Economic Storm Clouds Gather, but Ending the Fed Provides Hope

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I think what you mean to say is unregulated,...

***

Now you may not like either system,...

***

Before you answer, let me try to anticipate a possible reply.

"Fiat can't be used efficiently and effectively" - Ok...Why?

Nope, nope, and nope. Maybe you should actually listen instead of trying to be pedantic.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Brown Hole doesn't fit the usual mold of RPF's paid posters. I wonder if he's just another econ school reject trying to impress.





Respectfully,

E-I-E-I-O

 

[angelatc]

Nope, nope, and nope. Maybe you should actually listen instead of trying to be pedantic.

These conversations made sense 10 years ago. These days, all it does is provide negative energy.

I heard one of the mods said that trolls were good for business, but the decline in active membership indicates that's clearly not the case. Pretty much the only new members we get are self-esteem challenged twats who are "woke."

The Democratic Underground policy is far preferable. It's not a debate club - the forum exists to support policy and candidates.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Yep; I agree with Angela, and have heard the same thing.

I guess some forum owners have sort of a dilemma. Trolls are good for business if the purpose of your forum is mostly "debate." Trolls are bad if you're trying to get something done. I see this forum as the latter. Trolls serve no purpose with your grassroots activities. You don't invite the opposition to your planning & meetings and things like that.




Respectfully,


E-I-E-I-O

 

[econ4every1]

And I say few people have a better understanding of what has become of our money--and what effect it has had on real people--than Austrians.

In fairness, you're going to have to give me some examples.

We know hard-earned savings have disappeared.

Agreed

And we know nobody can get a raise out of his or her boss every time the value of their salary drops (a daily occurrence). We know this has turned into a type of corporate welfare disguised as citizen welfare--corporations that used to have to pay a living wage to attract labor can now get labor for less than a living wage, as their employees stand in line and jump through government hoops for SNAP benefits and Section 8.

Again, completely agree.

And how did we get here? Devaluation of the fiat currency.

Dam, we were doing so well

Going to disagree.

You didn't give me a lot to critique, So I'll respond briefly in hopes that you will expand on how you believe devaluation has lead to the situation as you understand it.

I'd say that debt fears have led to decreases in spending that disproportionately affect the middle and lower classes. Lowering demand relative to potential supply. As we see in this chart below, US capacity utilization has declined steadily:

Throughout most of the 1990's capacity utilization was 10% higher than it is today. Why did it fall and never recover?

Well, let's start with what is sure to be a very controversial claim on my part. During the late 1990's under President Clinton, the nation ran a small surplus. Now, some people will argue it was a "fake" surplus or that it was "only on paper". The reality is the surplus was achieved via a lack of government spending on things that were regularly purchased in the past. Taken out of context, spending alone is meaningless because in the real world all spending is relative to taxes. The government from 1998-2001 collected more in taxes than it spent into the economy.

So what? What does that mean?

When the government runs a surplus the private sector, by definition must run a deficit. When you take money out of the economy it does not, as some Austrians might believe, cause buying power to rise because prices are NOT set by evaluating the quantity of money in circulation. Price is set by evaluating the supply of good relative to the demand for them. The US government removed, via taxes, about $88 billion from the economy:

Now that $88 billion alone probably wouldn't have been something that we, as a nation could not have recovered from, but look at the 4 years prior (1994-1997), the government spent $760 billion, but the 4 years from 1997-2001 (I included 1997 because that is really when the cutting began) the government spent a net $42 billion.

now subtract $42 billion from $760 billion and you get a difference of $720 billion. That's $720 billion dollars in spending that was taken out of the economy.

Now, I would think, if you are an Austrian, you'd see that as a good thing. The value of the dollars left in the economy should have risen, right? But no, because that's not how the value of the dollar is determined in a fiat economy.

Remember that Government spending=the private sectors surplus

That is, the government's spending=someone's income.

When the government failed to spend $720 billion dollars from 1997-2001 it removed almost $1 trillion dollars in income from the economy.

