Perspective: How It All Happened

[TemplarKormac]

Try this on for size, provide one country in history that ran it's economy on the Austrian School?

You're living in one of them. The United States up until a few years ago was operating it's economy in lock step with it. Before the establishment of the Fed, the Country had *GASP* a central bank.

The main philosophy at the the Austrian School of Economic Thought since the 1500's was that every individual plays a role in shaping a society and the economy is driven by entrepreneurial spirit, not by bloated, debt-ridden governments doling out subsidy cheques.

Do you have something bigger? This doesn't fit.

Really? Holy fuck, you better inform your fellow 'Misesians'

**Is there a nation or country that has an economy based on Austrian school?**

Daily Paul Liberty Forum

Anybody know if there is a nation or country that has an economy based on the Austrian school that does not have a central bank and/or uses debt free money or a commodity based currency? It would be great if we could find a country like this to compare how they are doing in terms of spending, national debt, inflation, etc. since it could be used as proof that Austrian economics is superior to other economic schools.

I believe Austria and Switzerland both have central banks and fiat money, right?

One of the Federal Reserve videos talks about a city (in Europe I believe) that uses debt free money. Anybody know the name of the video and which city and nation they talked about?

One of the posters answers it:

"America had central banks before the Fed (see Second Bank of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for example) but for much of our history -- and as Section 10 of the Constitution still requires -- our money was gold and silver. The US became the wealthiest (and most free) nation in the world during that time; anyone who tells you a gold standard "can't work" clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. For that matter, much of the world was on a gold standard of one sort or another until the early 20th century.

Up until FDR forced Americans to turn in their gold in 1933, your grandparents (or great-grandparents, or whatnot) could slap a $20 bill on the counter at a bank or a hardware store and exchange it for a one-ounce $20 gold coin. Up until 1964, silver US coins actually contained significant amounts of silver.

Wouldn't it be nice to know your dollars would retain their value? Wouldn't it make business and other planning easier? Wouldn't it make your savings more secure? That's exactly how things used to be in this country: a dollar actually bought MORE in 1900 than it did a hundred years earlier.

From Grand Theft America, October 31, 2008:
http://www.strike-the-root.com/82/allport/allport5.html

The Vampire State Collapses, Having Drained Its Host

Nearly a century ago, two audacious mechanisms were put into place to drain wealth and power from the American people and to funnel that wealth and power to an elite. Today's crisis has arisen because essentially all of our wealth and power has by now been taken from us, and the illusion of normalcy can no longer be maintained.

The "two audacious mechanisms" for taking wealth from the American people are, of course, income taxation and fiat currency."

It pays to read the comments buddy.

 

[Bfgrn]

There is such a thing as spoiling people rotten, Carbine. You have no credibility when you cite John Maynard Keynes. You practically admit that his economic theorems are the bases of this administration's economic policy. Keynesian economics is why we've run up more debt in the past 5 years than we have in the previous 8 combined. You have literally no respect for people do you?

Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush are Keynesians?

We have run up more debt in the past 5 years because of the total failure in the previous 8 years.

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

Where did I say that?

Nah, you just discredited your entire argument by blaming Bush. In 5 years, Obama has spent more than Bush in his two terms in office. That fact is undeniable. You cannot work your way around it.

Here is how it works. If you are going to blame Obama for the rising debt, you need to provide the legislation, programs and spending that is his. Because when the economy goes down the drain, revenues plummet, spending skyrockets and the debt increases. Obama did not crash the economy, Bush, Republicans and Wall Street did.

Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama - The Washington Post

Things that are undeniable:

It had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.

By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush are Keynesians?

We have run up more debt in the past 5 years because of the total failure in the previous 8 years.

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

Where did I say that?

Nah, you just discredited your entire argument by blaming Bush. In 5 years, Obama has spent more than Bush in his two terms in office. That fact is undeniable. You cannot work your way around it.

Here is how it works. If you are going to blame Obama for the rising debt, you need to provide the legislation, programs and spending that is his. Because when the economy goes down the drain, revenues plummet, spending skyrockets and the debt increases. Obama did not crash the economy, Bush, Republicans and Wall Street did.

Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama - The Washington Post

Things that are undeniable:

It had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.

By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic.

Things that are missing: your argument. Don't throw charts at me mister. It took Obama only 5 years to spend 5.3 trillion. That's more than either of the two administrations you mentioned put together. Predictably, you are failing to make your point. Good day.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You may also wish to look at this, my mathematically challenged friend:

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?pageType=politics&catid=57400369&feed_id=3&videofeed=39

Yep, we're done here.

 

[Bfgrn]

Where did I say that?

Nah, you just discredited your entire argument by blaming Bush. In 5 years, Obama has spent more than Bush in his two terms in office. That fact is undeniable. You cannot work your way around it.

Here is how it works. If you are going to blame Obama for the rising debt, you need to provide the legislation, programs and spending that is his. Because when the economy goes down the drain, revenues plummet, spending skyrockets and the debt increases. Obama did not crash the economy, Bush, Republicans and Wall Street did.

Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama - The Washington Post

Things that are undeniable:

It had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.

By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic.

Things that are missing: your argument. Don't throw charts at me mister. It took Obama only 5 years to spend 5.3 trillion. That's more than either of the two administrations you mentioned put together. Predictably, you are failing to make your point. Good day.

You gonna go run and hide now 'mister'?

HELLO? Is there a brain inside??

OBAMA DID NOT SPEND 5.3 trillion. When the economy goes down the drain, revenues plummet, spending skyrockets and the debt increases. Obama did not crash the economy, Bush, Republicans and Wall Street did. Obama did not start 3 trillion dollar wars without paying for them. BUSH DID. Obama did not drain revenues with tax cuts for the rich. BUSH DID.

You right wing turds are like the brother-in law who borrows the guy's new car. You run it dry of oil, drive it into a ditch, smash it into a tree, then when you hand back the keys you say...YOU really need to take better care of YOUR car.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Civil Rights bill was passed with a coalition of Northern Republicans and Northern Democrats. They defeated the coalition of Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans. The southern population of course blamed President Johnson, a Democrat, and soon began voting for Republicans. Which is ironic because a hundred years ago the southern population was hell bent on killing as many Republicans activist (giving Blacks voting rights) as possible.

Step right up folks and see history revised before your eyes.

Your say-so is of no value. What, specifically, is inaccurate in the post you quoted?

 

[NYcarbineer]

They were not conservatives, you twit.


They were Democrats.

Democrats: members of the party of slavery, segregation, sedition, and secularization.

Don't try to squirm out of your heritage.
Wear your label and be proud!

Zell Miller is a Democrat. He is a Conservative. He endorsed Bush and McCain for president. He worked for Lester Maddox. He is a hero of the modern American Right. He is probably a hero of yours.

Southern Democrats in the post Civil War era up until the shift that occurred from 1964 on were mostly CONSERVATIVES.

That is common knowledge. That is irrefutable fact.

To deny irrefutable fact is the lowest form of stupidity.

In this state, Zell Miller is nothing but a flip flopper. Georgians around here do not like him. And as you know, we're redder than a fresh picked rose. Your mistake is always attributing conservative with republican. Democrats can be conservative as well, that still doesn't change the fact that they are still Democrats. That party has been leftist in nature ever since it's inception. You might as well accept it, as poor Jake found out in that thread of mine, the name DEMOCRAT is associated with slavery, segregation, sedition and secularism.

If you still don't think they're racist, just criticize Obama and see how quickly they respond with "It's because he's black, isn't it?"

You're flailing, reaching. Give it up.

What did I say that was inaccurate?

I NEVER attributed conservative exclusively to Republicans. In the post you responded to I just pointed out one of the few conservative DEMOCRATS. A former segregationist Democrat who is now beloved by conservatives.

Why is that?

One minute the Right is trying to demean the modern Democratic party with some sort of weird guilt-by-association comparison to Democrats of 50 to 150 years ago,

the next minute the Right is holding up Zell Miller as one of the last of the 'good' Democrats.

Sounds to me like the only people around who share some sort of kinship with the old conservative Democrats of the south are the modern day conservatives.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keynes never advocated never paying back the money you might borrow in hard times for the purpose of stimulus.

Then how come we aren't paying them back, Carbine? I would like to see where he explicitly stated that. Keynesian economics relies on inflation. When there isn't any, well it falls flat on it's face.

Fiscal irresponsibility is no longer punished by the voters.

 

[candycorn]

Doesn't the Bible also speak of killing those who work on the Sabbath? So if you guys take the text that literally, shouldn't you be against anyone working on Sunday? Not an NFL fan, huh? Can you also sell your daughter into slavery? Thats in the book too right? As for the NFL...touching the skin of a dead pig is a no-no too.

So you're for putting the NFL players to death right (sanctioned by the Bible)
So you're for getting rid of football in general (sanctioned by the Bible)
So you're for selling your daughter into slavery (sanctioned by the Bible)

Right? What would the difference between those 3 and the part about homosexuality?

Please enlighten us or do you only take some parts of the Bible seriously (strangely enough the only parts that fit into Conservative superstitions)?

Please explain...

So you're for survivor benefits for same-sex couples?

You asked, I told you. Now go pound sand.

I asked, you answered, I pointed out why your answer is bullshit, you ran.

Seriously...how can you pick and choose what part of "Holy Scripture" you adhere to? If you are hell bent on taking some of it literally, how do you decide which parts?

Republican superstition has nothing to do with it? Are you sure?

Seriously...can you call yourself a Christian if you don't support all parts of the Bible?

So you're for putting the NFL players to death right (sanctioned by the Bible)
So you're for getting rid of football in general (sanctioned by the Bible)
So you're for selling your daughter into slavery (sanctioned by the Bible)

 

[Foxfyre]

Seriously, what does anybody calling themselves Chrsitian regardless of what they support have to do with the topic of this thread?

 

[candycorn]

Seriously, what does anybody calling themselves Chrsitian regardless of what they support have to do with the topic of this thread?

