McCain/Obama and Economy

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
But this system became outmoded after the industrial revolution took hold because wealth could be created more easily than gold could be found etc… So in other words, historically that system became obsolete. Spain’s defeat by the British Navy is a perfect example of this.[/quote]

The truth of this notion rests on the assumption that there exists some “optimal supply of money” in the system – there is no optimal amount because all prices necessarily reflect the actual current amount. Increasing the money supply will always increase prices and decreasing it will decrease them (often this is not noticed because productive means outpace inflation and thus prices actually increase at a lower rate).

The amount of money in the system has nothing to do with actual wealth. Wealth is the result of production only; whether it is mining gold or manufacturing toaster-ovens. Wealth is only conveniently measured in dollar amounts but more realistically can only be measured individually in toasters and televisions produced, for example.

Institutions like fractional reserve banks and government don’t like commodity money standards because they cannot inflate their way to power. Commodity standards implies that the interest rates reflect actual savings and in a nation of non-savers this is a scary idea.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
But this system became outmoded after the industrial revolution took hold because wealth could be created more easily than gold could be found etc… So in other words, historically that system became obsolete. Spain’s defeat by the British Navy is a perfect example of this.

The truth of this notion rests on the assumption that there exists some “optimal supply of money” in the system – there is no optimal amount because all prices necessarily reflect the actual current amount. Increasing the money supply will always increase prices and decreasing it will decrease them (often this is not noticed because productive means outpace inflation and thus prices actually increase at a lower rate).

The amount of money in the system has nothing to do with actual wealth. Wealth is the result of production only; whether it is mining gold or manufacturing toaster-ovens. Wealth is only conveniently measured in dollar amounts but more realistically can only be measured individually in toasters and televisions produced, for example.

Institutions like fractional reserve banks and government don’t like commodity money standards because they cannot inflate their way to power. Commodity standards implies that the interest rates reflect actual savings and in a nation of non-savers this is a scary idea.[/quote]

I’m still reading the PDF here… But let me just say that you seem to be making your own counter-arguments. Individuals would dislike a commodity standard because of how difficult it would be to borrow in a nation of non-savers. Or for instance, when we were on a gold standard interest rates would skyrocket every spring and drop every autumn because of farmers borrowing for the upcoming season and then subsequently paying that money back after harvest. Surely this isn’t conducive to individuals’ interests.

Also, a money supply would be optimal in a system where new wealth was being created, but there was an absence of inflation. Spain’s money supply became un-optimal when their creation of money outpaced their creation of wealth and they could no longer trade. Their trading partners hadn’t experienced the same level of inflation and couldn’t/wouldn’t pay Spains exorbitant domestic prices.

And I know you already said it, but it bears repeating for anyone reading this that “wealth” in this context refers ‘actual goods and services’ and “money” is just a means of trading wealth.

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
I’m still reading the PDF here… But let me just say that you seem to be making your own counter-arguments. Individuals would dislike a commodity standard because of how difficult it would be to borrow in a nation of non-savers. Or for instance, when we were on a gold standard interest rates would skyrocket every spring and drop every autumn because of farmers borrowing for the upcoming season and then subsequently paying that money back after harvest. Surely this isn’t conducive to individuals’ interests.[/quote]

Individuals would have to become savers instead of debtors. Real wealth can only come from saving. One either saves what he has and uses it towards productive means later or he borrows and must then “save” when his debts become due. Credit is a useful tool but does not negate the laws of economics.

Why would we want to increase the money supply while increasing productivity? That essentially reverses any benefit one would see from increased production of goods – i.e. prices will not get cheaper. Producers might like that in the short term but it will just drive up the cost of production later as they seek to increase their productivity – this will lower productivity and raiser prices yet further.

In colonial Spain I am sure there were producers that would have been willing to trade for other commodities than gold. When gold becomes “too plentiful” then other commodities will become more valuable in relation to gold – besides, individuals exchange for gold based on their own value scales and not on the value scales of the individuals who hold the gold they are exchanging for.

The individuals holding gold will exchange the amount of gold they value the least (the marginal utility) for the goods they value higher than the marginal utility of the gold they are giving up. This is how prices come into existence.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Why would we want to increase the money supply while increasing productivity? That essentially reverses any benefit one would see from increased production of goods – [/quote]

I wrote out another long post, but instead opted for brevity… This goes to the heart of it.

In a nutshell what you have written above is nonsense. Increased money supply only leads to inflation when there is no corresponding increase in production.

What we get with antiquated practices like the commodity standard is deflation.

