^ Ask an inadequate question, get an inadequate answer.

Quote :

"No, you stated that we get rich off of them, which isn't necessarily true. We get rich off them if they spend, they get rich off us if we spend, as the wealth gap widens it shows that one part of that is getting out of whack."

Bullshit. If they set fire to every dollar they ever earned it would be a bad thing for no one but themselves. As they destroy their dollars (or hoard them, same difference) the quantity of money in the economy will fall and each dollar will become worth more than it otherwise would have been. Pieces of paper are easy to produce and distribute, so the federal reserve can easily prevent any amount of deflation during normal economic times.

But, dollars are not wealth, stuff is wealth. If they produce goods and services for us and demand nothing in return, it is us that got rich, with our houses, cars, iPods, etc., all they got were slips of paper with dead presidents printed on them.

4/14/2011 11:50:22 PM

I can only conclude that LoneShark doesn't have a clue:

Quote :

"You control our world. You’ve poisoned the air we breathe, contaminated the water we drink, and copyrighted the food we eat, etc. .... "

LoneShark's response: "Yet another rant against the Government ... "

Since you don't have the ability to infer meaning from what you read, you should have clicked the link: http://weaintgottimetobleed.com/ - LETTER TO THE RULING CLASS

It's not about the government. It's about people with money, who have purchased enough influence, to implement policies that insure they get and keep more of the pie. Even more, they've convinced enough idiots that it's better that the rich keep the money because they spend it wisely to create jobs, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Even better than that, they've convinced people that the reason those jobs haven't materialized is because the government is holding them back - that same government that they've bought and payed for.

It's not about initiative, and free market. To paraphrase Clinton, "It's Policy Stupid" ...




[Edited on April 15, 2011 at 8:26 AM. Reason : *~<]BO]

4/15/2011 8:23:53 AM

I knew what you meant. I was trying to make you think. But, it seems you already get it: "THE RULING CLASS" are those with political power, those that rule. You agree with us, the problem is Government, you just blame the wrong people: while all of the ruling class have money, not all those with money are members of the ruling class. The people that are rich without political power are not the problem, so why punish them? The problem are those making their money by rigging the government. The solution is quite easy: stop the government from rigging the system!

That said, the ruling class would like nothing better than to implement your goal, which will have the government, which is run by the ruling class, go after the non-ruling class that happen to be rich!

4/15/2011 10:22:11 AM

obviously the solution to a government controlled by the rich is to expand the government. then theres no way the rich can control it.

4/15/2011 12:03:37 PM

I think we could all agree on reversing citizens united. now anyone know of any efforts that are underway to do that?

4/15/2011 1:16:23 PM

"ffuu fuuuh fuuuhhh i'm a huge idiot and i dont like this particular group so i want to ban their speech, but this group I like is fine!"

4/15/2011 1:18:00 PM

Quote :

"If they set fire to every dollar they ever earned it would be a bad thing for no one but themselves."

It would result in hyperdeflation and economic uncertainty.

Quote :

"Pieces of paper are easy to produce and distribute, so the federal reserve can easily prevent any amount of deflation during normal economic times."

Not without a government to hand that money out as interest rates can only be made so low, and the federal reserve isn't really part of the "market economy".

But you're really missing the point I'm trying to make. The difference in spending and savings rates among different incomes causes some of the instability we see.

4/15/2011 6:31:22 PM

Quote :

"It would result in hyperdeflation and economic uncertainty."

Because you believe printing presses don't exist?

Quote :

"Not without a government to hand that money out as interest rates can only be made so low, and the federal reserve isn't really part of the "market economy"."

Bullshit. It is quite easy: the government stops collecting taxes and spends from the printing press. That current law does not allow it does not make it impossible: all it would take is 51% of Congress and a Presidential signature.

Quote :

"But you're really missing the point I'm trying to make. The difference in spending and savings rates among different incomes causes some of the instability we see."

And how do you think that is? Please describe this improbable mechanism which allows productive investment to make us all poorer.

4/15/2011 11:17:34 PM

Quote :

"It is quite easy: the government stops collecting taxes and spends from the printing press."

