|
HP Artsandcrafts posted:The two biggest issues with the gold standard that I can think of is: The most idiotic thing about the gold standard is...why gold, specifically? The arguments are bullshit. It has intrinsic value - Well so does almost everything else. Hey, iron has intrinsic value let's have an iron standard. How about wood? Wood has intrinsic value let's have a wood standard. Well, hmm...shirts also have intrinsic value let's have a shirt standard! Certain kinds of animal poo poo are really useful as fertilizer and people will buy it let's base our currency on literal poo poo! What about elephants? People buy and sell those! The advantage of fiat currency with a controlled supply is that you're on an everything standard. If you want money you sell something - literally anything - that has value to somebody else. That thing could be nothing more than your time. It takes power away from the central bank by tightly tying financial power to a specific asset. No loving poo poo and it hands power to whoever controls the gold. I'd sure as hell be more willing to trust a government that has at least some accountability to the people than some rich bastard that has power just because he has a bunch of shiny poo poo in a vault somewhere and no accountability to anybody but himself. A government-run central bank ultimately has its policy affected by elected officials that want to be reelected so of loving course they're going to care what the people think. Richy McGoldpants gives no shits. The other snag is that since gold is mined the only people that can actually produce more of it are people that own land with gold in it. Once again you're giving Richy McGoldpants power over everybody else.
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 12:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 09:52 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What do you think is driving inequality over the last couple decades? You have to draw a clear distinction between market entrepreneurs and political opportunists. The larger the State grows the greater is the incentive for market entrepreneurs to eschew concern for consumers and rely upon State privilege to gain and grow their wealth. Under political crony capitalism the wealth of the capitalists does frequently come at the expense of the middle class and poor. This is the opposite of market entrepreneurship, where the satisfaction of the consumer is paramount. Inequality is much less because those that become wealthy must be bringing along others with them since they add value and regular people direct production lines and capital investment based upon their purchasing decisions. Ah, Jrod. The master of the "just-so" argument. He'll make wild and crazy assertions and then doesn't back them up. But never you worry, because underneath his assertions lies a logic that relies almost entirely on the "no-true-Scotsman" school of argument. Namely, the people causing problems today aren't the people he's championing, and they would have no reason to gently caress things up. Of course, where will these so called Crony Capitalists go when the State is dismantled and Jrod gets his victory? Or is it possible... Honestly JRod, why aren't any of the things you're saying will happen actually happening today? That's the question you have to answer. In today's society, it's quite possible to have "market entrepreneurship." After all, that's how Walmart became so successful. They provide a service at a perceived lower price, and people are willing to go there in droves. Walmart doesn't present itself as a high end retailer. You're not going to go to Walmart and find expensive designer dresses, high end computers, or a Lamborghini on sale. You keep ignoring that money is power. Even your "Market Entrepreneurs" need money to be powerful. After all, the money money I have, the more goods I can produce and sell, the more competition I could buy out, the more locations I can have. I want people to have enough money to buy my stuff, but why would I want them to become more wealthy? As long as they have just enough to buy what I'm selling, they're rich enough for me. There's no reason why I need to bring people up. I just need to stay in business. You keep using these verbal shorthands to defend your position, without doing any of the investigation that needs to go into this. But there's nothing behind what you're saying. quote:Because nearly every negative economic phenomenon in the past thirty to forty years that progressives attribute to deregulation and free markets has much more to do with loose monetary policy at the Federal Reserve. You ought to lay much of the blame at the feet of Alan Greenspan and a great deal with Ben Bernanke as well. These aren't arguments. These are just bold assertions. But you don't actually support it. You just say "this is so" and then leave us to try and figure out why you think that way. Do you know why people call you a parrot? It's because you do stuff like this all the time. You make completely unsupported claims and treat them as fact without explaining why. You don't support what you say. jrodefeld posted:I personally think Marxist class analysis theory is entirely absurd. Marx was correct in viewing the State as a tool of oppression by a ruling elite, but he was dead wrong in thinking that the employee/employer relationship is by definition exploitative. The potential for profits is the interest owned to the entrepreneur for assuming all the risk in new, untested ideas. Without the potential for profit, innovation will dry up and the economy will stagnate. What the gently caress are you talking about here? This is so full of jargon that it jumps full steam into total nonsense. And also, let's highlight something else you do a lot. You'll say "Hey, there could be other ways that people can try out" without actually explaining those other ways. It's like you don't understand how normal business relationships work. Most people can't be entrepreneurs. I don't have an amazing idea for business, I don't have the resources