The reason it didn't collapse at that moment is that economies are highly elastic. When people lost their incomes they looked to other places to supplement the losses.

You mentioned saving losses? Look no farther than the surplus of 1998-2001 as the greatest destructor of savings AND the driver of private sector debt this nation has seen since the depression....

The image above breaks down debt, in this case, private debt, by sector. If we look at 1984-1997 things are fairly consistent. But the government pulls $720 billion out of the economy (from 1998-2001) and the private sector reacts by pulling money back in via private debt.

Specifically, if we look at the 4 years prior to 1997 we see the private sector has borrowed about ~$1.2 trillion over 4 years If we look at the 4 years from 1998-2001 we see private sector borrowing skyrocket to $2.1 trillion or about $860B more than the 4 previous years. Now we'd expect later years to see small increases and I didn't adjust for inflation, but hopefully you can see that the government cutting it's spending (by $720 billion) simply caused a reaction, by the private sector to start borrowing ($860B) and depleting savings as a result and ultimately ended in the GFC where all that private debt and losses was simply handed back over to the government in the form of MASSIVE deficit spending.

I assert, that if that original $720 billion had never been pulled out of the economy in the first place (and certain financial laws weren't ignored or relaxed or removed) that today's debt would probably be between $12-$15 trillion and the GFC wouldn't have taken place.

Just so you understand, I'm an equal opportunity offender, I think what the Democrats did in 1998-2001 was probably the single most destructive act perpetrated on the American people since the great depression. It was made worse by Greenspan and his "hands-off" policiy believing, as some do here, that the market would regulate itself. They do not. Order does not come from a lack of oversight.

Now in fairness, I've left a lot of very debatable points out. You didn't leave me with much to work with so I took a stab....Please, feel free to debate the points I made, should be interesting!

So, you ducked the question earlier. How do you feel about repealing legal currency laws, and allowing people to use what they wish when they do their daily exchanges?

I didn't duck it, I just know the question is a little more complicated. There is nothing that prevents you from creating your own currency and using it right now (as long as it in no way resembles US legal tender). Bitcoin is an example. You could conduct all your business in gold. What you can't do is pay your taxes in your own currency and if there is a legal dispute, without very specific contracts between buyer and seller agreeing to trade in something other than dollars, courts can and will enforce restitution in US dollars between private parties. The US government, on the other hand, will ALWAYS enforce final restitution in US dollars.

So my answer is two-fold, no I don't think US legal tender laws should be repealed, but I will counter by asking, what is it you want to do that you can't do now with those laws in place?

Respctfully,

E4E1

 

[econ4every1]

Brown Hole doesn't fit the usual mold of RPF's paid posters. I wonder if he's just another econ school reject trying to impress.





Respectfully,

E-I-E-I-O

So you can't hold up your end with an actual conversation and instead resort to name calling? That's a little weak, come on....

 

[econ4every1]

That's "domestic terrorism?"

I don't know all the specifics of the case, but I agree, "domestic terrorism" is talking things a bit far.

Silly me; I didn't realize the US government has a monopoly on words "liberty," "trust," "God," and "dollar."

First, the Dollar is the sovereign currency of the United States. Confusingly, we call our currency the dollar and we refer to specific denominations as dollars.

In China, they call their currency the Renminbi and the specific units as Yuan.

So yes, the currency created in the US by the government are called "dollars" and use this symbol "$"

Best to leave out elements found on US dollars just to be safe (except the numbers of course).

In the end I think it really matters more in how he tried to use his currency rather than the fact that he made it.


Here is a long list of private currencies.

 

[econ4every1]

These conversations made sense 10 years ago. These days, all it does is provide negative energy.

I heard one of the mods said that trolls were good for business, but the decline in active membership indicates that's clearly not the case. Pretty much the only new members we get are self-esteem challenged $#@!s who are "woke."

The Democratic Underground policy is far preferable. It's not a debate club - the forum exists to support policy and candidates.

Define troll for me?

Sounds to me like it's just someone who disagrees with you. So you'd prefer an echo chamber where no one questions your ideas?