That's classified as "the government handing out money".

Quote :

"That current law does not allow it does not make it impossible: all it would take is 51% of Congress and a Presidential signature."

And I'm sure there would be no speculation causing economic uncertainty as that is lead up to. I find it funny how much your idea of a market economy depends on the government.

Quote :

"And how do you think that is? Please describe this improbable mechanism which allows productive investment to make us all poorer."

We don't always make productive investment. Just like when our depression began, people will flock to less productive investments like money market accounts. Basically the poor will always spend, assuming the rich will always invest, the problem is when the rich stop investing.

4/16/2011 9:38:55 AM

Quote :

"And I'm sure there would be no speculation causing economic uncertainty as that is lead up to. I find it funny how much your idea of a market economy depends on the government."

I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. If the government is granted a monopoly in the issuance of currency, then by god it had better do the job well. But, fine, after privatizing the currency, in the event of deflation, I'm sure the fiat currency issuing banks would be happy to run their printing presses for the good of humanity (and their shareholders).

Quote :

"Just like when our depression began, people will flock to less productive investments like money market accounts. Basically the poor will always spend, assuming the rich will always invest, the problem is when the rich stop investing."

Recessions happen. They are a problem to be dealt with by the issuer of the currency, not the end of the world.

4/16/2011 9:46:54 AM

The problem with that is no issuer of currency is going to be able to know how much currency has been destroyed or lost, so it has no way of knowing how much money to create. It will generally err on the side of creating too much money.

In a free market, private banks would release their own [competing] currencies, and a bank that took it upon themselves to print up a bunch of money for their own enrichment (as the Fed basically does) would quickly disappear from the market, as buyers could quite easily convert their money into something more stable.

4/16/2011 10:17:21 AM

Quote :

"I'm sure the fiat currency issuing banks would be happy to run their printing presses for the good of humanity (and their shareholders)."

Without the ability of the government to maintain it's own existence, it's likely people would have little faith in their currency. The stability of a government is generally linked to the stability of it's currency, private companies cannot offer that level of stability.

Quote :

"Recessions happen."

Why should they? That's like saying "Polio happens". If we can take simple steps to prevent these booms and busts, why not do it?

4/16/2011 10:24:11 AM

But then you’d have the Walmart of banks rise up and shut out all the banks, effectively resulting in a single private entity controlling the economy of an entire country that it has no real accountability to.

4/16/2011 10:24:57 AM

Quote :

"If we can take simple steps to prevent these booms and busts"

Seriously? Get the fuck outta here.

4/16/2011 10:32:49 AM

Quote :

"The problem with that is no issuer of currency is going to be able to know how much currency has been destroyed or lost, so it has no way of knowing how much money to create. It will generally err on the side of creating too much money."

The problem is more that the issuer will swiftly take action during a bust, but is reluctant to take the steps it should during a boom.

Quote :

"In a free market, private banks would release their own [competing] currencies, and a bank that took it upon themselves to print up a bunch of money for their own enrichment (as the Fed basically does) would quickly disappear from the market, as buyers could quite easily convert their money into something more stable."

Without any government guarantee, why would would I use the currency at all? The government can force people to take it's money, the same power is not afforded to a private currency.

Quote :

"Seriously? Get the fuck outta here."

Why don't you pretend to have some data and not post it?

[Edited on April 16, 2011 at 10:38 AM. Reason : ]

4/16/2011 10:36:29 AM

Quote :

"But then you’d have the Walmart of banks rise up and shut out all the banks, effectively resulting in a single private entity controlling the economy of an entire country that it has no real accountability to."

If I didn't know better I'd think you were trying to be funny, because this is exactly what have today with the Federal Reserve.

4/16/2011 10:37:40 AM

So what's the difference?

4/16/2011 10:38:36 AM

The difference is that we have no competition in the currency market. In fact, it's illegal to compete - a group was recently shut down for issuing tender that had actual value and backing. The claim that there will be a monopoly is unjustified; the government is enforcing a monopoly now. As long as people are free to enter the market, there will be competition.

Quote :

"Without any government guarantee, why would would I use the currency at all? The government can force people to take it's money, the same power is not afforded to a private currency."

