CABAL OF NATIONS PLANNING SWITCH FROM DOLLAR - THIS IS HUGE

[Trademark]

This post has nothing to do with weapons, war, or oil...

If I were a cynic about our central state, I'd be half-convinced they're purposefully killing the dollar to lower the unemployment rate.

Here's how (and why)...

The Fed flips the switch on the printing press. In doing so, they double the monetary base. The extra dollars haven't hit the money supply (M1) yet, but the market is already discounting the effect those dollars will eventually have on prices. So, the dollar falls.

The further the dollar plummets, the more attractive our goods look to other countries. Rising exports translate into more domestic jobs. That lowers the unemployment rate. Bernanke looks good. Obama looks good. And Krugman adopts a grin that makes libertarians want to set aside their "no aggression" stance to punch him in the chops.

Of course, juicing employment this way creates a lot of problems. A weaker dollar makes imports more expensive (good news for the "buy American" folks). But, since the populace doesn't have its finger on the pulse of imports and exports, those numbers are largely ignored. Instead, the populace wonders why "things seem more expensive these days."

Meanwhile, due to rising exports, the unemployment figure drops below 8% (I'm speculating on the number here). That allows Obama and Bernanke to say, "See? Printing the cash worked! Thanks to our guidance, we avoided falling off the economic cliff."

And everyone claps. The populace doesn't fully appreciate the long-term damage of a decimated dollar. All they know is that "prices seem higher" and "traveling abroad is so expensive these days." And of course, businesses can't seem to penetrate foreign markets.

But, that's only if I were a cynic about our central state.

 

[LazyHippy]

Well done for reading The Independent, Robert Fisk certainly knows his shit.

I agree, the Dollar is dying, but it's not necessarily a bad thing.

If this leads to a transfer of wealth and power from The States to Asian nations then at least it will speed up development in some countries, bringing the world a little bit closer to a level playing field. Although as ever Africa will continue to get fucked by whoever calls the shots.

America has had her century or so as top dog, time for change.

 

[justo_tx]

This post has nothing to do with weapons, war, or oil...

The article the OP posted ended with a paragraph (very tenuously) implying that changing the currency used to value oil led to the invasion of Iraq, and ostensibly would lead to the invasion of Iran, so yes the post had something to do with "weapons, war, or oil...".

 

[Trademark]

The article the OP posted ended with a paragraph (very tenuously) implying that changing the currency used to value oil led to the invasion of Iraq, and ostensibly would lead to the invasion of Iran, so yes the post had something to do with "weapons, war, or oil...".

In my haste, I wasn't being clear. I only meant that *my* post had nothing to do with weapons, war, or oil. I felt the preface was needed because my post was coming out of nowhere, especially given the thread's direction.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[popeye]

Well done for reading The Independent, Robert Fisk certainly knows his shit.

I agree, the Dollar is dying, but it's not necessarily a bad thing.

If this leads to a transfer of wealth and power from The States to Asian nations then at least it will speed up development in some countries, bringing the world a little bit closer to a level playing field. Although as ever Africa will continue to get fucked by whoever calls the shots.

America has had her century or so as top dog, time for change.

So lets spread the wealth across the globe, right? So you think MORE money will stop the brutal dictators in Africa from genocide? It will keep the Theocracies from repressing women and stomping on basic human rights. One reason many of these third world countries are "third world" is the fact that they are corrupt. Do you think money will "undue" the corruption around the globe? It will only compound the problem many fold.

The west is rich (slowy fading) because of capitalism and the freedom we have given to our citizens. The west has made mistakes early on but we prop up the world and without us this rock would be a fucking hell hole to live on. Be careful what you wish.

 

[LazyHippy]

The west is rich (slowy fading) because of capitalism and the freedom we have given to our citizens.

But did that wealth stop brutal dictators in the west or keep theocracies from repressing women and stomping on basic human rights?

Yes it did, eventually.

Look at the history of Europe. As countries became more developed, the people became better educated, their standard of living increased and the monarchies found it harder and harder to cling onto power.

Sure, in the short term very little money filters down to the people that need it, but in time economic and technological development does as and will change things for the whole population, regardless of whether it's 17th century England or 21st Century China (or 22nd Century Burkina Faso).

The only people that will lose is us in the rich west that have grown accustomed to easy living, built entirely on keeping other people poor.