to pull together a business, I don't have any skills that could lead me to create a new product. I will be an employee. I'm a totally mediocre person, and I'm willing to accept that. And most people are in the same boat. It takes a lot to run a successful business. And yes, it takes some daring. But it's not like I'm not risking my life savings because of my time preference. I'm not risking my life savings because I realize it would be a stupid idea for me. As for other means other than wage labor, what means are there? I know of slavery and feudalism, and neither of which seems preferable to wage labor. I mean, with wage labor, I am not dependent on my current employer to live. I can easily start another job. If I was a slave, well, I'd be property and thus would not be able to change careers. And if I depended on them for housing and food, once again, leaving would be much more difficult. I could afford to take a few months off because I have money that I can trade for other goods and services. Stop being so broad and open ended, and saying "Hey, maybe there's new innovative ways of doing things that should be tried" and tell us what you're thinking of that can't be tried in the modern system. You're not giving us an argument. You're giving us a sales pitch. jrodefeld posted:If I think that Molyneux or Hoppe or Rothbard have made a good argument, I will cite their argument. What I won't do is waste my time defending other people against your accusations. The reason I'd prefer to speak about other libertarians is that you will not be content to deal with the substance of the libertarian argument and instead you focus on the personalities. The fact that I am trying to further the debate does not mean I have conceded to all your claims. But the reality is many of you are no longer arguing in good faith. When I say "Rothbard made this argument" and you, instead of arguing on the merits of that specific argument, instead go off on tangents about how horrible you think Rothbard was as an individual, or some other quote of his that you claim I must immediately answer for, I'm not going to play that game. Do you know why people bring up the terrible things Molyneux or Hoppe or Rothbard have said? Because it permeates their work. When you hear the things Molyneux says about women, you can't divorce that from his other views so easily. When you hear him saying "Hey, being a wife is a job and you shouldn't get money in a divorce" (a very broad paraphrase, but accurate), you can't turn to his thoughts on how business should be organize and say "Yeah, see, this is the good stuff." People's lives aren't neat little compartments. If somebody is an extreme racist, then you think their ideas on how society will be structured is influenced by that. For example, you don't see vegetarians counting Hitler as one of their own. I've yet to see a vegetarian say "Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. If eating meat disgust the worst guy in the world, then why are you still eating meat?" It's not like Hitler's vegetarianism makes it a bad idea, but quoting Hitler's thoughts on meat-eating isn't likely to convince people who understand the type of person he was in other areas of his life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 14:59
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Do you know why people bring up the terrible things Molyneux or Hoppe or Rothbard have said? Because it permeates their work. When you hear the things Molyneux says about women, you can't divorce that from his other views so easily. When you hear him saying "Hey, being a wife is a job and you shouldn't get money in a divorce" (a very broad paraphrase, but accurate), you can't turn to his thoughts on how business should be organize and say "Yeah, see, this is the good stuff." People's lives aren't neat little compartments. If somebody is an extreme racist, then you think their ideas on how society will be structured is influenced by that. Of course, you also have to ask yourself how awful their views are in the context of their time. Keynes held some views that people would regard as bad now, but they were pretty run of the mill when he was alive. Hoppe though? He lived through the post-war era. There's no excuse to be such an abominable poo poo.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:
He's co-opting Proudhon, who coined the expression "property is theft" in order to defend his property is everything 'philosophy'. He'll say anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:His criticism addresses it in the technical sense though, since exploitation is rate of the removal of surplus value by the exploiter, which he here is taking to be justified. Right, but he's attaching to it an essential normativity that it doesn't really possess. There's a difference between saying that exploitation isn't happening versus saying that it's justified.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Also, when he says that racism is a collectivist idea, he's stealing that from Ron Paul. Who, like most libertarians, is an ardent racist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Well, hmm...shirts also have intrinsic value let's have a shirt standard! Fashion changes too quickly, a shirt standard would be too volatile. God.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Fashion changes too quickly, a shirt standard would be too volatile. God. How about cocaine or heroin or opium? Perhaps carob-seeds?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:How about cocaine or heroin or opium? Gun barrels.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
We need a counter-cyclical currency that inflates during bad economic times. Justified police shootings of unarmed minorities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Gun barrels. Not as easily carried or traded. A bullet based currency is obviously the only solution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Not as easily carried or traded. A bullet based currency is obviously the only solution. Come, look! Try and buy!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Not as easily carried or traded. A bullet based currency is obviously the only solution. Valhalla DRO has flourished using a commodities basket of bullets, narcotics, and guzzoline, and I see no reason to change that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
