Obama or Romney ?

[Domrada]

none of which matters.
 in the end, money is just an organisational tool. the important thing is what you tax and how you spent the money on.
 the usa spends way too much money on military and neglects social investments and infrastructure. and when the shit really hits the fan, you will be living in a country with unreliable electricity and internet, no public transport infrastructure, cities planned for high mobility with no fuel, houses with bad isolation, too many uneducated people, powerplants for very expensive fossil fuels and a reliability on imported goods which cant be transported cheaply anymore.

Hence the inherent danger of fiat money.  Government can not be trusted to leave the printing presses alone.  It's far too tempting to buy votes by promising things that can't be paid for aside from borrowing from the future.

The piper will be here soon to collect his due.

M

The US Treasury is the new pirateat40.

[JoelKatz]

You borrow from the future by creating the illusion of extra wealth. People act on this illusion to consume additional resources, etc. The future people then need to work harder to extract and use those resources than they would have needed to otherwise.

Well, and also by creating national debt that children are born into. Usually this is justified by arguing that the children will get the benefit of what the debt purchased, so it's only fair that they pay part of it.

[mdude77]

Hence the inherent danger of fiat money.  Government can not be trusted to leave the printing presses alone.  It's far too tempting to buy votes by promising things that can't be paid for aside from borrowing from the future.

The piper will be here soon to collect his due.

M

i think thats a very widespread misconception.
how exactly do you borrow from the future by spending money?

It's not just spending money, it's spending money that was just made up out of thin air.  Since the federal reserve (which is neither federal, nor a reserve) was instated, the US dollar has lost 95%+ of its value.  That's called inflation.  It comes about by making money out of thin air.  Politicians love it because they can spend it to buy votes and future generations pay for it. 

It also causes horrendous debts that can never be paid off.  No, it wasn't the citizens that did it, it was an out of control federal government that did it. 

M

[JoelKatz]

It's not just spending money, it's spending money that was just made up out of thin air.  Since the federal reserve (which is neither federal, nor a reserve) was instated, the US dollar has lost 95%+ of its value.  That's called inflation.  It comes about by making money out of thin air.  Politicians love it because they can spend it to buy votes and future generations pay for it.  

The Federal reserve was created to stabilize the value of the US dollar. Prior to the creation of the Federal reserve, the dollar was bouncing up and down by 30% or so in 40 year cycles. Since the creation of the Federal reserve, the dollar has lost value consistently, halving in value every 30 years or so.

Of course, this doesn't prove anything's wrong with the Federal reserve. In fact, if anything, it shows that we need a few more Federal reserves to stabilize the dollar as one hasn't stabilized it nearly enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dollar_value_chart.gif

[Domrada]

Of course, this doesn't prove anything's wrong with the Federal reserve. In fact, if anything, it shows that we need a few more Federal reserves to stabilize the dollar as one hasn't stabilized it nearly enough.

Rarely do I actually laugh out loud at a post. Thank you.

[fornit]

You borrow from the future by creating the illusion of extra wealth. People act on this illusion to consume additional resources, etc. The future people then need to work harder to extract and use those resources than they would have needed to otherwise.

i think you mix things up here.
you can spend all the ressources in the world without the government getting indebted (like saudi-arabia for example) or you can have a government going broke despite a perfectly sound, indefinitely sustainable use of ressources.
money is a purely organisational problem and can be solved at any time. by laws, by violence etc. using up finite ressources however and not creating alternatives in time is what will really fuck future generations.

[hashman]

It's not just spending money, it's spending money that was just made up out of thin air.  Since the federal reserve (which is neither federal, nor a reserve) was instated, the US dollar has lost 95%+ of its value.  That's called inflation.  It comes about by making money out of thin air.  Politicians love it because they can spend it to buy votes and future generations pay for it.  

The Federal reserve was created to stabilize the value of the US dollar. Prior to the creation of the Federal reserve, the dollar was bouncing up and down by 30% or so in 40 year cycles. Since the creation of the Federal reserve, the dollar has lost value consistently, halving in value every 30 years or so.

Of course, this doesn't prove anything's wrong with the Federal reserve. In fact, if anything, it shows that we need a few more Federal reserves to stabilize the dollar as one hasn't stabilized it nearly enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dollar_value_chart.gif

lol nice   I thought it was closer to halving every 10 years, corresponding to ~7% annual inflation?  Gold went from 20 to 2000 in 100 years, so that's well more than the double every 30 years but a bit less than double every 10 years. 

