Why Ron Paul? #2 Economic Policy/ Critique of TAA Crazy vs. Evil

[MC0Mijado]

In my view the problem of the government regulating the people isn't an issue of what the individual can manage its life, but the of the coletive can manage its existence. Those are two different enteties that behave widely differently. And I do believe that some control is nescessary, but a distinction is nescessary.

[Burns12009]

Also as a free marketer are you a supply sider?

[Burns12009]

Also I would like to point out the meaninglessness of stripping one entity of a certain power to give it to another governing body. Spare me the 10th amendment nonsense, that was then this is now. Either you believe government should do or regulate something or you believe it shouldn't. I don't understand how you can titillate far from that. And frankly I find the constitutional system of small government to be ineffective for today mainly because well its not the 18th century.

[Burns12009]

I would also like to point out that most technology innovations were state funded projects. ie internet computer atom bomb..... So please spare the mythology of the competitive market.

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@Burns12009 Frankly to say that Capitalism didn't lead to any modern conveniences or innovations is preposterous. It was the competition in the free market Brewing industry which led to the invention of the refrigerator(huge advance in human nutrition), It was private donors(Rockefeller foundation) that led to the invention of the light bulb. Its no mythology or conspiracy theory. Capitalism can lead to corruption, but it also has given us the quality of life we have today. 

[Burns12009]

@MrSocialandPolitical

I didn't say it didn't lead to any but it most certainly doesn't lead to all innovations and in some instances it can halt innovations if said innovations lead to a destruction of a market.

[Obasiliasfilosofos]

No gov , federal or state has any business telling consenting adults what they can & cannot do in their bedrooms, "sodomy" laws did not just target gays it was directed at heterosexual couples too since some states had a very broad definition encompassing all penetrative sex acts outside of the missionary position!

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@Obasiliasfilosofos I absolutely agree, i view it to be a violation of the seperation of church and state clause, therefore its constitutionality overrides its state's authority, this was proven in the supreme court case lawrence v texas. Oral sex was actually consider illegal under sodomy laws. However its rarely enforced and is only brought up in statutory rape, regular rape, and public indecency charges.

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@Obasiliasfilosofos i merely used it as an example for state regulations in the video. A better example i should of used was weed regulations or something like that

[Burns12009]

@MrSocialandPolitical

weed :)

[Jonathan354fd]

Btw Tax cuts do you support them?

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@Jonathan354fd I support universal federal tax cuts, but for that to work you also need to dramatically decrease the size of the federal government

[Jonathan354fd]

well the things you need to be considered a human in your mind, is the same exact things we need to basically survive well im pretty sure animals got those things covered aswell, i think moral separates human from the rest of nature, at the same time how the fuck would you get the golden standards back no one is gonna vote for that in Washington... not even Ron Paul

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@Jonathan354fd Not even Ron Paul? The guy has written books upon books on how much he wants the gold standard back. Also the whole Libertarian movement extends more to just getting Ron Paul elected. For it to work we also need to vote people with similar ideology into legislative positions. There are a handful already in congress and the senate. Justin Amash, Rand Paul, etc.

[Jonathan354fd]

@MrSocialandPolitical you are a Ron Paul Support so i would suppose you are aware of the lobbying going on in Washington D.C. if you think that its gonna be possible to pass a bill which will enable the golden standards once again your wrong there is being made way to much money from issuing currency and loaning it out at a interest i wish we could get the golden standard back but its just unrealistic. and look at Obama he was talking about how we should legalize weed before he got elected.

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@Jonathan354fd Would getting a sound monetary system be hard with the cooperate and banking industry stranglehold on Washington? absolutely. However people said that the ANC would never take power in South Africa....that was obviously wrong. And please explain to me why our Federal Reserve System is totally fine and not out of control. I recommend checking out some of the work of Mises or Hayek. Check out Mises(dott)org

[Jonathan354fd]

@MrSocialandPolitical you think the fed is fine? Americans are losing purchasing power on there dollars every time the fed is issuing currency, the last 50 years the purchasing power for every dollar fell about 400%. and i really dont see how the ANC is anything like this. regarding to weed you didnt really get what i was going at i was trying to point out that even tho people say something they dont have to mean it! also what have Ron Paul gotten thrue just about nothing!

