Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Here's an appropriate debate that just came across my desk from one of my cohorts.

MMT vs Austrian "school"
Warren Mosler vs Robert "Coconut Bob" Murphy
from June 3, 2013 (I believe)
http://www.modernmoneynetwork.org/mmt-vs-austrian-school.html
It runs about 90 mins...

I'm just over halfway through it, and all I am hearing from Bob is "what if... what if..."
And the moderator (John Carney of CNBC) is a dope...I don't know how he managed to get that gig.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I don't know what plants they are. I got the pic from the net while searching for "Austrian School Bird cage liner".
i once read the back of a chinese food menu and got better economic analysis and insight than everything the austrians have ever written, combined.


Hey bro who mentioned ron paul like who brought it up???? Damn isn't there a word for that? False Flag. You present the topic then present your case. You win your own argument congrats.

20% down from how many percent up?? Still way up partner, that's putting your money where your mouth is........Ron Paul was convicted or accused or outed for insider trading?? News to me but don't act like I was interested or cared.
i have won an argument on the internet, my life is now complete.
 

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
What sources do you want? Everything I just said about the pre-Fed days has already been very thoroughly discussed and sourced in this thread. Your answer was generally to dismiss all of the data, if I'm recalling correctly, or to say that it was just an illusion. There's no argument to be had from that response; the sources and the data really don't matter to you.
Things you said in your original statement that I responded you did not source and have yet to be sourced in this thread despict your affirmations to the opposite effect:


tokeprep said:
Austrians aren't the only economists who predicted or expected all of these events.
tokeprep said:
The question is which system produces a better result. There the record is exceedingly clear.
tokeprep said:
When we were strictly attached to the gold and silver standards and without a central bank, the economy was in recession or depression almost more often than not.
Don't forget the Federal Reserve is not our first Central Bank, I believe it's the third.
tokeprep said:
The standard of living was substantially lower; a huge portion of the population did nothing but labor away growing food.
You used food prices in an attempt at proving this, then failed to understand how the silver dollar that was used then directly translates into evidence completely opposite of what you are asserting.
tokeprep said:
The economy is the product of expectations. If you let the market determine expectations, perhaps it results in $5 trillion less in economic activity over 10 years versus intervening and seeking to alter expectations. If borrowing $1 trillion now will create $5 trillion in additional economic activity over 10 years, it's a good deal in the long run. Perhaps the debt is $20 trillion in 10 years and the economy is $30 trillion; you'd be better off with a debt of $21 trillion in 10 years and economy of $35 trillion. Central banks try very hard to focus on that long run outcome.
See the economy is not philosophy. It's not full of if's and perhaps'.... Philosophers are leeches for the most part if that's all they do for a living. The economy literally is:

[COLOR=#212121 !important]e·con·o·my[/COLOR]

/iˈkänəmē/


[COLOR=#878787 !important]Noun[/COLOR]
The wealth and resources of a country or region, esp. in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services.



So honestly are you thinking your opinion is a wealth or resource? The philosophy comes in when you think you know better than everyone else at their expense.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
i once read the back of a chinese food menu and got better economic analysis and insight than everything the austrians have ever written, combined.




i have won an argument on the internet, my life is now complete.
a fortune cookie is not really literally a "fortune" cookie. Thought I might need to point that out after this statement. Just because it's over your head doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. It just means you can't grasp basic principles.

Explain aggregate demand to us daddy.
 

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
Section 10.

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.



I find it funny that you think that is ambiguous and prone to interpretation. I mean seriously, you don't understand that?
No state. Once again, the federal government is not a state, so this section does not address the federal government.
 

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
Its severely hypocritical to write off an interpretation then present your own that has no basis in law....so if not based on intention your statement surely is your view of actual reality....so you argue the reality is the law and not changeable, I find that silly.
How can you say my interpretation has no basis in law? My interpretation is the law. The supreme court answered this question and that answer has stood from the 1800s to the present day. They didn't look at original intent to come up with their answer.

