Anyone have an opinion on the economy?

[Ronin]

Indeed Wastrel, they are over extended.
Time to bring them home to take care of what is theirs.
We really should fix our own back yards before we start mowing the lawn of our neighbours.

[Rigante]

Personally I think one should always strike at the source of the trouble so....lets go invade France, they are weak and nobody give' s a shit about them..hehehe..

[The Crack Taoist]

Do I have an opinion on the economy?

Yeah.. but it's not a popular one.

Bush and Clinton have had no fundamental differences in
economic terms.
Both are fundamentally Keynesian.
Both are fundamentally in favor of government intervention.
Both utilize inflation and deficits to fund their preferred
forms of government spending (be it social programs for
the Great Society or military spending).

This sort of situation would be laughable if it weren't so
damn tragic, as humanity has had the Austrian business
cycle theory for how many decades?
Inflation and goverment debt lead to easy money/credit
expansion in the business sector, which cause malinvestment
and poor market cues, which in turn lead to recessions
once the bubble bursts. Trying to lower interest rates
even further or "priming" the economy by administering
more of the disease (goverment debt/spending) only
slows and draws out the recovery process.

The fix for the recession is simple, but not very popular.
Castrate the one entity with the power to distort the
market, the money supply, and the economy (i.e.
the Fed). Hard money and an end to fractional reserve
banking.
Not that it will happen.. but it's a solution.
People would rather have easy credit and lots of hidden
taxes (i.e. inflation) than simply live within their means
as a society.
"Don't tax you, don't tax me.. let's tax that there feller
behind the tree!"
(In this case the "fellow behind the tree" is the hidden
government revenue sources of gov debt and inflation).

Now let's all watch the thread stop in it's tracks LOL.

[The Wastrel]

Bush and Clinton have had no fundamental differences in
economic terms.
Both are fundamentally Keynesian.
Both are fundamentally in favor of government intervention

I would argue that it is in the nature of political actors to support government intervention. They differ only in the methods they employ or the sectors and factors that they appear to favor.

Monetary and fiscal policy however isn't manipulated ONLY to benefit targeted constituencies, but also to maintain the national balance-of-payments. If a state is running a current account deficit for example, it may manipulate exchange rates in order to devalue currency and make its products more attractive in foreign markets, which in turn boosts income for American producers. If foreign currencies APPRECIATE in relation to the dollar, imports become more expensive in relation to domestically produced goods, and less American money is spent on imports which also reduces the current account deficit.

Inflation and goverment debt lead to easy money/credit expansion in the business sector, which cause malinvestment and poor market cues, which in turn lead to recessions once the bubble bursts.

Markets can become overvalued for a number of reasons, it is the nature of a market in which the majority of transactions are private, there are hidden transactions, human emotion and perception rules short-term behaviour etc.

The fix for the recession is simple, but not very popular. Castrate the one entity with the power to distort the
market, the money supply, and the economy (i.e.
the Fed). Hard money and an end to fractional reserve
banking.

There have certainly been a lot of problems with fractional reserve banking. Hmmm....Japanese financial crisis...

But fixed-exchange rate systems are hardly the panacea that everyone seems to make them out to be. Adopting a fixed exchange simply requires that governments spend and buy currencies behind the scenes in order to guarantee tha value of their currencies abroad. So instead of manipulating rates of inflation, and thus wielding their own power over their own currency values, they enter an agreement with other states to maintain a value. If for some reason they don't want to comply, as in the case of Nixon's abandonment of Bretton Woods, then they face the possibility of speculative attacks etc. By adopting fixed exchange you sacrifice a measure of domestic policy autonomy.

Then again, when you say "hard currency" do you mean abandoning exchange notes entirely in favor of pieces of some commodity, like gold for example?

I don't think that even needs to be addressed, does it?

[Mr. Mantis]

Anarchy is a non-option. It cannot exist.

You are right, however, ponder this for me. I believe that elements of anarchy (never total) exists in every totalitarian regime.