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@Jonathan354fd I think you need to re read my comments and re watch my video cause thats not what I'm arguing at all. I'm against the Fed, I believe Ron Paul really wants a sound monetary policy, and I'm comparing the ANC(Nelson Mandela) coming to power in SA as difficult as getting a sound monetary system back. Also Unlike Obama, RP has a much more consistent voting record, therefore i am more likely to believe him cause he votes for what he vocalizes he believes in

[Jonathan354fd]

@MrSocialandPolitical well my bad :/. still i think it remains valid that his track record of getting things done is not impressive by any standards at the same time many of the ideas i would support many of his more progressive and leftist ideas will not be backed up and he will be left with only passing things such as illegalising abortion, matters which are irrelevant to the well being of society at the moment

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@Jonathan354fd Also Ron Paul never said he would make Weed legal nationally(even though he is personally for weed legalization) He would simply allow the states to decide on its regulatory status. The government doesn't have the constitutional authority to regulate or deregulate.

[toastm4n]

amazing video dude !

[HilderbrandtFilms]

SODOMY FTW!!!

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@HilderbrandtFilms I love you and I miss you Mr. Hilderbrandt.... we need to do something this break! Like actually make another video lol.

[HilderbrandtFilms]

@MrSocialandPolitical Sounds good to me! Hopefully not get too hardcore into politics, used to be I could argue with you....but oh how you have grown up :P

[DyneTreal]

Also, I'd like to point out that taxation is NOT what's killing the economy. It's HOW we tax, and a flat tax would only serve to make our current situation WORSE, because it fails to tax the wealthy enough and it OVER taxes the poor. That's not a fix, it's exactly the formula required to destroy our economy. Reaganomics was bad enough; a flat tax will only further those ideals and create a larger economic gap between the rich and poor.

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@DyneTreal a 10% tax is a 10% tax no matter who you are. if you made 30,000 you'd pay 3,000. if you made 3,000,000, you'd pay 300,000. Plus We wouldn't even have to pay nearly as many taxes if our government was as small as it was suppose to be. State's can put whatever tax code they want, but the federal government should be very minimal in regards to taxes.

[Burns12009]

@MrSocialandPolitical

Um no.

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@Burns12009 aight sounds good to me, I'll send you some articles I've read about this too through a PM.

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@Burns12009 Also i will say, wages have gone up. but actual real growth has actually gone down. You're absolutely correct. But this is due to the inflation of our fiat currency which is done by the private banks who run the Federal Reserve. If we had a sound monetary system all salary promotions would be based on REAL growth. Check out the video I just liked on my channel.

[Burns12009]

@MrSocialandPolitical

give me about another half hour while prepare video response.

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@Burns12009 sure man

[Burns12009]

@MrSocialandPolitical

It's up what is a ron paul

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@Burns12009 aight man I'll check it out!

[DyneTreal]

@MrSocialandPolitical Okay, here's the problem, though. Most of the people in the wealthier class are able to spend money to create loopholes and crush the principles behind a flat tax rate. While I also used to like the idea of a flat tax when I was in high school, I later realized that the wealthy don't make the majority of their money from income alone. They do it by utilizing other sources like capital gains, through loaning and investments.

[DyneTreal]

@MrSocialandPolitical In addition, a flat tax rate of 10% can't really generate or support stable funding for any government, much less allow for any sort of social programs or regulations because a country supporting the general welfare of its people requires a larger input into the system from the wealthy than those for whom it cares. And of course 300,000 is more than 3,000, but there are a lot fewer people making 300,000 than 3,000. It just doesn't work.

[DyneTreal]

@MrSocialandPolitical Plus, once you account for standards of living, a flat tax still ultimately strains the poor more than it does for the rich, so increasing the tax rate won't solve the problem, either. It will just create more need for welfare which stills needs to be funded from another source. And you can't draw it from those who are supported by the general welfare; it has to come from the wealthy.

