Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   The IMF makes a suggestion that will cause US libertarians to crawl into a fetal position tightly clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged softy murmuring "Ron Paul will save us. Ron Paul will save us"   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 83
    More: Unlikely, Atlas Shrugged, Ron Paul, International Monetary Fund, fiat moneys, intrinsic value, types of business, fractional reserve, money creation  
•       •       •

25336 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Oct 2012 at 1:10 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-22 10:05:13 AM  
8 votes:

Slaxl: Or am I too cynical?


Take the money out of the hands of people that care only about money. That's progress; the rest we can figure out.
2012-10-22 09:10:55 AM  
7 votes:

flucto: So wait, all we have to do is put Congress in charge of the money supply and everything will be wonderful and shiny? Have they MET our farking Congress?


There is much to what you say. But, have you seen how the banks have done so much to for us?
2012-10-22 01:12:57 PM  
6 votes:
Is anyone else annoyed at the British use of "pc" instead of the % sign?
2012-10-22 10:25:39 AM  
6 votes:

Slaxl: flucto: jasonvatch: There is much to what you say. But, have you seen how the banks have done so much to for us?

I am not defending the Fed, but handing the money supply to Congress doesn't seem like a net upgrade. That the IMF thinks this is a good plan is not really comforting.

It does seem like we could jump out of the frying pan and into the fire. Part of me thinks 'better the devil you know is going to continue farking you over at every opportunity', rather than switch to a new method that gives control over to a body that will fark you over, you just don't know how badly yet.

Or am I too cynical?


Why on Earth would you keep using a system that you know for a fact is incredibly damaging just because you're afraid of a known system that has been proven to be historically stable - or so this study claims at any rate, I'm not expert. That's insane to refuse to switch. That's the same reasoning that a woman who is beaten by her husband every night uses.
2012-10-22 08:59:46 AM  
6 votes:
So wait, all we have to do is put Congress in charge of the money supply and everything will be wonderful and shiny? Have they MET our farking Congress?
2012-10-22 01:22:08 PM  
5 votes:
Subby, you're trolling, and I'm pretty sure you don't know anything about banking, libertarians, monetary policy, or much else. But this is an interesting link, so thanks for that.
2012-10-22 01:17:54 PM  
5 votes:
an end to fractional reserve banking is a tenet of right libertarianism. Not sure whatchoo mean, subs
2012-10-22 11:14:29 AM  
5 votes:

Amos Quito: Sounds like a great idea... but


[2.bp.blogspot.com image 578x522]


Coming from the IMF???


From the paper:

This Working Paper should not be reported as representing the views of the IMF.
The views expressed in this Working Paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent
those of the IMF or IMF policy. Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are
published to elicit comments and to further debate.


Their bolding. PDF warning
2012-10-22 01:18:56 PM  
4 votes:

vartian: Take the money out of the hands of people that care only about money.


Hope you're willing to get violent. And be ready with the party purges, because money tends to change the people whose hands it lands in.
2012-10-22 01:18:50 PM  
4 votes:
Ron Paul, Paul Ryan, Libertarians, and Fiscal Conservatives have been calling for doing away with the Fed and the existing banking system for over ten years. Subby's ignorance is sadly on display.

///If anyone will be found on the floor in the fetal position it would be Obama and all of his hedge fund friends that pay $35-50k per plate every night to feast with him.
2012-10-22 11:52:27 AM  
4 votes:

slayer199: Ron Paul is not a libertarian, is not widely supported by libertarians.


i575.photobucket.com
2012-10-22 10:46:11 AM  
4 votes:

GAT_00: Slaxl: flucto: jasonvatch: There is much to what you say. But, have you seen how the banks have done so much to for us?

I am not defending the Fed, but handing the money supply to Congress doesn't seem like a net upgrade. That the IMF thinks this is a good plan is not really comforting.

It does seem like we could jump out of the frying pan and into the fire. Part of me thinks 'better the devil you know is going to continue farking you over at every opportunity', rather than switch to a new method that gives control over to a body that will fark you over, you just don't know how badly yet.

Or am I too cynical?

Why on Earth would you keep using a system that you know for a fact is incredibly damaging just because you're afraid of a known system that has been proven to be historically stable - or so this study claims at any rate, I'm not expert. That's insane to refuse to switch. That's the same reasoning that a woman who is beaten by her husband every night uses.


More like the same reasoning of a woman that is beaten by her husband contemplating leaving him, but the only other man who'll take her has an anger management issue and a history of violence.

But I suppose you're right, it is insane to accept a broken system simply because the unknown future is dark and scary. Better to try.
2012-10-22 02:42:23 PM  
3 votes:
The banking mafia versus the IMF. Jesus Christ, it's like Aliens vs Predator - "whoever wins, we lose".