Obviously the law is changeable. But so what? Is this constitutional question going to be reinterpreted in your favor? Probably not. The question of what the constitution says and means has long been asked and answered. The answer can change, yes, but it probably never will.

Leaving it ambiguous and prone to interpretation? Leaving it for the States and People respectively .....and the money comes from The People w/o the printing press....when The People decide what it means to them objectively according to intent and reality, according to the golden number, or nature, they will decide correctly left to their own devices and logic; nothing can stop it.

I am all for the constitution evolving but it won't if we continue to operate outside of it. Determining weather non white people or women have rights is written right in there and it was THE PEOPLE who made that happen based on the law of the land.....oh yes even Southern People....just as they will solve the monetary problem.
Obviously they didn't leave money power in the people since they appropriated coins and government credit, in addition to permitting states some money power within the boundaries specified. Not all of the government's powers are specifically enumerated in the constitution; some are inherent. The constitution doesn't explicitly say that the president has the power to repel invasions, yet almost everyone agrees that it's in there.

How is anyone operating outside of the constitution? Because your interpretation doesn't fit what our constitutional process has arrived it? Alas, the latter is far, far more meaningful than the former. The law is the law--the constitution, the statutes congress passes, and the court decisions interpreting both--not what individual people think or scholars might attempt to argue.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
I think the constitution must evolve as the nation evolves. The original intent of the framers should be totally irrelevant in determining whether non-white people or women have constitutional rights; it should be irrelevant in many other questions as well.
Changing the Constitution all the time would mean we would be a democracy, which we are not.
 

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
Things you said in your original statement that I responded you did not source and have yet to be sourced in this thread despict your affirmations to the opposite effect:
You want me to source non-Austrian economists saying that the business cycle exists? Have you never opened up a mainstream economics textbook before? Bubbles are historical fact and entirely expected--often a consequence of manipulation. If you mean the specific bubble predictions, Bob Shiller called the dot com bubble and the housing bubble. He has a high profile, but lots of other mainstream economists called both of those bubbles before they blew up.

My assertion about which system produces a better result is my own opinion, backed with the statements following it. We discussed this chart previously: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/10/historical-recessions-vs-sp-1870-2010/. If you want to know about the pre-1870 period, here's a list of dates derived from NBER: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States. The American economy was in recession approximately 45% of the time in the pre-1870 period.

Don't forget the Federal Reserve is not our first Central Bank, I believe it's the third.
True but not as relevant as you imply. Neither of the original central banks had power comparable to that of the Fed; and in both cases the country remained on a solid precious metal standard. You'll find that my statement is still true even if you want to exclude the periods that featured previous central banks.

You used food prices in an attempt at proving this, then failed to understand how the silver dollar that was used then directly translates into evidence completely opposite of what you are asserting.
You fail to understand that you're applying a market price of silver as if all of our coins could still magically be made from it and we could enjoy the purchasing power afforded by those higher market prices. Obviously farcical.

When silver was contained in coins, that was the primary use of silver. The value of the silver in the coins had long been much less than the face value of the coins. No one had a clue that there would one day be vast industrial demands for silver that would consume the majority of the world's production. It makes no sense to pretend that the value of silver in coins back then should be compared to the value today, as if coins were still made with the same amount of silver.

See the economy is not philosophy. It's not full of if's and perhaps'.... Philosophers are leeches for the most part if that's all they do for a living. The economy literally is:

e·con·o·my

/iˈkänəmē/

[COLOR=#878787 !important]Noun[/COLOR]
The wealth and resources of a country or region, esp. in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services.

So honestly are you thinking your opinion is a wealth or resource? The philosophy comes in when you think you know better than everyone else at their expense.
I don't think that's true. People, governments, and central banks have been manipulating economies for thousands of years now (not concurrently, obviously). We actually know a lot about it, and learned a lot more with the advent of instant communications technologies.

