Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Republicrat 'Economics' Sophistry Exposed..YUCK!
06-18-2014, 08:16 AM
Post: #11
RE: Republicrat 'Economics' Sophistry Exposed..YUCK!
Quote:If you cannot understand why, but understand the mechanics, then I'm not sure you are thinking critically. Think of all the people in the ponzi/pyramid scheme: they benefit from it's completion and don't want to get stuck on their feet when the music stops.

Right, Abacus.

Usually when something is esoteric, it is not because someone has done a great job of keeping it secret or "suppressed" the information. Usually, it is because *people do not want to know.* Auntie, I can understand that when you discover something shocking / powerful you want to shout it from the rooftops (um, repeateadly and with lots of color). But that really misses the point.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-19-2014, 07:17 AM (This post was last modified: 06-19-2014 07:19 AM by Auntie Republicrat.)
Post: #12
RE: Republicrat 'Economics' Sophistry Exposed..YUCK!
"The banks -- commercial banks and the Federal Reserve -- create all the money of this nation and its people pay interest on every dollar of that newly created money. Which means that private banks exercise unconstitutionally, immorally, and ridiculously the power to tax the people. For every newly created dollar dilutes to some extent the value of every other dollar already in circulation." (Jerry Voorhis -maybe the most knowledgeable Republicrat politician/'monetary realist' ever)

Thanks for the thoughts Woodcanoe, TPP and Islander!

I contend MOST people do not understand this miserable fraud. I was in possession of a stinking government college 'economics degree' several years before I 'figured it out.' 'I have calmly questioned dozens of people in intimacy and have come to the conclusion that people have some hazy (and completely false) notions about the very basics of 'dollars'/'money'..1.) They falsely believe 'the government prints the money.' WORSE THAN MERELY IGNORANT of the hideous reality: PRIVATE, secret-squirrel banksters/counterfeiters--many of them 'Foreigners'--control the most sought after man-made commodity of all-time: the 'legal tender'..and btw most of it is merely number$, not the little green ragcloth rectangles people imagine..2.) People don't understand the nature of 'money': that it's 'value' LARGELY derives from our being forced to use 'it,' and only 'it'...in the payment of taxes, fees, fines, etc..i.e. 'it' is a creation of 'law'(s)..

All I'm saying is that because it is a creation of 'law' then we all should be treated equally..particularly as to the issuance of the new $tuff..(hint: We most certainly are not!)

And yes I will scream loudly...as I would if my and yes, your, hou$e was on fire!

Have a good day, you Kings of New England, you Princes of Maine! Wink
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-19-2014, 09:37 AM
Post: #13
RE: Republicrat 'Economics' Sophistry Exposed..YUCK!
(Ladies and) Gentlemen:
You are on the right track. You reject abstract theories and have little regard for abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition, that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic industry.

We come to offer you a wonderful opportunity for your — what shall we call it? Your theory? No, nothing is more deceptive than theory. Your doctrine? Your system? Your principle? But you dislike doctrines, you have a horror of systems, as for principles, you deny that there are any in political economy; therefore we shall call it your practice — your practice without theory and without principle.

We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival, which is none other than the sun, is waging war on us so mercilessly we suspect he is being stirred up against us by perfidious Albion (excellent diplomacy nowadays!), particularly because he has for that haughty island a respect that he does not show for us [1].

We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

Be good enough, honourable deputies, to take our request seriously, and do not reject it without at least hearing the reasons that we have to advance in its support.

First, if you shut off as much as possible all access to natural light, and thereby create a need for artificial light, what industry in France will not ultimately be encouraged?

If France consumes more tallow, there will have to be more cattle and sheep, and, consequently, we shall see an increase in cleared fields, meat, wool, leather, and especially manure, the basis of all agricultural wealth.

If France consumes more oil, we shall see an expansion in the cultivation of the poppy, the olive, and rapeseed. These rich yet soil-exhausting plants will come at just the right time to enable us to put to profitable use the increased fertility that the breeding of cattle will impart to the land.

