How is austerity doing in Europe

[Oldstyle]

The greatest example of a libertarian economy is the United States of America. You can't see the forest for the BIG HUGE TREES! The reason this country boomed was because it was founded on libertarian principles. People flocked to this country because of those principles...something that you progressives can't seem to grasp as you work diligently to toss them into the waste bin of history.

Now, lets see. You said " Libertarian economies succeed all the time."
So, I was SO excited. Finally, a list of successful Libertarian economies. But, instead, just a statement that it was the United States. Now, problem with that is, the US was never libertarian, except in the minds of a few who spend their time in the bat shit crazy con web sites. But had it been, it simply proved my point. Because it went from more Laissez Fare to less so, over time. It never existed as a libertarian state. Ever. So you have failed again to support a hypotheses. By the way the sentence stated libertarian economies succeed ALL THE TIME which generally suggests that there are a lot of them. So, you misspoke. We are all waiting with baited breath for your admission of having misspoke.
What I said, by the way, is that libertarian economies start and fail. And that none become successful ongoing economies. Libertarian economies fail, and either turn into economic cesspools, or become more and more regulated. Always. Some have gone back to more libertarian forms, and failed.
Which is why, me boy, you have failed to support your hypotheses. You see, people do not like the result. Ever.

The US became an economic powerhouse through mercantilism. It has never been a libertarian paradise during any point in its history. Quite the contrary....

I beg to differ...part of the reason for the US's break from Great Britain was the latter's infatuation with mercantilism. The founding father's were quite obviously influenced by Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and his position that there was no fixed amount of wealth. Quite frankly I don't see mercantilism being used by the US at all. At the point of the formation of the United States, mercantilism was losing favor throughout the world and would continue to do so simply because it's underlying principles were economically unsound.

 

[Kimura]

Are you kidding? The government doesn't "need" taxes to fund expenditures? Did you really just say that with a straight face? Yes, the government can print money to fund expenditures under a fiat system but they do so with the understanding that taxes will be coming in to fund those expenditures.

If we look at things operationally, I'm absolutely correct. All bond purchases and tax payments are made with money that is already spent. If this wasn't the case, there wouldn't be any dollars to buy US Treasuries to begin with or any way to extinguish tax obligations.

We'll use our federal taxes as a prime example, because I stated that spending precedes taxation. If we extend this logic to include loans from the FED, then I'm absolutely, 100% correct. The settlement of any bond auctions and taxes paid directly to the US Treasury can only be facilitated by banks reserve accounts. The actual source of balances in banks reserve accounts are from previous or past government deficits - these are credits to reserve accounts or direct loans from the FED. These Federal Reserve loans are facilitated by the purchase of private securities, repos, loans or even overdrafts. So, in order for Treasury sales to get settled or to for taxes to be paid, there must be previous government spending.

When they do what we've been doing for the past five years...printing cash at an unprecedented rate at some point the value of the dollar is effected. Your notion that a 16 trillion dollar debt has no effect on the economy is only valid if our ability to repay that debt remains strong. The Fed has just announced that it will be cutting back it's quantitative easing and I fully expect the stock market to react to that with a sharp decline. Under your voodoo economics I assume you think they should simply continue printing more money and continue adding to the debt?

The 27 trillion - the total amount - was basically kicked across the floor to Wall Street. They sat on it, it wasn't used to stimulate aggregate demand in any real sense. This whole thing was based on Bernake's wealth effect. It was total bullshit in my estimation.

The US government will always be able to pay its debts, so longs as US debts continued to be denominated in the national money of account - the US dollar. If we had debt that was denominated in Pounds or Euros, that would be a problem. You have to realize "borrowing" for the federal government is virtually costless. It even sets the interest rate at which it acquires its debt. This is the benefit of being monetarily sovereign and a currency issuer.

And QE isn't "printing money"; it's nothing more than an asset swap. All the Federal Reserve does through quantitative easing is change the composition of the financial assets being held by the public at large. I can get into detail if need be.

 

[Oldstyle]

Are you kidding? The government doesn't "need" taxes to fund expenditures? Did you really just say that with a straight face? Yes, the government can print money to fund expenditures under a fiat system but they do so with the understanding that taxes will be coming in to fund those expenditures.

If we look at things operationally, I'm absolutely correct. All bond purchases and tax payments are made with money that is already spent. If this wasn't the case, there wouldn't be any dollars to buy US Treasuries to begin with or any way to extinguish tax obligations.

