3 ms·

> Then maybe you shouldn't be calling other people "statists". Especially you shouldn't be using it as a put-down or a condescending dismissal. He started it b

> Then maybe you shouldn't be calling other people "statists". Especially you shouldn't be using it as a put-down or a condescending dismissal. He started it by trying to put me down as being a Libertarian. Statist is an accurate term. It's only a put-down because when you look at it, it's a self-serving & ultimately abusive position. I don't need to try very hard b/c it's obvious that the statist position is ultimately about a tranfer of wealth from the people who do the real work of making the world better to the people who want to control others. > It also had unmatched financial crises every decade or so There was a feedback loop, often based on speculation & financialization. > That's one and a half in a hundred years You forgot the S&L crash in 1986, the dot com bust, the housing bust, the neverending & accelerating QE (money printing), etc. The current fiat petrol-dollar paradigm, that directly perpetuated neverending wars, is crashing around us as we speak. > So maybe don't trumpet how wonderful everything was pre-1913, because it had a downside that destroyed a lot of people. I fail to see how the invention & propagation of electricity & sanitation leading to the rapid increase in life expectancy and unprecedented increase in real (as opposed to fiat, which is another blunder of statists) wealth, "destroyed a lot of people". You have an argument that certain aspects of industralization & centralization had negative effects on the human. However, the positive aspects of our growth & transcendence of previous poverty was due to the spirit of human ingenuity & the collective energy of the population to improve their lives & the lives around them. Governments only (with few exceptions) got in the way of this progress.