I was shaken a few years ago when I read an explanation of how the banking system works. These bastards - private companies - literally have a license to print money. It's monstrous. As Bertold Brecht said, "what is the crime or robbing a bank compared to the crime of founding one?" No wonder the muslim world regards the Christian and Jew banking system with disgust.
2012-10-22 01:49:15 PM  
3 votes:
Most people lean libertarian on at least a few issues when you ask them. Most people don't self identify as libertarians. Fine.

Most people appreciate Ron Paul for his honesty and consistency, which is rare for a politician. Most people don't live in Ron Paul's district and can EABOD if they don't like it. He's not some bogeyman.
2012-10-22 01:48:59 PM  
3 votes:
Typical liberals not understanding how the economy works. If you have a debt, that is someone else's asset. If you erase that debt with a stroke of a pen you erase the asset as well.

Also, dumbmitter, libertarians vote are for Gary Johnson, not Ron Paul.
2012-10-22 01:35:47 PM  
3 votes:

Kazan: almost every farking Libertarian i have ever met is just a randite republican embarassed to call themselves republican.

there are almost not "little l" libertarians in the united states. which you're trying to claim to be. and quite frankly i don't buy what you're selling based on your posting history.


Apparently you suffer from selective memory or you have me confused with someone else.. I've voted Libertarian since '92. I was not a fan of Bush (I was very critical of Bush). I'm not a fan of Ron Paul. I've supported gay marriage, legalization of marijuana (and ending the War on Drugs in general), legalization of prostitution, shrinking of the military, cutting off of foreign aid (other than for natural disasters), open trade, open immigration, balanced budget, dramatically reducing the size and scope of the government, and pretty much every small-l libertarian ideal. Basically individual liberty with personal responsibility and smaller government.

What I find amusing is that lefties have such a hard time understanding libertarianism...other than "ZOMG, WANTING LESS GOVERNMENT IS BAD". I'll boil down libertarian philosophy down for you in a couple short lines.

Government exists to protect and defend individual liberty, enforce contracts, and provide physical infrastructure. That does not mean it's government's responsibility to protect me from myself or my poor life choices.
2012-10-22 01:21:15 PM  
3 votes:
"Specifically, it means an assault on "fractional reserve banking". If lenders are forced to put up 100pc reserve backing for deposits, they lose the exorbitant privilege of creating money out of thin air."

So... one of Ron Paul's positions?

And besides, the does the IMF do besides screwing over debt-ridden developing countries?
2012-10-22 01:15:00 PM  
3 votes:
Yep

Europe is not bailing out Greece.

It's bailing out the bankers.

It's time to tell them to fark off.
2012-10-22 12:27:45 PM  
3 votes:
No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....
2012-10-22 11:43:43 AM  
3 votes:

slayer199: 1. Ron Paul is not a libertarian, is not widely supported by libertarians.


the first part of that statement is true, the second part is pants-on-fire bullshiat. every self described libertarian i know is a paul fan

slayer199: 2. Libertarianism is not the same as Randianism.


in theory, no. in practice in the United States? almost every self-described Libertarian (note the Capital L) is a randite.
2012-10-22 11:07:20 AM  
3 votes:
Sounds like a great idea... but


2.bp.blogspot.com


Coming from the IMF???
2012-10-22 09:44:16 AM  
3 votes:

flucto: jasonvatch: There is much to what you say. But, have you seen how the banks have done so much to for us?

I am not defending the Fed, but handing the money supply to Congress doesn't seem like a net upgrade. That the IMF thinks this is a good plan is not really comforting.


It does seem like we could jump out of the frying pan and into the fire. Part of me thinks 'better the devil you know is going to continue farking you over at every opportunity', rather than switch to a new method that gives control over to a body that will fark you over, you just don't know how badly yet.

Or am I too cynical?
2012-10-22 05:57:05 PM  
2 votes:
I am guessing that there is some kind of economic elasticity in the current system that would be lacking in the one presented in TFA. Mind you, I spend a year and a half in economics classes thinking the best way to learn economics is to read Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds and take a lab course in building and fine-tuning bullshiat detectors, so to me this looks like two farmers arguing over whose herd make the most fragrant plops.

I am also guessing that the subjective evaluation of said elasticity tracks closely to the perceived political biases of the evaluator. People with prodigious credentials will come down firmly on both sides with equal fervor and equal evangelistic certainty, and people who don't understand will agree with whomever seems to be spewing their own particular brand of myopia. In the end, people who don't undertand the models will be the ones choosing betwen them, and their decisions will be based on bias, ignorance, and misidentified self interest. Nobody wins but the money vultures.

