Is having a government scientific?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-05-2014, 06:20 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(27-05-2014 05:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 05:29 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I think it is clear that we are intruding on Luminon's mastrabation. He is not here for a discussion or a debate he just wants to beat off to libertarian porn. I must say I did not think anyone could be less self aware than Frank but fuck if Luminon is not trying his damnedest for that coveted(?) title.
I am amazed at depths of Cjlr's ignorance. He thinks that tragedy of the commons is caused by the market and is solved by the government.
Hint: Tragedy of the commons is typical for violent monopolies of government, public sector and Communism. It's called tragedy of the commons for a reason. Respecting property rights, is the only thing that helps, be they individual or of voluntary community. Turns out the argument is a pure thought experiment with no sociological basis. Stateless societies don't work that way.
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI6.html

No, the tragedy of the commons is endemic to unrestrained capitalism.

It is the poster child for unbridled self-interest.

Quote:Your lack of curiosity is notable too. Don't you ever wonder why there is inflation? How does government pay its debts? Why is American's buying power less than 40 years ago? Why is America in nearly constant wars? Why does USA have 25 % of the world's prison population? (out of 5 % of world's population)

Wow - you are even more scattered and off the wall than frankksj.

What did any of that have to do with the discussion?

Quote:Hell, nobody is curious how I came over to Libertarianism. (maybe it's boring) My high school economy lessons went as normal and I was as far to the left as it gets. I didn't vote for the Communist party just because I didn't trust them to carry out their election program. I thought everything you think now. I thought Christian babies were taught to stop asking questions.

Given your track record, your credibility is quite low.
You might want to dial back the rhetoric and try calm, rational discourse instead of slogans and rants.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
27-05-2014, 06:38 PM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2014 06:44 PM by cjlr.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(27-05-2014 05:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 05:29 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I think it is clear that we are intruding on Luminon's mastrabation. He is not here for a discussion or a debate he just wants to beat off to libertarian porn. I must say I did not think anyone could be less self aware than Frank but fuck if Luminon is not trying his damnedest for that coveted(?) title.
I am amazed at depths of Cjlr's ignorance. He thinks that tragedy of the commons is caused by the market and is solved by the government.

No. I never said that.

Thanks for inventing nonsensical straw men, I guess?

(27-05-2014 05:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Hint: Tragedy of the commons is typical for violent monopolies of government, public sector and Communism. It's called tragedy of the commons for a reason.

Yes. It refers to individual overgrazing on jointly held land (the commons). The principle was extended to refer to all resources.

It arises when individual interest is at odds with communal interest. This happens all the time. Do you seriously need specific examples?

I merely raised the point to you; that you'd rather beat off to non sequiturs than address a very simple point is your prerogative.

(27-05-2014 05:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Respecting property rights, is the only thing that helps, be they individual or of voluntary community.

Ah, yes. "Respecting property rights". Which are subjective and open to disagreement.

Not to mention the part where you can't guarantee everyone else's good behaviour. Hence contingency planning, as I referred to earlier.

But, if you didn't bother engaging honestly before, I don't see why you'd feel a need to start now.

(27-05-2014 05:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Turns out the argument is a pure thought experiment with no sociological basis. Stateless societies don't work that way.
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI6.html

Citation needed.

What "stateless societies" are available to draw upon as data points?

Oh, right - none.

"If everything was minimalist and voluntary no one would ever act selfishly or break any rules or agreements ever because MAAAAAGIIIIIIIC" is not compelling. Thanks for playing.

If instead you admit of a need to draw from each individual's resources in order to establish a regulatory body to monitor conditions and define and enforce said mutual agreement, being sure to separately limit its powers but leave those limits open to renegotiation as necessary... remind me what the fuck the difference is, compared to the principles underlying the thousands of variations on that theme found throughout history?

(27-05-2014 05:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Your lack of curiosity is notable too. Don't you ever wonder why there is inflation?

The money supply is linked to the overall size of the economy. If population and productivity increase, how could monetary indicators possibly not?

(27-05-2014 05:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  How does government pay its debts? Why is American's buying power less than 40 years ago? Why is America in nearly constant wars? Why does USA have 25 % of the world's prison population? (out of 5 % of world's population)

Christfucker, dude. America is one nation out of 200.

Talk about something else. That would at least prove you've considered anything beyond regurgitating fatuous talking points.

(27-05-2014 05:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Hell, nobody is curious how I came over to Libertarianism. (maybe it's boring) My high school economy lessons went as normal and I was as far to the left as it gets. I didn't vote for the Communist party just because I didn't trust them to carry out their election program. I thought everything you think now. I thought Christian babies were taught to stop asking questions.

