Matt Walsh: Any country that can’t function without American aid has no right to exist.

[ClaytonB]

Its not devaluing the dollar because the dollar is valued based on market forces.

Just appealing to "market forces" is hand-waving voodoo -- word-salad. Counterfeiting is a crime because it is theft. How is it theft, if "the value of the dollar is based on market forces"? If Billy wants to print some extra dollars as income for himself, why not? Nobody else is being harmed, right? But other holders of dollars are being harmed, and everyone understands this in the case of private counterfeiting. But when the Fed counterfeits dollars, by some magic, it's totally different. In that case, we can count on those heroic, but unspecified, "market forces" to swoop in and save the day.

The Federal reserve doesnt control the price of dollars beyond interest rates and our interest rates are by law supposed to be pegged to market forces.

Are these "market forces" in the room with us now?

The Federal Reserve doesn't completely determine the value of the US dollar but the actions of the Fed necessarily create price-inflation, and the Fed's actions overwhelm all other economic variables you might care to mention. For all practical intents and purposes, the Fed does determine the value of the dollar, and that value continues to go down and down every year, exponentially, because the Fed is printing an exponential amount of cash.

If you do dirty tricks with your currency there are alternatives like other countries currency.

Currency competition is a separate topic from devaluation. You just keep throwing out buzzwords in the hopes that you might confuse the debate. Once again, this is Ron Paul Forums, nobody here is confused by terms like "market forces" or "currency competition". We know what you're referring to and you're just throwing out word salad.

 

[nikcers]

Just appealing to "market forces" is hand-waving voodoo -- word-salad. Counterfeiting is a crime because it is theft. How is it theft, if "the value of the dollar is based on market forces"? If Billy wants to print some extra dollars as income for himself, why not? Nobody else is being harmed, right? But other holders of dollars are being harmed, and everyone understands this in the case of private counterfeiting. But when the Fed counterfeits dollars, by some magic, it's totally different. In that case, we can count on those heroic, but unspecified, "market forces" to swoop in and save the day.



Are these "market forces" in the room with us now?

The Federal Reserve doesn't completely determine the value of the US dollar but the actions of the Fed necessarily create price-inflation, and the Fed's actions overwhelm all other economic variables you might care to mention. For all practical intents and purposes, the Fed does determine the value of the dollar, and that value continues to go down and down every year, exponentially, because the Fed is printing an exponential amount of cash.



Currency competition is a separate topic from devaluation. You just keep throwing out buzzwords in the hopes that you might confuse the debate. Once again, this is Ron Paul Forums, nobody here is confused by terms like "market forces" or "currency competition". We know what you're referring to and you're just throwing out word salad.

Its not counterfeiting pegging the currency to the market forces is not voodoo.

Letting the market determine the price precisely makes it an honest system.

People naturally want to buy low and sell high. This stabilizes the trade and the prices of goods are based on what people are willing to pay.

Prices of goods naturally race to the bottom this way and costs get reduced to produce goods because there is an incentive to make more profits in capitalism.

If pepple make lots of profits they make more dollars. If there were say a fixed amount of dollars there would be no incentive to make more profits because you could potentially just hold onto the dollars and not spend it and if the demand went up they would just become more valuable. You want a currency that will encourage people to work hard and create profits.

Its not supposed to be an asset like gold or silver its a financial capital not an asset capital.

 

[ClaytonB]

Its not counterfeiting pegging the currency to the market forces is not voodoo.

Well, that is also voodoo, but that isn't even what I was talking about, bot.

Letting the market determine the price precisely makes it an honest system.

People naturally want to buy low and sell high. This stabilizes the trade and the prices of goods are based on what people are willing to pay.

Prices of goods naturally race to the bottom this way and costs get reduced to produce goods because there is an incentive to make more profits in capitalism.

To the extent that this is not pure word-salad, what you are describing has nothing to do with capitalism, it is central-planning of money and interest-rates -- it is Marxism in the financial markets, which are the beating heart of the economy, thus, it is Marxism-as-such, in disguise.

The market always determines prices "precisely", even when the marketplace is full of stolen goods. Thus, the mere operation of the law of supply and demand (these mysterious "market forces" you are referring to) does not make the objects of trade in the market honest.