[quote]BigJawnMize wrote:
I feel Obama is probably more fiscally conservative than he lets on. He has a lot of University of Chicago people as advisors. That group is very fiscally conservative. I think he might be talking a good game about taxing the rich with little chance of it actually inacting legislation to that point. Also, in his voting record he has shown a bent towards letting the market rule.

[/quote]

Obama is Marxist. “Fiscal Conservative” and “Socialism, Marxism, Leninism-Marxism, and Communism” are not compatible terms.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
BigJawnMize wrote:
I feel Obama is probably more fiscally conservative than he lets on. He has a lot of University of Chicago people as advisors. That group is very fiscally conservative. I think he might be talking a good game about taxing the rich with little chance of it actually inacting legislation to that point. Also, in his voting record he has shown a bent towards letting the market rule.

Obama is Marxist. “Fiscal Conservative” and “Socialism, Marxism, Leninism-Marxism, and Communism” are not compatible terms.
[/quote]

How so specifically?

Taxing the rich?

I’m not calling you out, I just don’t know the details behind why this would be true.

[quote]AssOnGrass wrote:
How so specifically?

Taxing the rich?

I’m not calling you out, I just don’t know the details behind why this would be true.[/quote]

I’m curious too. I do get the “socialist” label. That makes sense, but I don’t understand where the more extreme labels come from. I’m not calling you a liar either OP. I just hear this thrown around from time to time and don’t see why.

On another note, if Obama is elected the chance of him outspending Bush seems unlikely. Ironic as hell if you ask me.

Perhaps he wouldn’t be able to out-spend Bush, but I don’t see him making the economy any better. His proposed ideas would not create more revenue–you can’t tax your way to prosperity (see the JFK quote on the previous page), and that is what he wants to do-- tax the primary economy movers even more.

JFK ended up being a keynsian economist <_<

But he did have SOME good ideas. Far removed from the Democrats of today, at the least.

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
In a nutshell what you have written above is nonsense. Increased money supply only leads to inflation when there is no corresponding increase in production.
[/quote]

The increased money supply is inflation. Inflation is a measure of the money supply and not of prices. “Price inflation” cannot be measured because price is just a measure of the demand for one good in terms of the other – as already explained – and it is impossible to calculate a value that takes into account the demand of every good in terms of every other good.

If you increase the money supply you necessarily always increases demand for goods and services. Increased demand always raises prices because demand always precedes supply; goods cannot just will themselves into existence before they are demanded. That in essence is how prices rise due to inflation of the money supply.

Beebuddy, AoG:

Marxism is defined by several ideas by Karl Marx (and Engels) in the 19th century. It is based on the belief that Capitalism = exploitation of the masses and that social class is defined by the ability to produce in society. Lenin’s flavor of Marxism (ie what the former USSR was based on) basically was Government enforced (ie Structural) Marxism-- all out class warfare. The ‘State’ controls all means of production in order to keep the masses ‘equal’. Social programs are certainly in the order of Socialism and always tend towards Marxism.

When you hear “Public/Private Partnerships”, that is Socialism at it’s finest. Obama and Democrats angrily shouting with fist in air about “Taxing the Rich! Helping the Poor!!” – we’re talking all out class warfare.

I forgot who stated in this thread that Obama votes ‘fiscally conservative’, please send me some of what you are smoking. When he isn’t voting ‘Present’ (ie pussy no position vote), he’s voting for more Government ‘solutions’. Fiscal Conservatives do not vote in that fasion. Bush is not a fiscal conservative.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Beebuddy, AoG:

Marxism is defined by several ideas by Karl Marx (and Engels) in the 19th century. It is based on the belief that Capitalism = exploitation of the masses and that social class is defined by the ability to produce in society. Lenin’s flavor of Marxism (ie what the former USSR was based on) basically was Government enforced (ie Structural) Marxism-- all out class warfare. The ‘State’ controls all means of production in order to keep the masses ‘equal’. Social programs are certainly in the order of Socialism and always tend towards Marxism.

When you hear “Public/Private Partnerships”, that is Socialism at it’s finest. Obama and Democrats angrily shouting with fist in air about “Taxing the Rich! Helping the Poor!!” – we’re talking all out class warfare.

I forgot who stated in this thread that Obama votes ‘fiscally conservative’, please send me some of what you are smoking. When he isn’t voting ‘Present’ (ie pussy no position vote), he’s voting for more Government ‘solutions’. Fiscal Conservatives do not vote in that fasion. Bush is not a fiscal conservative. [/quote]

Thanks. I am vehemently a capitalist by all means I just didn’t know of any specific examples.