I am further assuming, based on what little I know of human nature, that man can create nothing that man cannot undermine, and no system can escape eventual wharrgarrblation when contaminated by humanity's endless ability to corrupt. Even if we change the system and the new one ends up running smoothly, eventually some former politician with his hand firmly in the public purse and his tongue firmly up Satan's backside will start us on the vertiginous backslide into kleptocracy and then people will get all misty-eyed about the good old days when we didn't have problems like these, nosiree, and the goddam pendulum starts its inexorable return to the same place as before with a whole new generation of idiots to screw it up just like we did.

Also, this is from the IMF, so of course they will disavow any knowledge of it. They've been acting squirrely ever since Tom Cruise started working for them.
2012-10-22 03:43:01 PM  
2 votes:

jaytkay: I love how libertarians tell us we don't know how "the real world works".

There isn't a single place on Earth where their ideas have created a decent society.


There isn't a single place on earth where it's been tried....and no, Somalia isn't one of them.
2012-10-22 03:17:48 PM  
2 votes:

misanthropologist: Amos Quito: Sounds like a great idea... but


[2.bp.blogspot.com image 578x522]


Coming from the IMF???

I know, right? This is the New World Order that was prophesied years ago. This is Obama's black helicopters and white tanks rolling through American cities to implement universal communism the day after he gets re-elected. This is the end of the world as we know it, friends, and the beginning of the Tribulation.

Or so Mitt's big money backers will have us believe, soon enough. Why have they not seized on this as part of their anti-Obama ad campaigns?



You don't know much about the games the IMF plays with nations, peoples, industry and capital, do you?
2012-10-22 02:21:22 PM  
2 votes:

LOTN: Better our rich men contend with our powerful men.


The point of money isn't just liquidity, it's power. This is why ostensibly wise and learned men spend tens upon tens of millions of dollars to get a public service job that pays 400,000.00 a year.
2012-10-22 01:32:11 PM  
2 votes:

Slaves2Darkness: nmemkha: Does anyone know how we got into this mess?

Umm...what makes you think this is a mess? US deficit funding has created the greatest amount of wealth spread to the largest amount of people in the history of the world. It has funded low tax, large military, and world domination that Caesar could only dream about. Deficit spending defeated the last of the great enemies and proved once and for all that a Republic is the best government ever. It has funded decadence, sloth, corruption that would make Caligula drool.

In short US deficit spending and the debt is the greatest thing we the people could have ever done.

The only problem we have now is convincing the retarded right that taxes must increased to reduce the deficit, so the party can continue. The retarded right are the douche bags who never pony up a couple of bucks for the beer run, so the party can continue.


Or we could abandon the foolish world domination bit.
2012-10-22 01:31:02 PM  
2 votes:

nmemkha: Does anyone know how we got into this mess?


Money being created as a debt instrument is not a problem in and of itself. It allows the money supply (and liquidity) to expand and contract as the market requires. Going back to the gold standard will severely impact liquidity, spur inflation, and push gold prices up (now you know why the gold-bugs want it). The system we have now allows high liquidity, high velocity, and a stable currency. Going to the IMF's plan would cause considerable inflation and would likely terrify the credit-markets - causing the type of global depression that TARP was created to prevent. Do we really want to do this now? Just because we hate bankers? All we need to do is close the tax loopholes and raise the top rates and we can circulate the bankers ill-gotten gains back into the markets.
2012-10-22 01:29:43 PM  
2 votes:

nmemkha: Does anyone know how we got into this mess?


Umm...what makes you think this is a mess? US deficit funding has created the greatest amount of wealth spread to the largest amount of people in the history of the world. It has funded low tax, large military, and world domination that Caesar could only dream about. Deficit spending defeated the last of the great enemies and proved once and for all that a Republic is the best government ever. It has funded decadence, sloth, corruption that would make Caligula drool.

In short US deficit spending and the debt is the greatest thing we the people could have ever done.

The only problem we have now is convincing the retarded right that taxes must increased to reduce the deficit, so the party can continue. The retarded right are the douche bags who never pony up a couple of bucks for the beer run, so the party can continue.
2012-10-22 01:22:56 PM  
2 votes:
This is a really stupid idea because we would be bankrupting ourselves.