Our moors will be covered with resinous trees. Numerous swarms of bees will gather from our mountains the perfumed treasures that today waste their fragrance, like the flowers from which they emanate. Thus, there is not one branch of agriculture that would not undergo a great expansion.

The same holds true of shipping. Thousands of vessels will engage in whaling, and in a short time we shall have a fleet capable of upholding the honour of France and of gratifying the patriotic aspirations of the undersigned petitioners, chandlers, etc.

But what shall we say of the specialities of Parisian manufacture? Henceforth you will behold gilding, bronze, and crystal in candlesticks, in lamps, in chandeliers, in candelabra sparkling in spacious emporia compared with which those of today are but stalls.

There is no needy resin-collector on the heights of his sand dunes, no poor miner in the depths of his black pit, who will not receive higher wages and enjoy increased prosperity.

It needs but a little reflection, gentlemen, to be convinced that there is perhaps not one Frenchman, from the wealthy stockholder of the Anzin Company to the humblest vendor of matches, whose condition would not be improved by the success of our petition.

We anticipate your objections, gentlemen; but there is not a single one of them that you have not picked up from the musty old books of the advocates of free trade. We defy you to utter a word against us that will not instantly rebound against yourselves and the principle behind all your policy.

ₒₒₒₒ ©(¯õ¿õ¯)® ₒₒₒₒ
Breitbart was here
Veritas vos liberabit
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-20-2014, 07:59 AM
Post: #14
RE: Republicrat 'Economics' Sophistry Exposed..YUCK!
If all the bank loans were paid, no one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon. (Robert Hemphill)

One wonders what Bastiat would have to say/said about foreign secret-squirrel banksters in control of the creation (or destruction) of the mo$t $ought-after man-made commodity. I know there are virtually no Republicrat politicians who have anything to say about it..publicly anyway..
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-20-2014, 09:13 AM
Post: #15
RE: Republicrat 'Economics' Sophistry Exposed..YUCK!
(06-20-2014 07:59 AM)Auntie Republicrat Wrote:  [b] . . .
One wonders what Bastiat would have to say/said about foreign secret-squirrel banksters in control of the creation (or destruction) of the mo$t $ought-after man-made commodity. . . .

Bastiat is my favorite economist (perhaps next to Hayek.)


``Hateful money! hateful money!´´ cried F—, the economist, despairingly, as he came from the Committee of Finance, where a project of paper money had just been discussed. ``What's the matter?´´ said I. ``What is the meaning of this sudden dislike to the most extolled of all the divinities of this world?´´

F. Hateful money! hateful money!

B. You alarm me. I hear peace, liberty, and life cried down, and Brutus went so far even as to say, ``Virtue! thou art but a name!´´ But what can have happened?

F. Hateful money! hateful money!

B. Come, come, exercise a little philosophy. What has happened to you? Has Croesus been affecting you? Has Jones been playing you false? or has Smith been libeling you in the papers?

F. I have nothing to do with Croesus; my character, by its insignificance, is safe from any slanders of Smith; and as to Jones...

B. Ah! Now I have it. How could I be so blind? You, too, are the inventor of a social reorganization — of the F—-system, in fact. Your society is to be more perfect than that of Sparta, and, therefore, all money is to be rigidly banished from it. And the thing that troubles you is, how to persuade your people to throw away the contents of their purses. What would you have? This is the rock on which all reorganizers split. There is not one but would do wonders, if he could contrive to overcome all resisting influences, and if all mankind would consent to become soft wax in his fingers; but men are resolved not to be soft wax; they listen, applaud, or reject and — go on as before.

F. Thank heaven I am still free from this fashionable mania. Instead of inventing social laws, I am studying those which it has pleased Providence to invent, and I am delighted to find them admirable in their progressive development. This is why I exclaim, ``Hateful money! hateful money!´´

B. You are a disciple of Proudhon, then? Well, there is a very simple way for you to satisfy yourself. Throw your purse into the river, only reserving a small draft on the Bank of Exchange.

