|
paragon1 posted:jrod why do you think google spell check refuses to recognize "libertarianism" as a word? Ahahaha god drat.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 04:15 |
|
|
# ? Jun 1, 2024 06:29 |
|
If child labor laws only make poverty worse, and the only reason they seemed to work in the US is because we just happened to become prosperous enough to not need child labor anymore at the exact moment those laws were passed...then why do businesses lobby so hard and spend so much money trying to repeal them? Are these businesses irrational market actors that will soon be driven out of business by plucky competitors who don't waste money lobbying to repeal ineffective laws and pass the savings on to the wily consumer?
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 04:18 |
|
Jrod please tell me why you don't mind that Insurance companies promote pumping women who are giving birth full of unnecessary drugs. Is this a market failing or actually a good thing? Tell me why over 85% of C-sections are performed unnecessarily, Jrod. TELL ME YOU PIECE OF poo poo.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 04:18 |
|
Jrod do you still subscribe to the belief that there are women who get pregnant as a means to collect more welfare?
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 04:22 |
|
theshim posted:Jrod do you still subscribe to the belief that there are women who get pregnant as a means to collect more welfare? Don't forget that it was specifically black women who do this. But Jrod is most definitely not a racist. He loves Tyler Perry movies!
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 04:24 |
theshim posted:Jrod do you still subscribe to the belief that there are women who get pregnant as a means to collect more welfare? Fortunately, Obama has already placed them in federal judgeships.
|
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 04:26 |
|
Closing statement: Thank you, jrod, for this thread. This has been truly entertaining and informative, but not for the reasons you hoped. Still, I'm looking forward to your next thread, especially since Eripsa no longer posts. To everyone else: Thank you for your at times saintly level of patience in trying to debate in good faith. This too has been amazing to read.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 04:31 |
|
Caros posted:Closing arguments. If jrodefeld returns for even a single additional comment his general poo poo posting will have outlasted my marriage. I'm still worried about this
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 04:31 |
|
Just a random thing to throw out there about stuff like child labor laws and the welfare state being predicated on increases in prosperity and productivity resulting from industrial capitalism: this is where we see that jrod cannot distinguish "necessary" from "sufficient."
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 04:31 |
|
VitalSigns posted:If child labor laws only make poverty worse, and the only reason they seemed to work in the US is because we just happened to become prosperous enough to not need child labor anymore at the exact moment those laws were passed...then why do businesses lobby so hard and spend so much money trying to repeal them? We got real lucky with segregation too. Banned it just as racism became such a small problem we didn't really need to ban it anyway. So let's just legalize it again, just for shits and giggles. I'm not a racist, I probably wouldn't ban any people from my businesses (unless they look like the thug gangsters or Arabs), but the government wastes infinity trillion dollars stopping segregation, so lets just legalize it, mkay?
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 04:32 |
|
Hey, someone made Jrod's AV more honest! Fake edit: It was me, I did it. I have $80 in the bank that I will use AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN until it's gone for him to keep that AV
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 04:32 |
|
jrodefeld posted:I'd hope you'd agree with me that a good job with a good wage is more valuable to a poor person than being dependent on a State hand-out. Thanks to depending on State handouts: the GI Bill, Pell Grants, and Stafford Loans I was able to go to school for a STEM degree that netted me a good job with a good wage and now through my taxes I am doing this: jrodefeld posted:just restitution would require that he pay the baker back when he is in a position to do so. In fact, most decent people would gladly provide a starving person with a loaf of bread with an agreement to be payed back later. Win-loving-win-win for me and the state and society. I used government programs to get a good wage and now a high-skilled productive worker is contributing to the economy where one didn't exist before and the state has is making back its investment in me and more so it can fund education for the next cohort of students.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 04:34 |
|
Juffo-Wup posted:I'm still worried about this Same here. Please be okay, Caros.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 04:35 |
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:Hey, someone made Jrod's AV more honest! text should have read "I challenged dickeye to a fight and was too cowardly to show."
