Today's Federal tax on earned wages may violate our Constitution.

The people who can only muster their attention for 3 seconds at a time are natural-born followers. They don't think, really. They just need someone to be pointed at, to follow. So, the real issue is producing good leaders with right thinking, true beliefs and moral courage. That's what Mises U and similar programs are about.

No, that is not correct. The real issue is not Mises U and some ivory tower nonsense. The issue is basic marketing and reaching as many people as possible. Research shows you have seconds to reach people and set yourself apart from the competition. Tell me how to grab the average person's attention with your marxist or direct tax issue. You have three seconds.
 
Why did the first and second banks of America fail, but the Fed did not?

strong enough political opposition. A long time ago.


False. The Fed directly caused the Depression. This is standard textbook history, so nothing revisionist about it.

The Depression was already happening before the Fed responded. It was consequential of the excesses of oligarchic capitalism, as the new America that disposed of the old began to corrupt the country. When the Fed rose rates to try and ward off the overspeculation and gambling in financial markets (another problem is the over-sophistication of financial markets, that has nothing to do with the Fed), and the Fed was still not expanding the money supply, it was a more conservative Fed, and the Fed did not go off the rails until the REPRESENTATIVES demanded that it become more centralized, with more powers (unemployment mandate), and expansion of the money supply (debt, liquidity, bailouts), all demanded by REPRESENTATIVES. Including FDR who was an elected REPRESENTATIVE. But there was only 10-20 Billion dollars in total circulation as late as the 1950's.


Then you oppose the Constitution.

Yes, I've made that clear in many threads. The Constitution is not the country. The country was fine before it.
 
So far, this thread is nothing more than a 700 level seminar with a handful of participants. No one else cares.

In the meantime, I was the last person to post in the Guest sub-forum. That was over three years ago.
 
No, that is not correct. The real issue is not Mises U and some ivory tower nonsense. The issue is basic marketing and reaching as many people as possible. Research shows you have seconds to reach people and set yourself apart from the competition. Tell me how to grab the average person's attention with your marxist or direct tax issue. You have three seconds.

I mean, the more the merrier. You do you. Mises Institute is focused on "force-multipliers" which is where you train folks who can go out and train other folks. It can seem to not be having much of an effect for some time but, over time, it builds up into a "chain-reaction", and you get things like LPMC.

As for the 3-seconds stuff, I'm not that guy. I think that a lot of Dave Smith's quotes are targeted to that aspect of messaging. And he's not the only person in the movement focusing on this. No one technique contains the whole key.
 
strong enough political opposition. A long time ago.

Yes, and the opposition was successful because there was no taxation without representation. Once you have taxation without representation, the central bank can grease the palms of the legislative, and it becomes a self-reinforcing cycle.

You completely misunderstand the Great Depression. If you want to actually understand what happened in the Great Depression, and the Fed's role in both causing and worsening it, read America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard.
 
Yes, and the opposition was successful because there was no taxation without representation. Once you have taxation without representation, the central bank can grease the palms of the legislative, and it becomes a self-reinforcing cycle.

You completely misunderstand the Great Depression. If you want to actually understand what happened in the Great Depression, and the Fed's role in both causing and worsening it, read America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard.

I'm not a fan of Rothbard at all. It is endemic to laissez-faire capitalism to have booms, busts, crises, and depressions. There were many, many of these before the Great Depression, which I still maintain began before the Fed attempted to respond, and, like all before it, such as the Long Depression, is just what happens when you allow economics to run amok and usurists and financiers to hoard markets. The problem is not too much control, it is not enough control, without ethics, and it began long before the Fed was instituted. The separation of economics from ethics was an Englightenment philosophy. I reject it, unlike Rothbard, who was not an historian, and was a proponent of falsehoods.
 
Most libertarians aren't. There's the issue.

No, that's not the issue. Most libertarians aren't deep-divers like me, either. A robust army does not consist of only light-infantry, or only cavalry. It has a broad mix of all the essential types of soldiers. If you want to know how the libertarian movement "should be" structured, go look at how the Marxists have structured their movement. They have been steam-rolling liberty for over a century. Given that they're literally fighting gravity at every step, they're certainly doing something right organizationally! The Marxists may be a lot of things, but they are well organized -- they are moving heaven and earth to impose their psychotic, upside-down-world tyranny.

It's a lot longer than 3 seconds, but if you really want to understand how the Marxists have taken over, watch the following lecture. Reducing attention-spans and cutting The Message down into quotable 3-second clips is one aspect of how they've done this, but before they were able to do all of that, they had to build an army that could do it. We don't need a massive, secret army like they do, because we're not fighting gravity. We don't need to move heaven and earth, we only need to provide enough force to tip over their insanity and let it crumble under its own weight. A lie repeated often enough, will be believed. But it's never really true, it's still just a lie. The Emperor With No Clothes was reduced to shame by a lowly child, with a single question. That's all we need. But you won't even get there if you try to build everything on 3-second TikTok clips. It will never hold up to the flames.
 
... Rothbard, who was not an historian, and was a proponent of falsehoods.

I mean, if you want to make big claims, you should at least provide some backup for that. Words are cheap.

Rothbard was a scholar whose field overlaps with history in many ways, since historical events are an important part of understanding economics. He never pretended to be something he wasn't, he just did very thorough scholarship in his chosen subjects.
 