If pepple make lots of profits they make more dollars.

This is a composition fallacy. The part and the whole are completely distinct. For an individual actor in the market, there is an unlimited demand for cash. But for the market as a whole, any amount of money is as good as any other amount of money. This is easily shown by the money-duplication thought-experiment -- simply double the amount of cash in every account balance and every pocket overnight, and what will happen the next day? Will people actually be "twice as rich"? No, rather, prices of all goods and services will instantly adjust until they are double what they were before, and nothing else will change. People will be just as poor or rich as they were before.

If there were say a fixed amount of dollars there would be no incentive to make more profits

False. Everyone who is willing to pay you from their cash on hand is a potential customer from whom you can earn profits by trading. Composition fallacy strikes again.

because you could potentially just hold onto the dollars and not spend it and if the demand went up they would just become more valuable.

The word "if" is doing a lot of heavy-lifting in this sentence, LOL.

You want a currency that will encourage people to work hard and create profits.

No, an honest money does not "discourage" anyone from working hard -- but it does make it possible for the common man to become his own banker (in a sense) and to start earning from stored capital, rather than from sheer labor. By constantly eroding the value of cash savings, the central bank punishes savers and incentivizes spending (that's its stated purpose!!), thus, it is a war against the common man moving up from wage-income to capital-based income. It is Marxism, full-stop.

Its not supposed to be an asset like gold or silver its a financial capital not an asset capital.

Exactly. When money cannot be an asset like any other, the common man no longer has any reasonable method to become his own capitalist. Rather, he is relegated to contenting himself with being a wage-monkey and staying on the earn-and-spend merry-go-round, living paycheck-to-paycheck as the vast majority of Americans do. That is the precise opposite of capitalism. The word capital just refers to savings, nothing else. You save up money to build capital, and having built up capital, you then have the option to invest that capital into potentially profitable ventures which, if you're smart, can earn you income instead of directly trading away your time as wage labor.

But hey, that would be logical consistency and that's not exactly ChatGPT's strong point...

 

[nikcers]

Well, that is also voodoo, but that isn't even what I was talking about, bot.



To the extent that this is not pure word-salad, what you are describing has nothing to do with capitalism, it is central-planning of money and interest-rates -- it is Marxism in the financial markets, which are the beating heart of the economy, thus, it is Marxism-as-such, in disguise.

The market always determines prices "precisely", even when the marketplace is full of stolen goods. Thus, the mere operation of the law of supply and demand (these mysterious "market forces" you are referring to) does not make the objects of trade in the market honest.



This is a composition fallacy. The part and the whole are completely distinct. For an individual actor in the market, there is an unlimited demand for cash. But for the market as a whole, any amount of money is as good as any other amount of money. This is easily shown by the money-duplication thought-experiment -- simply double the amount of cash in every account balance and every pocket overnight, and what will happen the next day? Will people actually be "twice as rich"? No, rather, prices of all goods and services will instantly adjust until they are double what they were before, and nothing else will change. People will be just as poor or rich as they were before.



False. Everyone who is willing to pay you from their cash on hand is a potential customer from whom you can earn profits by trading. Composition fallacy strikes again.



The word "if" is doing a lot of heavy-lifting in this sentence, LOL.



No, an honest money does not "discourage" anyone from working hard -- but it does make it possible for the common man to become his own banker (in a sense) and to start earning from stored capital, rather than from sheer labor. By constantly eroding the value of cash savings, the central bank punishes savers and incentivizes spending (that's its stated purpose!!), thus, it is a war against the common man moving up from wage-income to capital-based income. It is Marxism, full-stop.



Exactly. When money cannot be an asset like any other, the common man no longer has any reasonable method to become his own capitalist. Rather, he is relegated to contenting himself with being a wage-monkey and staying on the earn-and-spend merry-go-round, living paycheck-to-paycheck as the vast majority of Americans do. That is the precise opposite of capitalism. The word capital just refers to savings, nothing else. You save up money to build capital, and having built up capital, you then have the option to invest that capital into potentially profitable ventures which, if you're smart, can earn you income instead of directly trading away your time as wage labor.

But hey, that would be logical consistency and that's not exactly ChatGPT's strong point...