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 04:37 |
|
DrProsek posted:We got real lucky with segregation too. Banned it just as racism became such a small problem we didn't really need to ban it anyway. So let's just legalize it again, just for shits and giggles. I'm not a racist, I probably wouldn't ban any people from my businesses (unless they look like the thug gangsters or Arabs), but the government wastes infinity trillion dollars stopping segregation, so lets just legalize it, mkay? These strange coincidences happen a lot and they trick people into thinking the government helped instead of having a psychic ability to swoop in and take credit at the most opportune time. For example, mush-brained statists credit the Pure Food and Drug Act because they look at the sudden disappearance of cough medicine containing antifreeze and conclude it must have been the government, when first principles will tell you it's because engaged consumers picked that moment to decide they demanded medicine that didn't kill their children and voted with their wallets. These deaths persist in countries without strong enforcement of drug purity probably because their culture just doesn't value the lives of children so parents don't mind poisoning them.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 04:40 |
|
jrodefeld posted:I've explained this to you many times over the course of this thread, but I'll try once again. a] Nolanar posted:Let's play the syllogism game! b] You're a manchild who refuses to ever admit fault or deficit in anything and your grandparents should be loving ashamed of themselves for enabling your cowardice.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 04:41 |
|
TLM3101 posted:Same here. Breakups are never pretty, divorces even less so. Still, that is what whiskey is for. Sweet, sweet whisky.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 04:52 |
|
Caros posted:Breakups are never pretty, divorces even less so. Still, that is what whiskey is for. Sweet, sweet whisky.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 04:58 |
|
jrod look what you've done
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 04:59 |
|
Juffo-Wup posted:jrod look what you've done There is nothing he can't ruin.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 05:04 |
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Jrod, it would really benefit you to get information from sources beyond Mises.org. Simple research shows you to be completely out of your depth on basically every topic. I get information from other sources and I'm well aware of the conventional narrative. But you are making some errors here, the first of which is your assertion that the Great Depression was "the ultimate climax of the old laissez faire order". This is a rhetorical trick that is designed to make us forget that the Federal Reserve had been in existence for twenty years prior to this crisis intervening into the economy and expanding bank credit, especially in the "roaring" twenties. This is hardly an example of "laissez faire" and the Austrian explanation of the business cycle blames central banking and expansionary monetary policy for creating an artificial boom due to malinvestment which leads to an inevitable crash. This is what Ludwig von Mises blamed for the Great Depression, so to claim that we had a libertarian "laissez-faire" economy for the decade or two before the Great Depression is dishonest. So be clear that the Great Depression occurred under the Fed's watch and no economic crisis that occurred before the Fed was established could compare in either length or severity. Furthermore, your contention that economic crises before the fed were "far more frequent and far more severe" is misleading. In the first place, you conveniently choose to start counting after the Great Depression so as to implicate the free market as having caused the greatest economic crisis in US history. But remember that libertarians and Austrian economists blame primarily central banking and artificial credit expansion for causing the business cycle, so you ought to be looking at pre-Fed and post-Fed periods not pre and post Great Depression. Christina Romer, hardly a libertarian, found in her research that the numbers and dating used by the National Bureau of Economic Research exaggerated both the number and the length of economic downturns prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve. Contrary to your contention that the economic crises were "far more severe" before the Fed, economist George Selgin stated that they were "three months shorter on average and no more severe". The average peak to bottom was 7.7 months before the Fed as opposed to 10.6 in the period after World War 2. http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WorkingPaper-2.pdf The economist Richard Timberlake said "As monetary histories confirm,...most of the monetary turbulence - bank panics and suspensions in the 19th century - resulted from excessive issues of the legal tender paper money, and they were abated by the working gold standards of the time." https://books.google.com/books?id=y...20time.