F. If I cry out against money, is it likely I should tolerate its deceitful substitute?

B. Then I have only one more guess to make. You are a new Diogenes, and are going to victimize me with a discourse on the contempt of riches.

F. Heaven preserve me from that! For riches, don't you see, are not a little more or a little less money. They are bread for the hungry, clothes for the naked, fuel to warm you, oil to lengthen the day, a career open to your son, a certain portion for your daughter, a day of rest after fatigue, a cordial for the faint, a little assistance slipped into the hand of a poor man, a shelter from the storm, a diversion for a brain worn by thought, the incomparable pleasure of making those happy who are dear to us. Riches are instruction, independence, dignity, confidence, charity; they are progress and civilization. Riches are the admirable civilizing result of two admirable agents, more civilizing even than riches themselves — labor and exchange.

B. Well! now you seem to be singing the praises of riches, when, a moment ago, you were loading them with imprecations!

F. Why, don't you see that it was only the whim of an economist? I cry out against money, just because everybody confounds it, as you did just now, with riches, and that this confusion is the cause of errors and calamities without number. I cry out against it because its function in society is not understood, and very difficult to explain. I cry out against it because it jumbles all ideas, causes the means to be taken for the end, the obstacle for the cause, the alpha for the omega; because its presence in the world, though in itself beneficial, has, nevertheless, introduced a fatal notion, a perversion of principles, a contradictory theory, which, in a multitude of forms, has impoverished mankind and deluged the earth with blood. I cry out against it, because I feel that I am incapable of contending against the error to which it has given birth, otherwise than by a long and fastidious dissertation to which no one would listen. Oh! if I could only find a patient and benevolent listener!

B. Well, it shall not be said that for want of a victim you remain in the state of irritation in which you now are. I am listening; speak, lecture, do not restrain yourself in any way.

F. You promise to take an interest?

B. I promise to have patience.

F. That is not much.

B. It is all that I can give. Begin, and explain to me, at first, how a mistake on the subject of money, if mistake there be, is to be found at the root of all economical errors?



##############################

The rest is here (it's long):

http://bastiat.org/en/what_is_money.html

ₒₒₒₒ ©(¯õ¿õ¯)® ₒₒₒₒ
Breitbart was here
Veritas vos liberabit
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-22-2014, 09:00 AM (This post was last modified: 06-22-2014 09:11 AM by Auntie Republicrat.)
Post: #16
RE: Republicrat 'Economics' Sophistry Exposed..YUCK!
"It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." -- Henry Ford

I think Henry was right about thi$, TPP!

'End The Fed' Rallies in Germany..

http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2014/06/19/...t-germany/

"...As I have said many times before, future generations will look back at Central Banking as we look back at slavery..."

Unfortunately, here in Maine in 'the great competition of ideas about government' Rolleyes we have pitted yet another crap-house full of pitiful Republicrat know-littles and go-alongs...Cain vs. Poliquin..Meeshoo vs. LeRage...oozie and what's her name..etc. ad gd nauseam..Thumbs_down

But try and have a good day anyway! Thumbs_up
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-23-2014, 06:39 AM
Post: #17
RE: Republicrat 'Economics' Sophistry Exposed..YUCK!
"Man is the creature of God and money is the creature of man. Money is made to be the servant of man and I protest against all theories that enthrone money and debase man...The right to coin money and issue money is a function of the Government. It is a part of sovereignty and can no more be delegated with safety to individuals than we could afford to delegate to private individuals the power to make penal statutes or to levy taxes." William Jennings Bryan, ?1896
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-23-2014, 09:01 AM (This post was last modified: 06-23-2014 09:02 AM by Three Pipe Problem.)
Post: #18
RE: Republicrat 'Economics' Sophistry Exposed..YUCK!
TANSTAF1, that was a really excellent piece by Bastiat, which I had not read.