bumby 6y ago
>He started it by trying to put me down as being a Libertarian. Besides the "he started it" being a weak argument, I never claimed you were a Libertarian. There is a world of difference in saying, "the ideas you're talking about fall in line with libertarianism" and saying "you are a Libertarian". The latter treads closely to ad hominem fallacy. >the housing bust Is this distinct from the sub-prime crisis they already alluded to in their post? >neverending & accelerating QE (money printing) Again, this is almost always phrased in terms of inflation and to reiterate it has not yet happened despite people claiming for the last decade that it was just around the corner. Inflation may still happen but what I'm trying to get at is: if inflation turns out to not be the problem do you have another case against fiat currency? >propagation of electricity The early days of this were quite literally a mess which is why the government began instituting regulated monopolies. >transcendence of previous poverty was due to the spirit of human ingenuity & the collective energy of the population to improve their lives & the lives around them. Governments only (with few exceptions) got in the way of this progress. Citation rather than glossy overtures are strongly needed here
- briantakita 6y ago
  > Is this distinct from the sub-prime crisis they already alluded to in their post? Perhaps. There have been more than one... > Inflation may still happen but what I'm trying to get at is: if inflation turns out to not be the problem do you have another case against fiat currency? Inflation is already here. Cost of living, rent, gas, food, lumber, taxes, etc. are rising today. Coupled with the government mandated shutdown, particularly of select "non-essential" (aka small) business, we saw a large contraction in the economy. The government's official numbers are self-serving & moving goal-posts. http://www.shadowstats.com/ http://www.shadowstats.com/ measures the economic numbers according to benchmarks consistent with the past. Inflation is here & has been here for a while. > The early days of this were quite literally a mess which is why the government began instituting regulated monopolies. It was even more of a mess before the invention of electricity. The regulation of utilities could be considered a success. At least the government did one thing right. Problem is despite the Trillions going into taxes over the years, we have a grid that is vulnerable to long term blackouts. With the Grand Solar Minimum being here & a geomagnetic excursion occurring, we can expect space weather to create more issues (e.g. Carrington Event). We are also vulnerable to CME attacks caused by foreign governments. Not good. > Citation rather than glossy overtures are strongly needed here My citation is the amount of time that people have to spend working to pay taxes & their unhappiness in doing so. Who makes things happen in everyday life? The citizenry/people, not bureaucrats.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - briantakita 6y ago
    > You understand there are targets for inflation, right? Meaning the goal is not 0%. The problem with the last decade is that inflation has been lower than expected and the strengthening dollar has caused its own problems. Except John Williams is showing real inflation to be around "9.0% in Aggregate, 16.0% in Goods and 5.6% in Services". Is 9% the target? > Your citation is that proper don’t like spending their money? Really? That’s exactly my original point about the issue with cognitive biases. Not sure what you are trying to convey here. It's not like you used any citations. I'm not asking for one anyways. I was hoping to be able to discuss simple logic & simple observations without the need to invoke the "experts" with their narrow fields of expertise. You obviously have cognitive biases as well. I hope you don't think you are some arbiter of truth because you are way off the mark. >People don’t want to pay and simultaneously don’t want to give up government programs. That is not a rational stance Government programs are expensive & ultimately don't work. I'd rather have a free(ish) market create solutions. There are few true free markets, since almost every market is regulated (except the "black market"). There are more solutions than the electric grid as it currently stands. The best solution is for people to be educated on how our climate systems work, our solar cycles, our movement through the cosmos, & the impact of electricity & magnetism on our planetary systems. Not this APGW nonsense that has wasted so much money & time.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
The S&L crisis is not remotely comparable to the Crash of 1893, say - to the point that trying to use the S&L crisis as a counterargument to my point is laughable. And why didn't it turn into something like 1893? Because of the Fed and the FDIC. Sure, we've had "crises" pretty regularly. Those crises are on average much less severe than crises were before the Fed.
- briantakita 6y ago
  1929 occurred on the FED's watch. So did 1971, 2008, & these https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_economic_crises https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_economic_crises. So will the next series of crises currently in motion for at least the next couple of years & probably for a decade or more... @bumpy, it's amusing that you, being the statist, are tag-teaming to downvote my comments like it even matters. It's just pathetic passive-aggressive behavior on your part...
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    One more time: 1929 was comparable to previous crises. 2008 came very close to being huge, but did far less damage than a real crash. 1971 was nothing like the pre-Fed crashes, and neither was anything else on your list. You're being downvoted because you're wrong, and because you're being gratuitously abrasive. And you want to use that as evidence that you're right? As Jane Austen said, "You tell yourself that, if it gives you comfort."
    - briantakita 6y ago
      > One more time You snipe at me then criticize me for matching your level of in-graciousness. Growth was unprecedented before the FED, even with the short-lived ramifications of the crashes. 1929 & the 1930's lasted longer than previous downturns. 1971 was a complete failure of Bretton Woods & we were only bailed out by Oil & wars. It was pretty big failure in monetary policy. 2008 was bad. The 2020's are not looking good as well. Record & increasing amounts of money are being printed. Income disparity is increasing. Life expectancy is going down. I'm amazed that the plates have been kept spinning this long... > You're being downvoted because you're wrong, and because you're being gratuitously abrasive I've learned a long time ago to not care about silly karma points (distilling karma to a number is a complete misrepresentation of karma anyways) & these sort of passive-aggressive games. I'm not the only one being "gratuitously abrasive" in this conversation. I see myself from your perspective. I also see how I have been treated as well. If you want to call me a troll, then so be it, I'm a troll. > As Jane Austen said, "You tell yourself that, if it gives you comfort." I bet you felt all sorts of self-righteous endorphins when your wrote that. Too bad it was not in good faith. You have to dig deeper into your own actions to see the bigger picture here.

bumby 6y ago

>He started it by trying to put me down as being a Libertarian. Besides the "he started it" being a weak argument, I never claimed you were a Libertarian. There is a world of difference in saying, "the ideas you're talking about fall in line with libertarianism" and saying "you are a Libertarian". The latter treads closely to ad hominem fallacy. >the housing bust Is this distinct from the sub-prime crisis they already alluded to in their post? >neverending & accelerating QE (money printing) Again, this is almost always phrased in terms of inflation and to reiterate it has not yet happened despite people claiming for the last decade that it was just around the corner. Inflation may still happen but what I'm trying to get at is: if inflation turns out to not be the problem do you have another case against fiat currency? >propagation of electricity The early days of this were quite literally a mess which is why the government began instituting regulated monopolies. >transcendence of previous poverty was due to the spirit of human ingenuity & the collective energy of the population to improve their lives & the lives around them. Governments only (with few exceptions) got in the way of this progress. Citation rather than glossy overtures are strongly needed here