Far as DU, they have the same problem. They've created an echo chamber....Seems like you may have something in common with them? Hmmmm?

 

[econ4every1]

Economics is generally considered a dry mental exercise.

Yes, it's a difficult subject that makes most people's eyes glaze over.

I should warn you that around here, it can become downright visceral.

That's unfortunate.

How do you feel about making the rich richer and the poor poorer?

Without more specifics, I think when wealth (and the power that goes with it) shifts into fewer hands that constitutes a real threat to liberty.

Are you prone to argue as Zippy does, that working people are as well off as ever because of technical progress? Do you feel someone reduced to eating cat food is well off if they can get a color TV at a garage sale for next to nothing?

No, I would not make that argument.

Is that a "fact"?

Yes.

Has it happened across the board, or is this average we're comparing the middle of a much wider range than before? Is this salary that's up 6600% an average salary or a mean salary? Are the people affected by this stuff important? Do you answer, or skip, the hard questions?

Just pointing out that devaluation of the currency without knowing the increases in salaries is a totally worthless appeal to emotion.

Now, if you want to talk about the shift in wealth and how much of it has moved into fewer hands, that's a political issue, not an economic one.

That is, it makes no difference what your currency is, you will always have poor and rich. How poor and how rich depends on the politics of a society. No system of money alone will cause liberty.

Do you think this fiat currency has been managed the way it should have been, to benefit everyone? If not, where do you propose we find, as Jefferson called them, "angels in the form of men" to do the job right?

No, absolutely not. However, I think the biggest obstacle to a system of money that can be deployed in a way that balances freedom and liberty against government regulation and oppression is to understand the money system we have and how it works.

Again, I assert that most people don't understand our money system. So the first step is to have a discussion on how the system works. A description, not a prescription.

I have offered my opinions on policy because you asked, but I try to keep my conversations about how the system works, not how I'd like it to work.

Respectfully,

E4E1

 

[acptulsa]

You didn't give me a lot to critique, So I'll respond briefly in hopes that you will expand on how you believe devaluation has lead to the situation as you understand it.

Come now, I was quite clear. You even agreed with the basic premise. The value of the currency changes every day, and it never rises. Do you ask your boss for a raise every day to compensate for the value of your salary declining?

I'd say that debt fears have led to decreases in spending that disproportionately affect the middle and lower classes. Lowering demand relative to potential supply. As we see in this chart below, US capacity utilization has declined steadily:

Throughout most of the 1990's capacity utilization was 10% higher than it is today. Why did it fall and never recover?

Well, let's start with what is sure to be a very controversial claim on my part. During the late 1990's under President Clinton, the nation ran a small surplus. Now, some people will argue it was a "fake" surplus or that it was "only on paper". The reality is the surplus was achieved via a lack of government spending on things that were regularly purchased in the past. Taken out of context, spending alone is meaningless because in the real world all spending is relative to taxes. The government from 1998-2001 collected more in taxes than it spent into the economy.

So what? What does that mean?

Clearly money being used to repay debt is not being spent on other things by the person or entity which is repaying the loan. Though that money is still being taxed from our pockets and is not being spent on stuff by the government, it's dishonest to imply that money disappears altogether. Are you saying bondholders only ever use the money from bonds which are cashed in on other forms of savings? Can some of that be capital investment in the private sector? Or are you saying government should never commit money to paying down its debt because some of those bondholders are overseas, so that money goes to benefit some economy other than our own?

Now, I would think, if you are an Austrian, you'd see that as a good thing. The value of the dollars left in the economy should have risen, right? But no, because that's not how the value of the dollar is determined in a fiat economy.

Remember that Government spending=the private sectors surplus

That is, the government's spending=someone's income.

When the government failed to spend $720 billion dollars from 1997-2001 it removed almost $1 trillion dollars in income from the economy.

The reason it didn't collapse at that moment is that economies are highly elastic. When people lost their incomes they looked to other places to supplement the losses.

You mentioned saving losses? Look no farther than the surplus of 1998-2001 as the greatest destructor of savings AND the driver of private sector debt this nation has seen since the depression....

