It ain't "reckless abandon," it's "bold, upfront action"

Rob Graham

It is cold comfort that the higher taxes that Washington will collect will be paid in those same worthless dollars. Wonder if they even suspect that this might be a no-win game?

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

There literally isn't enough refined gold in the world to support the global economy.

That makes sense.

Oakman wrote:

But, what I am sure of is that as long as the Feds can print fiat money, they will flood the market with it - as you see them doing right now, and as they have done on an ever-increasing scale since the 70's.

There is no good reason that a fiat based economy cannot be made to work. The notion that it is an easy way to solve financial problems is what must be avoided. Failed institutions need to be allowed to fail. Economic downturns need to be allowed to work themselves out in the markets. What ever control is exercised by manipulation of economic parameters needs to be kept to an absolute minimum.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Stan Shannon

John Carson wrote:

Stan and I have already been through this. See here and the following posts:

ANd I still say that the only reason it worked previously was because of the economic conditions that followed WWII. It will not achieve the same results this time. We are playing a very dangerous game here for reasons having far more to do with the solidification of political power than with stabelizing the economy.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Oakman

Ilíon wrote:

Considering the competition, sure.

Obama? Osama? Mugabe? Chavez? Seems to me those are the folks you are competing with. Most of the regs, even Stan, seem to have lived long enough and learned more than enough to know that there are things they don't know.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

There is no good reason that a fiat based economy cannot be made to work.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. :rolleyes:

Stan Shannon wrote:

The notion that it is an easy way to solve financial problems is what must be avoided.

The only reason to go to monopoly money is because it is an easy way to solve problems with the economy. Every time, every ruler, every place who has debased or devalued the currency has seen it as a quick fix to a problem that threatened to become overwhelming. And it always has had the same results. Every time. Every ruler. Every place.

Stan Shannon wrote:

What ever control is exercised by manipulation of economic parameters needs to be kept to an absolute minimum.

Just a little control, eh? Because governments are so good at exercising just a little control? But tell you what. Maybe we should work on the concept of staying just a little bit pregnant, first - then we can work up to a government that exercising a little control.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Lost User

Oakman wrote:

The only problem is: what???

Both gold and silver are limited in abundance but not so Aluminium, what about that? And copper perhaps also has a role to play..

John Carson

Oakman wrote:

It's not whether the government is spending, it's whether the government is consuming or producing. Because of FDR's agenda, he kept putting the government in the role of being a producer, especially during his first term. He effectively monopolized the use of capital for awhile, leaving few opportunties for anyone else could accumulate any and less reason to make capital investments. Once he allowed private enterprise to take over the role of producing, and, simultaneously, began purchasing goods from the market at a rate never seen before, the economy quickly, got back on its feet.

Ramping up the military involves large increases in government production, in addition to increased purchases from the private sector. The government also borrowed massively during WWII. Government production is a red herring. It is whether or not the government is spending. Government spending ending the Great Depression as soon as there was enough of it.

John Carson

Lost User

I'm not sure that your POTUS was lectured to at that recent gathering. Most, if not all, of the decision making was done by officials prior to those world leaders arriving in London.

John Carson

Stan Shannon wrote:

ANd I still say that the only reason it worked previously was because of the economic conditions that followed WWII. It will not achieve the same results this time.

Your line used to be that Roosevelt caused the Great Depression. Now that that laughable nonsense has been thoroughly discredited, you seem to have adopted a new tack --- equally unsupported by evidence. It had already "worked" prior to the end of WWII, so the conditions after WWII are irrelevant. Perhaps you wish to argue that the post-WWII boom meant that the debt could be paid off quickly. OK then, maybe it will be paid off a bit more slowly this time. No big deal.

John Carson

Stan Shannon

No, the line is that FDR made the depression 'great' not that he caused it. As to the rest, I guess we will have to wait and see. But if you are suggesting the great depression had been resolved prior to WWII, maybe you should talk to people who were actually living in it.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

modified on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 6:56 AM

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

Just a little control, eh? Because governments are so good at exercising just a little control? But tell you what. Maybe we should work on the concept of staying just a little bit pregnant, first - then we can work up to a government that exercising a little control.