&f=false Even many mainstream economists have been reconsidering the narrative that was commonplace a few decades ago about the economic volatility before the Fed. But, setting aside the issue of recessions for a moment, what about the value of the currency as a predictable store of value? During the entire period of the Gold Standard, through all the unprecedented economic growth, the value of the currency grew by 7%. This is a boon to savers who could accumulate dollars and simply put them away knowing that they will maintain or appreciate in value simply by saving them. Economic calculation could be made more predictably since the value of the currency was relatively stable. Even John Kenneth Galbraith, no libertarian or fan of gold, had it correct: “In the last [19th] century in the industrial countries there was much uncertainty as to whether a man could get money but very little as to what it would do for him once he had it. In this [20th] century the problem of getting money, though it remains considerable, has diminished. In its place has come a new uncertainty as to what money, however acquired and accumulated, will be worth. Once, to have an income reliably denominated in money was thought…to be very comfortable. Of late, to have a fixed income is to be thought liable to impoverishment that may not be slow. What has happened to money?” And the gold standard serves to create a limit on the expansion of the State, which is one reason why it is attractive to those who want a hard limit on the expansion of State power. I think it is important to note hear that there were many shortcomings to the classical gold standard that we had in the 19th century and virtually no libertarians want an exact copy of those policies. We seek a new, 21st century hard money, or even the de-nationalization of money as Hayek proposed. Mistakes were undoubtedly made in the implementation and adherence to the gold standard in the 19th century, and we want to improve upon what we had then. I've always wondered why there wasn't a popular left-wing "hard money" movement. Why wouldn't an independent, un-electable and audit-free group of private bankers having the power to expand the money supply at will and give low interest loans to private businesses and government not tend towards corruption and the enrichment of a privileged class at the expense of the middle class? This is in fact exactly what libertarians have been arguing. If you care for accountability in government whatsoever, there ought to be some limit to how much the money supply can be expanded on a whim. There is nothing special about gold inherently. It is simply a shiny metal and any other commodity or other mechanism which imposes discipline on monetary policy could suffice. Gold simply has a history of being chosen as money when people had the free choice of currency. It satisfies the requirements of money, being that it is divisible, durable, portable, scarce, etc. So I'll just ask this question because I am genuinely curious. Forgetting the historical gold standard, why don't the left support a mechanism which limits the expansion of the money supply in order to limit inflation and curtail the enrichment of the corporate class and the endless expansion of the State? This, to me, seems like a very Progressive cause since this is one of the biggest drivers of inequality and corporate privilege.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 05:08 |
|
"you guys just yelled about what a shitheap cato was, lemme just link some more cato garbage, because i'm a fuckin retard baby shitfucker and a pussy and a bitch" - jrode, irl
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 05:14 |
|
jrodefeld posted:So I'll just ask this question because I am genuinely curious. Forgetting the historical gold standard, why don't the left support a mechanism which limits the expansion of the money supply in order to limit inflation and curtail the enrichment of the corporate class and the endless expansion of the State? This, to me, seems like a very Progressive cause since this is one of the biggest drivers of inequality and corporate privilege. A lot of leftists would probably support significant democratic oversight of a central bank. And I think you'll find that to the extent that someone thinks the private ownership of capital should be abolished altogether, they're not going to desperately looking for some mechanism by which to limit capital accumulation by the wealthy. Fixing the money supply to some commodity only reduces democratic control of the economy. This seems fairly clear.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 05:14 |
|
jrodefeld posted:I get information from other sources and I'm well aware of the conventional narrative. But you are making some errors here, the first of which is your assertion that the Great Depression was "the ultimate climax of the old laissez faire order". This is a rhetorical trick that is designed to make us forget that the Federal Reserve had been in existence for twenty years prior to this crisis intervening into the economy and expanding bank credit, especially in the "roaring" twenties. This is hardly an example of "laissez faire" and the Austrian explanation of the business cycle blames central banking and expansionary monetary policy for creating an artificial boom due to malinvestment which leads to an inevitable crash. This is what Ludwig von Mises blamed for the Great Depression, so to claim that we had a libertarian "laissez-faire" economy for the decade or two before the Great Depression is dishonest. Cool avatar, dude.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 05:16 |