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@DyneTreal I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The Federal government needs to be a lot smaller. Constitutionally speaking states are suppose to be in charge of welfare programs, therefore states should be the ones who you should pay your taxes too. the Federal government is meant to protect your liberties and defend you and give you representation on the international stage... thats it. The federal government use to totally run on tariffs and property tax at one time.

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@DyneTreal If a state decides to tax its wealthy more.... thats totally cool. I'm just someone who is against federal planning because when the federal government has a institution, its a all or nothing situation. its either everyone wins or everyone fails. thats why i favor state programs, because it works as a good check and balance system

[DyneTreal]

@MrSocialandPolitical Oh no, I completely understand. And I'm telling you that giving that power to individual states rather than the federal government creates competition between the states. Your incredible "check and balance system" is CAPITALISM. States replaces businesses and eventually build superpowers which steadily lead to monopolies. It's state warfare; a competition for who makes the best laws! Guess what? In a competition... someone has to win. And most lose.

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@DyneTreal Are you saying a competition for who makes the best laws is a bad thing? Competition breeds innovation my friend. Capitalism isn't perfect, but its not nearly as bad as you are claiming it to be. Its when favorites are picked in the market by the government is when there's problemsAKA-TARP this whole responding to comments deal is kinda time consuming. Would it be ok if you could make a video response and then i could try to the best of my abilities to address all points you bring up?

[DyneTreal]

@MrSocialandPolitical Of course it's a bad thing. The idea that competition leads to innovation assumes that without competition, innovation can't happen. This premise is based entirely on the assumption that, without competition, people become lazy and idle. But the truth is that innovations come from individuals, not systems; federal or state, local or corporate. But with with greater access to knowledge and information, innovation is more likely.

[DyneTreal]

@MrSocialandPolitical That's why corporations are more productive than local businesses. Because they don't compete with others; they compete with themselves in order to constantly get better. That's how innovation happens; an individual has an idea and is assisted by a team with current knowledge to create it. Separated, states in competition will take longer to progress than all states united under the Federal Government.

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@DyneTreal thats not true at all, simply look at retail stores(WM,TARGET, ETC). Do You not think they are coming up with innovative ways to produce a better cheaper product? Look at the Cold War as well(which was the epitome of competition). It was a period the experience the most technological innovation in human history! The idea of being on the team that is one step a head of everyone else is healthy, innovative competition. This doesn't mean states should cooperate with each other however.

[DyneTreal]

@MrSocialandPolitical Actually, retail stores means of "coming up with a cheaper, better product" is created by cutting costs on employment and seeking out cheaper, better products to buy in order to be sold in their stores. For them, reducing costs means increasing profit and they would do it, even without competition. Also, yes, let's look at the Cold War, a period during which US government spending was incredibly high.

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@DyneTreal Frankly to say that Capitalism didn't lead to any modern conveniences or innovations is preposterous. It was the competition in the free market Brewing industry which led to the invention of the refrigerator(huge advance in human nutrition), It was private donors(Rockefeller foundation) that led to the invention of the light bulb. Its no mythology or conspiracy theory. Capitalism can lead to corruption, but it also has given us the quality of life we have today.

[DyneTreal]

Once again, you're without an argument. All of the inventions you just named and most innovations throughout history could be achieved without competition having been necessary for the process. People will always seek out an easier and better way to do something regardless of rivalries. It's human nature to be curious and to develop new tools. That's the strength of humanity; it's our drive for innovation. You want an example? See Benjamin Franklin, a man who sought

[DyneTreal]

innovation for the betterment of society. In his early life, he even started a group called Junto dedicated to it and never patented his own inventions so that everyone could enjoy them. Competition had no place in his desire to innovate. It was his intellect, his education, and his search for greater knowledge and a greater standard of living for himself and all those around him. Competition isn't necessary for innovation.