briantakita 6y ago
> Is this distinct from the sub-prime crisis they already alluded to in their post? Perhaps. There have been more than one... > Inflation may still happen but what I'm trying to get at is: if inflation turns out to not be the problem do you have another case against fiat currency? Inflation is already here. Cost of living, rent, gas, food, lumber, taxes, etc. are rising today. Coupled with the government mandated shutdown, particularly of select "non-essential" (aka small) business, we saw a large contraction in the economy. The government's official numbers are self-serving & moving goal-posts. http://www.shadowstats.com/ http://www.shadowstats.com/ measures the economic numbers according to benchmarks consistent with the past. Inflation is here & has been here for a while. > The early days of this were quite literally a mess which is why the government began instituting regulated monopolies. It was even more of a mess before the invention of electricity. The regulation of utilities could be considered a success. At least the government did one thing right. Problem is despite the Trillions going into taxes over the years, we have a grid that is vulnerable to long term blackouts. With the Grand Solar Minimum being here & a geomagnetic excursion occurring, we can expect space weather to create more issues (e.g. Carrington Event). We are also vulnerable to CME attacks caused by foreign governments. Not good. > Citation rather than glossy overtures are strongly needed here My citation is the amount of time that people have to spend working to pay taxes & their unhappiness in doing so. Who makes things happen in everyday life? The citizenry/people, not bureaucrats.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- briantakita 6y ago
  > You understand there are targets for inflation, right? Meaning the goal is not 0%. The problem with the last decade is that inflation has been lower than expected and the strengthening dollar has caused its own problems. Except John Williams is showing real inflation to be around "9.0% in Aggregate, 16.0% in Goods and 5.6% in Services". Is 9% the target? > Your citation is that proper don’t like spending their money? Really? That’s exactly my original point about the issue with cognitive biases. Not sure what you are trying to convey here. It's not like you used any citations. I'm not asking for one anyways. I was hoping to be able to discuss simple logic & simple observations without the need to invoke the "experts" with their narrow fields of expertise. You obviously have cognitive biases as well. I hope you don't think you are some arbiter of truth because you are way off the mark. >People don’t want to pay and simultaneously don’t want to give up government programs. That is not a rational stance Government programs are expensive & ultimately don't work. I'd rather have a free(ish) market create solutions. There are few true free markets, since almost every market is regulated (except the "black market"). There are more solutions than the electric grid as it currently stands. The best solution is for people to be educated on how our climate systems work, our solar cycles, our movement through the cosmos, & the impact of electricity & magnetism on our planetary systems. Not this APGW nonsense that has wasted so much money & time.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

The S&L crisis is not remotely comparable to the Crash of 1893, say - to the point that trying to use the S&L crisis as a counterargument to my point is laughable. And why didn't it turn into something like 1893? Because of the Fed and the FDIC. Sure, we've had "crises" pretty regularly. Those crises are on average much less severe than crises were before the Fed.

briantakita 6y ago
1929 occurred on the FED's watch. So did 1971, 2008, & these https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_economic_crises https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_economic_crises. So will the next series of crises currently in motion for at least the next couple of years & probably for a decade or more... @bumpy, it's amusing that you, being the statist, are tag-teaming to downvote my comments like it even matters. It's just pathetic passive-aggressive behavior on your part...
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  One more time: 1929 was comparable to previous crises. 2008 came very close to being huge, but did far less damage than a real crash. 1971 was nothing like the pre-Fed crashes, and neither was anything else on your list. You're being downvoted because you're wrong, and because you're being gratuitously abrasive. And you want to use that as evidence that you're right? As Jane Austen said, "You tell yourself that, if it gives you comfort."
  - briantakita 6y ago
    > One more time You snipe at me then criticize me for matching your level of in-graciousness. Growth was unprecedented before the FED, even with the short-lived ramifications of the crashes. 1929 & the 1930's lasted longer than previous downturns. 1971 was a complete failure of Bretton Woods & we were only bailed out by Oil & wars. It was pretty big failure in monetary policy. 2008 was bad. The 2020's are not looking good as well. Record & increasing amounts of money are being printed. Income disparity is increasing. Life expectancy is going down. I'm amazed that the plates have been kept spinning this long... > You're being downvoted because you're wrong, and because you're being gratuitously abrasive I've learned a long time ago to not care about silly karma points (distilling karma to a number is a complete misrepresentation of karma anyways) & these sort of passive-aggressive games. I'm not the only one being "gratuitously abrasive" in this conversation. I see myself from your perspective. I also see how I have been treated as well. If you want to call me a troll, then so be it, I'm a troll. > As Jane Austen said, "You tell yourself that, if it gives you comfort." I bet you felt all sorts of self-righteous endorphins when your wrote that. Too bad it was not in good faith. You have to dig deeper into your own actions to see the bigger picture here.