You're right! I totally should be given the "freedom" to be fired because of the color of my skin, because of my religion, or because of my sexual orientation!
Yes, I would prefer to return to pre-1930 policies where the government did not decide the winners and losers in the economy.
You mean ones where massive depression happens, and they do nothing? Ones where they allow millions to stay out of work and starve in the streets? Or how about the ones where they allow business to run roughshod over their employers, fucking them over at their will?
And if you honestly think that they "didn't pick winners and losers" prior to 1930, I have to posit that you're either an idiot, or just ignorant of history. Look into the Robber Barons. Look into the Railroad barons. The idea that they didn't do any of that is laughable.
If by "greatest growth", you mean "extended the Depression by approximately 7 years due to incompetent policies", then sure.
Do some more research. After implementation of FDR's programs, GDP was growing, unemployment was shrinking. It wasn't until Republicans in Congress cut funding to all those programs in 1937 that the US fell back into depression. They tried to get them started again, but things stayed where they were until WWII.
The funny thing is that due to global circumstances (such as the US being pretty much the only developed country not devastated by WWII, thus being the main source of goods to the countries that were rebuilding) we grew that much despite incompetent politicians
If you notice, the Middle Class only grew due to the strong presence of unions, which ensured that the workers were treated fairly. Without them, it's very possible that it would be another "growth" where only those on top felt any benefit.
imagine how much we'd have grown if we hadn't had FDR (aka the worst president in history) fucking things up?
Bullshit. His policies were working until Congress cut the funding for them. Compare that to Hoover, under who's watch the Depression happened. He tried your shitty "do nothing and let the markets sort it out" idea. It was a massive failure. You cannot deny this.
Want to get modded down? Promote liberty, personal responsibility, or sound economic policy.
No they aren't. Universal health care maybe, but properly implemented, I fail to see how that would make the rich richer. And you're assuming he wants the regulatory capture environment we currently suffer. Smart regulation, regulation written with the people's interest in mind, does not favor any kind of company.
I think you're assuming that fractional reserve banking will actually work in Bitcoin. From what I remember about it, there can only be about 21 million bitcoins, ever.
That is the point of currency--to allow people to save as much as they like without taking real goods out of the economy and sitting on them.
No, the point of currency is to facilitate trade; to have something of fixed value that can be exchanged instead of having to rely on the barter system.
Contrary to this information warfare you hear from propagandists like Krugman, speculators and hoarders actually help to stabilize a currency, which makes it more attractive to use for trade. In order to support vastly more trade, Bitcoin needs more hoarders, not fewer.
So wait, in order to facilitate trade, you need more people who are unwilling to part with their coins? Yeah, I'm sure that'll cause the bitcoins to just fly.
Forgive me if I place more stock in the thoughts of a Nobel laureate Economist than you.
Look at the design of Bitcoin, though. It's designed so that there will only ever be X amount in existence. After that, then no more. As more and more people us it (assuming they do), then that will cause mass deflation, and increase in the value, to the point where it will be far better to hoard the bitcoins rather than spend them.
I think the problem with Bitcoin is the way it's set up. Its a currency designed to encourage people to hoard it, rather than spend it. There's only going to be a finite number of them, so for a while, it will be more valuable to hoard them rather than spend them to exchange goods. Why buy something today if your currency will be worth more tomorrow?
No, it's not. Under the Gold Standard, I could take my currency and trade it in for an equivalent amount of gold. What can I trade a set of Bitcoins for?
Oh, bullshit. How much would it actually be worth if we only valued it for its industrial applications?
Nowhere near what it's worth now. Which makes the whole "Gold is better than US Dollars" thing kinda silly. In the collapse of civilization, US Dollars might be worthless, but odds are your gold will be too. You can eat it, you can't make weapons out of it. What can you do with gold? Make jewelry? Yeah, there's not gonna be a big market for that.
For that matter, what's the industrial application of any "real money", like the dollar?