We'll use our federal taxes as a prime example, because I stated that spending precedes taxation. If we extend this logic to include loans from the FED, then I'm absolutely, 100% correct. The settlement of any bond auctions and taxes paid directly to the US Treasury can only be facilitated by banks reserve accounts. The actual source of balances in banks reserve accounts are from previous or past government deficits - these are credits to reserve accounts or direct loans from the FED. These Federal Reserve loans are facilitated by the purchase of private securities, repos, loans or even overdrafts. So, in order for Treasury sales to get settled or to for taxes to be paid, there must be previous government spending.

When they do what we've been doing for the past five years...printing cash at an unprecedented rate at some point the value of the dollar is effected. Your notion that a 16 trillion dollar debt has no effect on the economy is only valid if our ability to repay that debt remains strong. The Fed has just announced that it will be cutting back it's quantitative easing and I fully expect the stock market to react to that with a sharp decline. Under your voodoo economics I assume you think they should simply continue printing more money and continue adding to the debt?

The 27 trillion - the total amount - was basically kicked across the floor to Wall Street. They sat on it, it wasn't used to stimulate aggregate demand in any real sense. This whole thing was based on Bernake's wealth effect. It was total bullshit in my estimation.

The US government will always be able to pay its debts, so longs as US debts continued to be denominated in the national money of account - the US dollar. If we had debt that was denominated in Pounds or Euros, that would be a problem. You have to realize "borrowing" for the federal government is virtually costless. It even sets the interest rate at which it acquires its debt. This is the benefit of being monetarily sovereign and a currency issuer.

And QE isn't "printing money"; it's nothing more than an asset swap. All the Federal Reserve does through quantitative easing is change the composition of the financial assets being held by the public at large. I can get into detail if need be.

"The US government will always be able to pay its debts, so longs as US debts continued to be denominated in the national money of account - the US dollar."

Ah but there's the rub, Kimura! You're making the assumption that we WILL always be able to pay our debts in the US dollar. So what happens if because of our out of control spending the confidence in the dollar lessens? The Weimar Republic's currency became essentially worthless because they printed so much of it to "pay" their debts. Granted we have a ways to go before we reach that extreme but we're well on our way with what we've been doing lately.

 

[Kimura]

Are you kidding? The government doesn't "need" taxes to fund expenditures? Did you really just say that with a straight face? Yes, the government can print money to fund expenditures under a fiat system but they do so with the understanding that taxes will be coming in to fund those expenditures.

If we look at things operationally, I'm absolutely correct. All bond purchases and tax payments are made with money that is already spent. If this wasn't the case, there wouldn't be any dollars to buy US Treasuries to begin with or any way to extinguish tax obligations.

We'll use our federal taxes as a prime example, because I stated that spending precedes taxation. If we extend this logic to include loans from the FED, then I'm absolutely, 100% correct. The settlement of any bond auctions and taxes paid directly to the US Treasury can only be facilitated by banks reserve accounts. The actual source of balances in banks reserve accounts are from previous or past government deficits - these are credits to reserve accounts or direct loans from the FED. These Federal Reserve loans are facilitated by the purchase of private securities, repos, loans or even overdrafts. So, in order for Treasury sales to get settled or to for taxes to be paid, there must be previous government spending.

When they do what we've been doing for the past five years...printing cash at an unprecedented rate at some point the value of the dollar is effected. Your notion that a 16 trillion dollar debt has no effect on the economy is only valid if our ability to repay that debt remains strong. The Fed has just announced that it will be cutting back it's quantitative easing and I fully expect the stock market to react to that with a sharp decline. Under your voodoo economics I assume you think they should simply continue printing more money and continue adding to the debt?

The 27 trillion - the total amount - was basically kicked across the floor to Wall Street. They sat on it, it wasn't used to stimulate aggregate demand in any real sense. This whole thing was based on Bernake's wealth effect. It was total bullshit in my estimation.

The US government will always be able to pay its debts, so longs as US debts continued to be denominated in the national money of account - the US dollar. If we had debt that was denominated in Pounds or Euros, that would be a problem. You have to realize "borrowing" for the federal government is virtually costless. It even sets the interest rate at which it acquires its debt. This is the benefit of being monetarily sovereign and a currency issuer.