Auntie, I got my hopes up thinking that you were moving onto a question(s) that I thought would have great significance for you -- *why* do so few people understand what is going on with money, and why do those who do see, or take advantage of, few opportunities to state it publicly. You seem to have glossed right over the points Abacus and I made on that.

Incidentally, Bastiat attempts to answer those questions in the essay TANSTAF1 linked to... in a few different ways.

"I cry out against money, just because everybody confounds it, as you did just now, with riches, and that this confusion is the cause of errors and calamities without number. I cry out against it because its function in society is not understood, and very difficult to explain. I cry out against it because it jumbles all ideas, causes the means to be taken for the end, the obstacle for the cause, the alpha for the omega; because its presence in the world, though in itself beneficial, has, nevertheless, introduced a fatal notion, a perversion of principles, a contradictory theory, which, in a multitude of forms, has impoverished mankind and deluged the earth with blood. I cry out against it, because I feel that I am incapable of contending against the error to which it has given birth, otherwise than by a long and fastidious dissertation to which no one would listen."

...

"B. I have not yet made up my mind that your views upon money and political economy in general are correct. But, from your conversation, this is what I have gathered: — That these questions are of the highest importance; for peace or war, order or anarchy, the union or the antagonism of citizens, are at the root of the answer to them. How is it that in France and most other countries which regard themselves as highly civilized, a science which concerns us all so nearly, and the diffusion of which would have so decisive an influence upon the fate of mankind, is so little known? Is it that the State does not teach it sufficiently?

F. Not exactly. For, without knowing it, the State applies itself to loading everybody's brain with prejudices, and everybody's heart with sentiments favorable to the spirit of anarchy, war, and hatred; so that, when a doctrine of order, peace, and union presents itself, it is in vain that it has clearness and truth on its side, — it cannot gain admittance.

B. Decidedly you are a frightful grumbler. What interest can the State have in mystifying people's intellects in favor of revolutions, and civil and foreign wars? There must certainly be a great deal of exaggeration in what you say.

F. Consider. At the period when our intellectual faculties begin to develop themselves, at the age when impressions are liveliest, when habits of mind are formed with the greatest ease — when we might look at society and understand it — in a word, as soon as we are seven or eight years old, what does the State do? It puts a bandage over our eyes, takes us gently from the midst of the social circle which surrounds us, to plunge us, with our susceptible faculties, our impressible hearts, into the midst of Roman society. It keeps us there for ten years at least, long enough to make an ineffaceable impression on the brain. Now observe, that Roman society is directly opposed to what our society ought to be. There they lived upon war; here we ought to hate war; there they hated labor; here we ought to live upon labor. There the means of subsistence were founded upon slavery and plunder; here they should be drawn from free industry. Roman society was organized in consequence of its principle. It necessarily admired what made it prosper. There they considered as virtue what we look upon as vice. Its poets and historians had to exalt what we ought to despise. The very words liberty, order, justice, people, honor, influence, etc., could not have the same signification at Rome, as they have, or ought to have, at Paris. How can you expect that all these youths who have been at university or conventual schools, with Livy and Quintus Curtius for their catechism, will not understand liberty like the Gracchi, virtue like Cato, patriotism like Caesar? How can you expect them not to be factious and warlike? How can you expect them to take the slightest interest in the mechanism of our social order? Do you think that their minds have been prepared to understand it? Do you not see that in order to do so they must get rid of their present impressions, and receive others entirely opposed to them?

B. What do you conclude from that?

F. I will tell you. The most urgent necessity is, not that the State should teach, but that it should allow education. All monopolies are detestable, but the worst of all is the monopoly of education."

Auntie, I confess I'm surprised that you have an economics degree. Are you comfortable sharing where you earned that degree? More importantly, do you read any Austrian economists, or sustain yourself indefinitely on the "baby food" of pop/conspiracy books about the Fed, City of London, etc?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-24-2014, 07:00 AM
Post: #19
RE: Republicrat 'Economics' Sophistry Exposed..YUCK!
"I cry out against money, just because everybody confounds it,...I cry out against it because its function in society is not understood, and very difficult to explain...I cry out against it, because I feel that I am incapable of contending against the error to which it has given birth, otherwise than by a long and fastidious dissertation to which no one would listen."