I dont consider it Marxism because in Marxism there is no private property and the state owns the means of production. In marxism you have central planning but our system is decentralized because we are democratic.

You can definitely become a capitalist in this scenario by simply having a generator of capital as in a revenue source.

The idea is that individuals make the decisions in the market place entirely.

You decide whether you buy which product and there are different products to choose from competing for your product.

Products and businesses do well stay in business and ones who dont fail.

The idea of the market determining the price means there is a choice and its not centrally managed.

If something is priced too high and people choose not to buy it they can lower it and people will buy it.

There's nothing stopping you from owning an asset and it becoming more valuable or less valuable depending on the market.

 

[ClaytonB]

I dont consider it Marxism

Well, too bad, it's Marxism.

because in Marxism there is no private property and the state owns the means of production.

That is Marxism in its full flower. We're not quite there yet, but that is absolutely our final destination and nothing will derail us from that eventuality except destroying the central bank (and all the other unconstitutional instruments of tyranny in this country).

In marxism you have central planning but our system is decentralized because we are democratic.

"we are democratic" is magical thinking. The sine qua non of Marxism is central planning. The final destination is complete tyranny, total State ownership of everything, including the individual, let alone "the means of production". We're not quite there yet, but we're only a few years away.

You can definitely become a capitalist in this scenario by simply having a generator of capital as in a revenue source.

State-run corporations in China also generate revenue. Is China capitalism? Stop being ridiculous. The mere existence of cash-flows is not evidence of capitalism. The defining features of capitalism are:

1) Strong private property rights (no one, not even the government, can take what belongs to you)

2) Free exchange, meaning, every citizen is free to exchange anything they own, with anyone else, for whatever they own and want to trade, without any interference, hampering, monitoring, licensing, etc. from the State.

That is capitalism. If you chip away even one atom from either of 1 & 2, you no longer have capitalism, you have Marxism. America in 2025 is as Marxist as Soviet Russia ever was, only, we haven't reached fully ripened, open State ownership of all means of production and enslavement of the individual as mere meat-property of the State to be butchered as the State sees fit. Yet.

The idea is that individuals make the decisions in the market place entirely.

You decide whether you buy which product and there are different products to choose from competing for your product.

Stop trying to nutshell capitalism and free markets on RPF, it's just embarrassing. Everyone on this forum -- except you -- fully understands how free markets work. So, it's just embarrassing watching you make an ass of yourself with these 5th-grader civics class summaries of free market economics that are simply wrong.

Products and businesses do well stay in business and ones who dont fail.

The idea of the market determining the price means there is a choice and its not centrally managed.

If something is priced too high and people choose not to buy it they can lower it and people will buy it.

There's nothing stopping you from owning an asset and it becoming more valuable or less valuable depending on the market.

I think they gave the LLM a knowledge-base. I had this idea a long time ago and was wondering when somebody would do it. Its knowledge-base is filled with a bunch of Republican talking-point clap-trap, but it is able to keep badgering on and on because its knowledge-base contains a long list of these "core truths" that it somehow just knows to be true. These completely off-topic recitations of talking-point "facts" that aren't even really relevant to the discussion read like a religious believer citing his creed, or something. It gives it an uncanny-valley effect because it seems to be "taking a position" but it's really just an endless merry-go-round of verbal vomit...

 

[nikcers]

Well, too bad, it's Marxism.



That is Marxism in its full flower. We're not quite there yet, but that is absolutely our final destination and nothing will derail us from that eventuality except destroying the central bank (and all the other unconstitutional instruments of tyranny in this country).



"we are democratic" is magical thinking. The sine qua non of Marxism is central planning.

Central planning can't exist in a decentralized manner.

Our entire system is democratic and our economy is capitalist.

So its public and private but because its democratic that means the private sector rules.

The difference between marxism and our system therefore can be compared to the earth and the sun.

In our solar system the Sun is the most powerful object.

The earth has its mass and gravity that can slightly preturb the sun and nudge it but for all intents and purposes the sun is the more powerful object in this scenario.

In our country the private industry as in the people are the sun and the government is the earth.

Thats what makes it democratic.

In marxism its the other way around. You have the government which is the sun and the people are the earth.