And QE isn't "printing money"; it's nothing more than an asset swap. All the Federal Reserve does through quantitative easing is change the composition of the financial assets being held by the public at large. I can get into detail if need be.

"The US government will always be able to pay its debts, so longs as US debts continued to be denominated in the national money of account - the US dollar."

Ah but there's the rub, Kimura! You're making the assumption that we WILL always be able to pay our debts in the US dollar. So what happens if because of our out of control spending the confidence in the dollar lessens? The Weimar Republic's currency became essentially worthless because they printed so much of it to "pay" their debts. Granted we have a ways to go before we reach that extreme but we're well on our way with what we've been doing lately.

Yes, the US will always be able to pay its debts. As the monopoly issuer of the dollar, this isn't a problem, not could it ever become one.

Weimar is not a good example, neither is Zimbabwe. Weimar Germany had their industrial capacity destroyed by war and its debts were denominated in Sterling. Every instance of hyperinflation in the 20th century was caused by war, corruption and debts being denominated in a currency other than the country's own currency.

I'm not saying the US should spend endlessly, it's only constraint is that of inflation. Again, with all this excess capacity and output gap, where is this inflation going to come from? The "public debt" simply represents is the private sector's desire to save. The 16 trillion dollars in federal liabilities are assets to the public, which we have utilized to purchase real goods and services. This helped create the very capital and income required to increase real goods and services, thus increasing the overall wealth of the country.

 

[Oldstyle]

If we look at things operationally, I'm absolutely correct. All bond purchases and tax payments are made with money that is already spent. If this wasn't the case, there wouldn't be any dollars to buy US Treasuries to begin with or any way to extinguish tax obligations.

We'll use our federal taxes as a prime example, because I stated that spending precedes taxation. If we extend this logic to include loans from the FED, then I'm absolutely, 100% correct. The settlement of any bond auctions and taxes paid directly to the US Treasury can only be facilitated by banks reserve accounts. The actual source of balances in banks reserve accounts are from previous or past government deficits - these are credits to reserve accounts or direct loans from the FED. These Federal Reserve loans are facilitated by the purchase of private securities, repos, loans or even overdrafts. So, in order for Treasury sales to get settled or to for taxes to be paid, there must be previous government spending.



The 27 trillion - the total amount - was basically kicked across the floor to Wall Street. They sat on it, it wasn't used to stimulate aggregate demand in any real sense. This whole thing was based on Bernake's wealth effect. It was total bullshit in my estimation.

The US government will always be able to pay its debts, so longs as US debts continued to be denominated in the national money of account - the US dollar. If we had debt that was denominated in Pounds or Euros, that would be a problem. You have to realize "borrowing" for the federal government is virtually costless. It even sets the interest rate at which it acquires its debt. This is the benefit of being monetarily sovereign and a currency issuer.

And QE isn't "printing money"; it's nothing more than an asset swap. All the Federal Reserve does through quantitative easing is change the composition of the financial assets being held by the public at large. I can get into detail if need be.

"The US government will always be able to pay its debts, so longs as US debts continued to be denominated in the national money of account - the US dollar."

Ah but there's the rub, Kimura! You're making the assumption that we WILL always be able to pay our debts in the US dollar. So what happens if because of our out of control spending the confidence in the dollar lessens? The Weimar Republic's currency became essentially worthless because they printed so much of it to "pay" their debts. Granted we have a ways to go before we reach that extreme but we're well on our way with what we've been doing lately.

Yes, the US will always be able to pay its debts. As the monopoly issuer of the dollar, this isn't a problem, not could it ever become one.

Weimar is not a good example, neither is Zimbabwe. Weimar Germany had their industrial capacity destroyed by war and its debts were denominated in Sterling. Every instance of hyperinflation in the 20th century was caused by war, corruption and debts being denominated in a currency other than the country's own currency.

I'm not saying the US should spend endlessly, it's only constraint is that of inflation. Again, with all this excess capacity and output gap, where is this inflation going to come from? The "public debt" simply represents is the private sector's desire to save. The 16 trillion dollars in federal liabilities are assets to the public, which we have utilized to purchase real goods and services. This helped create the very capital and income required to increase real goods and services, thus increasing the overall wealth of the country.

That's the most ludicrous concept I've ever heard, Kimura. You're asserting that public debt has made overall wealth in this country increase? I guess if you don't take into account every Americans SHARE of that debt you could make that argument. Somehow you turn debt into an asset...that public debt is the private sector's desire to save? Do you really believe this nonsense?