It would be a simple matter of actually requiring the US government to adhere to its constitutional mandates.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Oakman

John Carson wrote:

Ramping up the military involves large increases in government production, in addition to increased purchases from the private sector.

Not really. John. It increases the size of the payroll, of course, but that has the effect of increasing the going wage in the private sector due to decreased supply just as demand increases. But the US won WWII on the back of its private industry ramping up, not nationalization by the Government as was done in Germany.

John Carson wrote:

The government also borrowed massively during WWII.

Did something I wrote suggest otherwise? As I remember it, we were running deficits larger than our GDP. But I fail to see what that has to do whether the government was allowing wealth to be created in the private sector or competing with the private sector as it had during the mid '30's.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Oakman

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

I'm not sure that your POTUS was lectured to at that recent gathering

That's what makes horse-racing interesting, n'est-ce pas?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Oakman

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Both gold and silver are limited in abundance but not so Aluminium, what about that? And copper perhaps also has a role to play..

The problem is that they aren't rare enough. Even with the rampant inflation going on right now, the amount of copper you'd need to trade for a loaf of bread is prohibitive. Back when gold was in its heyday, you could carry enough of it to buy 200 loaves of bread in a coin a little larger than a quarter. Unfortunately, and again I am paraphrasing John, no commodity is better able to back paper currency than gold.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

It would be a simple matter of actually requiring the US government to adhere to its constitutional mandates.

Yes, we've seen how well that's worked out. Your sudden faith in the feds is quite touching.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

Your sudden faith in the feds is quite touching.

It isn't sudden. The reason I defend the founding principles is because I do have faith in them. They never failed the entire time the were applied. They are not failing now, they are merely being ignored and buried under massive piles of leftist and libertarian bullshit.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

libertarian

You still have never proved that you even understand the word. I'm relatively sure that you attack the political philosophy whenever possible. because you know I self-identify as one.

Stan Shannon wrote:

They are not failing now, they are merely being ignored and buried

Sounds like a fail to me.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

John Carson

Oakman wrote:

Not really. John. It increases the size of the payroll, of course, but that has the effect of increasing the going wage in the private sector due to decreased supply just as demand increases.

And how is that any different from "government in the role of producer" pre-WWII?

Oakman wrote:

But the US won WWII on the back of its private industry ramping up, not nationalization by the Government as was done in Germany.

1. Did Roosevelt have a large program of nationalization pre-WWII? You seemed to be contrasting his pre-WWII and WWII policies. 2. Germany did recover from the Depression, just as the US did, illustrating my point that the scale of government production was essentially irrelevant.

Oakman wrote:

Did something I wrote suggest otherwise?

Yes, this something: "He effectively monopolized the use of capital for awhile".

Oakman wrote:

As I remember it, we were running deficits larger than our GDP.

Less than a third of GDP.

Oakman wrote:

But I fail to see what that has to do whether the government was allowing wealth to be created in the private sector or competing with the private sector as it had during the mid '30's.

Well, a standard way that the government is said to compete with the private sector is by borrowing funds that the private sector might borrow. I don't know in what way you think the government was competing with the private sector. We seem to have ruled out: 1. employing people, 2. borrowing. What did you have in mind?

John Carson

John Carson · modified on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 6:56 AM

Stan Shannon wrote:

No, the line is that FDR made the depression 'great' not that he caused it.

By reducing unemployment and increasing output?

Stan Shannon wrote:

But if you are suggesting the great depression had been resolved prior to WWII, maybe you should talk to people who were actually living in it.

I said prior to the end of WWII.

John Carson

Stan Shannon

John Carson wrote:

By reducing unemployment and increasing output?

Which part of "great depression" don't you understand? IT was the Great Depression in 1930 and it was the Great Depression in 1939.

John Carson wrote:

I said prior to the end of WWII.

And what precisely was the world like in 1945?

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.