>The guy I was replying to was trying to blame Rep Giffords attempted murder on Sara Palin's web page that had targets on a friggin map, "targeting" elections that could be won by Republicans.Kinda different sounding when you include the context of the post I was responding to...
Yeah, no. That still doesn't give you license to dishonestly truncate quotes like that.
Obama spent what he did because he was trying to get people back to work. In times of low economic growth and high unemployment, it is the government's duty to spend more, in order to prop up the economy, and keep demand up. Look what happened when the Republicans started with all their austerity measures: Growth ground to a halt over the summer (The month of August had job growth at ZERO), and the economy itself is starting to contract again. The government needs to spend now to get things rolling, because nobody else is. And don't give me shit about "oh, they're worried about the debt! They're worried about the deficit!" Bullshit they are. Most regular people are worried about having a job. They're worried about being able to afford food and rent. They're worried that their employer isn't getting enough business to keep them on. And absolutely none of that has anything to do with the bullshit circus the Republicans set up over the debt.
Everyone always says "You have to run the government like a household! You can't spend in low economic times!" And that's the problem: You can't run government like a house. It just doesn't work. In low economic times, you need the government to spend, in order to prop up demand and get people back to work.
Yeah, you're gonna have to do better than that, troll. Point out the exact actions the Democratic congress took. Point out what they could have done that would have been so "hostile to business" with Bush in the White House.
Yes. That's what a lot of the people who lived under Communism in the past tried to do. If it was possible. The Communist Block countries soon discovered it was necessary to close their borders and prevent the most talented people in their countries from leaving.
Your point being? They weren't Communist, at least they were Communist in the way North Korea is Democratic. They were dictator states, plain and simple.
Wow, your post has a lot of angry rhetoric, but no subsistence whatsoever. But I guess we see where you lie on the scale. Whatever helps those on top grow, and fuck the people on the bottom. They're not human, they don't deserve any rights. Right?
Or maybe you prefer for the kids to be forced into prostitution, or simply starve? Child labor was ENDEMIC prior to industrialization. Once it was complete, it was GONE. And this was BEFORE child labor laws were enacted, by the way.
Citation needed. If there was no child labor, then why the need to enact laws against it? And quite frankly, even if it's gone, since child labor is one of those things horrific to society, why allow it to exist anyway? Why let it remain legal?
But hey, you just ignore the fact that that was the period during which the middle class emerged.
I didn't ignore it at all. Of course, apparently all these things are worth treating those on the bottom like animals. The ends justify the means, right?
Nevermind that there was none before, and that now, under the "super duper hunky dory" regulatory regime you love so well that it is shrinking, and will soon DISAPPEAR, right back into the shackles of Feudalism that were once broken by the free markets you hate so much.
Free markets did not break feudalism. And the biggest factor in the growth of the middle class was the increase in union membership. But that fact doesn't jive with your angry "anarcho-capitalist market, profits at all cost" worldview.
What, and you think regulatory compliance costs negative money? Are you stupid or something? The tiny amount of start up funds required to start a business in a free market is not a barrier when a company is charging two or three times their costs for some product.
Fuck off with your "tiny amount" bullshit. I illustrated that's not always the case. In fact, in many, many instances, it is true that startup capital is the bigger barrier to entry.
If you can't see the truth after all this, then your bias is beyond reach. You should go live in the worker's paradise of North Korea.
Slashdot Mirror
open-minded (pro Laissez-faire)
Open Minded and pro Laissez-faire are not the same thing.
Obviously you've never read any of the articles either, as you're just as full of shit as the guy above you.
You're right! I totally should be given the "freedom" to be fired because of the color of my skin, because of my religion, or because of my sexual orientation!
Yes, I would prefer to return to pre-1930 policies where the government did not decide the winners and losers in the economy.
You mean ones where massive depression happens, and they do nothing? Ones where they allow millions to stay out of work and starve in the streets? Or how about the ones where they allow business to run roughshod over their employers, fucking them over at their will?