The image above breaks down debt, in this case, private debt, by sector. If we look at 1984-1997 things are fairly consistent. But the government pulls $720 billion out of the economy (from 1998-2001) and the private sector reacts by pulling money back in via private debt.

Well, these are very Keynesian sorts of arguments. The value of a currency of any sort is determined by supply and demand. It really is that simple. You can claim otherwise until you're blue in the face, but all you're doing in this passage is demonstrating that in a complex economy, both supply and demand are complex. Clearly so. There are millions of factors that affect supply, and demand is certainly no less complex.

Specifically, if we look at the 4 years prior to 1997 we see the private sector has borrowed about ~$1.2 trillion over 4 years If we look at the 4 years from 1998-2001 we see private sector borrowing skyrocket to $2.1 trillion or about $860B more than the 4 previous years. Now we'd expect later years to see small increases and I didn't adjust for inflation, but hopefully you can see that the government cutting it's spending simply caused a reaction, by the private sector to start borrowing and depleting savings as a result and ultimately ended in the GFC where all that private debt and losses was simply handed back over the government in the form of MASSIVE deficit spending.

I assert, that if that original $720 billion had never been pulled out of the economy (and certain financial laws weren't ignored or relaxed or removed) that today's debt would probably be between $12-$15 trillion.

Just so you understand, I'm an equal opportunity offender, I think what the Democrats did in 1998-2001 was probably the single most destructive act perpetrated on the American people since the great depression. It was made worse by Greenspan and his "hands-off" policiy believing, as some do here, that the market would regulate itself. They do not. Order does not come from a lack of oversight.

Now in fairness, I've left a lot of very debatable points out. You didn't leave me with much to work with so I took a stab....Please, feel free to debate the points I made, should be interesting!

Well, clearly a period in which debts are repaid has effects. But your assertion that consumers borrowed more because money was being pulled out of the economy is a stretch. The mindset that only government spending counts in an economy has led you to odd attitudes--like the money which pays off a T Bill is lost to the economy, when in fact it is in the hands of the former bondholder, not destroyed. There were many factors influencing consumers during that period, not least of which was a good economy, and a president perfectly willing to lie to people and say things like, 'The era of Big Government is over!' This is certainly sufficiently confidence-inspiring to convince people that a little more debt is not such a dangerous thing.

Your contention that markets do not regulate themselves smacks of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course a fiat currency cannot regulate itself. By its very definition its value, its effectiveness, it's existence is at the mercy of those with the power to print more or print less. It's supply could not possibly be self-regulating. That said, markets for commodities of actual, rather than artificial, value are very self regulating. Is the process sometimes messy? Yes. And this messiness is what con men always use to sell people on regulation. But as has been pointed out here on this forum, our current flavor of fiat money was originally sold to the populace as something that could be regulated and controlled to prevent "panics", or lessen their undesirable effects. But nothing is further from the truth. Depressions still happen. What's worse, the meddling inhibits natural recoveries. No decade-long train wreck like the Great Depression ever happened to this country under the Gold Standard. It takes intervention to prolong an economic illness to that degree. And no sound money system has ever made a middle class disappear the way America's has since Bretton Woods in 1971. So where is this alleged advantage?

Indeed, the fact that there are no 'angels in the form of men' to regulate the fiat, and the fact that there are no omniscient men to anticipate every one of the billion or trillion variables that make the market behave as it does, are two of the very reasons that many of us would rather take our chances on a currency which has intrinsic value, and the tendency of markets to regulate themselves. Yeah, it may be a messy process at times. But it's never a victim if arrogance. And it certainly isn't malevolent.

I didn't duck it, I just know the question is a little more complicated. There is nothing that prevents you from creating your own currency and using it right now (as long as it in no way resembles US legal tender). Bitcoin is an example. You could conduct all your business in gold. What you can't do is pay your taxes in your own currency and if there is a legal dispute, without very specific contracts between buyer and seller agreeing to trade in something other than dollars, courts can and will enforce restitution in US dollars between private parties. The US government, on the other hand, will ALWAYS enforce final restitution in US dollars.