|
jrodefeld posted:So I'll just ask this question because I am genuinely curious. Forgetting the historical gold standard, why don't the left support a mechanism which limits the expansion of the money supply in order to limit inflation and curtail the enrichment of the corporate class and the endless expansion of the State? This, to me, seems like a very Progressive cause since this is one of the biggest drivers of inequality and corporate privilege. We'll answer this after you answer why you support slave states and economic policies that inevitably lead to literal, actual chattel slavery? (It's because you are a racist who loves slavery)
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 05:17 |
|
jrodefeld posted:I get information from other sources... No, you get the secondary sources that Mises.org rarely uses (and deliberately misuses) to reinforce their arguments you blubbering man-child. jrodefeld posted:...and I'm well aware of the conventional narrative. But you are making some errors here, the first of which is your assertion that the Great Depression was "the ultimate climax of the old laissez faire order". This is a rhetorical trick that is designed to make us forget that the Federal Reserve had been in existence for twenty years prior to this crisis intervening into the economy and expanding bank credit, especially in the "roaring" twenties. This is hardly an example of "laissez faire" and the Austrian explanation of the business cycle blames central banking and expansionary monetary policy for creating an artificial boom due to malinvestment which leads to an inevitable crash. This is what Ludwig von Mises blamed for the Great Depression, so to claim that we had a libertarian "laissez-faire" economy for the decade or two before the Great Depression is dishonest. "Those historians don't know what their talking about!"
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 05:17 |
|
How much gold did Ron Paul sell you jrod?
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 05:17 |
|
GunnerJ posted:Cool avatar, dude. Whoever did that is my new favorite person.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 05:18 |
|
jrodefeld posted:the Austrian explanation of the business cycle blames central banking and expansionary monetary policy for creating an artificial boom due to malinvestment which leads to an inevitable crash. This is what Ludwig von Mises blamed for the Great Depression It's hardly the only thing he was wrong about.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 05:19 |
|
I stand corrected: bald assertions and citations of the closed, self-referential von Mises ecosystem.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 05:19 |
|
Who What Now posted:Whoever did that is my new favorite person. Twerkteam Pizza posted:Hey, someone made Jrod's AV more honest!
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 05:19 |
|
You're a cool, person, Twerkteam. If you're ever in the Lansing area I'll buy you a drink. Edit: We should get a gang tag. The J-Crew.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 05:22 |
|
Who What Now posted:You're a cool, person, Twerkteam. If you're ever in the Lansing area I'll buy you a drink. I really want someone to make one that's "The J-Rod Hit-Squad" myself. I'll hit you up with a PM if I'm ever in the area.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 05:27 |
|
jrodefeld posted:I've always wondered why there wasn't a popular left-wing "hard money" movement. Why wouldn't an independent, un-electable and audit-free group of private bankers having the power to expand the money supply at will and give low interest loans to private businesses and government not tend towards corruption and the enrichment of a privileged class at the expense of the middle class? This is in fact exactly what libertarians have been arguing. If you care for accountability in government whatsoever, there ought to be some limit to how much the money supply can be expanded on a whim. There is nothing special about gold inherently. It is simply a shiny metal and any other commodity or other mechanism which imposes discipline on monetary policy could suffice. Gold simply has a history of being chosen as money when people had the free choice of currency. It satisfies the requirements of money, being that it is divisible, durable, portable, scarce, etc. The Federal Reserve does not expand the money supply at will and has in fact not set target ranges for money supply growth in over 15 years.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 05:30 |
|
Bryter posted:The Federal Reserve does not expand the money supply at will and has in fact not set target ranges for money supply growth in over 15 years. Wow, that whole argument was taken down in the length of a loving tweet. Jrod your response?