Just to throw out a hypothetical:

Say Obama raises taxes for the rich and lowers taxes for the rest not with the intention of making equal classes or class warfare as you call it, but with the intention of fixing the economy from the “bottom up” as opposed to the “trickle down”, is that still marxism?

Using a rationale such as an economic model that more money in the hands of the middle class and using the extra tax money from the top to pay down national debt then eventually knocking back all taxes doesn’t seem Marxist to me. It just seems like a flawed plan.

To be considered a marxist would one have to intentionally be trying to create class warfare as opposed to one that masks as marxism when it’s really just a plan to help the economy long term?

I don’t agree with the plan, but I don’t necessarily see it on the same level as you. See where my concern lies within this train of thought?

I just try seeing both sides of the argument.

Trust me I’m no commie, I’m a wacko libertarian.

First, if you have even considered voting for Obama, you are nowhere near libertarian. Perhaps you are socially liberal, but that’s a far cry from libertarian.

When you start talking about ‘the rich’, ‘the poor’ and pandering to one at the expense of the other, you are pitting Americans against each other based on their class. It’s not much different than racism. Why should I be punished because I’ve worked harder than other folks and may have accumulated wealth. That’s not promoting ‘equality’. ‘Equality’ is flat taxing – EVERYBODY pays the same percentage. Even then ‘the Rich’ pay more in real dollars than ‘the Poor’, but it’s scaled fairly. Why is income of > $200k rich?

The tax money ‘from the top’ has always paid the bills. As it stands, the top 20% of earners pay 80% of the taxes. When is enough enough?

re: Marxism – you can not consider ‘intentions’. “Good intentions pave the road to Hell”. The most vile Dictators have the best of intentions for themselves and some select others. “Intent” and “Result” are two completely different things. Universal Government-run Healthcare is a nice ‘intent’, but, um, no thank you. Social Security is a nice ‘intent’-- it’s a disaster.

[quote]
To be considered a marxist would one have to intentionally be trying to create class warfare as opposed to one that masks as marxism when it’s really just a plan to help the economy long term? [/quote]

To be considered antisocial, would one have to intentionally be antisocial? Marxism is Marxism. Pitting one class against the other is Marxism.

Listen to Obama’s spiritual mentors:

and political mentors (look up Frank Marshall Davis). Social engineering (ie social programs) is a continuum from socialism to structural marxism (ie Leftist dictatorships a la stalin and castro)

Understand 2 facts.

1> The people whose taxes he is talking about raising already pay the vast majority of the taxes. I mean like 90 plus percent of the taxes.

2> A huge number of the people who he is talking about decreasing taxes for at present pay NO taxes. His plan involves taking money from people who are already paying very high taxes and simply handing it out to people who pay none which would include me so though I would get that money I am rabidly against that idea. It is UN American.

OK, 3 facts. The idea that the federal government should dispense health care for all US citizens is nothing more than an attempt to gather yet another huge segment of the economy under central control, trust me, they will destroy it just like they destroy everything else they touch.

After all the high hi-falutent discourse is said and done it comes down to and really is at bottom as simple as this.

Money left in the private sector tends to reproduce itself thus increasing revenues at the same rates. Money carted into the public coffers, aside from winding up being lost in the bureaucratic abyss of inefficiency also tends to produce less or nothing at all except dehumanizing dependence and more power for the people who handle it.

Listen to Obama’s convention speech with that in mind and his socialistic policies will be staring you in the face. He should have put on a Santa suit with a hammer and sickle on the front. It’s always the same with these guys. [quote]You are being screwed by somebody you’ve never met and as a result the country is dying and only more and more and MORE centralized power and oversight is the answer"[/quote]

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
First, if you have even considered voting for Obama, you are nowhere near libertarian. Perhaps you are socially liberal, but that’s a far cry from libertarian.

When you start talking about ‘the rich’, ‘the poor’ and pandering to one at the expense of the other, you are pitting Americans against each other based on their class. It’s not much different than racism. Why should I be punished because I’ve worked harder than other folks and may have accumulated wealth. That’s not promoting ‘equality’. ‘Equality’ is flat taxing – EVERYBODY pays the same percentage. Even then ‘the Rich’ pay more in real dollars than ‘the Poor’, but it’s scaled fairly. Why is income of > $200k rich?

The tax money ‘from the top’ has always paid the bills. As it stands, the top 20% of earners pay 80% of the taxes. When is enough enough?

re: Marxism – you can not consider ‘intentions’. “Good intentions pave the road to Hell”. The most vile Dictators have the best of intentions for themselves and some select others. “Intent” and “Result” are two completely different things. Universal Government-run Healthcare is a nice ‘intent’, but, um, no thank you. Social Security is a nice ‘intent’-- it’s a disaster.