So my answer is two-fold, no I don't think US legal tender laws should be repealed, but I will counter by asking, what is it you want to do that you can't do now with those laws in place?

Oh, sure, I can barter for old silver coins at the flea market and get away with it. But legal tender laws do exist in this country, and anyone who goes farther than a little private bartering feels the heat. Admittedly, some who have felt that heat have been trying to pull shenanigans, like the employer who was paying people in junk silver, and had them paying taxes in FRNs at a rate proportional to the face value of that junk silver. But there are other ways the government enforces its edict. Take, for example, capital gains taxes. You obtain silver, it's value goes up, you trade it for some other good or some service, and you are hit for a percentage of the change in value relative to the FRN. So, you have to pay the government because you obtained a form of exchange, and later spent it, and in between the Fed's Official Currency by Law lost value and your silver didn't. This is money? Do you get to write it off your taxes when the value of your money goes down between payday and when you spend it?

Is it, in fact, a "gain" when we hold onto something which does not change in value long enough for the Federal Reserve Note to lose value? Do we, as citizens of a Republic, have the right to question why we should be taxed for these alleged "capital gains"? Do we have a right, as citizens of a Republic, to say our hard-working fellow citizens who may not be so adept at investing as you are might have a right to save, without their savings shrinking like wool in a hot dryer?

You talk like a person who believes that if government doesn't spend money, no money gets spent. You talk like someone who considers fiat money a foregone conclusion, an inescapable reality, and as though any talk of abandoning it is akin to telling fairy tales. Well, neither of these things is true, and you should know that none of us believe them to be true.

Now, if you want to talk about the shift in wealth and how much of it has moved into fewer hands, that's a political issue, not an economic one.

Just as soon as the politicians appoint the bankers who regulate the currency, just as soon as legal tender laws which favor the fiat get passed, then clearly any discussion of the currency is a political one. And I think, judging from this statement, you agree:

No, absolutely not. However, I think the biggest obstacle to a system of money that can be deployed in a way that balances freedom and liberty against government regulation and oppression is to understand the money system we have and how it works.

The value of the money in our pockets goes down every day. The value of our salaries goes down every day. These things never go up, except when we get raises, and to keep up, we need a lot of them--more than most people actually get. Fiat money is a political imposition on an economic reality, which changes that economic reality. And to measure that political impact on our lives requires more than just comparing averages without bothering to see whether the top income and the bottom income are in the same ballpark, or if the richest are getting more than they can hope to spend while the poorest wage earners are working forty hours to be homeless.

No offense, but entrusting your economy to 'economists'--even in the unlikely event that they aren't in it to enrich themselves--is akin to a skilled driver entrusting his or her life to the IT guy who writes self-driving car programs. The skilled driver knows his car can change lanes many times more quickly than it can stop, and that it's hard to change lanes if the IT guy has programmed the car to slam on the brakes about then. The programmer, like the regulating body, can only apply one size fits all solutions. But a market, like a million individual drivers, can react to more stimuli at once, and come up with more creative solutions. There are so many variables that it's difficult to say which is better until there's a historical record to go by. And the historical record for fiat currency--like the few outings by self-driving cars to date--is abysmal. No, the record of individual drivers, like the record of free markets under currency of intrinsic value, are not perfect. Both records clearly demonstrate a complete lack of perfection. The only things worse are everything else which has ever been tried--including the Federal Reserve.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Yep; I agree with Angela, and have heard the same thing.

I guess some forum owners have sort of a dilemma. Trolls are good for business if the purpose of your forum is mostly "debate." Trolls are bad if you're trying to get something done. I see this forum as the latter. Trolls serve no purpose with your grassroots activities. You don't invite the opposition to your planning & meetings and things like that.




Respectfully,


E-I-E-I-O

^^^THIS^^^

 

[acptulsa]

Yep; I agree with Angela, and have heard the same thing.