Here's a quick and fascinating breakdown by total amount held and percentage of total U.S. debt, according to Business Insider:

The U.S. Treasury: $1.63 trillion (11.3 percent)
Social Security trust fund: $2.67 trillion (19 percent)
U.S. households: $959.4 billion (6.6 percent)
Private pension funds: $504.7 billion (3.5 percent)
State and local governments: $506.1 billion (3.5 percent)
Mutual funds: $300.5 billion (2 percent)
Commercial banks: $301.8 billion (2.1 percent)
State, local and federal retirement funds: $320.9 billion (2.2 percent)
Money market mutual funds: $337.7 billion (2.4 percent)


Hong Kong: $121.9 billion (0.9 percent)
Caribbean banking centers: $148.3 (1 percent)
Taiwan: $153.4 billion (1.1 percent)
Brazil: $211.4 billion (1.5 percent)
Oil exporting countries: $229.8 billion (1.6 percent)
United Kingdom: $346.5 billion (2.4 percent)
Japan: $912.4 billion (6.4 percent)
China: $1.16 trillion (8 percent)

We owe foreign firms, countries, and other entities about 4.5 trillion dollars and we owe US firms, people, and entities 9.8 trillion dollars.

Why the fark would we the American People cancel the debt or default? How does that make any sense at all?
2012-10-22 01:18:53 PM  
2 votes:

Kazan: slayer199: Uh, no. Ron Paul is supported by libertarian-leaning Republicans, not Libertarians. I don't know any Libertarians that support Ron Paul. He's a Republican with some libertarian-leaning ideas....

almost every farking Libertarian i have ever met is just a randite republican embarassed to call themselves republican.

there are almost not "little l" libertarians in the united states. which you're trying to claim to be. and quite frankly i don't buy what you're selling based on your posting history.


Ron Paul is a neo-confederate farkwit... much like most big Ls
2012-10-22 01:15:09 PM  
2 votes:
Make it so.
2012-10-23 09:48:32 PM  
1 votes:

Kazan: dude the libertarian party and the GOP economic platforms are virtually indistinguishable. as much as you tell yourself they're not - to an external observer (ie someone not a member of either) they are virtually identical. the claimed justifications vary a little bit, but the actual policies are largely the same.


Keep telling yourself that.
2012-10-23 03:44:10 AM  
1 votes:

Amos Quito: One question: If THE WORLD owes a quadrillion dollars, to WHOM might we owe it?


No, the world spins around handily with or without money. We've simply written more bad checks, to ourselves, than the entire planet can cash.
2012-10-23 03:23:17 AM  
1 votes:

BigNumber12: I'm currently reading Atlas Shrugged, so I'm getting a kick out of these comments.


You poor bastard. Do yourself a favor and skip John Galt's speech. It's 70 pages of "Work good, Taxes bad."
2012-10-22 10:32:14 PM  
1 votes:
Farking Hebe bankers.
2012-10-22 07:23:21 PM  
1 votes:
YOU BETTER GET A NICE HOUSE! YOU BETTER IMPROVE IT EVERY YEAR! YOU BETTER HAVE A NICER CAR IN 6 MONTHS! What's that?

You need MONEY for that stuff?

Well, you're in luck, pal, cause we make our money off of debt and we can sell you a metric f*ckton of ours at a purportedly reasonable rate.

Now you get out there and KEEP UP WITH THE JONESES'!

blog.myplainview.com
2012-10-22 06:51:47 PM  
1 votes:

Kazan: in practice: cut taxes, deregulate businesses that need regulated, cut programs that help the less advantaged, etc.


So you use it as a catch-all phrase to describe policies with which you disagree. Sort of like how Republicans cry "socialism" every time Obama does something that they don't like.

You're cheapening and discrediting a viable political sentiment by associating it with things like excessive tax cuts to the wealthy and wanton deregulation of the economy, neither of which are in any sense fiscally conservative. At least take the time to understand what the thing is before you go blaming it for all manner of problems.
2012-10-22 06:30:59 PM  
1 votes:
Fat, disingenuous old men who managed to concoct and hand down a small set of scalable hat tricks involving what they can make money do and define money as, have written a check that the entire GDP of the planet can't cash. Game over. Period. There's nothing left TO do but shake the etch a sketch and frankly, this looks like it would be a lot less violent than the other, more historically prevalent methods.
2012-10-22 05:21:50 PM  
1 votes:
The amount of debt derivatives extant and collectable presently is greater than the GDP of,

Wait for it.

Earth.

So, yeah, that would be a shame if all that just got wiped off the chalkboard like so much poorly drawn stick figures in funny poses. And while you're at it, please tell my how necessary pulling money out of your ass with worthless pieces of gymnastically structured paper issues is to our fiscal well being.
2012-10-22 04:10:51 PM  
1 votes:

slayer199: 1. Ron Paul is not a libertarian, is not widely supported by libertarians.
2. Libertarianism is not the same as Randianism.


blog.americanfeast.com

"G'day, mate, it's a bonzer avo for a logical fallacy. 'Course I'm a True Scotsman, bloody oath! Got any tinnies in the Esky, y'drongo?"
2012-10-22 04:06:32 PM  
1 votes:

Kazan: most real-libertarians don't self-identify as "Libertarian" was part of my point


Let me ask you this. Do you agree with everything your party stands for? I don't, but the Libertarian party is the closest thing to small-l libertarianism around.