And if you honestly think that they "didn't pick winners and losers" prior to 1930, I have to posit that you're either an idiot, or just ignorant of history. Look into the Robber Barons. Look into the Railroad barons. The idea that they didn't do any of that is laughable.
If by "greatest growth", you mean "extended the Depression by approximately 7 years due to incompetent policies", then sure.
Do some more research. After implementation of FDR's programs, GDP was growing, unemployment was shrinking. It wasn't until Republicans in Congress cut funding to all those programs in 1937 that the US fell back into depression. They tried to get them started again, but things stayed where they were until WWII.
The funny thing is that due to global circumstances (such as the US being pretty much the only developed country not devastated by WWII, thus being the main source of goods to the countries that were rebuilding) we grew that much despite incompetent politicians
If you notice, the Middle Class only grew due to the strong presence of unions, which ensured that the workers were treated fairly. Without them, it's very possible that it would be another "growth" where only those on top felt any benefit.
imagine how much we'd have grown if we hadn't had FDR (aka the worst president in history) fucking things up?
Bullshit. His policies were working until Congress cut the funding for them. Compare that to Hoover, under who's watch the Depression happened. He tried your shitty "do nothing and let the markets sort it out" idea. It was a massive failure. You cannot deny this.
Want to get modded down? Promote liberty, personal responsibility, or sound economic policy.
Funny, because you haven't done any of this.
No they aren't. Universal health care maybe, but properly implemented, I fail to see how that would make the rich richer. And you're assuming he wants the regulatory capture environment we currently suffer. Smart regulation, regulation written with the people's interest in mind, does not favor any kind of company.
I think you're assuming that fractional reserve banking will actually work in Bitcoin. From what I remember about it, there can only be about 21 million bitcoins, ever.
Who cares if a currency is hoarded?
Those who wish to use the currency for trade.
That is the point of currency--to allow people to save as much as they like without taking real goods out of the economy and sitting on them.
No, the point of currency is to facilitate trade; to have something of fixed value that can be exchanged instead of having to rely on the barter system.
Contrary to this information warfare you hear from propagandists like Krugman, speculators and hoarders actually help to stabilize a currency, which makes it more attractive to use for trade. In order to support vastly more trade, Bitcoin needs more hoarders, not fewer.
So wait, in order to facilitate trade, you need more people who are unwilling to part with their coins? Yeah, I'm sure that'll cause the bitcoins to just fly.
Forgive me if I place more stock in the thoughts of a Nobel laureate Economist than you.
Look at the design of Bitcoin, though. It's designed so that there will only ever be X amount in existence. After that, then no more. As more and more people us it (assuming they do), then that will cause mass deflation, and increase in the value, to the point where it will be far better to hoard the bitcoins rather than spend them.
At the very least, it gives a semi-anonymous way to buy drugs over the internet. You know, for those who are too anti-social to go find a dealer.
I think the problem with Bitcoin is the way it's set up. Its a currency designed to encourage people to hoard it, rather than spend it. There's only going to be a finite number of them, so for a while, it will be more valuable to hoard them rather than spend them to exchange goods. Why buy something today if your currency will be worth more tomorrow?
He's a Economist . Nothing he says has anything to do with reality so why take him seriously?
FTFY. It's not like any of the other schools of Economics have anything to do with reality either.
It's actually very close to the gold standard.
No, it's not. Under the Gold Standard, I could take my currency and trade it in for an equivalent amount of gold. What can I trade a set of Bitcoins for?
Oh, bullshit. How much would it actually be worth if we only valued it for its industrial applications?
Nowhere near what it's worth now. Which makes the whole "Gold is better than US Dollars" thing kinda silly. In the collapse of civilization, US Dollars might be worthless, but odds are your gold will be too. You can eat it, you can't make weapons out of it. What can you do with gold? Make jewelry? Yeah, there's not gonna be a big market for that.