I guess some forum owners have sort of a dilemma. Trolls are good for business if the purpose of your forum is mostly "debate." Trolls are bad if you're trying to get something done. I see this forum as the latter. Trolls serve no purpose with your grassroots activities. You don't invite the opposition to your planning & meetings and things like that.




Respectfully,


E-I-E-I-O

^^^THIS^^^

Apparently you two are too busy yelling, "TROLL!", throwing rocks, and trying to shut down rational discussion to notice, but this person is discussing things in good faith so far. What's more, he may even see the value in the things Ron Paul has tried to teach us, if given a chance to do so.

Of course, I realize that you two figure that once a person is taught Keynesian economics, or any other thing the liberals favor, they are lost to rational discourse forever and can never be reclaimed from the Land of the Lost. But I think we might prove that theory wrong--even as you do your best to prevent us from changing minds and influencing people.

This is, of course, how self-fulfilling prophecies become self-fulfilling. The person who says, Democrats cannot become rational, yell and scream at them the whole time someone is trying to teach them some rational thought. Unfortunately for you, some rational thought is getting past your best attempts to make noise.

So, we have a person trying to discuss the thread topic in a straightforward and honest manner, and seemingly willing to learn things along the way. And we have someone else popping up to talk about something other than the thread topic--say, for example, whether this website should be for debate or political activism. Who is the actual troll in that particular thread?

 

[econ4every1]

You said it invalidated it which it clearly didn't. The most accurate descriptors of the economy over the last 9 years have been market monetarists.

Then how do you explain $4 trillion dollars created by the Fed as part of QE. Monetarists like Schiff predicted massive inflation. Where is it?

 

[acptulsa]

Then how do you explain $4 trillion dollars created by the Fed as part of QE. Monetarists like Schiff predicted massive inflation. Where is it?

1. There has been quite a bit of inflation. 2. I believe even Schiff will tell you that more money only devalues all the money when the additional money is monetized. Only a relatively small percentage of the QE has actually been monetized and pressed into circulation so far.

 

[econ4every1]

Apparently you two are too busy yelling, "TROLL!", throwing rocks, and trying to shut down rational discussion to notice, but this person is discussing things in good faith so far. What's more, he or she may even see the value in the things Ron Paul has tried to teach us, if given a chance to do so.

Of course, I realize that you two figure that once a person is taught Keynesian economics, or any other thing the liberals favor, they are lost to rational discourse forever and can never be reclaimed from the Land of the Lost. But I think we might prove that theory wrong--even as you do your best to prevent us from changing minds and influencing people.

This is, of course, how self-fulfilling prophecies become self-fulfilling. The person who says, Democrats, cannot become rational, yell and scream at them the whole time someone is trying to teach them some rational thought. Unfortunately for you, some rational thought is getting past your best attempts to make noise.

Thanks and you are right, I'm just engaging in discussion. I suck at sugar coating things for people and I know I come off as arrogant sometimes. It's not my intention.

Having said that nothing I'm saying is inconsistent with Libertarianism though it is inconsistent with Austrian economics. I actually belong to a group Libertarians that support my explanation of economics. Btw, for FWIW I'm not a Keynesian. Keynes was right when he described how the economy worked, just as the original Austrians were right when they described it. In the US we have entered into the third era, the fiat era, where Austrians and Keynesian explanations no longer fully explain the system as it is. If people insist on putting a label on it, try "post-Keynesian"

I'm still working on my reply to your last post.

-Cheers

 

[econ4every1]

1. There has been quite a bit of inflation. 2. I believe even Schiff will tell you that more money only devalues all the money when the additional money is monetized. Only a relatively small percentage of the QE has actually been monetized and pressed into circulation so far.

Well, here's where we're going to disagree on methods and sources. The Fed for several years after starting QE has had a lot of trouble trying to induce inflation in the broader economy, though there has been quite a bit of asset inflation as interest rates fell to near zero creating the incentive to leverage debt for those with the wealth and credit to utilize it. This moved the housing bubble to a new debt-fueled asset bubble. Thus, if you are talking about asset inflation, I completely agree, but asset inflation does not have the same kinds of effects on prices. This is because fiscal assets benefit a much smaller portion of wage earners who put inflationary pressure especially on land/ housing, but the effects on the broader economy are mixed.

