How is austerity doing in Europe

[bripat9643]

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.

Come on, Kimura...you know as well as I do that "Ancarcho-capitalists" as defined by that Wiki piece are the EXTREME of the libertarian movement and that what the majority of libertarians are seeking is a more limited role for government. To maintain that libertarians want to "dismantle" the State simply because they (rightly) view government as becoming more and more intrusive in our everyday lives is a viewpoint that ignores reality.

You still are struggling to make a coherent argument that feudalism equates to libertarianism. Libertarians are all about maintaining personal freedoms and preventing their being usurped by "higher powers".. Feudalism was all about giving up personal freedom in return for safety. Quite frankly, they are almost polar opposites in how they function.

I'm not taking it to it the extreme in the least. This is what they say in the literature. In point of fact, they are quite empathic about it. We're not talking about legalizing pussy or pot. With these guys, you know what I'm talking about, it's about dismantling the nation-state. This simply cannot work, bro. Yes, I was taking their goals to the ultimate philosophical end so to speak. Obviously, ultimately, I was trying to make a point if that makes sense.

Whether it can work is a legitimate subject for debate. However, equating it to feudalism is the sign of an ignoramus who doesn't know what feudalism is.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not taking it to it the extreme in the least. This is what they say in the literature. In point of fact, they are quite empathic about it. We're not talking about legalizing pussy or pot. With these guys, you know what I'm talking about, it's about dismantling the nation-state. This simply cannot work, bro. Yes, I was taking their goals to the ultimate philosophical end so to speak. Obviously, ultimately, I was trying to make a point if that makes sense.

In addition, it is my humble but correct opinion that the folks pushing libertarianism do so not so much with the hope of getting to that goal {though they would be ecstatic iif they could, as they intend to run the country if they could actually get there). I think it is the journey that is their more possible goal. Because on this journey, they can make lots of money. Lowering taxes, killing unions and lowering workers wages, and so on. All of the things that help them line their pockets.
Just kidding about the humble but correct thing. Hell, you have to have a little fun.
If a person is at all rational, they know that the fact that no Libertarian economy has ever worked pretty much tells them that libertarianism is not going to happen.
So, they push Ayn Rand books and movies, get the irrational all fired up, all so that they can vote in far right nut cases. Not a great long term plan for them. But it makes some headway for their intent to see the income and wealth continue to increase for the wealthy segment.
Hell, 50 years ago, I was briefly enamored with Objective. But then I hit puberty, and rationality won out. But I did come to the conclusion that Libertarians were simlpy republicans that wanted to smoke pot and get laid. So, it had some good points. But then, most libertarians do drop the theory by the time they hit puberty.

Right. Here's what disturbs me: thanks to retards like Rand and Ron Paul this shit gets peddled on campuses all over the US. You really aren't doing these kids any favors in point of fact. You're creating a nation of parrots so to speak. I run into these kids all the time since we hire interns and shit. Dude, it's so bad, the brainwashing, these kids don't even understand monetary operations. I'm a bond trader. Once I explain to them how reality works, I simultaneously kill their dreams and enlighten them. Basic shit. For example, I have interns that don't understand that the FED sets interest rates all along the term structure. The don't understand we have a central bank that literally determines interest rates. It like a fucking epiphany for these people.

You have to be a fool to believe that the fed has that much control over interest rates. In the short run, it can nudge interest rates in one direction or another. In the long run, interest rates are set by the consumers time preference for money.

You believe the fed determines interest rates because you've been brainwashed with statist propaganda.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Oh really? So where is the "corresponding asset" for all the money the Social Security administration owes future retirees?

US public debt is nothing more than private wealth and any interest payments are essentially private income.

U.S. public debt is an I.O.U drawn on the income of future taxpayers. There is no "wealth" there at all.

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.

They have added nothing but worthless scraps of paper to the private sector. Yeah, the certainly increased "demand" for goods and services, because the government distributed the money it received to all it's various classes of parasites and job-holders. However, the government has no way to repay this consumption other than by shaking down future taxpayers for it. So there is nothing of value to the taxpayers resulting from the exchange. Only a liability.

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.

Government borrowing and spending does not cause the GDP of the country to grow. There is no conceivable mechanism for such a thing to occur.

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.

I wont waste my time with further deconstruction of your economic lunacy.

 

[editec]

The similarity between feudalism and libertarianism is merely that BOTH systems vest POWER based entirely on PROPERTY.

But certainly feudalism is closer to the libertarian ideal that what we have now.

Remember that theoretically the KING owned the land..ALL of it.


And his power (and that of his vassels) was nominated based on the property he and his vassels controlled.