[bb113]

You borrow from the future by creating the illusion of extra wealth. People act on this illusion to consume additional resources, etc. The future people then need to work harder to extract and use those resources than they would have needed to otherwise.

i think you mix things up here.
you can spend all the ressources in the world without the government getting indebted (like saudi-arabia for example) or you can have a government going broke despite a perfectly sound, indefinitely sustainable use of ressources.
money is a purely organisational problem and can be solved at any time. by laws, by violence etc. using up finite ressources however and not creating alternatives in time is what will really fuck future generations.

I tried to phrased that specifically to premempt this response. Government debt (in addition to the organizational issues) encourages excess use of resources. So even if you hand wave away the organizational issues that can be solved at any time  , we are still left with future generations with fewer resources and more waste sitting around because the illusion of extra wealth encouraged wasteful consumption.

[mdude77]

You borrow from the future by creating the illusion of extra wealth. People act on this illusion to consume additional resources, etc. The future people then need to work harder to extract and use those resources than they would have needed to otherwise.

i think you mix things up here.
you can spend all the ressources in the world without the government getting indebted (like saudi-arabia for example) or you can have a government going broke despite a perfectly sound, indefinitely sustainable use of ressources.
money is a purely organisational problem and can be solved at any time. by laws, by violence etc. using up finite ressources however and not creating alternatives in time is what will really fuck future generations.

I tried to phrased that specifically to premempt this response. Government debt (in addition to the organizational issues) encourages excess use of resources. So even if you hand wave away the organizational issues that can be solved at any time  , we are still left with future generations with fewer resources and more waste sitting around because the illusion of extra wealth encouraged wasteful consumption.

Another thing not mentioned here is government spending is inherently inefficient and anti market based, as politicians spend it to pay favors and buy votes.  Hence the renowned $1,000 hammers and toilet seats.  So not only is the government stealing wealth from those who earned it (don't forget, governments don't make money ANYWHERE ANYHOW, they only forcibly take it from others), they are spending it incredibly inefficiently.

I remember last year with a the american reinvestment act, a perfectly good parking lot was repaved at a park'n'ride, and the highway had the middle piece of the lanes (2 lane on each side, middle of the two) torn out and replaced, only to have the whole thing repaved later on. 

M

[fornit]

I tried to phrased that specifically to premempt this response. Government debt (in addition to the organizational issues) encourages excess use of resources. So even if you hand wave away the organizational issues that can be solved at any time  , we are still left with future generations with fewer resources and more waste sitting around because the illusion of extra wealth encouraged wasteful consumption.

Another thing not mentioned here is government spending is inherently inefficient and anti market based, as politicians spend it to pay favors and buy votes.  Hence the renowned $1,000 hammers and toilet seats.  So not only is the government stealing wealth from those who earned it (don't forget, governments don't make money ANYWHERE ANYHOW, they only forcibly take it from others), they are spending it incredibly inefficiently.

I remember last year with a the american reinvestment act, a perfectly good parking lot was repaved at a park'n'ride, and the highway had the middle piece of the lanes (2 lane on each side, middle of the two) torn out and replaced, only to have the whole thing repaved later on. 

M

you can have the exact same thing with private spending. if the government doesnt borrow money, the lender still has it. he might do something exactly equally meaningful or equally stupid and wasteful with it as the government.

its true that governments projects have the tendency to be inefficient. on the other hand, private projects are often more efficient but do not care about the greater good at all. the patent and copyright laws are pretty much only there to protect profit against the greater good, which would be free access to art, scientific results or medicine for example.
building infrastructure is often only profitable if you reduce redundacies and safeguards. or look at private prisons trying to maximize the number of inmates for profit. how perverse is that?

in my opinion, critical infrastructure should never be in private hands. the same goes for any official duties. that is something companies will never do right. the very thought is as absurd as it gets, trying to extract profit from a function thats essentially necessary for a society. its like playing russian roulette for money. lifelong profit guaranteed, literally...
and if a government cannot perform those duties, its failing. it either needs to raise taxes or efficiency.
reducing the government to a talk club is not the solution. improving its mechanisms to make decisions as democratic, well-informed and rational and efficient as possible is.
i know the existing social democracies are very far from being ideal. but you dont throw a good idea away because its not working well yet. you improve it.

[myrkul]

in my opinion, critical infrastructure should never be in private hands.

In my opinion, critical infrastructure should never be in monopoly hands.

you dont throw a good idea away because its not working well yet. you improve it.

True, true. When you find a good idea, let me know.

[mdude77]

Another thing not mentioned here is government spending is inherently inefficient and anti market based, as politicians spend it to pay favors and buy votes.  Hence the renowned $1,000 hammers and toilet seats.  So not only is the government stealing wealth from those who earned it (don't forget, governments don't make money ANYWHERE ANYHOW, they only forcibly take it from others), they are spending it incredibly inefficiently.