Arrogant self-righteous auto-fellatio is not a compelling personality trait.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
28-05-2014, 02:09 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(27-05-2014 06:38 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The money supply is linked to the overall size of the economy. If population and productivity increase, how could monetary indicators possibly not?
That is a high school platitude. Another evidence that you are completely ignorant in anything but physics.
USA prints money all the century and uses them to wage wars. It's the only way to wage wars without increasing taxes which would be a political suicide. Every single American citizen is 1,4 million dollar in debt, counting unfunded liabilities of Medicare and so on.

The money supply is being enormously inflated the Federal reserve, regardless of population and productivity.
This tactic must bring down global economic system and probably devalue money in banks worldwide, which have price mostly derived from dollar.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2014, 02:45 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(28-05-2014 02:09 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 06:38 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The money supply is linked to the overall size of the economy. If population and productivity increase, how could monetary indicators possibly not?
That is a high school platitude. Another evidence that you are completely ignorant in anything but physics.
USA prints money all the century and uses them to wage wars. It's the only way to wage wars without increasing taxes which would be a political suicide. Every single American citizen is 1,4 million dollar in debt, counting unfunded liabilities of Medicare and so on.

The money supply is being enormously inflated the Federal reserve, regardless of population and productivity.
This tactic must bring down global economic system and probably devalue money in banks worldwide, which have price mostly derived from dollar.








Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2014, 03:14 AM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2014 03:20 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
Heh. A government-funded professor of economy. Nice try. Some basic history and complete lies. The government runs a giant Ponzi scheme with money counterfeiting called "quantitative easing".
"This is fantastic for every rich person. This is the biggest redistribution of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the rich. Ever."
- the billionaire Stanley Druckenmiller, 2013

You know why there is so little inflation in a "well-functioning democracy" of USA? Because the printed money go to banks and banks get paid even more to make it profitable for them to keep the money. That's the only difference between Zimbabwe currency and USA currency. USA has enough power in institutions to make the rules, Zimbabwe doesn't.

"The federal reserve purchases assets from these banks at inflated prices, props up the price of their assets on paper. Many financial institutions in the U.S. are technically insolvent..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQdmsL147j0
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2014, 03:23 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(28-05-2014 03:14 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Heh. A government-funded professor of economy. Nice try. Some basic history and complete lies. The government runs a giant Ponzi scheme with money counterfeiting called "quantitative easing".
"This is fantastic for every rich person. This is the biggest redistribution of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the rich. Ever."
- the billionaire Stanley Druckenmiller, 2013

You know why there is so little inflation in a "well-functioning democracy" of USA? Because the printed money go to banks and banks get paid even more to make it profitable for them to keep the money. That's the only difference between Zimbabwe currency and USA currency. USA has enough power in institutions to make the rules, Zimbabwe doesn't.

"The federal reserve purchases assets from these banks at inflated prices, props up the price of their assets on paper. Many financial institutions in the U.S. are technically insolvent..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQdmsL147j0


Is this the same conspiracy that is keeping your magic field from being accepted by science or are there 2 shadowy organizations trying to ruin you? If it is the latter they should really merge and synergise, would be more efficient.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Revenant77x's post
28-05-2014, 03:32 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(28-05-2014 03:23 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Is this the same conspiracy that is keeping your magic field from being accepted by science or are there 2 shadowy organizations trying to ruin you? If it is the latter they should really merge and synergise, would be more efficient.
Do we at least agree that the U.S. government has the power to create money out of nothing?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2014, 03:47 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(28-05-2014 03:32 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(28-05-2014 03:23 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Is this the same conspiracy that is keeping your magic field from being accepted by science or are there 2 shadowy organizations trying to ruin you? If it is the latter they should really merge and synergise, would be more efficient.
Do we at least agree that the U.S. government has the power to create money out of nothing?

As opposed to what? Creating it out of paper and having everyone agree to it's value as a means of exchanging goods and services because it backed up by gold, itself nothing more than a particular metal that we have traditionally applied a subjective valuation to because of its relative scarcity? Consider

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
28-05-2014, 04:03 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(28-05-2014 03:47 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  As opposed to what? Creating it out of paper and having everyone agree to it's value as a means of exchanging goods and services because it backed up by gold, itself nothing more than a particular metal that we have traditionally applied a subjective valuation to because of its relative scarcity? Consider
We agree, the U.S. government has the power to create money out of nothing. Nothing wrong with that in itself. Bitcoin invention was also creation of money out of nothing.

So how much money needs to be created for the economy to work? Bitcoin slows down and is designed to be finite.
Gold is finite, but a government may decide the gold to currency ratio in any way it wants.
What is dollar? Finite, semi-finite or infinite? How much dollar gets created every year? How is this newly created dollar distributed in the economy? Who gets it first? Where does it circulate?

As economy grows, a finite currency gets more valuable. Why doesn't dollar get more valuable? It's not a finite currency. It's not gold-based, so....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2014, 04:04 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
double post
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: