rates you have claimed. The money supply numbers are published every month by the Federal Reserve. And they just don’t support your claims about the money supply. Last month the money supply grew by 37 billion. That is far from the trillion dollar claim you have made. The month prior it shrank by several billion. The claims you have been making about the money supply should show up in the money supply numbers and they don’t, they haven’t.

A Fed debt purchasing program is not the money supply. That is why the Fed reports the money supply each month. A headline number reported in the press about a specific Fed Open Market Policy or policies does not a money supply make. You are confusing a Fed program with the money supply. If you are going to make claims as you have done about the money supply, those claims should be consistent with the money supply data, and they are not.

I have admitted that conceptually the Fed could sell assets to remove money from circulation, but in fact it can not even stop printing more thin-air money under announced QE3. Not even the Fed thinks it can. Almost all agree that it is only the expansion of Fed´s balance sheet that is delaying a current economic collapse or at least return to recession. The Fed even claims it is having success with printing money (QE1, QE2 & now QE3) as it has prevented the return of recession.

No, not almost all agree, in fact almost all disagree. And the Fed and specifically, Chairman Bernanke is on record saying that when the time comes to reverse Fed policy, the Fed is fully capable and ready to do so. If fact Bernanke gave testimony to Congress to that effect in 2010, the Fed has a plan to reverse course when it becomes appropriate. So your claims that the Fed cannot reverse its monetary policy are just fantasy. The Fed will do what is appropriate, when it is appropriate, as it has done and will continue to do.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/bernanke20100210a.htm

 

[Billy T]

There is a difference between trying to STIMULATE a sluggish economy (i.e. the QEs printing thin-air money) and having an adequate currency volume for commerce (buying and selling) to function. I am not now inserting a "new qualification." My text you quoted in your post 216 clearly stated that if the newly created money was at the "rate necessary for commerce," then it could not be called "thin-air money" but if it was being created at 85 billion per month it had to be called "thin air money" as that is much greater than the growth rate of commerce (measured as ~GDP growth).

I see little point in me telling you that the Fed is in a box and cannot become a net seller of assets without destroying the economy (sending it into recession) it has been supporting by the QEs. To avoid that the Fed will continue to GROW its balance sheet assets until the dollar falls rapidly in value from being in excess supply.

Verses you telling me that the Fed can easily switch to being a net seller of assets, so lets stop with these conflicting claims.

Wake me up when in fact the Fed is a net seller of assets on its books and is pulling money out of circulation - if an when that ever happens, then I will admit that doing that is more than just a theoretically possible concept.

 

[Michael]

I would be if the alternatives were worse. Already millions of people do horrible jobs simply for the stability it provides, think those sweet shop workers were force to work there? No they just wanted a little money so they would not starve to death! Fundamentally our economy is based on that principle: work or live without stability, live on hand outs from day to day on the edge. In short we are technically slaves already, we must work, for someone or for the money overlord its self, without which it not easy to get food, shelter, cloths, etc. In short stability is at least a minimum level of prosperity. Without stability there can be no hope for lasting prosperity.

Some times people do have to perform unskilled low wage jobs. AND if they're not being robbed of their savings (by tax and inflation), then they will be able to use the saved Capital to invest in other things - namely themselves. For example, I met a Chinese immigrant who cleaned the public latrines. Low paid job, late night, not much time with children. During the day he moved furniture for a small moving company (I actually hired him, about 1/3 the price of locals). About 2 years later he bought his own truck. About 3 years after that he had 5 trucks. He now doesn't do to much manual labor himself, but manages a small moving business. He's doing pretty well.

Was he 'living on the edge'? He had NOTHING coming from China. Oh, well, actually he had a family to look after. Unlike native born Citizens - he personally found welfare to be repugnant and refused it as a shame on him and thus his family. He didn't leave China to get on State welfare. He had no family living here to lean on. He only had the Chinese community, they helped him get a job cleaning latrines. Which he did do. He worked the lowest paid jobs that no one wanted. He couldn't barely speak any English. THAT is the edge.




If we're technically 'Slaves' then it's to the State. ONLY the State can legally sell Bonds on you and your children's labor. So, you are indeed a Slave. In a well functioning free-market economy there is enough productive capital that you needn't worry about living on the edge. In a socialist Progressive economy, there is much less capital, and you may indeed starve to death. We're leaning closer to the later and thus you will see society become poorer than it already is. As it does, people will, like you - think it unfair. They'll demand 'Social Justice' (this phrase is actually meaningless). And, onward we'll march becoming poorer by the day. Which is, some sociologists think we'll see more strife, more hate and maybe even a civil war. I don't, I think we'll just see a much poorer nation where the norm will be not to have children, but to work and live in small houses, and die in wars the State funds. Pretty much like it is now only follow the slope on downward.


As they say: The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intention.

Indeed, it is.