[SK in CV]

I’m going to focus on just one little piece of this comment.

[quote=aldante] Meanwhile the “anti fed” crowd – Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Marc Faber had been telling us for years that we were in a massive bubble and more importantly why we were in the bubble. [/quote]

All 3 are anti-fed. And Ron Paul did kind of predict the bubble. Though it started at the very early stages of the bubble, so early that it could be argued that when he began making the claim, the bubble didn’t even exist.. But he was dead wrong as to why the bubble was going to happen. He claimed it was all the GSE’s, while the facts are pretty clear (despite the fact that the claims continue to be made) that the GSE’s had virtually nothing to do with the bubble. I suspect that he continues to argue that the point is to support his own bona fides. The facts, however, don’t support either his prediction or his current claims.

[SK in CV]

I’m going to focus on just one little piece of this comment.

[quote=aldante] Meanwhile the “anti fed” crowd – Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Marc Faber had been telling us for years that we were in a massive bubble and more importantly why we were in the bubble. [/quote]

All 3 are anti-fed. And Ron Paul did kind of predict the bubble. Though it started at the very early stages of the bubble, so early that it could be argued that when he began making the claim, the bubble didn’t even exist.. But he was dead wrong as to why the bubble was going to happen. He claimed it was all the GSE’s, while the facts are pretty clear (despite the fact that the claims continue to be made) that the GSE’s had virtually nothing to do with the bubble. I suspect that he continues to argue that the point is to support his own bona fides. The facts, however, don’t support either his prediction or his current claims.

[SK in CV]

I’m going to focus on just one little piece of this comment.

[quote=aldante] Meanwhile the “anti fed” crowd – Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Marc Faber had been telling us for years that we were in a massive bubble and more importantly why we were in the bubble. [/quote]

All 3 are anti-fed. And Ron Paul did kind of predict the bubble. Though it started at the very early stages of the bubble, so early that it could be argued that when he began making the claim, the bubble didn’t even exist.. But he was dead wrong as to why the bubble was going to happen. He claimed it was all the GSE’s, while the facts are pretty clear (despite the fact that the claims continue to be made) that the GSE’s had virtually nothing to do with the bubble. I suspect that he continues to argue that the point is to support his own bona fides. The facts, however, don’t support either his prediction or his current claims.

[SK in CV]

I’m going to focus on just one little piece of this comment.

[quote=aldante] Meanwhile the “anti fed” crowd – Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Marc Faber had been telling us for years that we were in a massive bubble and more importantly why we were in the bubble. [/quote]

All 3 are anti-fed. And Ron Paul did kind of predict the bubble. Though it started at the very early stages of the bubble, so early that it could be argued that when he began making the claim, the bubble didn’t even exist.. But he was dead wrong as to why the bubble was going to happen. He claimed it was all the GSE’s, while the facts are pretty clear (despite the fact that the claims continue to be made) that the GSE’s had virtually nothing to do with the bubble. I suspect that he continues to argue that the point is to support his own bona fides. The facts, however, don’t support either his prediction or his current claims.

[SK in CV]

[quote=scaredycat]in our evolution as a society, people are no longer seen as property — women and slaves. Can you imagine a future where certain things we all need are not seen as property either?

it seems self-evident that slaves are not property today, but of course it was kinda quirky and radical at the time.

In the future, might we not feel that way about trees? Air. Water. Animals. Maybe certain types of property rights — offshore drilling leases, for insatnce, but many others come to mind — will seem as crazy as having a property right in a shipment of people from Africa.

Can you imagine a future where the endgame of consume, own, destroy, profit is seen as being as insane as the idea that some people were property others got to own? Probably more insane in the sense of its unsustainability. Instead of simply destroying each other, we destroy the world, in the most efficient manner possible.

Trees don’t grow to the sky, because it’s not worth the extra effort. But money stacks do grow to the sky, there is no limit on man’s lust for wealth, and he’d cut down every tree in existence in a heartbeat to print the money for himself if he could….the richest man in the world, walking around with his oxygen tank, king of all he surveys.[/quote]

Who’s old enough to remember.