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 05:31 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Even John Kenneth Galbraith, no libertarian or fan of gold, had it correct: “In the last [19th] century in the industrial countries there was much uncertainty as to whether a man could get money but very little as to what it would do for him once he had it. In this [20th] century the problem of getting money, though it remains considerable, has diminished. In its place has come a new uncertainty as to what money, however acquired and accumulated, will be worth. Once, to have an income reliably denominated in money was thought…to be very comfortable. Of late, to have a fixed income is to be thought liable to impoverishment that may not be slow. What has happened to money?” This man is wrong. Annual inflation and deflation under the gold standard was more wildly unpredictable and significant under the gold standard than under modern financial policy. Generally speaking in modern terms you can know that once you have money it will be worth tomorrow more or less exactly what it is worth today. Over the long term you know it will lose about 2-3% a year but that consistency is actually exactly what this asshat is talking about. You can make an argument that money losing its value like that is 'bad' but replacing it with wild financial swings that can be up to 20% up or down in a year based on supply of shiny rocks is absurd. Caros fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Feb 16, 2016 |
# ? Feb 16, 2016 05:37 |
|
Literally The Worst posted:hi jrode remember this post Read your own posts aloud and you'll see why I generally ignore them. But I'll make an exception because you touched on something I'd wanted to talk about anyway. I worked jobs as a teenager. I had a paper route when I was 13. When I was 16 or so, I worked at McDonald's, hardly a cushy position. I worked at Taco Bell and I worked at Ralph's grocery stores. I worked at or slightly above minimum wage during those years. It didn't matter that much to me. I got a bit of money and saved some of it. I had some disposable income and got to hang out with my friends at work. I got a few pay raises but I never stayed at one job long enough to work my way up in any one establishment. But it is flatly untrue that there isn't a path upward in even retail companies. Every manager I ever talked to during those years started as a regular employee and worked their way up until they were making $30 an hour or whatever they made as manager. Now, nobody is claiming that managing a Taco Bell is the height of accomplishment, but management skills certainly translate to other occupations. To claim that these starter jobs are worthless because there is no upward mobility and other, higher paying employers don't care one bit about your early work history is flatly false. I got my first real, legitimate good job when I was 21 and still in college. Flipping burgers at McDonald's didn't translate "directly" skills-wise to what I was asked to do, but my references I believe proved the difference. The job was a computer engineer position, where I had to work with AutoCAD, do surveying and plot construction for a company that built buildings and managed construction in the town I lived in for a while. A bit of everything. The job paid $23 an hour, which is not bad for a 21 year old kid. I could pick my own hours, do the work on my own time. If I wanted to work 20 hours one week I could. If I wanted to work 40 the next and any time in between I could. No bosses looking over my shoulder, I got to chill in an air conditioned room listening to music and working on a computer, or take a company car around taking pictures and listening to music while I surveyed construction sites or took pictures. I needed some elementary computer skills, which I had just picked up on my own, no degree or certification required. It was a pretty sweet job at that time in my life and I was sad to have to let it go when I moved after a year or so. But I don't think for a minute that I would have gotten that job without the stellar references I had accumulated during my teenage years. There are all kinds of reasons why an employer will choose one applicant over another. All other things being equal, the person who at twenty one already has a work history of over half a dozen jobs and stellar recommendations has a substantial advantage over another person who is applying for his or her first job. Believe me, any idiot could have quickly gotten the skills necessary to do that $23 an hour job. You don't need a college degree or substantial technical training in order to get any decent paying job. I learned a lot of it on the job because they were willing to take a chance that I could do so. But I can guarantee one thing. If the minimum wage was $15 an hour when I was a teenager, I wouldn't have gotten any of those jobs. I wouldn't have had any money saved up by the time I was in my twenties, and I probably wouldn't have gotten that good job at 21. Kicking out the first rung on the economic ladder doesn't really help people who need a first job before they can get a better job.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 05:38 |
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:Hey, someone made Jrod's AV more honest! Be wary, that's economic coercion, my friend!
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 05:39 |
|
The Cato institute ranked slave states more economically free than the US of A, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't uncritically rely on whatever they say about the economic history of the depression
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 05:39 |
|
|
# ? Jun 1, 2024 06:29 |
|
Instead of using gold for literally anything else, let us hoard it in large caverns underground, so we can enjoy its stability:
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 05:42 |