You can have .38 nickles, .22 dimes, .45 quarters, .50 dollars. It's perfect!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You can have .38 nickles, .22 dimes, .45 quarters, .50 dollars. It's perfect! Dammit, the dissolution of the state was our one chance to make dimes not be the smallest anymore, and you hosed it all up. This is statist tyranny, is what it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You can have .38 nickles, .22 dimes, .45 quarters, .50 dollars. It's perfect! penny buckshot
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Not as easily carried or traded. A bullet based currency is obviously the only solution. Nice try barry soetoero. You'd love to turn my ammo into currency. Then when you flood the market with all the ammo DOJ has been hoarding (leading to the ammo shortage!) you'll both depreciate my holdings, and lure me to the wal-mart to buy more ammo, so you can photograph my license plates. Which you forced me to put on my truck in the first place!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Nice try barry soetoero. You'd love to turn my ammo into currency. Then when you flood the market with all the ammo DOJ has been hoarding (leading to the ammo shortage!) you'll both depreciate my holdings, and lure me to the wal-mart to buy more ammo, so you can photograph my license plates. Ammo which you'd purchase with… more ammo. Wait what?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Ammo which you'd purchase with… more ammo. Wait what? Direct deposit. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
You’re a wizard, Harry,” Hagrid said. “And you’re coming to Hogwarts.” “What’s Hogwarts?” Harry asked. “It’s wizard school.” “It’s not a public school, is it?” “No, it’s privately run.” “Good. Then I accept. Children are not the property of the state; everyone who wishes to do so has the right to offer educational goods or services at a fair market rate. Let us leave at once.” *** “Malfoy bought the whole team brand-new Nimbus Cleansweeps!” Ron said, like a poor person. “That’s not fair!” “Everything that is possible is fair,” Harry reminded him gently. “If he is able to purchase better equipment, that is his right as an individual. How is Draco’s superior purchasing ability qualitatively different from my superior Snitch-catching ability?” “I guess it isn’t,” Ron said crossly. Harry laughed, cool and remote, like if a mountain were to laugh. “Someday you’ll understand, Ron.” *** Professor Snape stood at the front of the room, sort of Jewishly. “There will be no foolish wand-waving or silly incantations in this class. As such, I don’t expect many of you to appreciate the subtle science and exact art that is potion-making. However, for those select few who possess, the predisposition…I can teach you how to bewitch the mind and ensnare the senses. I can tell you how to bottle fame, brew glory, and even put a stopper in death.” Harry’s hand shot up. “What is it, Potter?” Snape asked, irritated. “What’s the value of these potions on the open market?” “What?” “Why are you teaching children how to make these valuable products for ourselves at a schoolteacher’s salary instead of creating products to meet modern demand?” “You impertinent boy–“ “Conversely, what’s to stop me from selling these potions myself after you teach us how to master them?” “I–“ “This is really more of a question for the Economics of Potion-Making, I guess. What time are econ lessons here?” “We have no economics lessons in this school, you ridiculous boy.” Harry Potter stood up bravely. “We do now. Come with me if you want to learn about market forces!” The students poured into the hallway after him. They had a leader at last. *** Harry and Ron stood before the Mirror of Erised. “My God,” Ron said. “Harry, it’s your dead parents.” Harry’s eyes flicked momentarily over to the mirror. “So it is. This information is neither useful nor productive. Let us leave at once, to assist Hagrid in his noble enterprise of raising as many dragon eggs as he sees fit, in spite of our country’s unjust dragon-trading restrictions.” “But it’s your parents, Harry,” Ron said. Ron never really got it. Harry sighed. “The fundamental standard for all relationships is the trader principle, Ron.” “I don’t understand,” Ron said. “Of course you don’t,” said Harry affectionately. “This principle holds that we should interact with people on the basis of the values we can trade with them – values of all sorts, including common interests in art, sports or music, similar philosophical outlooks, political beliefs, sense of life, and more. Dead people have no value according to the trader principle.” “But they gave birth to y–“ “I made myself, Ron,” Harry said firmly. *** “Give me your wand, boy,” Voldemort hissed. “I cannot do that. This wand represents my wealth, which is itself a tangible result of my achievements. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think,” Harry said bravely. Voldemort gasped. “There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist.” Voldemort began to melt. Harry lit a cigarette, because he was the master of fire. “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. The minimum wage is a tax on the successful. The market will naturally dictate the minimum wage without the government stepping in to determine arbitrary limits.” Voldemort howled. “I’m going to sell copies of my wand at an enormous markup,” Harry said, “and you can buy one like everyone else.” Voldemort had been defeated. “He hated us for our freedom,” Ron said. “No, Ron,” Harry said. “He hated us for our free markets.” Hermione ached with desire for the both of them to master her, but nobody paid her any attention. They had empires to build. http://the-toast.net/2014/05/27/ayn-rands-harry-potter-sorcerers-stone/