His serfs were PROPERTY themselves.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

Let me understand this, Oldstyle. Are you actually saying that the south fought a war over slavery because it did not increase their productivity. Perhaps if you would just think before you made a statement. Jesus.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

No on can help it that you are stupid. There is this invention, called the internet, wherein you may find answers to you questions. Stop wasting people's time with stupid questions. Dipshit.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

It will be, to you. Because you are a congenital idiot. They always find things hilarious. It is a function of a lack of intelligence. You are, in other words, stupid. No one can help you with that.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

Between the two of you, you you have what, an IQ of 100?? That would be your opinion. Dipshit. And you know how much we all respect your opinion.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

And libertarianism, me boy, does not exist. So, you are describing your wet dream. As soon as you can name a successful libertarian state, maybe someone could take you seriously. Until then, you are just are obviously delusional tool.

 

[Rshermr]

"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?

it's ok dipshit. You can not help being stupid. But please, do not expect anyone to help you.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

Oh really? So where is the "corresponding asset" for all the money the Social Security administration owes future retirees?



U.S. public debt is an I.O.U drawn on the income of future taxpayers. There is no "wealth" there at all.



They have added nothing but worthless scraps of paper to the private sector. Yeah, the certainly increased "demand" for goods and services, because the government distributed the money it received to all it's various classes of parasites and job-holders. However, the government has no way to repay this consumption other than by shaking down future taxpayers for it. So there is nothing of value to the taxpayers resulting from the exchange. Only a liability.

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.

Government borrowing and spending does not cause the GDP of the country to grow. There is no conceivable mechanism for such a thing to occur.

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.

I wont waste my time with further deconstruction of your economic lunacy.

You are delusional. But, what the hell. You believe what you want to believe. Proof is not necessary that way. Dipshit. You deconstructed nothing. You simply made a series of really stupid statements, and you liked what you said.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Let me understand this, Oldstyle. Are you actually saying that the south fought a war over slavery because it did not increase their productivity. Perhaps if you would just think before you made a statement. Jesus.

I'm a history major, Tommy....and unlike you I actually learned something about the subject when I was in college. The South didn't fight a war simply because slavery was such a boon to their economy...they fought that war because they felt they had the right to make that determination. It's why you'll often hear the Civil War referred to in the South as the War of State's Rights. By the 1800's slavery in the South was centered primarily around large plantations and the growing of cotton. For the average Southerner who did not even own slaves the reasons for secession were based upon State's rights not economic productivity. The average Southerner didn't own slaves so what reason would they have to wage a war over keeping them? One of the common misconceptions about the South at that point was that everyone owned slaves. The truth is slaves were owned by about 20% of Southerners and that ownership was centered in areas that grew tobacco and cotton. For the rest of the South slavery wasn't crucial to their survival.

Think? Coming from you that's amusing...

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

It will be, to you. Because you are a congenital idiot. They always find things hilarious. It is a function of a lack of intelligence. You are, in other words, stupid. No one can help you with that.

Gee, was someone here whining about personal attacks? As usual, Tommy...your mouth is writing checks your brain can't cash.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

Let me understand this, Oldstyle. Are you actually saying that the south fought a war over slavery because it did not increase their productivity. Perhaps if you would just think before you made a statement. Jesus.

I'm a history major, Tommy....and unlike you I actually learned something about the subject when I was in college. The South didn't fight a war simply because slavery was such a boon to their economy...they fought that war because they felt they had the right to make that determination. It's why you'll often hear the Civil War referred to in the South as the War of State's Rights. By the 1800's slavery in the South was centered primarily around large plantations and the growing of cotton. For the average Southerner who did not even own slaves the reasons for secession were based upon State's rights not economic productivity. The average Southerner didn't own slaves so what reason would they have to wage a war over keeping them? One of the common misconceptions about the South at that point was that everyone owned slaves. The truth is slaves were owned by about 20% of Southerners and that ownership was centered in areas that grew tobacco and cotton. For the rest of the South slavery wasn't crucial to their survival.

Think? Coming from you that's amusing...

But then, me boy, I did not say that the south fought a war simply because of slavery. But slavery was one of the issues that they fought the war over. And, you said that slavery was "is NOT conducive to productivity". I said that in the minds of those in power in the south, it was indeed believed that slavery was helpful to their productivity. Yes, I do understand that not everyone had slaves. And that slaves were most prominent in agricultural efforts in the south. You do not have to know much about history to understand that.
You need to understand productivity in the economic sence. Productivity, based on output per dollar of cost, was much higher with slaves than without. Productivity in those agricultural areas, which were particularly important to the economic well being of the south, was indeed increased by slavery. Even more so in the minds of the slave owners than in reality.

 

[Rshermr]

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

It will be, to you. Because you are a congenital idiot. They always find things hilarious. It is a function of a lack of intelligence. You are, in other words, stupid. No one can help you with that.

Gee, was someone here whining about personal attacks? As usual, Tommy...your mouth is writing checks your brain can't cash.

Just returning fire, me boy.