For that matter, what's the industrial application of any "real money", like the dollar?
Facilitating trade.
So are you sharing your profits with them? I mean, they are helping to pay for your endeavors.
So basically, the only way you're "making money" off this thing is that you're stealing electricity? Yeah, that sounds like a great plan.
>The guy I was replying to was trying to blame Rep Giffords attempted murder on Sara Palin's web page that had targets on a friggin map, "targeting" elections that could be won by Republicans.Kinda different sounding when you include the context of the post I was responding to...
Yeah, no. That still doesn't give you license to dishonestly truncate quotes like that.
Maybe you should concentrate less on trolling, and more on including the full context in your quotes.
Obama spent what he did because he was trying to get people back to work. In times of low economic growth and high unemployment, it is the government's duty to spend more, in order to prop up the economy, and keep demand up. Look what happened when the Republicans started with all their austerity measures: Growth ground to a halt over the summer (The month of August had job growth at ZERO), and the economy itself is starting to contract again. The government needs to spend now to get things rolling, because nobody else is. And don't give me shit about "oh, they're worried about the debt! They're worried about the deficit!" Bullshit they are. Most regular people are worried about having a job. They're worried about being able to afford food and rent. They're worried that their employer isn't getting enough business to keep them on. And absolutely none of that has anything to do with the bullshit circus the Republicans set up over the debt.
Everyone always says "You have to run the government like a household! You can't spend in low economic times!" And that's the problem: You can't run government like a house. It just doesn't work. In low economic times, you need the government to spend, in order to prop up demand and get people back to work.
Right... and President's don't write laws.
They're ultimately the ones that finally approve them.
Yeah, you're gonna have to do better than that, troll. Point out the exact actions the Democratic congress took. Point out what they could have done that would have been so "hostile to business" with Bush in the White House.
Yes. That's what a lot of the people who lived under Communism in the past tried to do. If it was possible. The Communist Block countries soon discovered it was necessary to close their borders and prevent the most talented people in their countries from leaving.
Your point being? They weren't Communist, at least they were Communist in the way North Korea is Democratic. They were dictator states, plain and simple.
Wow, your post has a lot of angry rhetoric, but no subsistence whatsoever. But I guess we see where you lie on the scale. Whatever helps those on top grow, and fuck the people on the bottom. They're not human, they don't deserve any rights. Right?
Or maybe you prefer for the kids to be forced into prostitution, or simply starve? Child labor was ENDEMIC prior to industrialization. Once it was complete, it was GONE. And this was BEFORE child labor laws were enacted, by the way.
Citation needed. If there was no child labor, then why the need to enact laws against it? And quite frankly, even if it's gone, since child labor is one of those things horrific to society, why allow it to exist anyway? Why let it remain legal?
But hey, you just ignore the fact that that was the period during which the middle class emerged.
I didn't ignore it at all. Of course, apparently all these things are worth treating those on the bottom like animals. The ends justify the means, right?
Nevermind that there was none before, and that now, under the "super duper hunky dory" regulatory regime you love so well that it is shrinking, and will soon DISAPPEAR, right back into the shackles of Feudalism that were once broken by the free markets you hate so much.
Free markets did not break feudalism. And the biggest factor in the growth of the middle class was the increase in union membership. But that fact doesn't jive with your angry "anarcho-capitalist market, profits at all cost" worldview.
Because you have to go from one extreme to another, right?
Enjoy not being able to go outside on heavy smog days.
What, and you think regulatory compliance costs negative money? Are you stupid or something? The tiny amount of start up funds required to start a business in a free market is not a barrier when a company is charging two or three times their costs for some product.
Fuck off with your "tiny amount" bullshit. I illustrated that's not always the case. In fact, in many, many instances, it is true that startup capital is the bigger barrier to entry.
If you can't see the truth after all this, then your bias is beyond reach. You should go live in the worker's paradise of North Korea.
Yeah, you've just invalidated your entire post.