I took the party to task for nominating Bob Barr (I wrote in Gary Nolan in the General Election) who was a HORRIBLE candidate. Unlike Gary Johnson, he didn't have any legitimate history of leaning libertarian.
2012-10-22 04:03:17 PM  
1 votes:

poot_rootbeer: And why hasn't it been tried anywhere? Nowhere in the real world real enough to be compatible with libertarianism?


Because the idea of individual liberty and smaller government scares people. One only needs to look at the reactions in this thread. People WANT to be taken care of. People are fearful of the personal responsibility aspect of individual liberty. So to many, ceding individual liberty for government power is an acceptable choice.

That isn't to say government is NOT necessary. It's just that there's few limitations on the power of the Federal government at this point. People want to wave a flag for their party and say, "My Guy is different, when he gets in things will change!" The truth is that neither party returns government powers taken by their predecessor. Look at Obama's promise not to use federal resources for going after states that have legalized medical marijuana. Gitmo is still open. He's increased drone strikes. Has he been more transparent? No. I'm not just pinning this only on Obama, it's just the way our two-party system is functioning. There's very little difference between the two parties. They both increase the size and power of the federal government at the expense of individual liberty. Will Romney remove the HCRA? No.
2012-10-22 03:54:03 PM  
1 votes:

BHK: Yeah, that's a great idea, let's copy the Romans of the 5th century! In another hundred years we'll have a return to feudalism as debt/tax slaves sell their lives to their oligarchic overlords in order to gain protection from those taxes and debt.


If you actually read the source you would know they were referencing a Roman monetary system that lasted from the 5th Century BCE to around the 2nd Century BCE

FTFA:

"Solon's reforms were so successful that, 150 years later, the early Roman republic
sent a delegation to Greece to study them. They became the foundation of the Roman
monetary system from 454 BC (Lex Aternia) until the time of the Punic wars (Peruzzi
(1985))."

"Many historians (Del Mar (1895)) have partly attributed the eventual collapse of the
Roman republic to the emergence of a plutocracy that accumulated immense private
wealth at the expense of the general citizenry. Their ascendancy was facilitated by the
introduction of privately controlled silver money, and later gold money, at prices that far
exceeded their earlier commodity value prices, during the emergency period of the Punic
wars."
2012-10-22 03:52:35 PM  
1 votes:

clyph: Except, you know, the actual Libertarian Party, which nominated him for President in the 1988 election.


Which I wasn't at the time. I'm talking in my time as a libertarian (going back to '92), I don't know any libertarians that support him. The party has evolved whether you choose to believe it or not.
2012-10-22 03:42:51 PM  
1 votes:

Arkanaut: BTW:

We return to the historical norm, before Charles II placed control of the money supply in private hands with the English Free Coinage Act of 1666.

Yeah, this isn't going to alarm any conspiracy theorists.


Didn't the zenith of the British Empire start right around 1666? Seems private control of the money supply in general worked out well for what was otherwise a backward, inhospitable little island that even the Vikings didn't particularly want.
2012-10-22 03:36:28 PM  
1 votes:
I love how libertarians tell us we don't know how "the real world works".

There isn't a single place on Earth where their ideas have created a decent society.
2012-10-22 03:32:46 PM  
1 votes:

vartian: Slaxl: Or am I too cynical?

Take the money out of the hands of people that care only about money. That's progress; the rest we can figure out.


This. And I work in banking lol.
2012-10-22 03:08:49 PM  
1 votes:
I think these deck chairs would look great over there.
2012-10-22 03:03:58 PM  
1 votes:

Kazan: yes. you've voted US Libertarian party. thank you for proving my point you that are NOT a little-l libertarian but a united states "big-L" libertarian.


I'm still a small-l libertarian who votes LP. That also means we don't support Ron Paul, we're not all Randites, and we're not all minarchists. But thanks for the generalization.
2012-10-22 02:53:37 PM  
1 votes:

SquiggsIN: "My viewpoint is better than yours"

"No it isn't, your viewpoint is for idiots"

"Idiots like me are better than idiots like you"



Does this sum up this almost all of the content on every thread so far?


Yeah.
2012-10-22 02:48:35 PM  
1 votes:

mizchief: Elegy: How? You deposit 100 dollars in the bank. If, by law, I (the bank) need 10% of deposits on hand, I turn around and lend out the other 90 dollars to someone needing a mortgage at interest. Or a car. Or someone looking to expand their business. The interest on that loan then pays the interest that you accrue on your deposited savings, with some left over as a profit for the bank.