 

[Kimura]

In addition, it is my humble but correct opinion that the folks pushing libertarianism do so not so much with the hope of getting to that goal {though they would be ecstatic iif they could, as they intend to run the country if they could actually get there). I think it is the journey that is their more possible goal. Because on this journey, they can make lots of money. Lowering taxes, killing unions and lowering workers wages, and so on. All of the things that help them line their pockets.
Just kidding about the humble but correct thing. Hell, you have to have a little fun.
If a person is at all rational, they know that the fact that no Libertarian economy has ever worked pretty much tells them that libertarianism is not going to happen.
So, they push Ayn Rand books and movies, get the irrational all fired up, all so that they can vote in far right nut cases. Not a great long term plan for them. But it makes some headway for their intent to see the income and wealth continue to increase for the wealthy segment.
Hell, 50 years ago, I was briefly enamored with Objective. But then I hit puberty, and rationality won out. But I did come to the conclusion that Libertarians were simlpy republicans that wanted to smoke pot and get laid. So, it had some good points. But then, most libertarians do drop the theory by the time they hit puberty.

Right. Here's what disturbs me: thanks to retards like Rand and Ron Paul this shit gets peddled on campuses all over the US. You really aren't doing these kids any favors in point of fact. You're creating a nation of parrots so to speak. I run into these kids all the time since we hire interns and shit. Dude, it's so bad, the brainwashing, these kids don't even understand monetary operations. I'm a bond trader. Once I explain to them how reality works, I simultaneously kill their dreams and enlighten them. Basic shit. For example, I have interns that don't understand that the FED sets interest rates all along the term structure. The don't understand we have a central bank that literally determines interest rates. It like a fucking epiphany for these people.

You have to be a fool to believe that the fed has that much control over interest rates. In the short run, it can nudge interest rates in one direction or another. In the long run, interest rates are set by the consumers time preference for money.

You believe the fed determines interest rates because you've been brainwashed with statist propaganda.

The FED controls the interest rates up and down the entire term structure. I can get into detail if need be.

 

[Oldstyle]

Still waiting for Kimura to explain why if debt isn't an issue we shouldn't just pile it on and make everything peaches and cream.

 

[Kimura]

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.

Oh really? So where is the "corresponding asset" for all the money the Social Security administration owes future retirees?

I was referring to the deficit. The 16 trillion are liabilities of the federal government and assets of the public. If you don't think this is true, I will gladly relieve you of your burden in your checking or savings account.

There isn't a SS problem. It's simply a faux problem. Just like Medicare, Congress can fund it into perpetuity. It's simply a political decision, not a financial one. The only problem would be if we didn’t have the real resources seniors need to retire, such as food, clothing, shelter, medical care, etc.

U.S. public debt is an I.O.U drawn on the income of future taxpayers. There is no "wealth" there at all.

They have added nothing but worthless scraps of paper to the private sector. Yeah, the certainly increased "demand" for goods and services, because the government distributed the money it received to all it's various classes of parasites and job-holders. However, the government has no way to repay this consumption other than by shaking down future taxpayers for it. So there is nothing of value to the taxpayers resulting from the exchange. Only a liability.

How is it an IOU? Under our fiat monetary system, all spending precedes taxation and “borrowing” from an operational standpoint. The government doesn’t need to tax in order to obtain that which it freely issues. The government essentially uses taxes to regulate aggregate demand and create demand dollars so to speak.

US public debt represents the total savings of the US economy. It consists of private wealth and all interest payments are private income. All it represents is the accumulated budget deficits run in the past.

If you want to increase the savings of Americans, it simply cannot occur through deficit reductions, especially in the current economic environment.

By the way, the 'US deficit' adds to our savings right down the last penny. This is an accounting fact not open to debate. This is basic national income accounting. For example, let's say the government runs a three trillion dollar deficit. This means there would be a total net increase in savings in the form of financial assets of three trillion dollars down to the last penny. Remember, financial assets are held as member bank deposits at the Federal Reserve, cash or Treasuries. In other words, the deficit is equal to the total increase in the holdings of US financial assets held by you and I, firms and households, which we commonly referred to as the non-government sector.

I wont waste my time with further deconstruction of your economic lunacy.

Please, I beg you, enlighten me.

Here's something you need to understand and I will gladly get into detail: Total net private financial wealth is equal to public debt down to the last penny from a sectoral standpoint.

 

[Rshermr]

Still waiting for Kimura to explain why if debt isn't an issue we shouldn't just pile it on and make everything peaches and cream.

Simplistic question. Easy answer. For the same reason the doc does not suggest taking a 50 gallon barrel full of pain pills for your head ache.

 

[Kimura]

Still waiting for Kimura to explain why if debt isn't an issue we shouldn't just pile it on and make everything peaches and cream.

The reality of the situation is that national governments very rarely run down their stock of debt from a macroeconomic standpoint.

In terms of the overall macroeconomic point of view, all tax and spending decisions by the federal government should be done in such a fashion that total net spending in our economy is good enough to produce a level of real output in which firms would be able to employ any and all available labor. The goal of government should be to make sure the level of spending is sufficient enough to employ any and all available productive capacity. Period. Done deal.