 

[Kimura]

"The US government will always be able to pay its debts, so longs as US debts continued to be denominated in the national money of account - the US dollar."

Ah but there's the rub, Kimura! You're making the assumption that we WILL always be able to pay our debts in the US dollar. So what happens if because of our out of control spending the confidence in the dollar lessens? The Weimar Republic's currency became essentially worthless because they printed so much of it to "pay" their debts. Granted we have a ways to go before we reach that extreme but we're well on our way with what we've been doing lately.

Yes, the US will always be able to pay its debts. As the monopoly issuer of the dollar, this isn't a problem, not could it ever become one.

Weimar is not a good example, neither is Zimbabwe. Weimar Germany had their industrial capacity destroyed by war and its debts were denominated in Sterling. Every instance of hyperinflation in the 20th century was caused by war, corruption and debts being denominated in a currency other than the country's own currency.

I'm not saying the US should spend endlessly, it's only constraint is that of inflation. Again, with all this excess capacity and output gap, where is this inflation going to come from? The "public debt" simply represents is the private sector's desire to save. The 16 trillion dollars in federal liabilities are assets to the public, which we have utilized to purchase real goods and services. This helped create the very capital and income required to increase real goods and services, thus increasing the overall wealth of the country.

That's the most ludicrous concept I've ever heard, Kimura. You're asserting that public debt has made overall wealth in this country increase? I guess if you don't take into account every Americans SHARE of that debt you could make that argument. Somehow you turn debt into an asset...that public debt is the private sector's desire to save? Do you really believe this nonsense?

Of course it has. For every liability, there is a corresponding asset. US public debt is nothing more than private wealth and any interest payments are essentially private income. US public debt is really just an expression of the total net budget deficits which we have run in the past. These budget deficits have added net financial assets to the private sector in general, helping to facilitate the demand for real goods and services that have allowed Americans to sustain their income growth. This very income growth has enabled Americans to save and accrue financial assets at a much faster rate than would be possible without deficits. This debt provides individuals, firms and others in the private sector a place to put their accumulated wealth at zero risk.

In actual real terms, contrary to your statement about Americans share of debt, no such burden or share of debt exists for individual Americans, our children or grandchildren. Our children and grandchildren, just like you and I, will be able to go to work and produce and consume their real output of real goods and services, which is totally independent of how many bonds need to be rolled over. In economics, this concept simply doesn’t exist, whereby we sacrifice today's output to some date in the past, and then rolling it over to generations before us. Our children and grandchildren can't and will not pay us back a thing we’ve left to them. And even if they wanted to, it’s simply not in the cards.

 

[Rshermr]

Yes, the US will always be able to pay its debts. As the monopoly issuer of the dollar, this isn't a problem, not could it ever become one.

Weimar is not a good example, neither is Zimbabwe. Weimar Germany had their industrial capacity destroyed by war and its debts were denominated in Sterling. Every instance of hyperinflation in the 20th century was caused by war, corruption and debts being denominated in a currency other than the country's own currency.

I'm not saying the US should spend endlessly, it's only constraint is that of inflation. Again, with all this excess capacity and output gap, where is this inflation going to come from? The "public debt" simply represents is the private sector's desire to save. The 16 trillion dollars in federal liabilities are assets to the public, which we have utilized to purchase real goods and services. This helped create the very capital and income required to increase real goods and services, thus increasing the overall wealth of the country.

That's the most ludicrous concept I've ever heard, Kimura. You're asserting that public debt has made overall wealth in this country increase? I guess if you don't take into account every Americans SHARE of that debt you could make that argument. Somehow you turn debt into an asset...that public debt is the private sector's desire to save? Do you really believe this nonsense?

Of course it has. For every liability, there is a corresponding asset. US public debt is nothing more than private wealth and any interest payments are essentially private income. US public debt is really just an expression of the total net budget deficits which we have run in the past. These budget deficits have added net financial assets to the private sector in general, helping to facilitate the demand for real goods and services that have allowed Americans to sustain their income growth. This very income growth has enabled Americans to save and accrue financial assets at a much faster rate than would be possible without deficits. This debt provides individuals, firms and others in the private sector a place to put their accumulated wealth at zero risk.