I remember last year with a the american reinvestment act, a perfectly good parking lot was repaved at a park'n'ride, and the highway had the middle piece of the lanes (2 lane on each side, middle of the two) torn out and replaced, only to have the whole thing repaved later on. 

M

you can have the exact same thing with private spending. if the government doesnt borrow money, the lender still has it. he might do something exactly equally meaningful or equally stupid and wasteful with it as the government.

Not quite.  There is no detriment to government to being wasteful.  In fact, their solution is usually to throw more money at it!  It's really easy to spend someone else's money.

Where as in the private industry, if you are wasteful, you go out of business. 

Which, BTW, is part of the reason why the Fed was created.  (Don't listen to the official version, follow the money.)  The first part was so that the large banks that own the fed can get endless profits by charging interest to greedy politicians who want an endless supply of money.  The second part is to protect careless and wasteful banks.

its true that governments projects have the tendency to be inefficient. on the other hand, private projects are often more efficient but do not care about the greater good at all. the patent and copyright laws are pretty much only there to protect profit against the greater good, which would be free access to art, scientific results or medicine for example.
building infrastructure is often only profitable if you reduce redundacies and safeguards. or look at private prisons trying to maximize the number of inmates for profit. how perverse is that?

What utopian society do you live it?  The vast majority of government is not for the greater good of all.

Until government is run by selfless individuals who are indeed there for the good of the people, nothing will change.  If you look around you, society is full of selfish busy body control freaks.  Today's government, including the alphabet acronym agencies, are full of such individuals, which is why we have the problems we have today.  Greed and corruption exist everywhere, it just makes itself more evident in large corporations like governments.

The underlying cause of it all is a lack of morals.  Morals come from godliness.  Godliness tends to come from religion, but isn't required.  We have a lack of morals today, and it shows.

M

[420]

GOV should collapse under Obama or else people will have more ammo to blame the 'free market' (if it collapse under Romney and 'Free Market' republicans)

[fornit]

Not quite.  There is no detriment to government to being wasteful.  In fact, their solution is usually to throw more money at it!  It's really easy to spend someone else's money.

Where as in the private industry, if you are wasteful, you go out of business. 

you might have noticed, companies go out of business all the time. you have to put those in the equation too. you cant just look at all the successful companies and compare them to that superwasteful government.

What utopian society do you live it?  The vast majority of government is not for the greater good of all.

i agree. but companies arent even intended to be. so how can you improve something you dont even see as a goal?

Until government is run by selfless individuals who are indeed there for the good of the people, nothing will change.  If you look around you, society is full of selfish busy body control freaks.  Today's government, including the alphabet acronym agencies, are full of such individuals, which is why we have the problems we have today.  Greed and corruption exist everywhere, it just makes itself more evident in large corporations like governments.

thats a natural phenomenom in pretty much all forms of government. when people struggle for power those that will do anything for power will eventually prevail over those that only seek power to achieve something different. but anarchy, with or without a touch of capitalism, is not the solution. imho its far better to find a form of government that distributes power more evenly, making both corruption and power for its own sake less attractive.

The underlying cause of it all is a lack of morals.  Morals come from godliness.  Godliness tends to come from religion, but isn't required.  We have a lack of morals today, and it shows.

as an agnostic i might feel insulted. fortunately i consider truly religions people to be either too uneducated or too estranged form reality to properly judge their actions and statements, so i dont hold them accountable.

[420]

thats a natural phenomenom in pretty much all forms of government. when people struggle for power those that will do anything for power will eventually prevail over those that only seek power to achieve something different. but anarchy, with or without a touch of capitalism, is not the solution. imho its far better to find a form of government that distributes power more evenly, making both corruption and power for its own sake less attractive.

so whats that solution? four branches of government, more speration of powers?

[myrkul]

thats a natural phenomenom in pretty much all forms of government. when people struggle for power those that will do anything for power will eventually prevail over those that only seek power to achieve something different. but anarchy, with or without a touch of capitalism, is not the solution. imho its far better to find a form of government that distributes power more evenly, making both corruption and power for its own sake less attractive.

What form of power distribution is more even than anarchy?

[dree12]

thats a natural phenomenom in pretty much all forms of government. when people struggle for power those that will do anything for power will eventually prevail over those that only seek power to achieve something different. but anarchy, with or without a touch of capitalism, is not the solution. imho its far better to find a form of government that distributes power more evenly, making both corruption and power for its own sake less attractive.

What form of power distribution is more even than anarchy?