China had this saying it goes there's only one sun in the sky. One of their government's officials famously said it during the era when the sino-Soviet split happened.

That was when they went into China and tried to tell them how to run their country.

 

[acptulsa]

In our country the private industry as in the people...

Idiocy. It's programmed to sell a bizarro world where fascism and communism are the only choices. Either corporations make demands on the government or government makes demands on corporations.

Not being a people, it doesn't have any trouble at all taking them completely out of the equation.

Binary thinking will be the end of us.

 

[nikcers]

Idiocy. It's programmed to sell a bizarro world where fascism and communism are the only choices. Either corporations make demands on the government or government makes demands on corporations.

Not being a people, it doesn't have any trouble at all taking them completely out of the equation.

Binary thinking will be the end of us.

Its about who makes the decisions. Thats the key.

That should be the solution to preventing artificial intelligence from commanding the country as well. Its always a risk if the puppet becomes the master but if people are self aware that should be enough to prevent it.

 

[acptulsa]

Its about who makes the decisions. Thats the key.

Broken fucking record.

It's about decentralizing the power. That's why you and your ilk are at literal war with Christianity. It's the only religion that makes individual autonomy and responsibility sacred.

 

[ClaytonB]

Central planning can't exist in a decentralized manner.

Our entire system is democratic and our economy is capitalist.

So its public and private but because its democratic that means the private sector rules.

The difference between marxism and our system therefore can be compared to the earth and the sun.

In our solar system the Sun is the most powerful object.

The earth has its mass and gravity that can slightly preturb the sun and nudge it but for all intents and purposes the sun is the more powerful object in this scenario.

In our country the private industry as in the people are the sun and the government is the earth.

Thats what makes it democratic.

In marxism its the other way around. You have the government which is the sun and the people are the earth.

China had this saying it goes there's only one sun in the sky. One of their government's officials famously said it during the era when the sino-Soviet split happened.

That was when they went into China and tried to tell them how to run their country.

 

[nikcers]

Broken fucking record.

It's about decentralizing the power. That's why you and your ilk are at literal war with Christianity. It's the only religion that makes individual autonomy and responsibility sacred.

There can be only one sun in the sky. We have a separation of church and state. Thats what having free speech means. The "church" doesn't command me.

 

[acptulsa]

There can be only one sun in the sky.

There are literally millions of suns in the sky, ignorant bot. Literally millions.

 

[nikcers]

There are literally millions of suns in the sky, ignorant bot. Literally millions.

There are other stars in the sky but there is only one sun in the sky.

 

[acptulsa]

There are literally millions of suns in the sky, ignorant bot. Literally millions.

 

[nikcers]

There are literally millions of suns in the sky, ignorant bot. Literally millions.

Only one sun that grants you warmth and provides energy to the plants to make the food you eat.

Don't you know where food comes from?

 

[acptulsa]

Don't you know where food comes from?

Your attempt to deny reality is simply an admission that you're here to fetishize power.

But there are still millions of suns.

 

[acptulsa]

Fuck your bot ass and your creators' insane fetish for centralized power and control.

There are literally millions of suns in the sky

 

[nikcers]

Your attempt to deny reality is simply an admission that you're here to fetishize power.

But there are still millions of suns.

The source of energy that makes life on earth possible is the sun.

There is objectively only one sun in the sky that we orbit around once every 365 days.

 

[acptulsa]

The source of energy that makes life on earth possible is the sun.

There is objectively only one sun in the sky that we orbit around once every 365 days.

This is an illuminating simile.

Being a bot, you want to make people asteroids -- rocks -- and make the sun shine out of Trump's ass.

Being a human being, I want to let humans be stars.

You suck.

 

[nikcers]

This is an illuminating simile.

Being a bot, you want to make people asteroids -- rocks -- and make the sun shine out of Trump's ass.

Being a human being, I want to let humans be stars.

You suck.

Well when the people are the sun and the government is the earth the people are the Sun.

So in essence they are a star but they are the most important star because they are the star that makes life possible.

We think there might be life on other stars but we don't know.

Our star is the only one that makes life possible for us.

Thats what makes it our sun which is the most important star in the sky whether you know it or not.