In actual real terms, contrary to your statement about Americans share of debt, no such burden or share of debt exists for individual Americans, our children or grandchildren. Our children and grandchildren, just like you and I, will be able to go to work and produce and consume their real output of real goods and services, which is totally independent of how many bonds need to be rolled over. In economics, this concept simply doesn’t exist, whereby we sacrifice today's output to some date in the past, and then rolling it over to generations before us. Our children and grandchildren can't and will not pay us back a thing we’ve left to them. And even if they wanted to, it’s simply not in the cards.

Yup. But cons are all sure that some day they are going to have to pay the national debt back to someone. They are not sure whom, but in general think it is China or some such. Or that their children are on their way to debtors prison. That is what one BELIEVES if they live in the con world. Because, the simple minds think that US debt is the same as personal debt. Funny.

 

[Oldstyle]

Yes, the US will always be able to pay its debts. As the monopoly issuer of the dollar, this isn't a problem, not could it ever become one.

Weimar is not a good example, neither is Zimbabwe. Weimar Germany had their industrial capacity destroyed by war and its debts were denominated in Sterling. Every instance of hyperinflation in the 20th century was caused by war, corruption and debts being denominated in a currency other than the country's own currency.

I'm not saying the US should spend endlessly, it's only constraint is that of inflation. Again, with all this excess capacity and output gap, where is this inflation going to come from? The "public debt" simply represents is the private sector's desire to save. The 16 trillion dollars in federal liabilities are assets to the public, which we have utilized to purchase real goods and services. This helped create the very capital and income required to increase real goods and services, thus increasing the overall wealth of the country.

That's the most ludicrous concept I've ever heard, Kimura. You're asserting that public debt has made overall wealth in this country increase? I guess if you don't take into account every Americans SHARE of that debt you could make that argument. Somehow you turn debt into an asset...that public debt is the private sector's desire to save? Do you really believe this nonsense?

Of course it has. For every liability, there is a corresponding asset. US public debt is nothing more than private wealth and any interest payments are essentially private income. US public debt is really just an expression of the total net budget deficits which we have run in the past. These budget deficits have added net financial assets to the private sector in general, helping to facilitate the demand for real goods and services that have allowed Americans to sustain their income growth. This very income growth has enabled Americans to save and accrue financial assets at a much faster rate than would be possible without deficits. This debt provides individuals, firms and others in the private sector a place to put their accumulated wealth at zero risk.

In actual real terms, contrary to your statement about Americans share of debt, no such burden or share of debt exists for individual Americans, our children or grandchildren. Our children and grandchildren, just like you and I, will be able to go to work and produce and consume their real output of real goods and services, which is totally independent of how many bonds need to be rolled over. In economics, this concept simply doesn’t exist, whereby we sacrifice today's output to some date in the past, and then rolling it over to generations before us. Our children and grandchildren can't and will not pay us back a thing we’ve left to them. And even if they wanted to, it’s simply not in the cards.

You continue to amuse me with this concept that the national debt is a good thing. If that's the case then why don't we bump that debt up to something REALLY impressive like 30 trillion and we'll all be filthy rich! Heck, let's make it a hundred trillion and we'll all be living in mansions and driving Porsches.

 

[itfitzme]

That's the most ludicrous concept I've ever heard, Kimura. *You're asserting that public debt has made overall wealth in this country increase? *I guess if you don't take into account every Americans SHARE of that debt you could make that argument. *Somehow you turn debt into an asset...that public debt is the private sector's desire to save? *Do you really believe this nonsense?

Of course it has. For every liability, there is a corresponding asset. US public debt is nothing more than private wealth and any interest payments are essentially private income. *US public debt is really just an expression of the total net budget deficits which we have run in the past. These budget deficits have added net financial assets to the private sector in general, helping to facilitate the demand for real goods and services that have allowed Americans to sustain their income growth. This very income growth has enabled Americans to save and accrue financial assets at a much faster rate than would be possible without deficits. *This debt provides individuals, firms and others in the private sector a place to put their accumulated wealth at zero risk.*

In actual real terms, contrary to your statement about Americans share of debt, no such burden or share of debt exists for individual Americans, our children or grandchildren. Our children and grandchildren, just like you and I, will be able to go to work and produce and consume their real output of real goods and services, which is totally independent of how many bonds need to be rolled over. In economics, this concept simply doesn’t exist, whereby we sacrifice today's output to some date in the past, and then rolling it over to generations before us. Our children and grandchildren can't and will not pay us back a thing we’ve left to them. And even if they wanted to, it’s simply not in the cards.