FWIW, I'm no fan of QE and think it's underlying premise was based on Monetarist theory and as such was an abject failure.

 

[econ4every1]

At the risk of trying to "stir things up", what is it about my replies that you think doesn't constitute a debate? Can you quote me something (except perhaps this post) where I tried to "stir things up"?

Respectfully,

E4E1

 

[econ4every1]

At the risk of trying to "stir things up", what is it about my replies that you think doesn't constitute a debate? Can you quote me something (except perhaps this post) where I tried to "stir things up"?

Respectfully,

E4E1

It appears that I don't fully understand how the rep system works (first time I've seen it and, obviously I don't have access to it yet). That comment may not have been directed at me?

If that's the case, boy am I embarrassed...lol

Apologies to you Zippy if that's the case

 

[DamianTV]

At the risk of trying to "stir things up", what is it about my replies that you think doesn't constitute a debate? Can you quote me something (except perhaps this post) where I tried to "stir things up"?

Respectfully,

E4E1

A lot of it is just the timing of your arrival.

Most of this is the fault of Zippyjuan and his crew. Zippy is our most hated forum member because of the consistent attitude of keeping the existing system in ways that are so manipulative, most of us here can see that his ideas do not support long term meaningful change that is positive for all people.

Most Trolls have less influence when their Reputation goes in the red, get banned, an acct shunned, etc. So they create new accounts, start over, but spew the same material. Propaganda is still used because it is effective at manipulating people. Its just the timing of Zippy getting hammered on by me and others, and your arrival which makes us question whether or not you have possible associations with Zippy or his paycheck writers.

Since we have no way of proving a suspicion one way or the other, we should also entertain the idea that you arent a paid troll. It needs to be a part of our core values, because there will be times that we here try to do as you do, offer ideas that challenge currently held beliefs, and even if the ideas work, people reject both the ideas and us because large groups tend to hold on to the loudest idea.

It is these ideas that can be used to divide people against themselves. And it can occur either with propaganda, misinformation, or human nature with misunderstanding. Money itself is fundamental in allowing one person or a small group in controlling large groups of people. However, alternative ideas can also be flawed in their nature. The wise person compares both ideas, and looks at the big picture, how the idea and the big picture integrate, and makes a decision for themselves whether or not to Accept, Reject, or Modify ones own ideas to make it better. The goals of those wise men can also vary, and can be used to either concentrate power, or decentralize it.

The only real meaningful long term solution is that people agree to a goal that works for everyone. We are also talking thousand year plans, not just next week. But getting people, even those rulers, to agree on a sustainable system is difficult. It is difficult for us here, even though many of us are of similar thoughts, to agree on a common positive goal. The rulers themselves need to change their own minds. If they showed any willingness to make the world better, we might be willing to listen. However, that has not been the common trend. The common trend is more for them and less for us.

Humans have reached a point in history where our technology has surpassed our humanity. Einstein longed for the day when our humanity surpassed our technology. We have the power to destroy this world. Rulers have the ability to start wars, common folk have the ability to consume until no resources are left. Both sides will blame the other, and similar with real paid trolls, nothing meaningful is ever achieved. Trolls are one way to prevent progress, but there are many ways that dont require trolls at all. We get in our own way just as much as external interference can cause issues. One thing is for certain, if the world dies, then those rulers and their children die along with it. In their minds, they may think that if the people die, they survive.

Anyway, the point goes back to my original reply to you. Earn the trust and maintaining it. I will add this. If you expect us to change, be willing to change yourself by the same degree. Without that willingness to change for the better on both sides, even just a little, we will never come out of our financial cave of certain doom.

 

[Krugminator2]

Monetarists like Schiff

I was tempted to read your long winded posts. You seem very confident in what you are saying. I saw lots of charts and graphs. I thought maybe there was something there. Then I see that quote as a response to what I said. I'll pass.