Yes, but you leave out the fun part. The builder who receives the cash from the borrower then turns around and deposits that money into the same bank which in turns loans it out again at 10 times it's value. Since we have a global reserve system, this all funnels back into the same system where the actual wealth (gold for ex) was long extracted by the bankers only leaving the IOU's behind.

Then as the system collapses, they bankers turn around and take back the house, which they then sell off to someone whom they just wrote another loan too. This is where the boom-bust cycle comes from, and as any 5th grader can see only the bankers will ever own real wealth.


This, and don't even get me started on the derivatives market. Banks are criminal organizations that hide behind smoke and mirrors.

Having the state suddenly seize control of the currency may be too extreme an approach, though. Countries all over the world should initiate audits of their central banks, then implement more stringent regulations with safeguards to keep the bankers from playing musical chairs with regulators. The derivatives market should be regulated immediately.
2012-10-22 02:31:51 PM  
1 votes:

slayer199: Kazan: almost every farking Libertarian i have ever met is just a randite republican embarassed to call themselves republican.

there are almost not "little l" libertarians in the united states. which you're trying to claim to be. and quite frankly i don't buy what you're selling based on your posting history.

Apparently you suffer from selective memory or you have me confused with someone else.. I've voted Libertarian since '92. I was not a fan of Bush (I was very critical of Bush). I'm not a fan of Ron Paul. I've supported gay marriage, legalization of marijuana (and ending the War on Drugs in general), legalization of prostitution, shrinking of the military, cutting off of foreign aid (other than for natural disasters), open trade, open immigration, balanced budget, dramatically reducing the size and scope of the government, and pretty much every small-l libertarian ideal. Basically individual liberty with personal responsibility and smaller government.

What I find amusing is that lefties have such a hard time understanding libertarianism...other than "ZOMG, WANTING LESS GOVERNMENT IS BAD". I'll boil down libertarian philosophy down for you in a couple short lines.

Government exists to protect and defend individual liberty, enforce contracts, and provide physical infrastructure. That does not mean it's government's responsibility to protect me from myself or my poor life choices.


I might have a one-up on you with that. I'm in favor of completely dropping the term "marriage" from the US law, and replace it with "civil unions." Everyone can have a civil union, and the rights extend to the partner as it would have with marriage. I also believe in dropping everything not included in the constitution (and its amendments), and bring those back to local and state governments. That even means the USPS would go back to being a government agency, but Social Security, Medicare, SSI, Medicaid? Let the local and state handle it, or at best privatize it and make it optional (I'm already arranging my retirement to not include Social Security).

I too say end this war on drugs, this also includes: cigarettes, alcohol, and other forms of -legal- drugs, and also allow states to have laws and controls without stepping on their heels (Fed law vs CA law is a good example). I have no issues with people smoking at a little post 50 feet from the grocery store in sub-zero temperatures no more than I have in the store in a secured, ventilated, and climate-controlled room. At least in the climate-controlled room, they won't catch the exposure effects from standing in the elements.

Everything else is good as well, but I also think while we limit the scope of our military, we need to keep numbers up, and teach the brats life lessons. Conscription needs to make a comeback (and not just for the military mind you). Tie things to taking a year or 2 of your life in service to the local/state/federal government. Even working in the US Dept of the Post Office would teach.
2012-10-22 02:24:57 PM  
1 votes:

Tat'dGreaser: PsiChick: Eh, I figured it out in a few seconds.

Well so did I but that doesn't mean they can just do what they want and throw extra "u's" anywhere they want


...Well, it's their variant of English, not ours...so they kinda can.
2012-10-22 02:10:16 PM  
1 votes:
If you need a slew of spectators with doctorates spewing endless volumes and cautions as to how something as relatively simple as commerce works, you're probably already well past the point of delusional as to what commerce and or value is, or is not. If this move makes all the economists redundant, it's already a useful idea.
2012-10-22 02:09:57 PM  
1 votes:
Anyone else point out that subby is a tard?
2012-10-22 02:08:53 PM  
1 votes:
Just as an aside people, remember that we have to pay interest on the debt, and there will be a point where it'll swallow up the bulk of taxes if we keep going this way.
2012-10-22 02:07:42 PM  
1 votes:
lh6.googleusercontent.com
2012-10-22 02:01:49 PM  
1 votes:

genepool lifeboat: probesport: IMF? Unbelievable.

OH!


WTF?
2012-10-22 01:58:31 PM  
1 votes:
Money, you see, the thing about money, money is IOUs. And that's all it *ever* was designed to be. You can only pass the buck and print IOUs against nothing until either the buck stops or you have to admit you're dealing with really snazzy toilet paper.
2012-10-22 01:56:37 PM  
1 votes:

fireclown: Actually, that's kind of one of the suggestions of the Austrian School 'O Economics. If you want to spin up your libertarian friends, tell 'em you are in favor of "Fiat Currency"/


I drove a Fiat Currency for a couple of years. Thing went bust all the time

hat4uk.files.wordpress.com
Plus, it wasn't a convertible.
2012-10-22 01:55:43 PM  
1 votes:

YixilTesiphon: iq_in_binary: CruJones: iq_in_binary: Kazan: slayer199: 1. Ron Paul is not a libertarian, is not widely supported by libertarians.

the first part of that statement is true, the second part is pants-on-fire bullshiat. every self described libertarian i know is a paul fan

slayer199: 2. Libertarianism is not the same as Randianism.

in theory, no. in practice in the United States? almost every self-described Libertarian (note the Capital L) is a randite.

If they are self described libertarians that support Ron Paul, they are Republicans. Find an actual libertarian and you'll find that they usually think he is a racist steeplechaser with Alzheimer's.

I'm an actual libertarian and not a Paul fan. I do like some of his ideas, but many are completely batshiat crazy. But I was actually a Philosophy major, and understand what libertarianism is, not just someone who thinks it means "less gubmint".

/actually has a real job with that degree
//basically works out to social liberal, fiscal conservative

So basically, you're intelligent enough to know that libertarianism and socialism are not mutually exclusive.

How are you defining socialism here? I am guessing that CruJones believes that private property is a good thing.


I also understand the differences between ideals and reality. Sometimes spending a dollar here saves five later. But all it really means is I don't care who you fark, marry, or what you ingest into your body. It's none of my business, and it's not the government's either.
2012-10-22 01:51:05 PM  
1 votes:
What a corporate boardroom plaque might look like.

i1.cpcache.com
2012-10-22 01:45:26 PM  
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: The ignorance from the left on display here is non-astonishing.


Any time somebody gets all squinty and eye roll-y and "oh, my dear boy, harrumph"y about the minutiae of on the folds in the elephant's skin, they usually have a vested interest in keeping people from noticing the f*cking huge elephant wearing it. The problem *is* fractional reserve banking, non existent money and it being printed like confetti to leverage actual wealth into an ever growing pool that only a few people are allowed to swim in. Amschel Rothschild stated things quite succinctly, years ago and the business plan hasn't shifted since.
2012-10-22 01:44:07 PM  
1 votes:

madgonad: YixilTesiphon: Or the government could have let them go bankrupt.

I actually favored that. Do some of those quick - five day bankruptcies, like they did with GM. Essentially sell off the valuable parts to stable companies, pay the immediate debts, kill the shares, and give the bondholders a trim. The functional parts of the business would change ownership, the equitized executives would get nothing, and bonuses would all get cancelled.

The problem was at the time the Dow was going under 7,000 and there weren't many companies capable of buying. See, most business acquisitions are managed and/or financed by banks. In this case the BANKS were the problem and only a government had the resources to come in and take care of business. We did it through TARP instead of through bankruptcies - and it worked. People keep forgetting how scary it was getting...


OK, but why did any company need to buy it? The banks clearly didn't learn the lesson, which they would have had they been allowed to self-destruct.

GM was ridiculous too. It had actual hard assets that people would have been interested in acquiring had it gone under, but instead the thing was kept alive.

Risks need to be real for pricing to work.
2012-10-22 01:43:17 PM  
1 votes:

slayer199: What I find amusing is that lefties have such a hard time understanding libertarianism...other than "ZOMG, WANTING LESS GOVERNMENT IS BAD". I'll boil down libertarian philosophy down for you in a couple short lines.


man...don't even try. The left will never understand and the right just thinks we are godless heathens.
2012-10-22 01:40:24 PM  
1 votes:

Slaves2Darkness: nmemkha: Does anyone know how we got into this mess?

Umm...what makes you think this is a mess? US deficit funding has created the greatest amount of wealth spread to the largest amount of people in the history of the world. It has funded low tax, large military, and world domination that Caesar could only dream about. Deficit spending defeated the last of the great enemies and proved once and for all that a Republic is the best government ever. It has funded decadence, sloth, corruption that would make Caligula drool.

In short US deficit spending and the debt is the greatest thing we the people could have ever done.

The only problem we have now is convincing the retarded right that taxes must increased to reduce the deficit, so the party can continue. The retarded right are the douche bags who never pony up a couple of bucks for the beer run, so the party can continue.


But you, the retarded left, just said that deficit spending is a good thing. Make up your mind child.
2012-10-22 01:37:08 PM  
1 votes:
"Giving money & power to Congress is like giving whiskey & car keys to teenage boys" PJ O'Rourke
2012-10-22 01:36:53 PM  
1 votes:

YixilTesiphon: DerAppie: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Live within your means and you won't need credit.

Right, but how do you start a business without credit?


Investors. They do this thing called investing.
2012-10-22 01:36:09 PM  
1 votes:
Eliminating fractional reserve banking. Good thing there aren't legitimate, healthy uses for debt that most people/organizations need to function. What's not to love about requiring home buyers to either pay for it all in cash or wait X number of years for the system to expand enough so they can get a loan?

A much less insane idea is to scale down the multiplier from fractional reserves (say 6:1 instead of 9:1) and clearly divide the lenders from the investment houses. Lender agencies could even be taxed at significantly lower rates to subsidize the social benefit of safety and low risk. Investment agencies could only be allowed to buy loans and package them how they want, higher risk and higher taxes. Then, when the investment side crashes (again), you let them go. Survival of the fittest is what the big-L Libertarians champion, so give it to them. And for good measure, insurance agencies fall under the same protections as lending agencies.

But that's socialism, and it makes Supply-Side Baby Jesus cry.
2012-10-22 01:34:03 PM  
1 votes:

DerAppie: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Live within your means and you won't need credit.


Right, but how do you start a business without credit?
2012-10-22 01:33:24 PM  
1 votes:

Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....


Live within your means and you won't need credit.
2012-10-22 01:30:37 PM  
1 votes:

gingerjet: Kazan: in theory, no. in practice in the United States? almost every self-described Libertarian (note the Capital L) is a randite.

Most (big L) Libertarians have never read one of her books already through nor can discuss what her beliefs are so - no - I don't think most (big L) Libertarians in the US are followers of rand.

/there is a reason for that - Rand was an awful writer


I have read her books, but aside from the villians being amusing caricatures of bureaucrats I found little of value in them.

Until either major party stops advocating limitless drone killings I can't possibly support them, so straight-ticket LP it is again for me this year.
2012-10-22 01:23:38 PM  
1 votes:

Kazan: in theory, no. in practice in the United States? almost every self-described Libertarian (note the Capital L) is a randite.


Most (big L) Libertarians have never read one of her books already through nor can discuss what her beliefs are so - no - I don't think most (big L) Libertarians in the US are followers of rand.

/there is a reason for that - Rand was an awful writer
2012-10-22 01:23:14 PM  
1 votes:

nmemkha: Does anyone know how we got into this mess?


Yes, step into my way-back machine and I'll take you and a journey to 1999 Link
2012-10-22 01:20:36 PM  
1 votes:
2012-10-22 01:17:16 PM  
1 votes:

Arkanaut: Is anyone else annoyed at the British use of "pc" instead of the % sign?


YES
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-10-22 01:16:22 PM  
1 votes:
Ron Paul libertarians = Corporate Anarchists.
2012-10-22 01:15:59 PM  
1 votes:

slayer199: Uh, no. Ron Paul is supported by libertarian-leaning Republicans, not Libertarians. I don't know any Libertarians that support Ron Paul. He's a Republican with some libertarian-leaning ideas....


almost every farking Libertarian i have ever met is just a randite republican embarassed to call themselves republican.

there are almost not "little l" libertarians in the united states. which you're trying to claim to be. and quite frankly i don't buy what you're selling based on your posting history.
2012-10-22 01:15:50 PM  
1 votes:

Arkanaut: Is anyone else annoyed at the British use of "pc" instead of the % sign?


Yes, we should bomb them immediately.
2012-10-22 01:14:17 PM  
1 votes:

vartian: Slaxl: Or am I too cynical?

Take the money out of the hands of people that care only about money. That's progress; the rest we can figure out.


Giving it to Congress doesn't do that.
2012-10-22 11:27:03 AM  
1 votes:
Since subby apparently thinks that anyone that disagrees with larger government and against the fed is either a Ron Paul fan or an Randian, allow me to clarify.

1. Ron Paul is not a libertarian, is not widely supported by libertarians.
2. Libertarianism is not the same as Randianism.

Back to the article. HELL NO. The IMF is farking insane. The solution to irresponsible deficit spending is to take over the private money supply? Like we're supposed to trust the government with money?

Riiiggggghhhhtttt.
2012-10-22 09:24:33 AM  
1 votes:

jasonvatch: There is much to what you say. But, have you seen how the banks have done so much to for us?


I am not defending the Fed, but handing the money supply to Congress doesn't seem like a net upgrade. That the IMF thinks this is a good plan is not really comforting.
 
Displayed 83 of 83 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report