You'd be free to carry around gold, silver, or any other good you wish to trade with.

[Edited on April 16, 2011 at 10:45 AM. Reason : ]

4/16/2011 10:42:54 AM

You'll get the same situation, only you won't be able to vote. Suppose I was the company who had gained the largest market share in the currency market and all retailers accepted my currency. Banks offered both interest and exchanging my currency. I would obviously use my influence to hurt my competitors, I would make those banks who use my currency not offer any services to any competitors that exist or may attempt to come up. I would get the same situation, only I would be king, rather than a sort-of government entity.

4/16/2011 10:57:54 AM

Quote :

"Ask an inadequate question, get an inadequate answer."

Look smart ass I'm asking how you're defining the term. You said "properly". I have a pre-theoretic notion of "proper"; I want to know if that meshes with yours, and how that differs. Otherwise claiming "markets do it properly" is just saying "I am right". I already know you think you're right. I want to know by what standard; you said "proper", I want to know what you mean by that. If it's defined somewhere else concisely in a way you'd endorse I don't mind reading that either.

4/16/2011 11:06:10 AM

Quote :

""ffuu fuuuh fuuuhhh i'm a huge idiot and i dont like this particular group so i want to ban their speech, but this group I like is fine!""

*makes money by exploiting his employees, turns around and works against their interests politically with said money*

Looks like you're the idiot, but then again, if you woke up you'd realize you're just smelly, fat wage slave and god forbid you figure it out

[Edited on April 16, 2011 at 11:14 AM. Reason : ya fuggin gewn]

4/16/2011 11:09:49 AM

Saying that one bank could get a currency monopoly is saying that one entity could obtain and control every resource on earth. As long as people can labor and make goods, new competitors can arise.

4/16/2011 11:11:48 AM

Quote :

"Saying that one bank could get a currency monopoly is saying that one entity could obtain and control every resource on earth."

Really? As you've pointed out, the federal reserve has a currency monopoly, yet I don't think they have obtained and controlled every resource on earth. You don't have to own the goods, merely control the units they are valued in.

4/16/2011 11:30:15 AM

They got a monopoly via legislation. The U.S. government will jail or murder you if you try to use another unit exchange.

4/16/2011 11:38:58 AM

You stated that getting a monopoly required the entity to obtain and control every resource on earth, which makes no sense. There are many easier methods for an entity to discourage competition, and without a government stopping them, private entities would have no trouble at all from stopping their competitors.

4/16/2011 11:52:17 AM

Quote :

"The U.S. government will jail or murder you if you try to use another unit exchange."

Also this is a myth. You are allowed to make your own paper currency if you like as long as you follow all laws and pay the appropriate taxes.

Now according to you we should have some sort of legitimate competition, right? The only thing I've heard about as far as private currencies was this great example:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2007-09-01/news/FUNNYMONEY01_1_reserve-system-federal-reserve-dollars

4/16/2011 12:06:01 PM

Quote :

"Without the ability of the government to maintain it's own existence, it's likely people would have little faith in their currency."

Why don't you go read a book. Free Banking has existed in history and people accepted such currencies freely, right until they were outlawed in favor of the government monopoly.

4/16/2011 12:12:45 PM

Quote :

"Free Banking has existed in history and people accepted such currencies freely, right until they were outlawed in favor of the government monopoly."

I would blame the financial crisises they caused and their inability to safely expand their currency. By any measure, they sucked.

4/16/2011 12:20:56 PM

How did this thread get so off track, to the minutia of currency? If I remember, the original premise of the tread is that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poor. I contend that the rich have helped implement government policies to aid in increasing the gap (see the above graph on taxes and income distribution).

Self-fulfilling statements like the one below propetuate the myth that everyone is better off leaving money in the hands of the wealthy:

Quote :

"Basically the poor will always spend, assuming the rich will always invest, the problem is when the rich stop investing."

Of course they spend, they don't have extra income (duh). Allow for some discretionary income and my guess is that they will invest too. The biggest distinction between the classes is, that privilege breeds opportunity.