In the year 2525….if man is still alive…

[SK in CV]

[quote=scaredycat]in our evolution as a society, people are no longer seen as property — women and slaves. Can you imagine a future where certain things we all need are not seen as property either?

it seems self-evident that slaves are not property today, but of course it was kinda quirky and radical at the time.

In the future, might we not feel that way about trees? Air. Water. Animals. Maybe certain types of property rights — offshore drilling leases, for insatnce, but many others come to mind — will seem as crazy as having a property right in a shipment of people from Africa.

Can you imagine a future where the endgame of consume, own, destroy, profit is seen as being as insane as the idea that some people were property others got to own? Probably more insane in the sense of its unsustainability. Instead of simply destroying each other, we destroy the world, in the most efficient manner possible.

Trees don’t grow to the sky, because it’s not worth the extra effort. But money stacks do grow to the sky, there is no limit on man’s lust for wealth, and he’d cut down every tree in existence in a heartbeat to print the money for himself if he could….the richest man in the world, walking around with his oxygen tank, king of all he surveys.[/quote]

Who’s old enough to remember.

In the year 2525….if man is still alive…

[SK in CV]

[quote=scaredycat]in our evolution as a society, people are no longer seen as property — women and slaves. Can you imagine a future where certain things we all need are not seen as property either?

it seems self-evident that slaves are not property today, but of course it was kinda quirky and radical at the time.

In the future, might we not feel that way about trees? Air. Water. Animals. Maybe certain types of property rights — offshore drilling leases, for insatnce, but many others come to mind — will seem as crazy as having a property right in a shipment of people from Africa.

Can you imagine a future where the endgame of consume, own, destroy, profit is seen as being as insane as the idea that some people were property others got to own? Probably more insane in the sense of its unsustainability. Instead of simply destroying each other, we destroy the world, in the most efficient manner possible.

Trees don’t grow to the sky, because it’s not worth the extra effort. But money stacks do grow to the sky, there is no limit on man’s lust for wealth, and he’d cut down every tree in existence in a heartbeat to print the money for himself if he could….the richest man in the world, walking around with his oxygen tank, king of all he surveys.[/quote]

Who’s old enough to remember.

In the year 2525….if man is still alive…

[SK in CV]

[quote=scaredycat]in our evolution as a society, people are no longer seen as property — women and slaves. Can you imagine a future where certain things we all need are not seen as property either?

it seems self-evident that slaves are not property today, but of course it was kinda quirky and radical at the time.

In the future, might we not feel that way about trees? Air. Water. Animals. Maybe certain types of property rights — offshore drilling leases, for insatnce, but many others come to mind — will seem as crazy as having a property right in a shipment of people from Africa.

Can you imagine a future where the endgame of consume, own, destroy, profit is seen as being as insane as the idea that some people were property others got to own? Probably more insane in the sense of its unsustainability. Instead of simply destroying each other, we destroy the world, in the most efficient manner possible.

Trees don’t grow to the sky, because it’s not worth the extra effort. But money stacks do grow to the sky, there is no limit on man’s lust for wealth, and he’d cut down every tree in existence in a heartbeat to print the money for himself if he could….the richest man in the world, walking around with his oxygen tank, king of all he surveys.[/quote]

Who’s old enough to remember.

In the year 2525….if man is still alive…

[SK in CV]

[quote=scaredycat]in our evolution as a society, people are no longer seen as property — women and slaves. Can you imagine a future where certain things we all need are not seen as property either?

it seems self-evident that slaves are not property today, but of course it was kinda quirky and radical at the time.

In the future, might we not feel that way about trees? Air. Water. Animals. Maybe certain types of property rights — offshore drilling leases, for insatnce, but many others come to mind — will seem as crazy as having a property right in a shipment of people from Africa.

Can you imagine a future where the endgame of consume, own, destroy, profit is seen as being as insane as the idea that some people were property others got to own? Probably more insane in the sense of its unsustainability. Instead of simply destroying each other, we destroy the world, in the most efficient manner possible.

Trees don’t grow to the sky, because it’s not worth the extra effort. But money stacks do grow to the sky, there is no limit on man’s lust for wealth, and he’d cut down every tree in existence in a heartbeat to print the money for himself if he could….the richest man in the world, walking around with his oxygen tank, king of all he surveys.[/quote]

Who’s old enough to remember.

In the year 2525….if man is still alive…

[SK in CV]

[quote=sdduuuude]
You are going to have to connect the dots on that one for me. Slavery is a violation of personal rights. How does slavery exist in a free market ?

This is a crazy, nonsensical jump from “libertarian” to “slaver” and “no niggers allowed.”[/quote]

it was in direct response to

This is somewhat similar to the Civil Rights Act and why I think libertarian thought holds human beings to a higher standard. We don’t get our rights from government, we get them from our creator. It’s the people’s duty to act responsibly and respectfully towards one another.

The prohibition against slavery is a government standard. Not a free market or libertarian standard. Prior to that government standard, it (slavery) existed in the free market. (It existed for a good 60 years AFTER that standard was established by the government, but that’s a different story.) His “creator” screwed up on that one. Those rights were withheld by that “higher standard”, which fortunately were superceded by government standards.

[quote=sdduuuude]
Less crazy, but still nutso, is the belief that people need a government to figure out how to not trade chickens and grain.[/quote]

was in response to

I believe that the laws of economics are natural and not determined through the state.

Yes, we probably would. But yet the issuance of currency is not a natural law. Laws of physics are natural laws. The laws of thermodynamics are natural law. Only slightly above trading chickens for grain, we get the social and political construct of a monetary system. There is nothing “natural” about it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=sdduuuude]
You are going to have to connect the dots on that one for me. Slavery is a violation of personal rights. How does slavery exist in a free market ?

This is a crazy, nonsensical jump from “libertarian” to “slaver” and “no niggers allowed.”[/quote]

it was in direct response to

This is somewhat similar to the Civil Rights Act and why I think libertarian thought holds human beings to a higher standard. We don’t get our rights from government, we get them from our creator. It’s the people’s duty to act responsibly and respectfully towards one another.

The prohibition against slavery is a government standard. Not a free market or libertarian standard. Prior to that government standard, it (slavery) existed in the free market. (It existed for a good 60 years AFTER that standard was established by the government, but that’s a different story.) His “creator” screwed up on that one. Those rights were withheld by that “higher standard”, which fortunately were superceded by government standards.

[quote=sdduuuude]
Less crazy, but still nutso, is the belief that people need a government to figure out how to not trade chickens and grain.[/quote]

was in response to

I believe that the laws of economics are natural and not determined through the state.

Yes, we probably would. But yet the issuance of currency is not a natural law. Laws of physics are natural laws. The laws of thermodynamics are natural law. Only slightly above trading chickens for grain, we get the social and political construct of a monetary system. There is nothing “natural” about it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=sdduuuude]
You are going to have to connect the dots on that one for me. Slavery is a violation of personal rights. How does slavery exist in a free market ?

This is a crazy, nonsensical jump from “libertarian” to “slaver” and “no niggers allowed.”[/quote]

it was in direct response to

This is somewhat similar to the Civil Rights Act and why I think libertarian thought holds human beings to a higher standard. We don’t get our rights from government, we get them from our creator. It’s the people’s duty to act responsibly and respectfully towards one another.

The prohibition against slavery is a government standard. Not a free market or libertarian standard. Prior to that government standard, it (slavery) existed in the free market. (It existed for a good 60 years AFTER that standard was established by the government, but that’s a different story.) His “creator” screwed up on that one. Those rights were withheld by that “higher standard”, which fortunately were superceded by government standards.

[quote=sdduuuude]
Less crazy, but still nutso, is the belief that people need a government to figure out how to not trade chickens and grain.[/quote]

was in response to

I believe that the laws of economics are natural and not determined through the state.

Yes, we probably would. But yet the issuance of currency is not a natural law. Laws of physics are natural laws. The laws of thermodynamics are natural law. Only slightly above trading chickens for grain, we get the social and political construct of a monetary system. There is nothing “natural” about it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=sdduuuude]
You are going to have to connect the dots on that one for me. Slavery is a violation of personal rights. How does slavery exist in a free market ?

This is a crazy, nonsensical jump from “libertarian” to “slaver” and “no niggers allowed.”[/quote]

it was in direct response to

This is somewhat similar to the Civil Rights Act and why I think libertarian thought holds human beings to a higher standard. We don’t get our rights from government, we get them from our creator. It’s the people’s duty to act responsibly and respectfully towards one another.

The prohibition against slavery is a government standard. Not a free market or libertarian standard. Prior to that government standard, it (slavery) existed in the free market. (It existed for a good 60 years AFTER that standard was established by the government, but that’s a different story.) His “creator” screwed up on that one. Those rights were withheld by that “higher standard”, which fortunately were superceded by government standards.

[quote=sdduuuude]
Less crazy, but still nutso, is the belief that people need a government to figure out how to not trade chickens and grain.[/quote]

was in response to

I believe that the laws of economics are natural and not determined through the state.

Yes, we probably would. But yet the issuance of currency is not a natural law. Laws of physics are natural laws. The laws of thermodynamics are natural law. Only slightly above trading chickens for grain, we get the social and political construct of a monetary system. There is nothing “natural” about it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=sdduuuude]
You are going to have to connect the dots on that one for me. Slavery is a violation of personal rights. How does slavery exist in a free market ?

This is a crazy, nonsensical jump from “libertarian” to “slaver” and “no niggers allowed.”[/quote]

it was in direct response to

This is somewhat similar to the Civil Rights Act and why I think libertarian thought holds human beings to a higher standard. We don’t get our rights from government, we get them from our creator. It’s the people’s duty to act responsibly and respectfully towards one another.

The prohibition against slavery is a government standard. Not a free market or libertarian standard. Prior to that government standard, it (slavery) existed in the free market. (It existed for a good 60 years AFTER that standard was established by the government, but that’s a different story.) His “creator” screwed up on that one. Those rights were withheld by that “higher standard”, which fortunately were superceded by government standards.

[quote=sdduuuude]
Less crazy, but still nutso, is the belief that people need a government to figure out how to not trade chickens and grain.[/quote]

was in response to

I believe that the laws of economics are natural and not determined through the state.

Yes, we probably would. But yet the issuance of currency is not a natural law. Laws of physics are natural laws. The laws of thermodynamics are natural law. Only slightly above trading chickens for grain, we get the social and political construct of a monetary system. There is nothing “natural” about it.

[SK in CV]

I don’t even know where to begin on this.

[quote=greekfire]@XBoxBoy: free markets would do a much better job of regulating themselves if they were allowed to fail. It’s the “too big too fail” bailouts and gov’t restrictions such as the Fair Housing Act that create a moral hazard.

@Arraya: I believe that the laws of economics are natural and not determined through the state. The state is supposed to allow free exchange of goods and services and enforce laws against things like fraud and counterfeit.

This is somewhat similar to the Civil Rights Act and why I think libertarian thought holds human beings to a higher standard. We don’t get our rights from government, we get them from our creator. It’s the people’s duty to act responsibly and respectfully towards one another.[/quote]

Free markets would have removed lead from paint? put seat belts into cars?

The Fair Housing Act creates a moral hazard by prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin? Is mixing coloreds and whites a moral hazard?

The state creates common currency. Without it, we’d be trading chickens and grain. Money is a social and political construct, nothing “natural” about it.

Libertarian thought holds human beings to a higher standard? Like slavery, “no niggers allowed” lunch counters, and no Jews allowed to own property in La Jolla? Are you arguing that in good time it would have all worked itself out? (Isn’t it possible that your “creator” actually sponsored the Fair Housing Act or the Civil Rights Act? Or is there some evidence that your “creator” is also a libertarian?)

[Author]

Posts