I think you certainly can manipulate it to the benefit of everyone. The economy being in recession 45% of the time is not the modern era that central banking has afforded us. We have a gilded and very pleasant reality compared to our precious metal standard forbearers, even if we don't appreciate that.
 

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
The constitution grants the federal government the power to print money--it's the source of the power to make rules, not a list of rules.

tokeprep said:
How can you say my interpretation has no basis in law? My interpretation is the law. The supreme court answered this question and that answer has stood from the 1800s to the present day. They didn't look at original intent to come up with their answer.

Your interpretation being law is basically all the support you have for such assertions has been my point all along. You have provided zero evidence of this other than your own opinion. So go find the law that says the power to print money is the source of government power then for us all. Last I read the source of Government power was The People and their ability to sustain the budget. Rulings paper can serve as Money doesn't really change this imo just gives them and their stock buddies insider info to markets, its complete bullshit. The idea YOU are going to get in on that shit is zero to none its just a carrot dangling on a stick for you if you win to get you hooked. The fact the rulings did not take into account original intent is why the were and still are on shaky ground after all Rulings and Amendments have different definitions.


tokeprep said:
Obviously they didn't leave money power in the people since they appropriated coins and government credit, in addition to permitting states some money power within the boundaries specified. Not all of the government's powers are specifically enumerated in the constitution; some are inherent. The constitution doesn't explicitly say that the president has the power to repel invasions, yet almost everyone agrees that it's in there.

You are assuming Money Power can be removed from the People. They didn't specifically leave The People the Money Power cause it is inalienable and not worth mentioning cause everyone knows it already cause it was right there in their white, black and brown ass pockets. Congress wasn't given the Money Power only the power to coin Money and regulate the value through ability to produce Coinage. The Paper is only "interpreted" as Constitutional because it was ruled Congress had the power to delegate its Obligation, they tricked us into thinking Congress' workload was really large and they needed a break LMFAO. The People are the Money Power because People are The Money. The definition of Money means having intrinsic value, notes have none. Their labor, their goods, their services and their Assets is what "fully backed" means. Your notes are just a diluted representation of this real economy and when ppl figure it out game over. Inherent and Inalienable are reserved for The People by The Creator. Government just has duties, not rights.

If you go around work sucking up extra duties you are a kiss ass cause you want to get paid more.
 

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member

  • I don't think that's true. People, governments, and central banks have been manipulating economies for thousands of years now (not concurrently, obviously). We actually know a lot about it, and learned a lot more with the advent of instant communications technologies.

    No shit Sherlock We knew a lot about it in 1776 too even without an iphone which is why stamping it out produced the most wealth the World ever saw [edit] which trickled from[/edit]this country for the first time in History, something you claim was only possible through manipulation.​

    You go fucking with your lawn mower when it cranks first pull and is full of gas and oil?​


 

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
I think you certainly can manipulate it to the benefit of everyone. The economy being in recession 45% of the time is not the modern era that central banking has afforded us. We have a gilded and very pleasant reality compared to our precious metal standard forbearers, even if we don't appreciate that.
Hey bro prove it ya know? Link to something that proves the success of counterfeit fiat currency doing any thing but flaming up and failing miserably like you are with this crap. When you start with "I think" then start quoting statistics un-sourced its bunk, I took statistics, didn't major in it but come on lets try to keep it at least high school up in this place fuckin damn even I could get google on dial up in the 90s ya know?

And oops there you go again assuming the Fed is the first Central Bank in American History and its a modern thing or assured us this modern lifestyle.....to back up your bunk opinion.
 