You continue to amuse me with this concept that the national debt is a good thing. *If that's the case then why don't we bump that debt up to something REALLY impressive like 30 trillion and we'll all be filthy rich! *Heck, let's make it a hundred trillion and we'll all be living in mansions and driving Porsches.

Because someone has to build the mansions and*Porsches. So if they are made in the year 2020, then they will be purchases and driven in the year 2020.

Come on, really? You know money isn't economic wealth. It's little numbers.

 

[itfitzme]

It is bookkeeping And bookkeeping has certain immutable rules to it. They aren't rules like the law of gravity, but when it comes to a functional economy and money supply. The single immutable fact is that there is some point where the intersest on the debt on the debt is equal to tax receipts. That's a bit of a problem, should it ever reach that point, because there won't sufficient funds from receipts to pay the IRS and Treasury Department personnel to collect the taxes and pay interest.

 

[jasonnfree]

And the Class Idiot's repeated assertions that no "libertarian economy" has ever succeeded is pure hogwash. Smaller government means that less money is being siphoned away from the economy and more money is being invested IN the parts of the economy that actually creates jobs...not "faux" jobs created with government money that cost obscene amounts of money but REAL jobs, created in the private sector with private sector capital. Libertarian economies succeed all the time. You don't want to admit that a lean, well run government sector that doesn't burden it's citizens with well intentioned but badly conceived legislation creates economic booms.

Now that is a surprise. Oldstyle starts out with a personal attack.
Great, Oldstyle This will be new information to a whole lot of libertarians who have been looking for a successful Libertarian economy. My bet, after having gone on your little con tool tirade is that you can not name and justify the assertion that there are successful libertarian economies. Put up, or .....

You say libertarian economies succeed all the time, but have neglected to name even one. There is, of course, a difference between never and all the time, Oldstyle.
But then, since libertarian millionaires and billionaires themselves (Unlike you, Oldstyle) can not find a successful libertarian economy, a number have decided to make their own. That is REAL desperation. Must be because they did not like the successful libertarian economies of your fantasies, Oldstyle. But then Libertarian islands ARE funny.

The greatest example of a libertarian economy is the United States of America. You can't see the forest for the BIG HUGE TREES! The reason this country boomed was because it was founded on libertarian principles. People flocked to this country because of those principles...something that you progressives can't seem to grasp as you work diligently to toss them into the waste bin of history.

When this country really boomed there were also things like slavery, indentured servitude, and child labor which really increased productiviy. A modern libertarian country wouldn't have that advantage. Then there are regulations and environmental laws that the country didn't have to deal with back then. Also, this was before America was trying to be an empire like now, so they didn't have a huge military expense sucking the lifeblood out of the economy.

 

[Oldstyle]

Now that is a surprise. Oldstyle starts out with a personal attack.
Great, Oldstyle This will be new information to a whole lot of libertarians who have been looking for a successful Libertarian economy. My bet, after having gone on your little con tool tirade is that you can not name and justify the assertion that there are successful libertarian economies. Put up, or .....

You say libertarian economies succeed all the time, but have neglected to name even one. There is, of course, a difference between never and all the time, Oldstyle.
But then, since libertarian millionaires and billionaires themselves (Unlike you, Oldstyle) can not find a successful libertarian economy, a number have decided to make their own. That is REAL desperation. Must be because they did not like the successful libertarian economies of your fantasies, Oldstyle. But then Libertarian islands ARE funny.

The greatest example of a libertarian economy is the United States of America. You can't see the forest for the BIG HUGE TREES! The reason this country boomed was because it was founded on libertarian principles. People flocked to this country because of those principles...something that you progressives can't seem to grasp as you work diligently to toss them into the waste bin of history.

When this country really boomed there were also things like slavery, indentured servitude, and child labor which really increased productiviy. A modern libertarian country wouldn't have that advantage. Then there are regulations and environmental laws that the country didn't have to deal with back then. Also, this was before America was trying to be an empire like now, so they didn't have a huge military expense sucking the lifeblood out of the economy.

Slavery, indentured servitude and child labor is NOT conducive to productivity, Jason. Some rather intelligent people figured out that the most productive labor force is one that is working to better itself...not because you chain them to a machine.