Examples: Stalin's russia. He killed thousands of people, for virtually no reason. He would pass sentance (usually death) before the trial! His caprice rule was the law, anarchy embodied in the ruler is still anarchy.

Hitler's black and brown shirts. They rioted in the streets, burned homes and churches, took people from their homes for practically no reason. Nationally instituted anarchy to obtain the goals of social engineering.

Mao's cultural revolution. Complete and utter craziness. Anarchy once again a tool of communism.

As for the economy, I had global crossing, and I am still pissed! If we should be blaiming anybody it is the damn corporate thieves sucking all the money away. check out this site:

http://www.ecomponline.com/

It will tell you what each of those fuckers are taking home, at least what is reported.

But seriously the economy is in the dumper but doesn't appear to be getting worse. Maybe its time to buy something.

[HAPKO3]

Stalin's rule was anarchy?

Do you know what anarchy is?

Amazing.

[The Crack Taoist]

Originally posted by The Wastrel
I would argue that it is in the nature of political actors to support government intervention. They differ only in the methods they employ or the sectors and factors that they appear to favor.

I agree totally here.

Monetary and fiscal policy however isn't manipulated ONLY to benefit targeted constituencies, but also to maintain the national balance-of-payments. If a state is running a current account deficit for example, it may manipulate exchange rates in order to devalue currency and make its products more attractive in foreign markets, which in turn boosts income for American producers. If foreign currencies APPRECIATE in relation to the dollar, imports become more expensive in relation to domestically produced goods, and less American money is spent on imports which also reduces the current account deficit.

This is precisely the sort of attempt to "improve"
the performance of the markets that I find deplorable.
Not that it matters of course :)




Markets can become overvalued for a number of reasons, it is the nature of a market in which the majority of transactions are private, there are hidden transactions, human emotion and perception rules short-term behaviour etc.

Just so. But overwhelmingly the market transactions
favor efficiency and mutual profit (as perceived by the agents
anyway).


There have certainly been a lot of problems with fractional reserve banking. Hmmm....Japanese financial crisis...

I think the history of banking tends to suggest fractional
reserve banking is a prime canidate for "THE" fiscal
problem...

But fixed-exchange rate systems are hardly the panacea that everyone seems to make them out to be. Adopting a fixed exchange simply requires that governments spend and buy currencies behind the scenes in order to guarantee tha value of their currencies abroad. So instead of manipulating rates of inflation, and thus wielding their own power over their own currency values, they enter an agreement with other states to maintain a value. If for some reason they don't want to comply, as in the case of Nixon's abandonment of Bretton Woods, then they face the possibility of speculative attacks etc. By adopting fixed exchange you sacrifice a measure of domestic policy autonomy.

Once again your assumption that the market needs to be
controlled for it's own good shows. Why do governments
need to stage currency wars (or trade wars of any kind
for that matter)?

Then again, when you say "hard currency" do you mean abandoning exchange notes entirely in favor of pieces of some commodity, like gold for example?

I don't think that even needs to be addressed, does it?
I don't agree with the idea of fiat currency no. But
in terms of reverting to physical chunks of metal? Why
should we go there? An exchange note which is
instantly redeemable for a fixed valuable item gives one the
best of both worlds, portability and stability.
Just in case it's not clear I'm not a gold bug..
I just think a Federal Reserve combined with fiat currencies
is far to much power to have in the hands of demagogues
and their pets.
I look forward to seeing how fiat currencies compete
against e-valuata in the coming century... it will likely
be most interesting. E-dinar anyone?

[FingerorMoon?]

The Australian economy is doing great!
This is very beneficial to me since it allows me to order more stuff I don't need from the US across the net.

[The Wastrel]

This is precisely the sort of attempt to "improve"
the performance of the markets that I find deplorable.
Not that it matters of course.

Balancing the current account deficit has nothing to do with improving markets.