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
Your interpretation being law is basically all the support you have for such assertions has been my point all along. You have provided zero evidence of this other than your own opinion. So go find the law that says the power to print money is the source of government power then for us all. Last I read the source of Government power was The People and their ability to sustain the budget. Rulings paper can serve as Money doesn't really change this imo just gives them and their stock buddies insider info to markets, its complete bullshit. The idea YOU are going to get in on that shit is zero to none its just a carrot dangling on a stick for you if you win to get you hooked. The fact the rulings did not take into account original intent is why the were and still are on shaky ground after all Rulings and Amendments have different definitions.
What evidence do you want? The constitution is ambiguous. Fact. The writings of the framers are not the constitution. Fact. The issue is open to interpretation, with multiple plausible interpretations. Fact. We've stuck with one for more than 100 years and here we are today; there's no reason to think it's going anywhere. Fact. I can't understand why you think I need to support what the law is--some of the most capable people in this country already thoroughly argued and decided the question. No one has successfully challenged it since, despite many, many attempts in the time since. You can whine about what the law of the land is, but that won't change that it's the law of the land.

I never said printing money was the source of the government's power. That has nothing to do with whether the constitution permits the federal government to print money.

You are assuming Money Power can be removed from the People. They didn't specifically leave The People the Money Power cause it is inalienable and not worth mentioning cause everyone knows it already cause it was right there in their white, black and brown ass pockets. Congress wasn't given the Money Power only the power to coin Money and regulate the value through ability to produce Coinage. The Paper is only "interpreted" as Constitutional because it was ruled Congress had the power to delegate its Obligation, they tricked us into thinking Congress' workload was really large and they needed a break LMFAO. The People are the Money Power because People are The Money. The definition of Money means having intrinsic value, notes have none. Their labor, their goods, their services and their Assets is what "fully backed" means. Your notes are just a diluted representation of this real economy and when ppl figure it out game over. Inherent and Inalienable are reserved for The People by The Creator. Government just has duties, not rights.

If you go around work sucking up extra duties you are a kiss ass cause you want to get paid more.
That's a totally absurd argument. Everyone knows money power resides in the people, so it didn't need to be mentioned? Really? What is this bullshit? The power to coin money is the money power. If you can coin whatever coins you want and make them legal tender in whatever amounts you want, you have all the power. Indeed, this is one of the arguments that people have used to justify the federal government's power to issue paper currency--the same thing can be constitutionally done with coins, therefore it doesn't substantively matter whether the issue is paper or coin (I'm not embracing this argument, just mentioning it).

Of course, we agree that money represents labor, goods, services, and assets; Federal Reserve Notes are means of denominating and exchanging all of these things.
 

tokeprep

Well-Known Member




  • No shit Sherlock We knew a lot about it in 1776 too even without an iphone which is why stamping it out produced the most wealth the World ever saw [edit] which trickled from[/edit]this country for the first time in History, something you claim was only possible through manipulation.​

    You go fucking with your lawn mower when it cranks first pull and is full of gas and oil?​


I'm sorry, you'll have to explain this. Stamping out central banking produced the most wealth the world ever saw? The opposite is true. Central banking has produced the most wealth the world has ever seen.
 

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
Hey bro prove it ya know? Link to something that proves the success of counterfeit fiat currency doing any thing but flaming up and failing miserably like you are with this crap. When you start with "I think" then start quoting statistics un-sourced its bunk, I took statistics, didn't major in it but come on lets try to keep it at least high school up in this place fuckin damn even I could get google on dial up in the 90s ya know?

And oops there you go again assuming the Fed is the first Central Bank in American History and its a modern thing or assured us this modern lifestyle.....to back up your bunk opinion.
We already discussed the statistic, as I described just a couple posts ago. You can pretend that this discussion didn't take place and that you have no idea where that number is coming from, but it's right here in this very thread.

I take it you must not have read that post yet since you're equating the Fed with America's other central banks, which is something else I addressed. But again, even if you remove it, the statistic is going to hold, so you've got no point.
 

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
You fail to understand that you're applying a market price of silver as if all of our coins could still magically be made from it and we could enjoy the purchasing power afforded by those higher market prices. Obviously farcical.

