Obama To Americans: You Don't Deserve To Be Free
"Obama’s real antagonist is Ayn Rand" - Harry Binswanger.
Bam!
Bam!
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
+1
At the end of the game there is one winner and everyone else is wiped out.
Personally, I'd never support an income or sales tax above 15%. But the SimCity rule maxes out at 20
"They are for individualism–except when they are against it. They are against free markets and individualism not only when they agree with the Left that we must have antitrust laws and the Federal Reserve, but also when they demand immigration controls, government schools, regulatory agencies, Medicare, laws prohibiting abortion, Social Security, “public works” projects, the “social safety net,” laws against insider trading, banking regulation, and the whole system of fiat money."
First, this fool is opposed to immigration controls? Just wide open borders? Then why the HELL have a country at all? Oh, no, China, you can't invade our non-existant borders with your army, we'll keep you out. But, if you want, you can infiltrate the hell out of us and thereby destroy our culture, our economy, our political system.
Second, I favor "anti-trust laws" only to the extent of preventing one business from preventing others from doing business. An example; I would break Wal-mart every time they opened a new store and dropped the prices in that one store to drive out competition, *while absorbing the loss by raising prices in well-established stores*.
I think khalling would agree with my other use for anti-trust; to prevent Bob from cloning an iToy and manufacturing a clone at a lower price, while still allowing Bob to reverse engineer the iToy (ie, learn how it works) and coming up with Bob's Toy as his own design.
I support government schools... provided the government in question is local. I don't support medicare. I don't support social security.
I support abortion laws the same way I support murder laws. The one's initiating violence here are the abortionists. This is where pro-abortionists are blind to their own prejudice. THEY conclude that unborn babies aren't human unless the piece of shit that would kill them says they are, and therefore *I* must reach the same conclusion, or I'm opposed to individualism. I have always opposed abortion for the equal protection aspect; if an abortionist can kill an unborn baby for no greater harm than being funny looking and inconvenient, then I should be allowed to kill illegal aliens for the same reason.
I support laws regarding banking regulation to the same extent and in the same fashion as I stated above for anti-trust laws; to prevent bankers from conspiring to close-out competition, nothing further. Public works I support... so long as, again, the "public" is local. What do I care if the people of Waterford, CT all vote to build a 16 lane superhighway in a circle around the local Wal-mart? I never understood the opposition to insider trading; the only way I'd ever get in the stock market is if I had special knowledge of an affect on a given stock. Anyone who "gambles" on the stock market in my opinion might as well go to Vegas.
I don't know what is meant by "fiat money", but I do want us back on the gold standard.
I "challenge" the FDA; the ESRB does a fine job of censoring video games. It is a non-government board. No one has to belong, no one has to comply in order to create a video game, or even be rated. But... if you want to make a video game for the big 3 (Nintendo, Playstation, X-box), it won't be published without a rating. (which borders on anti-trust, anyway). We don't need a government *regulatory* FDA. I'm fine with the EPA and FDA as advisory boards.
All our money should be backed by some concrete material, be it copper, silver, gold, platinum, or diamond.
And I'm about as far "right" as anyone in the gulch.
In one of Heinlein's stories, people either wore brassards or not. If not, then they weren't "full citizens". If they were, then they were full citizens with all the rights - and responsibilities.
For any perceived slight, a person with a brassard might kill another person with a brassard… the origin of Heinlein's quote, "An armed society is a polite society", IIRC.
Government is force. What difference if it's exercised collectively against the minority, or one-on-one?
I did notice the article quoting what Obama was told did not work, that being capitalism and free markets.. However, the author did not note, that Obama has always been a Marxist, and that has not worked at all at anytime for any people. Name one Marxist government where the worker is free and has prospered.
To some over the cliff, but what Eudaimonia said is correct, with one addition: Barry may have be the spawn of a communist on the FBI watch lit,t who tutored young Barry in communist beliefs, which are anti-capitalist and anti- personal freedom.
So who owns things like apartment buildings?
And who relies on a fixed income?
I'm thinking people are not being affected the same.
I reject all the posts that talk about inflation devaluing things like the price of labor, rent, food, etc. If there is inflation and the nominal price stays the same, the real price actually went down. That would happen regardless of the value of the currency in which you're measuring its value.
Real value comes from people making things that other people want. If the product costs $100 in 2013 USD and $105 in 2014 USD, it doesn't matter. The value is in people going out, finding ways to help other people, and executing.
Inflation is what forces prices to rise every year. Inflation is what forces everyone - including government - to think that they need to get a raise every year because (in fact) they do. But it isn't because of productivity gains, it's just to tread water. Inflation contributes to the entitlement mindset by encouraging people to believe that they are entitled to more and more every year.
Inflation devalues investments. Savings are the backbone of any economy, because it is savings/retained earnings that are used to create new businesses and new jobs. But savings become devalued due to inflation, requiring higher and higher ROI for long-term investments.
Inflation encourages reckless spending. For the same reasons that inflation discourages investment, it encourages spot purchases and consumerism, because if your money isn't going to be worth as much tomorrow as it was today, you are much more likely to spend the money now so as to maximize utility/value!
Inflation undervalues debt. Because money doesn't retain its value, what you can buy on credit now actually becomes less expensive to pay for over the long term when factoring in inflation. So the credit companies have to take this into account and tack on huge interest rates - what they are actually doing is compensating for inflation with higher interest rates.
The institution of the Federal Reserve eliminated competition from a very important sector of business: money and the creation of value. Prior to that, banks were wholly dependent on their reputations to be able to operate. If a bank didn't have the "credit" with another bank, they wouldn't respect their paper money so the patrons were forced to use real bullion for exchange. Real bullion which has an intrinsic value rather the extrinsic value of our current paper currency. That means that no bank bailouts would ever be necessary because the banks would place as their #1 objective and rule of business never to risk the "full faith and credit" (taken from the Constitution) of their business on risky investments!
"Even if the Fed could get 0% inflation, why would we want that."
I've just explained why.
Intrinsic value is always context dependent. Water in the desert has a much higher intrinsic value than gold, while a fur coat may have higher intrinsic value than gold if stranded in the woods in a blizzard.
Unfortunately, our current governmental leaders seem to believe that monetary growth can drive economic growth (this is basic Keynesian economics). This only works in a very short term and ultimately results in much higher inflation than should have occurred due to too much money existing in the economy.
Mark my words and protect your wealth in some hard assets. Stocks, bonds, cash, etc. are soon to suffer from the effects of hyperinflation.
Your definition of money is incorrect. Economic activity happens when parties exchange products or services of value. The number of parties engaged in such activities determine the size of the market but it is independent of money. Money is only a tool that provides a common baseline value for trade, but it is a result of the advancement of trade - not the predecessor of all trade: barter. You are trying to make it so that money itself creates value and trade, which is completely backwards.
As for gold not having intrinsic value, you are greatly mistaken. Gold is valued (and has been historically valued) not only for its scarcity (an inherent determinant of value) but also for its color, malleability, and ease of separation from (and combination with) other metals. In modern times, it is also very valuable as a component in micro-circuitry. Other precious metals also have similar history and use. Silver is still highly desirable for photographic uses as well as being the original true mirror. Copper is the all-purpose carrier of electricity and historically was combined with Zinc to make Bronze - used for tools and weaponry prior to Iron. Platinum is invaluable as a catalyst. Go back further and salt and olive oil were the de facto currencies of Mediterranean Trade. Intrinsic values happen with physical objects - extrinsic values happen with ideals. Paper money has zero intrinsic value - even if you like colored paper airplanes or Origami, that value is extrinsic.
Does scarcity affect value? Absolutely. Value is a composite of scarcity and utility. Both contribute to the total concept of value. But money is and always will be a reflection of value rather than the creation of value.
And I would suggest that you look up the term "stagflation" before trying to assert that the function of inflation can be used as a gauge of economic activity. You might also check out Germany's economy just prior to WWII as a clear example that inflation is not equivalent to a rise or fall in economic activity - merely a consideration that dramatically affects the value of an item when expressed in terms of money.