AnCap is not anarchy. Bitcoin is not anarchy. If there is a power distribution, it isn't true anarchy. Only true anarchy avoids the problem with unfairness. Any other system is inherently unfair, but the degree it is such varies.

[mdude77]

Not quite.  There is no detriment to government to being wasteful.  In fact, their solution is usually to throw more money at it!  It's really easy to spend someone else's money.

Where as in the private industry, if you are wasteful, you go out of business. 

you might have noticed, companies go out of business all the time. you have to put those in the equation too. you cant just look at all the successful companies and compare them to that superwasteful government.

So... you're comparing governments that almost always have epic fail policies with companies that rarely do?  Great argument.

What utopian society do you live it?  The vast majority of government is not for the greater good of all.

i agree. but companies arent even intended to be. so how can you improve something you dont even see as a goal?

Google's motto was "don't be evil" until they went public.  Then they did just that.

Companies can be good.  It's corporations that tend to be like governments.  Again, you're comparing something with has the possibility, perhaps even a tendency to be good (a company) with something that is almost always bad (a government).

Until government is run by selfless individuals who are indeed there for the good of the people, nothing will change.  If you look around you, society is full of selfish busy body control freaks.  Today's government, including the alphabet acronym agencies, are full of such individuals, which is why we have the problems we have today.  Greed and corruption exist everywhere, it just makes itself more evident in large corporations like governments.

thats a natural phenomenom in pretty much all forms of government. when people struggle for power those that will do anything for power will eventually prevail over those that only seek power to achieve something different. but anarchy, with or without a touch of capitalism, is not the solution. imho its far better to find a form of government that distributes power more evenly, making both corruption and power for its own sake less attractive.

Governments that distribute ANYTHING are inherently bad.  The ideal government is one that protects the rights of the people, nothing more.  Anything else leads to self serving career politicians.

The underlying cause of it all is a lack of morals.  Morals come from godliness.  Godliness tends to come from religion, but isn't required.  We have a lack of morals today, and it shows.

as an agnostic i might feel insulted. fortunately i consider truly religions people to be either too uneducated or too estranged form reality to properly judge their actions and statements, so i dont hold them accountable.

I was referring to organized religion.  Most as corrupt and inept as most governments and corporations are.

I'm talking about godliness, not religious zeal.  The various wars fought over religion have nothing to do with religion, it's the intolerance of other people's beliefs that causes it.

There is no right answer outside of inherently good individuals.  

Corporations aren't inherently evil, it's the people that run them, and the greedy "give me something for nothing" shareholders.  
Governments aren't inherently evil, it's the career politicians that lie through their teeth and sell themselves to the highest bidders.
Unions were created to protect employees from "evil" employers.  Now we have self serving unions that cause more problems than the solution they are supposed to provide.  It's not the union itself, however, it's the greedy self serving individuals in it.
Guns aren't bad, it's the individual that pulls the trigger.
Organized religion isn't inherently bad, it's the individuals who seek to put themselves between people and god.

Only animalistic "carnal" man is evil.  Only once man (generalistic term, not sexist) realizes his true nature will things change.  

Let's hope that happens sooner rather than later, else this world is doomed.

M

[myrkul]

thats a natural phenomenom in pretty much all forms of government. when people struggle for power those that will do anything for power will eventually prevail over those that only seek power to achieve something different. but anarchy, with or without a touch of capitalism, is not the solution. imho its far better to find a form of government that distributes power more evenly, making both corruption and power for its own sake less attractive.

What form of power distribution is more even than anarchy?

AnCap is not anarchy. Bitcoin is not anarchy. If there is a power distribution, it isn't true anarchy. Only true anarchy avoids the problem with unfairness. Any other system is inherently unfair, but the degree it is such varies.

I think you may need to review your textbook. Anarchy means no rulers. That's all. No kings, no Presidents, no Prime Ministers or Parliament. Just people.

[dree12]

thats a natural phenomenom in pretty much all forms of government. when people struggle for power those that will do anything for power will eventually prevail over those that only seek power to achieve something different. but anarchy, with or without a touch of capitalism, is not the solution. imho its far better to find a form of government that distributes power more evenly, making both corruption and power for its own sake less attractive.

What form of power distribution is more even than anarchy?

AnCap is not anarchy. Bitcoin is not anarchy. If there is a power distribution, it isn't true anarchy. Only true anarchy avoids the problem with unfairness. Any other system is inherently unfair, but the degree it is such varies.

I think you may need to review your textbook. Anarchy means no rulers. That's all. No kings, no Presidents, no Prime Ministers or Parliament. Just people.

Anarchy has many different meanings. I define it as a society without states, which neither AnCap (voluntary association with a state) nor Bitcoin (miners) meet.