To be considered a marxist would one have to intentionally be trying to create class warfare as opposed to one that masks as marxism when it’s really just a plan to help the economy long term?

To be considered antisocial, would one have to intentionally be antisocial? Marxism is Marxism. Pitting one class against the other is Marxism.

Listen to Obama’s spiritual mentors:

and political mentors (look up Frank Marshall Davis). Social engineering (ie social programs) is a continuum from socialism to structural marxism (ie Leftist dictatorships a la stalin and castro)
[/quote]

I haven’t considered voting Obama, I know what Libertarian is. Check out the “3rd party candidates” thread if you want my views. I was just playing devils advocate for clarification into why you thought the way you did.

By refuting your claims I figured I’d give a “logical” thought out view and see if it trips you up. Like I said in my post it’s not a positive system that he’s proposing.

I like grasping what I can in an argument and squeezing out as much information as I can until I truly believe that the person making it know what the hell they are talking about.

To go on with the game:
Are you really eliminating classes by manipulating the taxes with how Obama wants to tax the people? In other words at what line would you draw between where we are now to truly Marxist economy? Is Obama too far, are we too far already, or is Obama just heading towards too far?

If you ask me, if you are going to call Obama too far, we have gone too far already.

Why not a flat tax and give more tax breaks and incentives for people to invest in science, technology, and the corporation?

Also what would an educated free market capitalist’s views be on the growing gap between poverty and the rich in this country?

I’ll debate nonstop, I just find it interesting.

FWIW I train the CEO of a fairly successful NASDAQ traded company (I know patting my own back) and we had a conversation today about tax rates to his business. If this doesn’t scream broken system what does?

US 40%
UK 30%
CAN 30%
Hong Kong 15%

Which country does he want to report profit to?

That’s a no brainer… more money leaving this country.

He’d love his business to own more property and invest in molding plants… but he just can’t afford it.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Listen to Obama’s convention speech with that in mind and his socialistic policies will be staring you in the face. He should have put on a Santa suit with a hammer and sickle on the front. It’s always the same with these guys. You are being screwed by somebody you’ve never met and as a result the country is dying and only more and more and MORE centralized power and oversight is the answer"[/quote]

It was the only speech at the convention I missed. But when I hear him say more oversight the other day that put the nail in the coffin for me.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
In a nutshell what you have written above is nonsense. Increased money supply only leads to inflation when there is no corresponding increase in production.

The increased money supply is inflation. Inflation is a measure of the money supply and not of prices. “Price inflation” cannot be measured because price is just a measure of the demand for one good in terms of the other – as already explained – and it is impossible to calculate a value that takes into account the demand of every good in terms of every other good.

If you increase the money supply you necessarily always increases demand for goods and services. Increased demand always raises prices because demand always precedes supply; goods cannot just will themselves into existence before they are demanded. That in essence is how prices rise due to inflation of the money supply.
[/quote]

lol, nobody uses that definition of inflation anymore! My previous post was 100% accurate.

AssOnGrass - Well played, Sir!

re: your last post (sorry, not a lot o.f time this morning)-- yes, Obama and most in Congress (both sides) have gone to far. As noted earlier, JFK today would seem like a radical ‘right winger’. That’s sad.

I support a flat tax. To go a step further, I support a consumption tax at the repeal of the income tax. One argument folks will use is that one group of people use more resources than another. A consumption tax levels that field. With a truly flat or consumption tax, there is no need for ‘tax incentives’, at least at the Federal level. If states want to compete for industry, then let them offer their own brand of tax benefits.

Honestly, I used to consult in State government (Transportation). I used to think that the government should do 2 things: Maintain a military for defense and build roads. Now I’m convinced the Government can’t even do roads right…

Great questions…

Obama knows next to nothing about the economy. I’m sure his economic mentor Franklin Raines, the former Chief Executive of Fannie Mae, will be able to advise him brilliantly.

Franklin always thought highly of Obama and donated lavishly to him in the short 146 days he was in the senate before he was summoned to save the world.

Franklin did a wonderful job for Fannie Mae don’t you think?

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

I truly believe that if I’m going to subsidize public schools with my (over) taxed paycheck, Economics and History should be taught from Day 1 until the day they graduate.
[/i][/quote]

So true, history and economics are so very important…but are they on the standardized tests? Are schools given any incentives to teach things that are not on those tests?