 

[guerilla]

If this leads to a transfer of wealth and power from The States to Asian nations then at least it will speed up development in some countries, bringing the world a little bit closer to a level playing field. Although as ever Africa will continue to get fucked by whoever calls the shots.

This is based on the idea that trade is a zero sum game. This is not so. Economists stopped believing it almost 120 years ago with the marginal revolution.

America has had her century or so as top dog, time for change.

It's not about arbitrary periods of time. It is that a bad economic system can only last so long. China will not be able to thrive under the same fiat system. That is why they are trying to incorporate gold as a reserve into commodity exchanges. The days of fiat credit, short of a global dictatorship, are numbered.

The west is rich (slowy fading) because of capitalism and the freedom we have given to our citizens. The west has made mistakes early on but we prop up the world and without us this rock would be a fucking hell hole to live on. Be careful what you wish.

There is a lot of truth in this statement.

The measure of a healthy economy is the amount it invests (from savings, not by borrowing). Capitalism is the system which encourages savings and investment. There is no incentive to save in a socialist system, because everything is in a commons, so everyone rushes to consume as much as they can, as fast as they can.

 

[guerilla]

The only people that will lose is us in the rich west that have grown accustomed to easy living, built entirely on keeping other people poor.

This statement is incorrect. The West is wealthier for trading with the East. And the East is wealthier once they dumped socialism and started trading more freely with the west.

Trade is not a zero sum game.

What people in the west have to lose, is diminished competition. But the smart and driven will always survive. It's the dull and lazy that will lose out. But of course, they get to vote, so they will vote to take from someone else because they are dull and lazy.

 

[Falian]

Ok, so I have about $3,000 in cash, but it's all going towards school. Should I buy $3,000 worth of gold, buy a scale, and just work with that?'

 

[LazyHippy]

This statement is incorrect. The West is wealthier for trading with the East. And the East is wealthier once they dumped socialism and started trading more freely with the west.

Trade is not a zero sum game.

I'm not arguing that it is, more that the world is both socially and economically unequal and this continuing inequality is self-perpetuating. As some (countries, individuals, whatever entities) exploit others they gain more resources and thus are able to continue to gain at the expense of those without the resources (or political influence) to compete.

Your idealistic view of capitalism seems to contradict your obvious intelligence and knowledge. I freely admit you know more than I about economics, but how is it possible for the free market to exist globally when there is such inequality?

Even within national boundaries pure capitalism doesn't exist, some have influence and power, while others don't. So, factoring in protectionist actions such as tariffs and subsidies, how could it ever exist globally?

The only way for free markets to truly exist would be if everyone was able to compete on (initially) equal terms and while theoretically it would work, realistically that isn't going to happen.

 

[guerilla]

Your idealistic view of capitalism seems to contradict your obvious intelligence and knowledge.

I stopped skimming at the ad hominem. If you can't debate the facts and would rather make characterizations of me personally, then we're just wasting time.

 

[turbolapp]

I stopped skimming at the ad hominem. If you can't debate the facts and would rather make characterizations of me personally, then we're just wasting time.

Actually, I would like for you to ignore the dig towards you, if you please, and answer the question towards addressing inequelities and explotations within a true Free Trade areana. For example with regards to protitution, I always thought it ridiculous to have restrictions put in place against it. (your body your choice right?) but the exploitation and human trafficking rates are ridiculous and seem to only escalate in areas that allow prostitution. This example is probably extreme and admittedly off topic, but I'd like to hear your opinion on a true Free Market what to do when human nature inevitably takes over.

 

[popeye]

I'm not arguing that it is, more that the world is both socially and economically unequal and this continuing inequality is self-perpetuating. As some (countries, individuals, whatever entities) exploit others they gain more resources and thus are able to continue to gain at the expense of those without the resources (or political influence) to compete.

Your idealistic view of capitalism seems to contradict your obvious intelligence and knowledge. I freely admit you know more than I about economics, but how is it possible for the free market to exist globally when there is such inequality?

Even within national boundaries pure capitalism doesn't exist, some have influence and power, while others don't. So, factoring in protectionist actions such as tariffs and subsidies, how could it ever exist globally?

The only way for free markets to truly exist would be if everyone was able to compete on (initially) equal terms and while theoretically it would work, realistically that isn't going to happen.