But let's get back to your original, and false, premise that inflation is not beneficial. In fact, inflation at the rate of economic activity is beneficial and necessary. Excessive inflation (that over the growth of economic activity) is harmful.
You seem to be confusing growth in the money supply with inflation and these are two distinct entities. Inflation is the relative value of a set good or service as expressed in monetary terms from one period to the next. Arguing that inflation is good is saying that somehow a basic good or service has increased in its utility simply because there is more money with which to purchase that good or service. This is absurd: prices are a function of money and its extrinsic value in relation to the goods or services on the market. Basic economics dictate that when demand remains constant, you can't move along the supply-demand curve without SUPPLY changing. Money is not immune to these laws simply because it is money.
Is the value of a gallon of milk (assuming scarcity holds constant) really worth $2 in one time period and $4 in the next? The item hasn't changed in its utility. What has changed is the purchasing power and relative value of the money itself. It is worth less in the second instance (the very definition of inflation) and so more of it is required to purchase the very same commodity. Money simplifies the barter system but is in no way immune from the basic concepts of supply and demand or intrinsic value.
Your observation about the size of the money supply is interesting, but I'm going to challenge the notion that inflation drives its increase. Again, it goes back to the roots of money: we select something to act as money that is portable, rare, and which represents (either intrinsically or extrinsically) a certain value. Inflation destroys value, however, and is largely the product of the ability to create the representation of money - pretty simple to do with paper. So having currency tied to a real asset (like precious metals) acts as a very real limit to inflation simply by preventing the arbitrary creation of money which has no real value - either intrinsic or extrinsic.
Further, the concept that inflation reflects the rate of economic activity is similarly absurd. Inflation represents a difference in monetary value of a given commodity over time - it is not a point-in-time indicator. It can not be used as such. The mere growth in economic activity has no bearing on the value of a gallon of milk, it merely represents a larger population of transactions and is more accurately represented by the number of individuals participating in the market. Why do economists always have to compensate for inflation when comparing the economies of different periods? Simple: inflation is not a causal indicator of market growth but rather an artificial byproduct of monetary policy. Look at the 1970's and early 1980's in the US as an example. We had staggering inflation of up to 14%, yet zero economic growth. Prices went up, yet the market wasn't growing. Then look at the late 1980's - inflation was largely held in check yet the size of economic activity boomed.
You misunderstand the very basic concepts of money, money supply, and economics when you confuse inflation with money or the money supply. Inflation is a product of monetary policy but neither causes nor is caused by economic activity other than growth in the money supply. You can have zero inflation simply by limiting the growth of the money supply to the growth of economic output. If the money supply remained constant while economic activity increased, money would become MORE valuable and not less (deflation).
The reason the government pushes inflation is because inflation devalues debt, and the US is in a heap of debt. Inflation allows the arbitrary reduction in debt without actually paying anything! Inflation is nothing more than value theft.
I strongly encourage you to further study basic economics. I wish high school students were required to study less advanced math and simply understand basic economics and the principle of compound interest. A core understanding of market economics is the backbone of sound decision-making, because at its heart, economics is all about the study of value: value creation, value assignment, and evaluation.
1) backed by a foreign billionaire, child NAZI jewhunter, who has crashed the economies of Poland, Russia, and England and who has said his life's greatest acheivement would be crashing the economy of the US.
2) backed by and launched his political career in the living room of an unconvicted 60's radical Marxist terrorist whose group killed cops, bombed police stations. the Congress, and the Pentagon, whose group advocated 25 million Americans killed in reeducation camps as an acceptable figure, who was found not guilty on a technicality, who has bragged "Guilty as sin, free as a bird", and who is quoted in a 9/11/2001 New York Times book review that he didn't regret setting bombs and that he wishes he did more.
3) backed by the church in which he attended, was married in, and had his children baptised in; a church which preaches Black Liberation Theology, a religious front which teaches racial supremacy and foments Marxist Revolution.
Need I go on?
no, it is not because Barry Soetoro is a "half breed".