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:You’re a wizard, Harry,” Hagrid said. “And you’re coming to Hogwarts.” This is the greatest thing to happen to this thread in ages.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Read all 7, its glorious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
LowellDND posted:Read all 7, its glorious. In fact, just read everything Mallory Ortberg makes in general.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
The Toast is the best site. They had a list of books every white man owns, and it hit so many of mine it wasn't funny. They do a lot of rand jokes too
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
LowellDND posted:Read all 7, its glorious. It's like Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, except consciously satire!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Not as easily carried or traded. A bullet based currency is obviously the only solution. I proposed this idea a couple years ago in one of the bitcoin threads, I think. Metro 2033 actually has it being used, I was surprised to learn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 09:42
|
|
|
This is what jrod's mommy read him before bedtime when he was a kid, 5 years ago. Explains a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Voldemort began to melt. Harry lit a cigarette, because he was the master of fire. This was the sentence that let me know the aegis of satire had descended on somebody who isn't me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 14:03
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:“He hated us for our freedom,” Ron said. Oh god I can't breathe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
In actual factual news, the DoJ is using its subpoena powers to find the identity of reason.com commenters who said nasty things about federal judges, http://popehat.com/2015/06/08/depar...-at-reason-com/ . Most of the comments were of the that person is first against the wall. This ought to be a fun legal fight to watch. By definition, Reason pretty much has to fight the man. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
Wasn't Reason the magazine that had a special Holocaust Denialism issue, with articles written by hardcore deniers?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 11:25
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:Wasn't Reason the magazine that had a special Holocaust Denialism issue, with articles written by hardcore deniers? Teach the controversy, bro.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 12:21
|
|
|
Weren't they also apartheid apologists a la Rothbard? "Cut the National Party government some slack, they're doing the best they can what with all those negroes and their inferior time preferences!" They're basically an edgier version of the Economist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
The only thing I can remember wrt to Reason is that idiotic GTA V cover they did with the 3d printed gun 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Weren't they also apartheid apologists a la Rothbard? "Cut the National Party government some slack, they're doing the best they can what with all those negroes and their inferior time preferences!" Only when they could find time from belittling/denying the Holocaust.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Only when they could find time from belittling/denying the Holocaust. Look, just because Reason Magazine hired a bunch of Nazi sympathizers, like Austin App, to write articles for them, and then promoted those articles, effectively giving Nazism a platform, doesn't mean Reason supports Nazism. I feel like you're focused too much on what Reason is denying, like the Holocaust, and you aren't focused on what they aren't denying, like the natural superiority of Libertarian ideas. edit: and didn't your mother tell you to never judge a man by the company he keeps? Just because Libertarians can't seem to stop associating themselves with Nazis and other racists doesn't mean we should judge Libertarianism for it. Like Aristotle said, never judge men by their actions, only by their words and thoughts. Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
So I keep hearing from right-wingers a lot about how the Fed keeping interest rates low and that QE stuff is actually the TRUE form of trickle-down economics because it ends up helping the rich substantially. I don't know much about monetary policy, but I assumed that while it may be true that the rich benefit from this, jacking up interest rates would result in hurting the non-rich moreso. Yay or nay?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:So I keep hearing from right-wingers a lot about how the Fed keeping interest rates low and that QE stuff is actually the TRUE form of trickle-down economics because it ends up helping the rich substantially. I don't know much about monetary policy, but I assumed that while it may be true that the rich benefit from this, jacking up interest rates would result in hurting the non-rich moreso. Yay or nay? People who are against quantitative easing are generally against inflation in general, even extremely low, sustainable, good-for-the-economy levels of inflation. These people usually want a deflationary economy, which is great for rich people who have a lot of money and bad for poor people who don't. Interest rates are a separate but related issue; it's possible to control interest rates with other, sometimes less effective mechanisms. Higher interest rates are good for people giving loans (the rich) and bad for people asking for loans (the poor and middle class). There are a lot of other complications to consider, but really the net result is the poor and middle class getting hosed by significantly higher interest rates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 09:52 |
|
|
Is there any part of Libertopia that doesn't boil down to "Rich people benefit; middle class and poor people get hosed?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:59
|
|