 

[Oldstyle]

And I would make the argument that America had aspirations to be an "empire" right from it's conception. Look no further than the lands that we took from Mexico and from the American Indians. Then there are the various protectorates that we have collected over the years...Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa. We don't expand our "empire" these days...instead we've become the world's policeman...protecting others from bullies like North Korea, Iraq and Iran.

 

[bripat9643]

We tried libertarianism once in the past. It was called feudalism.

You're another major league idiot. You don't even know what feudalism is. You obviously don't know the slightest thing about economics. In other words, you're a typical left-winger.

I have an BA and MS in Economics. Try again, cupcake.

If you want to debate, I'm definitely game. You pick: macro, micro, labor theory, monetary operations? Since you're clearly a superior intellect, and I'm clearly an idiot, I'll give it my best.

I think you have a BS and MS in commie propaganda.

OK, asshole, tell us what feudalism is. Especially explain how it differs from capitalism.

 

[bripat9643]

We tried libertarianism once in the past. It was called feudalism.

Now that's one of the dumber statements made on here in quite some time (no wonder Tommy thought it deserved a thanks! You got the idiot's seal of approval!). Feudalism is NOTHING like libertarianism. Feudalism is based upon a contract between a lord and a vassal...the lord pledging to protect the vassal from outside forces and the vassal pledging to provide service to the lord in exchange for that protection. How THAT translates into libertarianism is something you'll have to try and explain!

It should be glaringly obvious the "libertarianism" of the variety espoused by the Murray Rothbard/Robert Nozick/Ayn Rand axis most definitely resembles feudalism. I can get into detail if need be.

Please do. I'm sure the results will be hilarious.

 

[bripat9643]

It should be glaringly obvious the "libertarianism" of the variety espoused by the Murray Rothbard/Robert Nozick/Ayn Rand axis most definitely resembles feudalism. I can get into detail if need be.

I'd be interested in reading the details. Just an overview with a few significant points supported by a supporting detail. Nothing too long, but a classical essay style would be a welcome relief from all the "I told you.."s and sweeping overgeneralizations.

I'd like to preface this by stating Robert Nozick differs in many ways from Murray Rothbard, and Murray Rothbard represents more of the contemporary libertarian movement in the US.

Most of them want to dismantle the modern nation-state. What is the government for the Libertarian? It's essentially privatized, consisting of private contracts, and the ultimate goal being the privatization of arbitration and protection services, whereby political power also becomes exclusively privatized. The protection of your rights are then commoditized: protection of said rights are based on one's ability to pay, based on private authority in the form of contracts.

What's the problem with this arrangement? There's no type of public power which can act in an impartial capacity. There also isn't any type of legislative scaffolding which is answerable to the public in any type of non-market form. We'd have zero equal rights in such as system. We're talking about feudal, private governance in such a system. In such a system, political power is acted on for private ends, not toward the public good in any way, shape, or form.

We can get into their market delusions later on at some point.

You may be right about libertarians wanting to reduce the sphere of government to the smallest size possible. However, that doesn't equate to Feudalism. There is plenty of government under Feudalism. In fact, there is virtually no such thing as the "private sphere." There is no private property or private businesses. Your term "feudal private governance" is an oxymoron.

Your theories about the results of libertarian policies is even more wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

We tried libertarianism once in the past. It was called feudalism.

Now that's one of the dumber statements made on here in quite some time (no wonder Tommy thought it deserved a thanks! You got the idiot's seal of approval!). Feudalism is NOTHING like libertarianism. Feudalism is based upon a contract between a lord and a vassal...the lord pledging to protect the vassal from outside forces and the vassal pledging to provide service to the lord in exchange for that protection. How THAT translates into libertarianism is something you'll have to try and explain!

And another attack. Jesus, Oldstyle. Is that all you have.
Let me try to help you. You are in way over your head trying to argue economics. Good time to exit right.
but I predict that you will simply do what you always have done, which is attack and insult, cause you are toast economically.

Oldstyle understands feudalism far better than the drones in this thread.

 

[bripat9643]

So you think the protection of rights should be based on people’s ability to pay? Individual rights don't function the same way as property rights. Our rights are fundamental, meaning they can't be traded against non-rights. I'm sure you would agree they're also inalienable. For example, I can't give up my rights or contractually send them away.