Government and regulation are the killers of capitalism. Sure their are some areas that need regulation against criminal activity but big government regulation only causes business to make moves that are financially unsound. (example: government regulation forcing banks to make mortgage loans to people that can't afford them)

It also allows the government to pick sides in business and this is nothing but the opposite of capitalism.

 

[LazyHippy]

I stopped skimming at the ad hominem. If you can't debate the facts and would rather make characterizations of me personally, then we're just wasting time.

My mistake, I should have worded that differently. It was meant along the same lines as someone trying to understand why an intelligent person believes in God.

How about...

There seems to be an idealistic view of capitalism and the free market, something which an intelligent person would accept is not realistic.

You probably would have taken that just as personally. In the same way that, "that is incorrect" - while implying "you are wrong" (and "I am right") - does not have personal connotations.

 

[LazyHippy]

Besides, character has to come into conversation and debate.

Whether we are open about it or not we make judgements on each other and those judgements will influence how we present our arguments.

Personally I would prefer if someone pointed out to me if my views appeared to be idealistic, rather than ignoring that and just focussing on the opinions themselves.

 

[guerilla]

Actually, I would like for you to ignore the dig towards you, if you please, and answer the question towards addressing inequelities and explotations within a true Free Trade areana.

Only because you are nice to me...

For example with regards to protitution, I always thought it ridiculous to have restrictions put in place against it. (your body your choice right?) but the exploitation and human trafficking rates are ridiculous and seem to only escalate in areas that allow prostitution. This example is probably extreme and admittedly off topic, but I'd like to hear your opinion on a true Free Market what to do when human nature inevitably takes over.

First of all, I don't share the shallow view of human nature. I believe that humans know right from wrong. Children understand right and wrong without the justifications and lies of adults. Children also understand property (mine and thine) very early in their development.

I also don't believe we're self-destructive by nature. I believe we're adaptive and cooperative as first instincts. If folks believe people are inherently bad, then they don't want to give some absolute power as regulators (do we really believe politicians and bureaucrats are the best we have?) and if they believe people are inherently bad, then they must not have a lot of hope, which makes discussions around ethics pointless.

First, we need to understand what a free market is. A free market, is where actors participate in trade via voluntary contract. In order to have free trade, we much have a conception of property ownership, from appropriation, to transfer. How do we gain property, and how do we distinguish who owns what (to avoid ownership conflicts). This is necessary in a world where resources are scarce. It is simply not possible to communally own things, because there is never enough to share.

In addition to an understanding of property, comes an understanding of law. Mine and thine. How to handle disputes, when both parties claim control of the same scarce (unique) resource. Law is usually accomplished by convention and negotiation.

So a free market has 3 interlocking characteristics. Voluntarism, property and law.

We do not have free markets, and all criticisms of capitalistic or free market failure are canards.

So a popular attack, is "yeah, but without regulation then everyone will exploit everyone else".

But law, and property and voluntarism, are the attributes of a market. So when someone forces another to do something involuntarily, that is not the market. When someone violates a property right, that is not the market. When someone breaks the law (contract) then that is not the market.

Prostitution is completely fine, as long as it is voluntary. When it is involuntary, it is slavery. A violation of property (self-ownership).

The reason why drugs, and prostitution are so heavily in the criminal sphere has to do with regulation. Regulation creates black markets. Prohibition proved that. People want to drink. People want to smoke pot. People want to fuck. You can't stop them. The harder you try, the more they will pay to do it. The more money there is in something illegal, the more criminals it attracts, criminals who protect their black markets with violence.

And of course the regulators only get more resources, and larger budgets, if they fail to stop the problem. So it is an endless cycle of more regulation, more funding, more criminals, more violence, and so on.

I'll go back to lazy's post in a bit. I really should be working right now.

 

[justo_tx]

For example with regards to protitution, I always thought it ridiculous to have restrictions put in place against it. (your body your choice right?) but the exploitation and human trafficking rates are ridiculous and seem to only escalate in areas that allow prostitution. This example is probably extreme and admittedly off topic, but I'd like to hear your opinion on a true Free Market what to do when human nature inevitably takes over.

What you are talking about in regards to human trafficking as it relates to the sex trade is an externality.

From wikipedia... "an externality or spillover of an economic transaction is an impact on a party that is not directly involved in the transaction. In such a case, prices do not reflect the full costs or benefits in production or consumption of a product or service."

That definition in this context is a little off as the exploited woman is a party directly involved in the transaction but does not participate in the negotiation of price or acceptance of an offer, but this still applies in a theoretical sense as the traffickee has no say in the transaction itself. A more traditional example of an externality is waste run off from a factory causing health problems for a community, the community cannot directly affect prices of the factory's prices in order to recoup the cost of the medical care required by the factory's output. Not all externalities are bad. So by definition externality has no impact on the market itself.

Externality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LazyHippy]

G... I really am not getting at you personally, we see many things alike (drugs, politicians, even human nature). I just don't think free markets are realistic.

Much like the USSR and Communism, large parts of the population of America have been brainwashed into thinking that something which works on small scale is actually functioning nationally. As you said, we don't have free markets. We never have had free markets and I very much doubt we ever will have free markets.

 

[guerilla]

I'm not arguing that it is, more that the world is both socially and economically unequal and this continuing inequality is self-perpetuating.

A rational world has inequality. We're not equal. We all have different means and ends. Different capacities and talents. Different biological makeup. That is intentional. Nature wants us to be different, because differentiation is a survival mechanism for the species.

As for the rest, I have no idea what you are talking about.

As some (countries, individuals, whatever entities) exploit others they gain more resources and thus are able to continue to gain at the expense of those without the resources (or political influence) to compete.

That has nothing to do with capitalism or free markets. It has everything to do with socialism and command economies.

Your idealistic view of capitalism seems to contradict your obvious intelligence and knowledge.

Maybe you just don't understand what capitalism is.

I freely admit you know more than I about economics, but how is it possible for the free market to exist globally when there is such inequality?

As stated, it is necessary to have inequality. Inequality is != injustice. I'm short. That's just how it is. It's not an injustice that Kobe Bryant is taller than me. It's not an injustice that I have to wear glasses and other people have 20/20 vision. It's not an injustice if I am born poor, or black, or female. It is not an injustice if I have a handicap, or if I am afflicted with a terminal health condition.

Inequality doesn't mean injustice.

Even within national boundaries pure capitalism doesn't exist, some have influence and power, while others don't. So, factoring in protectionist actions such as tariffs and subsidies, how could it ever exist globally?

I talk about economic theory and libertarian morality (voluntaryism). I don't claim to be able to predict how to run the world. In fact, a free marketer should admit that he can't predict what the market will demand, but will support that the market should demand it, instead of being forced on people with violence.

The only way for free markets to truly exist would be if everyone was able to compete on (initially) equal terms and while theoretically it would work, realistically that isn't going to happen.

Free markets are not a utopia. They don't promise perfect outcomes for anyone. They are a system of voluntary exchange of private property, supported by common and contract law.

No one needs to be equal to start. None of us are naturally equal. We are all different, each and every one of us. People who are in denial of this, or try to change this about the species are the people chasing utopia. It is collectivism, which is an anti-human agenda. We're not clones or lemmings for a really good reason. Biodiversity.

Will I ever see free markets in my lifetime? Maybe not. But that doesn't mean I am going to give into bad ideas like socialism or fascism. Regardless of what systems states impose on us, an understanding of market economics is a tremendous advantage when doing business on the (mostly) unregulated web.

 

[LogicFlux]

Prostitution is completely fine, as long as it is voluntary. When it is involuntary, it is slavery. A violation of property (self-ownership).

So then who keeps the bad people from violating people's self ownership? Lack of government regulation won't solve the problem, because even assuming lack of regulation encourages competition, competition won't keep people(pimps for example) from enslaving/exploiting those that are weaker than them.

Government regulation does create black markets, but that's not to say that the markets wouldn't exist just because they were not regulated or not outlawed. Prositution will always exist; there will always be some who will want to force the actions of others for their own gain; competition will not solve this problem unless you believe the people patronizing the exploited/exploiters will instead take their business to a place that has voluntary sex workers based on moral grounds(they wouldn't even necessarily know who's working against their will).

Probably the best way to get rid of black markets is to decriminalize and regulate, like in the Netherlands or Nevada.


Now for something completely different.

Here's a rich rock star landing his private jet with an anarchy symbol on the vertical stabilizer:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5psqKKQkHKc"]YouTube - Dexter Landing Plane[/ame]