4/16/2011 12:30:41 PM

Quote :

" The biggest distinction between the classes is, that privilege breeds opportunity"

Hard work does too!

4/16/2011 12:36:11 PM

Quote :

"Self-fulfilling statements like the one below propetuate the myth that everyone is better off leaving money in the hands of the wealthy:"

I don't think you understood what I was saying. I was arguing that wealth inequality causes financial instability. The rich, at times, stop investing, causing the poor to lost jobs and not be able to spend money. The poor will always spend money assuming the rich invest. The rich do not always invest even if the poor continue to spend money. We would be better without wealth concentration as it would act to stabilize.

4/16/2011 12:41:24 PM

Quote :

"We would be better without wealth concentration as it would act to stabiliz"

Facts not in evidence.

4/16/2011 12:55:47 PM

Since when did you start caring about evidence?

4/16/2011 1:05:31 PM

wait are you saying the wealthy get rich by savings accounts and guarantees and not risky investments?

4/16/2011 1:13:56 PM

Quote :

"Since when did you start caring about evidence?"

I've always cared. It's why I don't take your postings seriously.

4/16/2011 1:24:05 PM

Quote :

"I think we could all agree on reversing citizens united. now anyone know of any efforts that are underway to do that?"

yeah, who needs the 1st amendment, lol.

Quote :

"If we can take simple steps to prevent these booms and busts, why not do it?"

Yep. We've really done a damned fine job preventing booms and busts, lol

Quote :

"The only thing I've heard about as far as private currencies was this great example:"

I guess the words "Liberty Dollars" doesn't mean anything to you. Basically, they couldn't even prove the guy broke any law, other than making coins that said "liberty". They charged him with counterfeiting, but I've never seen such a coin issued by the US. But they locked him up anyway. OOOH, and guess what they charged him with? TERRORISM!!!

4/16/2011 3:01:14 PM

Quote :

"I've always cared. It's why I don't take your postings seriously."

To be honest I've taken you seriously, despite your best efforts to throw temper tantrums and insults, until you claimed to have evidence you refused to actually present, after that I don't plan to take you any more seriously than I would a child.

Quote :

"Yep. We've really done a damned fine job preventing booms and busts, lol"

We have a widening wealth gap which contributes to the cycle of booms and bust. There are simple steps that could reduce wealth concentration and help to stabilize the economy.

Quote :

"I guess the words "Liberty Dollars" doesn't mean anything to you."

They would have been fine had they not minted coinage.

4/16/2011 5:00:28 PM

Quote :

" until you claimed to have evidence you refused to actually present"

You posted a link of raw data and drew a conclusion that is contradictory to accepted knowledge of world growth after WWII. That is, the US dominated it because we were the only one left standing with a manufacturing base. To be exact, you posted this statement:

Quote :

"Which is irrelevant, no one said the US didn't grow, someone implied that it grew much faster than than those in Europe, which the data shows is wrong"

The link you posted had raw data. There is no way you could just look at that data and draw a conclusion. You'd have to put it in excel or some other tool to compare the nations.

I did this and the conclusion I draw is the one that jives with accepted knowledge, that the US grew much faster than everyone else. MUCH FASTER. I'm not quite sure why you are being such a bitch about me not posting my charts I spent 30+ minutes creating when you clearly had to have done the same thing to draw any conclusion from the data. Post your chart.

4/16/2011 6:07:02 PM

Quote :

"Bobo: The biggest distinction between the classes is, that privilege breeds opportunity. Chance: Hard work does too!"

Are you really trying tell me that beginning in about 1977 the upper 10% of wage earners just decided to start working harder?

Quote :

"Bobo: It's Policy Stupid"

[Edited on April 16, 2011 at 6:22 PM. Reason : *~<]BO]

4/16/2011 6:21:32 PM

Quote :

"Are you really trying tell me that beginning in about 1977 the upper 10% of wage earners just decided to start working harder?"

Maybe there was something starting around then that gave them something to do? Furthermore, did that income "inequality" somehow harm everyone else from improving their lot in life?

4/16/2011 6:30:46 PM

Quote :

"They would have been fine had they not minted coinage."

yep. they would have been fine had they not done something that still wasn't against the law. wait, wat?

Quote :

"We have a widening wealth gap which contributes to the cycle of booms and bust."

ooooh, thaaaaaaat's what causes booms and busts. not government interfering directly in the markets. I mean, it's not like the former has no plausible reason for it to work while the latter makes perfect sense. yep.

4/16/2011 9:20:55 PM

I thought access to credit caused the booms and busts of the economy.

4/17/2011 1:56:47 AM

Quote :

"I'm not quite sure why you are being such a bitch about me not posting my charts"

Because it's really immature to reference data and not post it when I ask. It makes it painfully obvious that you are lying about even having it in the first place.

Quote :

"Furthermore, did that income "inequality" somehow harm everyone else from improving their lot in life?"

It does on the aggregate.

Quote :

"yep. they would have been fine had they not done something that still wasn't against the law."

The US Government has made a great number of coins, they considered it confusing to have one similar. You can read the court's reasoning.

Quote :

"not government interfering directly in the markets"

We had markets that had booms and busts long before we had governments that were organized enough to interfere in markets.

4/17/2011 11:32:03 AM

Quote :

"We had markets that had booms and busts long before we had governments that were organized enough to interfere in markets."

Indeed, it's really about factors like asymmetry of information and the principal-agent problem

also imperfect information

4/17/2011 11:48:35 AM

There will probably always be bubbles, booms and busts, but stimulus has never succeeded in reducing their frequency or duration.

4/17/2011 1:19:59 PM

What we also need is countercyclical action during the boom times

but that has never been popular

[Edited on April 17, 2011 at 1:56 PM. Reason : removing the punch bowl just as the party's getting started

4/17/2011 1:55:57 PM

Quote :

"There will probably always be bubbles, booms and busts"

That's like saying there will always be polio. There will always be booms and busts if we accept that train of thought, but in theory it is possible to weaken them, and even remove them entirely.

Quote :

"What we also need is countercyclical action during the boom times"

I compare it to turning the music down at a party. It's tough to do, someone will always complain and turn it right back up, forcing you to pretty much wait until the cops come. What you have to do in this situation is just get a quieter stereo.

[Edited on April 17, 2011 at 2:02 PM. Reason : ]

4/17/2011 2:00:04 PM

^^That's what the Fed is supposed to do. Instead, when we were experiencing a harsh hangover (bursting of the tech bubble), the Fed said it was time for some more cheap liquor (slashed interest rates). At the time, everyone was hailing Greenspan as a genius, saying that we had avoided a great recession. In reality, the Fed was sowing the seeds for a new bubble. If the housing bubble was the result of 2-4% interest rates, what will be the consequence of prolonged 0% interest rates? This time, the bubble is in treasury bonds, and when it bursts, I think shit will hit the fan.

^Great, we'll get rid of booms and busts when all actors have perfect knowledge. That's a lofty, unrealistic expectation, one that we won't just will into existence.

[Edited on April 17, 2011 at 2:22 PM. Reason : ]

4/17/2011 2:20:42 PM

Quote :

"That's what the Fed is supposed to do."

Then you are asking for the impossible, you'll have to change the system for them to be able to do that.

Quote :

"Great, we'll get rid of booms and busts when all actors have perfect knowledge. That's a lofty, unrealistic expectation, one that we won't just will into existence."

You're setting an unreachable goal, but that doesn't mean we can't make steps towards it. We can have better knowledge if we have less income inequality. It reduces speculation. It's not about "willing" it, it's about actively taking steps to to gain the knowledge and reduce the unpredictability.

4/17/2011 2:33:51 PM

Sure, I'm willing to take some big steps. I'm guessing your solution is to hand over more power to unaccountable central banks that funnel money to the banking elite, who quite literally control governments the world over. I'm speaking of the Fed's primary dealers, before you accuse me of alluding to unknown puppet masters. My solution is to disperse power, moving towards a free banking system that will ultimately result in a more stable monetary system.

[Edited on April 17, 2011 at 2:44 PM. Reason : ]

4/17/2011 2:41:54 PM