Rolleyes

Poor Bastiat sounded as confused and hopelessly discouraged as today's Republicrats..Monetary THEORISTS, certainly not monetary REALISTS. Bastiat and you CERTAINLY don't address my concerns: That money creation/issuance is a public function that ought to be transparent. (see art. 1, sec. 8, clause 5 of the US con.)...not some bizarre scheme controlled by private banksters and generally hidden from public view. Dig yet?

TPP queries: Auntie, I confess I'm surprised that you have an economics degree. Are you comfortable sharing where you earned that degree? More importantly, do you read any Austrian economists, or sustain yourself indefinitely on the "baby food" of pop/conspiracy books about the Fed, City of London, etc?

University of Maine. (btw, I wouldn't be surprised if you had an economics degree) And yes, I'm familiar with 'the Austrians' down at good ol' boy Auburn. (They are THEORISTS...certainly not REALISTS)..Murray Rothbard and others. Btw, whatever 'baby food' I have ingested, and whether you admit it or not, I am obviously way ahead of you in my understanding of 'monetary reality.' Wink

As Alexander Del Mar (perhaps the world's All-time greatest monetary historian) wrote: Economists don't take the trouble to study the history of money. It's much easier to imagine it and deduce the principles of this imaginary knowledge.

The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. John Kenneth Galbraith
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-25-2014, 09:27 AM (This post was last modified: 06-25-2014 10:08 AM by Three Pipe Problem.)
Post: #20
RE: Republicrat 'Economics' Sophistry Exposed..YUCK!
Oh, you're an anti-rational. That's sad.

You reject theory. Doubting you are aware that this is a very popular attitude among the universities these days, at least, in the humanities and liberal arts. I have noticed that people who reject theory tend...

a) to fail to notice that a rejection of theory is itself a theoretical idea (a variant of "all generalizations are false"... or, are you willing/able to define your terms and somehow avoid this path?). I suspect you will find it easy to dismiss the fact that your idea about theory leads immediately to self-contradiction as... an irrelevant act of theoretical sophistry. But I assure you, when your ideas lead to contradictions, it is significant.

b) to lack much significant knowledge in fields like mathematics, physics, science or formal logic.... fields that are meaningless without theory, yet collectively form the basis for modern achievement.

c) despite the above, to be quite content to drive over bridges without worrying too much. Of course, the reason we can do this is purely theoretical knowledge. In my view, someone who is willing to reject theory while trusting bridges (just as an example) reveals herself as embracing ignorance in intellectual matters, while blindly trusting those who know better to handle the important stuff.

If you want to debate this point for a while, I'm game. In general, though, my willingness to debate an anti-rational person is approximately zero.

A few miscellaneous points:

1. Alexander Del Mar was an *economist*. Does this suggest that you have a pattern of attachment to trivially self-contradictory statements? Okay, okay... he clearly meant *other* economists. But then, he died in 1926, when economics was very young. Are you aware that some of the greatest works in the history of money have been published in the last 10 years, mostly by other economists?

2. IMO Mises is much purer an Austrian than Rothbard, and well worth reading.

3. Your hero, Ron Paul, seems to disagree with you fundamentally about Austrian economics *and* the value of theory. In "Mises and Austrian Economics" for example, he said "Of all the important contributions of the Austrian School, the subjective theory of value has proven most helpful to me in understanding why things aren’t as the interventionists say they ought to be." He also says in reference to a particular argument, "Yet I believe it is crucial for them to understand the theory if true reform is to be achieved." Now it is perfectly acceptably to back a politician who doesn't agree with your fundamental ideas... some call it "choosing the lesser of two evils". My personal view is that it's another likely example of self-contradiction, though. Auntie, I'm afraid you won't be able to think clearly until you change some of your fundamental views about truth.

4. No economics degree here.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | My Site | Return to Top | Return to Content | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication