Concerned about the new 900 billion dollar bailout

[Epinephrine]

I think Jerome's looking at the short-term effects of deflation, prices go down, thus you invest.

No. Jerome is against the idea of a central bank, and all for the gold standard. As gold is an inherently finite resource, it sets us up for continuous deflation due to population increase and the fact that there's more stuff to buy as time moves on.

[Nycle]

I really don't understand some people's obsession with reverting back to the gold "standard" (put that in quotation marks because it doesn't set a standard at all; its value fluctuates). I could name numerous arguments against this ridiculous idea but I will name a practical one:

"Just going back" to the gold standard wouldn't work because there's not even enough gold to cover the US' outstanding debt. That's why it was abandoned in the first place, there's not enough of it to sustain the world's economic activity. That, and the US wanted the dollar to be firmly established as the worldwide monetary "standard" if the gold one was going to be dropped anyways. Indeed this has happened, and it puts the US in a special position of being able to overspend with minimal consequences, because the world accepts the US dollar as the new "gold standard" in the monetary system and continues to conduct trade in it. In an increasingly multipolar world, this reputation is eroding and that's why I've always thought that fiscal frugality and discipline are the best ways to go forward if we want to avoid a sudden collapse of the dollar, which will drag the rest of the world down with it. And just think about what would happen to the resource of gold itself. Geopolitical tensions would worsen and countries like Russia, China and South Africa would be able to keep us hostage in our own illusion (which is the same trust-based illusion of value we attach to money). The US has been by far the largest beneficiary of a debt-based economy, and why any American would want to go back (to the gold standard) is beyond me.

Nah, I think the best option we have to fit our current needs is a wholly independent central bank free from political interference. I can only speak for myself, but I'm glad my own government decided to hand over its monetary sovereignty to an institution that doesn't allow for an unlimited expansion of the money supply whenever it's convenient. A currency without a state may seem weak at some points, but this is one if its advantages.

To sum it up: you can't fix the world's problems by re-introducing a system from a time in which our current problems did not exist. It would be naive to think so.

[Tone]

I really don't understand some people's obsession with reverting back to the gold "standard" (put that in quotation marks because it doesn't set a standard at all; its value fluctuates). I could name numerous arguments against this ridiculous idea but I will name a practical one:

"Just going back" to the gold standard wouldn't work because there's not even enough gold to cover the US' outstanding debt.

You must understand that it is the first start, that we cannot allow the elite shadow government criminals to print as much fake money as they want, and that gold standard prevents them from doing this. They are the source of our problems.

now Obama is reading off a script on TV saying "we must pass the bail out or there will be catastrophe" and hes doing this with a mean evil look on his face

But anyone with half a brain knows that you cant have the government taking money from citizens and putting it into things that do not generate wealth and blow the bubble up even bigger and expect results. In fact what is being done is making the depression even worse. So technically you can say Obama is very Pro-suffering and evil.

Americans lived a culture of consumerism and spending, while eliminating their means of generating wealth by closing down factories and things that generate real wealth. The shadow government has screwed america over and the depression is beginning now.

[Jerome Scuggs]

No. Jerome is against the idea of a central bank, and all for the gold standard. As gold is an inherently finite resource, it sets us up for continuous deflation due to population increase and the fact that there's more stuff to buy as time moves on.

This argument assumes that gold would remain at a constant price eternally. It also assumes that I am "for" the gold standard. I am "for" hard currency, be it gold- or silver- or marshmallow-backed. Of course, to be "for" hard currency also assumes I am "for" government oversight of the money supply, so that can't be right either :/

Before I begin a deflation rant, two questions:

1) What do you define deflation as?
2) When has there ever been two successive quarters where deflation was over 3%? What historical examples show deflation causing serious economic destabilization?

I define inflation as an increase in the money supply, whereas "econ 101" textbooks define inflation as an increase in a price index (different people use different indexes). Deflation is vice versa.

So whereas you might be getting your deflation/inflation figures from the aggregate prices of a few hundred items... how is this indicative of the hundreds of billions of products in the U.S. alone? How do these indexes assign "values" to goods (i.e. WHY do they measure the price of milk instead of, say, the price of bread)?

[PjOtTeR]

Ok, they should first take in some more loans from some other countries... then they should buy gold with that money... then they should just make trillions of dollars... then they pay off their loans... then they drop the dollar and introduce a new currency for their people...
Then they have the gold worth trillions, they have paid of their debt and have a strong currency...

It's all so simple... :turned:

[kthx]

Except that it doesn't make any sense at all Pjotter :P

[PjOtTeR]

Except that it doesn't make any sense at all Pjotter :P

Bliss ignorance for the win.
It would never work as loans aren't just in Dollars since countries dont want to be abused and kicked around like that since what I was saying technically could be possible if loangivers were dumb cunts. Since most countries have smart ppl running the show or atleast people that show signs of intelligence they would never allow such a thing to happen.

It's just stupid to see certain people, who couldn't pick out the apple from a bunch of pears, argue about this shit while they have the slightest idea of everything involved and the complexity of these problems. Even the people in charge or the people having real knowledge about the current situation and have a lot of info about it have no idea what the best solution is since they simply cannot understand and entain the entire problem and every aspect it entails. They base their choices on what they do know. They forecast what consequences actions would have and try to figure out what's best. Yet they will never be sure what's best as no one can be since this problem is just too big and entails too much shit to comprehend entirely. A big thing with handling this subject is that you have to realise you can never figure out what's the perfect way to handle this situation as it is simply just too big. There are different ways of handling this situation all which have their pros and cons and all which have people for and against them. If their would be a clear perfect solution we wouldn't be argueing, but if I have to choose between a few solutions I would always go with the longterm benificial one, that is because when I am not drunk I am not a dumb fuck who just thinks: "I want pussy now", without thinking the consequences through.

In the end the value of something, just anything wether it be a carrot, a car, a computer or even a type of currency like the dollar or even a service given, is just worth what a fool wants to pay for it. So yes just printing out trillions of dollars wont work since then these fools paying for that dollar will pay less and less for it because there is more and more of it. In other words it's value will decrease and zimbabwanian shit will happen. So basicly that's a no-no for me.

Basicly I said a lot of shit but what I actually was trying to say is that the people in charge should be given time to do what they think is best. It's like Obama said that he couldn't just make the future bright over night, it takes time to get out of this slump, so give the man some time and just reflect whatever he did in 8 years and hopefully see that he wasn't as much of a cunt as you think he is.

[kthx]

Four years, bitch.

[Epinephrine]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q7h_t55Zw0

[Jerome Scuggs]

What twist in logic makes the arguments against monopolies apply to every industry except the postal service, healthcare, and money?

[DankNuggets]

What twist in logic makes the arguments against monopolies apply to every industry except the postal service, healthcare, and money?

since when is there a monopoly in any of those businesses?

postal service --> gov't USPS, then UPS, FedEx, formerly DHL, among others. email? the postal service doesn't hold a monoply on the dispersal of information or the delivery of goods.

healthcare --> i assume you're talking about a national healthcare program. No one says you have to go to gov't hospitals, there's always private hospitals, witch doctors, or your mom.

money --> among the myriad of banks and credit unions, I assume you mean the dollar has the monopoly? Well besides the obvious conflicts with having more than one currency, you will ALWAYS be able to trade goods and services, nothing is forcing you to use the dollar (besides taxes, you enter into agreements with other individuals to trade your money for their goods, could always find other ways).

I don't use the USPS for 90% of what i could.
I've switched health care 3 times in the past decade, no one's forcing my hand there.
I use the dollar because that's what people ask for. If I really wanted to, I could trade shit at flea markets and farmer's markets to survive, but I think most people would call that quite the step backwards in society.

[Jerome Scuggs]

try to start a postal service business - it's illegal, fedex and the others are not "postal" companies, they exist in a loophole which makes the USPS the monopoly carrier

same with healthcare - try to get a business going without proper certification from the monopolist in power, the AMA

from there, you can then try to mint y7our own coins and use them as legal tender. once again you will run into the monopolist created via tax laws

you're looking at the consumer side of economics, as opposed to producer-side economics

[Epinephrine]

Plenty of 'alternative' health care avenues exist. You just can't call yourself a certified medical doctor without the blessings of whatever the licensing body is for doctors in the USA. Sort of like how you can't call yourself a licensed pilot without having a pilot's license, although there's nothing stopping you from calling yourself anything else. i.e. 'traditional doctor'

I don't see how this is actually a bad thing, and in fact helps protect the vast majority of people from sham healthcare providers, thereby decreasing trust in the entire system.

[Jerome Scuggs]

i am of the belief that yes, accreditation bodies do work - and, like all services, would work best on the free market. competition would increase individual companies' performances, overall effectiveness, and serve the public better.

the only real example that exists now is in the auto industry. the auto manufacturers compete to win various awards - and there are certain bodies that hold high standards and are rewarded as well for it. hyundai worked hard to build an awesome car and J.D. Power worked hard to create a guideline of what they think is worthy of a 'best car', etc. etc. And in the end the consumer wins.

the main point of contention on that debate is the issue of responsibility - would the accrediting bodies stay legit? i think they would, because most importantly - they are competing. if the FDA had to constantly stay on top of things - not because it is "public service" but because their livelihood was at stake, they would probably be more on-the-ball about things - like this crazy peanut factory that's got salmonella.

it's hard to imagine a world in which this takes place, because real-world examples don't particularly exist. but where they do, such as the auto industry, they perform wonderfully. but even those examples are hard to really examine, because the government does have auto regulations. and yes, in a free market someone could market a crappy car, but then chevy could just run an ad saying "chevy. our car doesn't kill your kids."

i think putting the ADA to the same sort of free-market scenario would be super-awesome. business tends to specialization, and i think with multiple bodies overseeing multiple types of doctors, you would see a vast increase in the number of doctors in the field, a vast decrease of the cost of medical school, and of course vast savings for the consumer.

the classic problem: short-term. over time, yes, companies would sort themselves out and people would come to "know" who to trust... but in the short-run, i have no doubt certain individuals with immoral beliefs would scam left and right. the only sort of quasi-idea i've had about this actually seemed kinda cool - let the government release reports on the accreditation bodies. that way, instead of spending all my tax money to fund one body that barely functions... they could sit back, let the market work, and then just release data saying "these guys are good, these guys suck, etc".

...

adderal

[Cops]

Hey, stop well you can. I saw the word healthcare and the people Epinephrine and Jerome. This leads me to believe we will see another 40 long winded posts with two very opposite views.

Discourse is fine, but when we've seen the same topic debated a million times by the same people it gets pretty fucking annoying. I need to avoid the topic as well, so it's not just you guys.