No, that's not the issue. Most libertarians aren't deep-divers like me, either. A robust army does not consist of only light-infantry, or only cavalry. It has a broad mix of all the essential types of soldiers. If you want to know how the libertarian movement "should be" structured, go look at how the Marxists have structured their movement. They have been steam-rolling liberty for over a century. Given that they're literally fighting gravity at every step, they're certainly doing something right organizationally! The Marxists may be a lot of things, but they are well organized -- they are moving heaven and earth to impose their psychotic, upside-down-world tyranny.

It's a lot longer than 3 seconds, but if you really want to understand how the Marxists have taken over, watch the following lecture. Reducing attention-spans and cutting The Message down into quotable 3-second clips is one aspect of how they've done this, but before they were able to do all of that, they had to build an army that could do it. We don't need a massive, secret army like they do, because we're not fighting gravity. We don't need to move heaven and earth, we only need to provide enough force to tip over their insanity and let it crumble under its own weight. A lie repeated often enough, will be believed. But it's never really true, it's still just a lie. The Emperor With No Clothes was reduced to shame by a lowly child, with a single question. That's all we need. But you won't even get there if you try to build everything on 3-second TikTok clips. It will never hold up to the flames.

No, that is the issue. Most libertarians are ivory tower dopes who blather like girls.

You have to reach people before digging in. Someone convince me why I should read any of this thread. You have three seconds.
 
If you can't make an attention grabbing graphic, then summarize this boring direct tax issue in 3 bullet points. If you can't do bullet points, then do it in 3 sentences.
 
If you can't make an attention grabbing graphic, then summarize this boring direct tax issue in 3 bullet points. If you can't do bullet points, then do it in 3 sentences.

As a matter of self-improvement, I've done a bit of memeing practice on this forum, probably at the expense of minor brain-damage to forum participants. Memeing, marketing, stumping, hyping, etc. is an art in itself. Those who develop it will excel at it. I've primarily developed other skills. In the last couple years I've done some backfill on my wit. But wit is not everything. It will not carry the day. You need both -- presentation to hook people, and then substance to persuade them to stay.

- States are where the popular vote occurs and is counted (representation, "democracy")

- The Framers put the States (and their people) in charge of all regulation and taxation except those few powers enumerated to the Federal government in the Constitution, see the 9th and 10th Amendments.

- Direct taxation by the Federal government means any tax that bypasses the State governments (hence, DIRECT) and was explicitly prohibited by the Framers because it is taxation without representation, unless it is apportioned, which means that each State's citizens pay proportionally to their representation in Congress.
 
As a matter of self-improvement, I've done a bit of memeing practice on this forum, probably at the expense of minor brain-damage to forum participants. Memeing, marketing, stumping, hyping, etc. is an art in itself. Those who develop it will excel at it. I've primarily developed other skills. In the last couple years I've done some backfill on my wit. But wit is not everything. It will not carry the day. You need both -- presentation to hook people, and then substance to persuade them to stay.

- States are where the popular vote occurs and is counted (representation, "democracy")

- The Framers put the States (and their people) in charge of all regulation and taxation except those few powers enumerated to the Federal government in the Constitution, see the 9th and 10th Amendments.

- Direct taxation by the Federal government means any tax that bypasses the State governments (hence, DIRECT) and was explicitly prohibited by the Framers because it is taxation without representation, unless it is apportioned, which means that each State's citizens pay proportionally to their representation in Congress.

Okay, thanks. Now I think I get it.

So a Wyoming resident would pay a much smaller income tax percentage than a New York resident. Is that right?
 
Okay, thanks. Now I think I get it.

So a Wyoming resident would pay a much smaller income tax percentage than a New York resident. Is that right?

As I understand, the revenue collected on an apportioned tax would be pro-rata to each state according to its population... so Wyomingans would be paying a much smaller total tax bill than New Yorkers. In theory, that would all "cancel out" so that the net-percentage would theoretically be the same.

But I don't think that's what the Framers were primarily concerned with. I think they wanted the burden to fall to each state in proportion to its representation in Congress in order to ensure that any direct Federal tax would be unpopular and would be most resisted by the big states. This is the opposite of what we have now. The biggest states are the biggest proponents of higher Federal taxes, because they are more "plugged in" to the pork-barrel system than smaller states. That's exactly what the Framers knew would happen.
 
As I understand, the revenue collected on an apportioned tax would be pro-rata to each state according to its population... so Wyomingans would be paying a much smaller total tax bill than New Yorkers. In theory, that would all "cancel out" so that the net-percentage would theoretically be the same.

But I don't think that's what the Framers were primarily concerned with. I think they wanted the burden to fall to each state in proportion to its representation in Congress in order to ensure that any direct Federal tax would be unpopular and would be most resisted by the big states. This is the opposite of what we have now. The biggest states are the biggest proponents of higher Federal taxes, because they are more "plugged in" to the pork-barrel system than smaller states. That's exactly what the Framers knew would happen.


This is reminds me of the electoral college issue. The whole one man-one vote thing for the entire country is appealing. I try to tell people that half the population lives in less than 5% of the country's geography. That means that a national candidate would have no reason to campaign in the Dakotas or similar states. I show this map (yes, a graphic!) and I think they get it.





article-2413498-1BA531A3000005DC-348_964x626.jpg
 
Back
Top