You'll have to ask Meister...he brought it up.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/297205-perspective-how-it-all-happened-18.html#post7352844

I'll be interested in seeing the results of what I'm sure will be an exhaustive investigation of his answer....lol.

 

[Meister]

I just couldn't get past the part that I bolded....I just had to laugh.
Wasn't it Obama that played the fear mongering with how the sequester would make the sky fall?
Yup, when I read your posts, they just reek of hypocrisy.


just an observation

Okay...lets go there.

Explain the right wing opposition to equal rights for same sex marriages?

It's not fear, candy.
It's a Bible thing that you just wouldn't understand.
And, it never was about them not having equal rights

A question was asked and I answered it. Then you took off on a gotchya quest. Typical of a liberal blaming everything on everybody else.

 

[candycorn]

Okay...lets go there.

Explain the right wing opposition to equal rights for same sex marriages?

It's not fear, candy.
It's a Bible thing that you just wouldn't understand.
And, it never was about them not having equal rights

A question was asked and I answered it. Then you took off on a gotchya quest. Typical of a liberal blaming everything on everybody else.

You said it was the bible and the bible speaking against Homosexuality.

Right?

I pointed out other things in the bible that the right wing has no problem with and asked you to explain the difference.

You called me a name and ran away.

Foxy is asking what scripture has to do with the thread and I'm asking you the same thing and how you can take some of the bible and say it's the reason but ignore other parts of the Holy scripture when it is not convenient. Typical of a conservative running when called on their own words.

 

[Meister]

It's not fear, candy.
It's a Bible thing that you just wouldn't understand.
And, it never was about them not having equal rights

A question was asked and I answered it. Then you took off on a gotchya quest. Typical of a liberal blaming everything on everybody else.

You said it was the bible and the bible speaking against Homosexuality.

Right?

I pointed out other things in the bible that the right wing has no problem with and asked you to explain the difference.

You called me a name and ran away.

Foxy is asking what scripture has to do with the thread and I'm asking you the same thing and how you can take some of the bible and say it's the reason but ignore other parts of the Holy scripture when it is not convenient. Typical of a conservative running when called on their own words.

And here you are trying to go down that same rabbit trail.

Thanks for proving my point, Candie.

 

[velvtacheeze]

Blacks don't vote for the GOP because all the white racists that were in the Democratic Party left the party for the GOP , starting as early as the 1950s and continuing into the 1990s.

The region that votes against Obama in the greatest numbers are the gomer-filled slave states. Gee. What. A. Shocker.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Blacks don't vote for the GOP because all the white racists that were in the Democratic Party left the party for the GOP , starting as early as the 1950s and continuing into the 1990s.

The region that votes against Obama in the greatest numbers are the gomer-filled slave states. Gee. What. A. Shocker.

Geezzz....

...where do they find brilliant minds like yours???

Let me put that another way: Is this your first day out of the 'nervous hospital'?


Wanna try to free up the congealed gears of your mind…?


Dare ya' to take on post #281....page 19.

Gonnna rip you up when you realize you can't handle it.

 

[candycorn]

A question was asked and I answered it. Then you took off on a gotchya quest. Typical of a liberal blaming everything on everybody else.

You said it was the bible and the bible speaking against Homosexuality.

Right?

I pointed out other things in the bible that the right wing has no problem with and asked you to explain the difference.

You called me a name and ran away.

Foxy is asking what scripture has to do with the thread and I'm asking you the same thing and how you can take some of the bible and say it's the reason but ignore other parts of the Holy scripture when it is not convenient. Typical of a conservative running when called on their own words.

And here you are trying to go down that same rabbit trail.

Thanks for proving my point, Candie.

What was your point? That you're incapable of explaining your position?

Also that Foxy wouldn't bother you...that was proven also.

 

[Foxfyre]

You were the one who derailed the thread CC and you are continuing to attempt to do it. Take it to another thread please if you want to stay on that track. This train is devoted to a different track.

I'm still waiting for the requested response to Post #281. So far crickets.

 

[Foxfyre]

There was a post in one of the active environmental threads though that really does speak to the overall theme of this thread. PC hit on the long range motives of those who do everything they can to keep racism alive.

But there are other sinister concepts at work too on the environmental front. Gslack summarized the general gist of this in this post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...the-atmosphere-is-what-we-18.html#post7355538

If you set aside your political and socioeconomic prejudices long enough to look at the basic thesis objectively and with a willingness to accept what truths might be evident, it is something all freedom loving people should be aware of and be ready to fight, if necessary, for their freedoms.

Just a couple of the quotations you will find at that link:

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another
United States. We can't let other countries have the same
number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US.
We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are."
- Michael Oppenheimer,
Environmental Defense Fund

"If we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of
saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
an ecologically sound society under socialism.
I don't think it is possible under capitalism"
- Judi Bari,
principal organiser of Earth First!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anyone remember the so-called 'Reagan Democrats'?

Of course you do.

In the South, they were mostly conservative states rights Democrats, many of them segregationists if they were old enough,

who flocked to their new hero, Ronald Reagan.