When silver was contained in coins, that was the primary use of silver. The value of the silver in the coins had long been much less than the face value of the coins. No one had a clue that there would one day be vast industrial demands for silver that would consume the majority of the world's production. It makes no sense to pretend that the value of silver in coins back then should be compared to the value today, as if coins were still made with the same amount of silver.
No I am not I am pointing out this as the only true intrinsic indicator because it it rooted at our foundation of law required for public display as Remedy for all to plainly see how far shit went. Oil prices do this too because its a commodity but oil wasn't mentioned and rooted in our law. This is why I used them earlier to debunk your CPI drivel you claim wasn't addressed in this thread. It's one of the things that proves the CPI as bunkness.

See you like to deny things as "irrelevant" like specific words in laws and in case law that must be present in order for them to be recorded. Cause the court has to uphold the law.

If people choose to conduct business with private bank notes and contract with banks and gov they are free to do so and define their own terms outside the Constitution, gov must enforce contracts but People may cash in their constitutional Big Joker any time and just fuckin not use them Legal Tender Laws be damned.

Nothing farcical or fake about that sir. It's called Natural Law. Ranks right up there with a Fibonacci sequence it just is dude your opinion doesn't change it.

Silver traded for below a paper dollar yet they were accepted for the same, now it is reversed and you think I am backwards??
 

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
Post 958 your post embrace it:

Why would the legislation have something to do with the constitution? The constitution grants the federal government the power to print money--it's the source of the power to make rules, not a list of rules. When congress passes legislation, it merely exercises the power granted to it under the constitution.

I never said printing money was the source of the government's power. That has nothing to do with whether the constitution permits the federal government to print money.
Lying is loose butthole man don't do it.
 

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
No I am not I am pointing out this as the only true intrinsic indicator because it it rooted at our foundation of law required for public display as Remedy for all to plainly see how far shit went. Oil prices do this too because its a commodity but oil wasn't mentioned and rooted in our law. This is why I used them earlier to debunk your CPI drivel you claim wasn't addressed in this thread. It's one of the things that proves the CPI as bunkness.
Rooted at our foundation of law required for public display as remedy for all to plainly see how far shit went? I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.

Oil prices are one part of inflation. Along with housing, food, airplane tickets, cars, phone service--everything. Oil prices don't debunk CPI. Using your logic, the cost of a book suggests that inflation isn't real and that huge deflation has actually occurred. Totally ludicrous, of course.

See you like to deny things as "irrelevant" like specific words in laws and in case law that must be present in order for them to be recorded. Cause the court has to uphold the law.
Some specific words are irrelevant, like the provision for redemption that was much discussed in this thread. Substantively meaningless--a totally irrelevant artifact of an abandoned policy.

Otherwise you'll have to tell me when I said specific words were irrelevant.

If people choose to conduct business with private bank notes and contract with banks and gov they are free to do so and define their own terms outside the Constitution, gov must enforce contracts but People may cash in their constitutional Big Joker any time and just fuckin not use them Legal Tender Laws be damned.

Nothing farcical or fake about that sir. It's called Natural Law. Ranks right up there with a Fibonacci sequence it just is dude your opinion doesn't change it.

Silver traded for below a paper dollar yet they were accepted for the same, now it is reversed and you think I am backwards??
Sure. Use your currency to buy gold, silver, or anything else you like, and then stop whining. I've already said that over and over again. No one is forced to hold their wealth in dollars--anyone convinced of the power of precious metals can buy them.

The amount of silver in a dollar was fixed well below its value in the first place. This is because silver had no use except for making coins--that was it. Today's market price of silver reflects unknown and unimagined industrial demand that didn't exist when silver was used as money; thus it makes no sense to make direct comparisons between the prices. The fact that photography was invented has absolutely nothing to do with inflation, and yet that's exactly what you're arguing.
 
Top