Property rights are individual rights, so your argument is automatically balogna. Whether they can be protected by private firms is a subject for debate.

When libertarians talk about "rights," they're talking about treating basic rights as property rights. In such a scenario, our basic rights receive no more protection than property rights. You can rescind or bargain them away in such a system, and property rights can never be regulated and are fundamental.

ROFL! That's because property rights are "basic rights." Why would you treat them any different than any other right? The only debatable issue is whether they can be protected without government. The main reason libertarians are have an interest in doing that is the fact that "limited government" has proven to be an oxymoron. Government can't be limited. It always grows to the point where society can no longer support it.

 

[bripat9643]

I'd like to preface this by stating Robert Nozick differs in many ways from Murray Rothbard, and Murray Rothbard represents more of the contemporary libertarian movement in the US.

Most of them want to dismantle the modern nation-state. What is the government for the Libertarian? It's essentially privatized, consisting of private contracts, and the ultimate goal being the privatization of arbitration and protection services, whereby political power also becomes exclusively privatized. The protection of your rights are then commoditized: protection of said rights are based on one's ability to pay, based on private authority in the form of contracts.

What's the problem with this arrangement? There's no type of public power which can act in an impartial capacity. There also isn't any type of legislative scaffolding which is answerable to the public in any type of non-market form. We'd have zero equal rights in such as system. We're talking about feudal, private governance in such a system. In such a system, political power is acted on for private ends, not toward the public good in any way, shape, or form.

We can get into their market delusions later on at some point.

And oldstyle, true to form, starts attacking as soon as he is unable to discuss the subject.
Never asks for clarification, just attacks.
Remember, you are discussing economics with a dishwasher. He actually THINKS he understands economics, but all he is capable of is posting drivel from bat shit crazy con web sites, where he gets his stuff.

Then, when he is unable to argue a subject, or does not understand it, he immediately starts the personal attacks. Soon he will be lying like a rug.
At first I thought he was delusional. Over time, I have come to understand him as a sociopath. No conscience, no integrity. Just an attack animal.
From a posting standpoint, trying to have a discussion with him is very much like entering home for the insane. You can win the argument, easily enough. But it is a waste of time. Because he just can not, in any situation, admit you are correct, and he may be wrong. That, of course, requires integrity, which he does not have.

Discussion with oldstyle soon degenerates to the point that it is like stepping on a dog turd in the yard. Hard to kick it off. No interest, after a bit, in anything but personal attacks and insults. Beyond that, he simply wants to post conservative dogma. No interest in actually discussing a subject.

His economic hero is Thomas Sowell, an avowed libertarian. Has very close ties to the CATO institute and the Koch brothers(no surprise there, obviously).

I'm just here to debate. I really don't understand the need for personal attacks unless they're warranted.

Ironically, I actually have a background in Economics, which sort of makes me cringe when I read some of these posts. This by no means makes me an expert, but there's so many misconceptions on here, I feel compelled to post whenever I have some downtime.

LOL @ CATO and the Koch Brothers.

I cringe when I see someone who supposedly has an economics education claim that libertarian economics are the same as feudalism. That's the kind of claim only an utter ignoramus would make.

 

[bripat9643]

I suggest you read some Rothbard and Nozick. I just gave you a summation of the drivel these people spoon feed their cult members.

Let me as you this: If libertarians are correct in their belief that they somehow know best how to organize a society, why isn't there a single country in the world in the 21st century organized along libertarian, anarcho-capitalist lines?

"Anarcho-capitalist"? Seriously? You continue to amuse, Kimura. The main premise behind libertarianism is the preservation of individual rights. You make THAT out to be anarchy...which is totally absurd. That isn't something that you organize a country around...it's simply a philosophy.

Now did you want to take a stab at explaining why feudalism and libertarianism are similar...or did you want to admit that you spouted a lot of nonsense?

Yes, anarcho-capitalism:

Here's a Wiki overview

I'm talking about libertarianism along Rothbard/Nozick lines.

They want to dismantle the state, thus commoditizing individual rights based along the same lines they view private property. So yeah, it's feudalism at the end of the day because your rights become based on contractual obligations and are ostensibly owed to various people. There aren't any political institutions in the mix whatsoever.

That's three wrong ideas in two sentences. Dismantling the state does not equate to "commoditizing individual rights." Inf act, I have no idea what the late concept is supposed to mean. Where is this market where you are supposed to sell your rights?