I think the history of banking tends to suggest fractional
reserve banking is a prime canidate for "THE" fiscal
problem...

I think the history of banking IS the history of fractional reserve banking, no? So it basically would correlate to everything?

Once again your assumption that the market needs to be
controlled for it's own good shows. Why do governments
need to stage currency wars (or trade wars of any kind
for that matter)?

What assumption? I believe that the best function of government in market transactions is to act as guarantor, and to enforce good trade practices in order to maintain private faith in market participation. Done. The question of market failures is something else entirely, and not even hinted at in this discussion.

Also, buying and selling currencies in order to guarantee your currency's value in gold is NOT a currency war. You want international trade? Then you have to do this.

As to the anarchy question...good lord man! Anarchy isn't chaos, or arbitrary law. Anarchy is simply the absence of "archy" or an heirarchy of power structures.

[JKDChick]

Don't anyone freak, I'm moving this thread.

[McDojo Artist]

HEHE
I can laugh at american economy problems from over here:D
I think everything american is stupid!(Yeah, YOU too)

[The Wastrel]

That's okay. Swedes have to do SOMETHING to dull the pain of not being Norwegian.

[Mr. Mantis]

Originally posted by HAPKO3
Stalin's rule was anarchy?

Do you know what anarchy is?

Amazing.

Originally posted by The Wastrel
As to the anarchy question...good lord man! Anarchy isn't chaos, or arbitrary law. Anarchy is simply the absence of "archy" or an heirarchy of power structures.

Anarchy is a governmental system that has no rule of law, political disorder.

Modern Times Revised Edition by Paul Johnson p.291
Any Authoritarian system that abandons constitutional procedures and the rule of law is bound to contain an element of anarchy.

On February 28, 1933 the Reichstag was burned probably by Martinus van der Lubbe. On the same day Hitler put forth an emergency decree known as "For the Protection of the People and the State" which was supplemented by "Against Betrayal of the German People and Treasonable Machinations"

The Key passage is:

Modern Times Revised Edition by Paul Johnson p.285
Articles 114-18, 123-4 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are for the time being nullified. Consequently, curbs on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, of associations, and of assembly, surveillance over letters, telegrams and telephone communications, searches of homes and confiscations of as well as restrictions on property, are hereby permissible beyond the limits hitherto established by law.

On March 23, 1933 Hitler passed the Enabling Act which pretty much trashed their constitution all together. Hitler never saw the need to replace the weimar constitution with one of his own. Hitler destroyed German democracy in less than 5 months.

So do you see what I am getting at with this? There are bits of anarchy going on when a nation throws out its rule of law, then the totalitarianism takes grip.

[The Wastrel]

1. Paul Johnson is an idiot.

2. This:

Anarchy is a governmental system that has no rule of law, political disorder.

Is incorrect. Rule of law is a vital component of democracy, and necessary for long-term productivity, but it is not sufficient to identify a state of anarchy.

While a lack of rule-of-law is a component of anarchy. They DO NOT equal one another.

Another thing. Your idea of a rule-of-law is not quite correct either. You think there was no law under Stalin? Oh boy there was. Arbitrary and absolute, sudden and unforgiving. You seem to think that an inequality under the law is the same thing?

[Mr. Mantis]

Originally posted by The Wastrel
1. Paul Johnson is an idiot.

Whoa, you have high standards.

You think there was no law under Stalin? Oh boy there was. Arbitrary and absolute, sudden and unforgiving. You seem to think that an inequality under the law is the same thing?

Yeah, Stalin was probably the meanest ruler ever. Yes he had laws, and maybe he made them up as he went along. He murdered painters if he did not like the way they painted him. That's harsh.

The thing that gets me is that Roosevelt fricking loved the guy. And what is equally bizzare, is that Stalin, who trusted none of his people, trusted Hitler, all the way up to the attack.

Anyway, so you would say that there is no anarchy when a constitutional government is overthrown by a totalatarian one?