[DyneTreal]

But that's not to say that free market capitalism is all bad, either. It has its place. That place is just very far away from the government. The government needs to control what we need; food, healthcare, the housing market, the utilities that define our standard of living. Where the free market is more useful for managing things that we WANT, but don't need. Iphones, videogames, the beauty and fashion industries; the list goes on and on.

[DyneTreal]

But these these don't need to be regulated beyond their safety standards. Why? Because we don't NEED them. They aren't necessary, so we don't have to worry about funding them to keep them easily obtainable in our everyday lives. Things like basic clothing, foods, farming, and medicines, though, are kind of necessary and we kind of need a back up plan for them; insurance, if you will. The government, our taxes, can support that. And maybe even contribute to other standards of living

[DyneTreal]

such as computers and yes, even cell phones. But it all comes with time. First, the government needs to determine the degree of its necessity in our society and should probably subsidize before it accepts certain industries under full government funding. But it kind of needs the power to be able to do so. Otherwise, large corporations will keep coming into existence that can control us by breaking the laws of supply and demand in their favor with the things the have endless demand:

[DyneTreal]

OUR NEEDS.

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@DyneTreal Hey I'm prolly gonna do a response vid to all the comments in this video. I just feel it would be more time efficient

[DyneTreal]

@MrSocialandPolitical In fact, I believe the Cold War saw some of the highest US government spending, if you look at it as a percentage stacked up against the GDP. Of course, economic competition was the driving force behind constant innovation, but that competition wasn't within our nation; it was against another nation entirely. That's what made us, and our economy, strong; uniting as a nation under Federal spending.

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@DyneTreal The point that I was trying to get at was that competition does benefit the economy. The Cold War was an example. The expansion of the federal government and the interventionist foreign policy we adopted during those times weren't the greatest ideas and we are still suffering from those policy decisions even today.

[DyneTreal]

@MrSocialandPolitical I completely agree with you on our current foreign policy. We should have never tried to intervene and police other nations and that's where the federal government went wrong; military spending. The military is something that didn't and still doesn't need to be expanded and the very reason for the cold war, and its name for that matter, was why. We've already created weapons large enough to destroy a nation. It's no longer necessary to develop military

[DyneTreal]

strength. Where we should be spending, and what we were spending during the Cold War that ultimately led to all this innovation you're talking about, is our scientific development. Back then, it was computers and the internet; today we could have all kinds of technology useful to everyone. Instead, that money, 54% of our taxes goes to the military, and it's not even necessary OR useful. The expansion of the federal government wasn't bad. It was the expansion of its military.

[DyneTreal]

@MrSocialandPolitical An no, I can't post a video response. No camera or microphone since my laptop crashed.

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@DyneTreal man that sucks :p, i seriously feel your pain. thats happen to me a crap ton of times..... not investing in virus protector was a bad idea :p. 

[DyneTreal]

Also, I never stated that everyone would make the same wages. I just stated that individuals would make the same wage regardless of the business's profits. This creates incentive in those businesses because PROMOTIONS still mean higher wages. In addition, the only things I want to socialize are the things that people NEED; healthcare, banks, farming, etc. There is still more than enough room for free market when it comes to WANTS like modern technologies and other luxuries.

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@DyneTreal As I said in the video, I wouldn't care if states socialized an industry. I just have a problem when the federal government does. Because if the state agency sucks, everyone suffers. But if it was the states, they you would at least have competition between the states and would work as a check and balance system. in regards to banking i would actually lean towards more of a government controlled system(which is exactly why I have a credit union instead of a bank)

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@MrSocialandPolitical I meant to say Federal agency

[DyneTreal]

@MrSocialandPolitical Alright, I'm just about sick of hearing about how a system based on competing states is supposed to regulate itself like a free market. That's then most idiotic thing I've ever heard of. Your "up and move" excuse puts a drain on the economy, so that's just OUT. But even the core principles of this ideology fail because they don't account for the fact that all it does is ultimately lead to warring states and the suffering of thousands.

[DyneTreal]

@MrSocialandPolitical And to accomplish what? You've seen what competition does to the economy. It produces SUPERPOWERS. Superpowers which shut down their competitors, and, in this case, likely take control of, and abuse, them. It creates prejudice between class and will ultimately end in a monopoly, for better or worse. So why not just start with a monopoly using one combined source of funding and popular ideas rather than starting a legal and economic war of states.

[DyneTreal]

@MrSocialandPolitical Additionally, the harsh margins create between federal government and state government are already damaging to the legal system. I'm a criminal justice major and I've seen how the laws at federal, state, and local levels can conflict with one another because they create loopholes in word and/or interpretation specifically to enact what is essentially an opposing law. But that's just it: Without proper unity and definition, that kind of system fails.

[DyneTreal]

Last time I checked, people in most European countries have just as much freedom as we do. In fact, most have just as many rights towards personal freedoms as we do. In fact, typically, they don't get beaten for protesting, so really, they're democracy is actually a lot stronger than ours AND they still have plenty of room for social programs. Personally, the only reason I haven't just up and moved over there is because I CAN'T AFFORD TO. Sound familiar?

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@DyneTreal Do you not watch international news? People are getting the shit beat out of them in Italy and Greece protesting daily! The EU effectively got rid of their government and put in place an unelected administrative management aka dictatorship that is controlled by a select few in brussles, due to the fact they couldn't make the union payments(sound familiar). I'm not against social programs, but constitutionally speaking the states should be in charge of it.

[DyneTreal]

Argument against the Gold Standard: Even with the gold standard in place, the Federal Reserve could ultimate determine the value of gold and create loopholes to continue furthering inflation, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT PRIVATE CORPORATIONS DO. They find loopholes and chinks in the armor of the system and its laws and they use them to steal from the rest of us.

[DyneTreal]

On the other hand, if everything was just Federally subsidized and regulated (or, especially if they were made into social programs), what are now private businesses including the Federal Reserve, banks, the healthcare system, correctional facilities, et cetera would have no reason to seek out the loopholes, because they would make the same wage anyway, set by the federal government and would be more liable for making unethical decisions such as these. So, REGULATE, don't deregulate... Moron.

[DyneTreal]

Also, vote Stewart Alexander for President 2012.

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@DyneTreal I really don't want the federal government to give me everything i want. Cause if they can do that, they can just as easily take it all away. Just look at the EU, Italy and greece have effectively gotten their democracy taken away from then due to the idea of centralized planning. fuck it

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@DyneTreal there would also be no reason to increase efficiency because everyone would be paid the same, what would be the incentive for innovation? You can still hold CEOs and corporations accountable to the law without taxing them to death. There's a reason companies are shipping their jobs overseas. Why would you stay in a country that has a corporate tax rate of 40% when you could do business a lot cheaper somewhere in asia? Regulations and overspending are what is killing this economy.

[Burns12009]

@MrSocialandPolitical

We are not neccasarily arguing that everyone should be paid the same, but there is an obvious issue when in a 60 year span ceo's went from making about 20x the average worker and then increased to about 500x the average worker. Have ceo's gotten that fucking good over the last 60 years. Or did the increase profits by declining wages and then spending that money on there bonuses. think about it champ

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@Burns12009 I'm not saying CEOs aren't assholes. they are. all of them are. But the idea that wages have gone done is totally fallacious. My dad is a pediatrician and makes 100k a year.... my friend who works for a Ford factory makes roughly the same amount and and has just got out of high school. Wages haven't decreased. The market just has gotten bigger. There are more industrialized countries now then there were 60 years ago champ.

[Burns12009]

@MrSocialandPolitical

give me a sec to get some grub and pull up some exact figures. Off the top of my head I know that real wages have declined since the 60's where the increased decade before that

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@DyneTreal thats why you leave the production of currency up to elected officials and not CEOs of private banks, you realize the FED is the mouthpiece of wall street to washington. The bailouts were mainly due to the FED and can persuade pieces of regulation to favor the .1%. The FED is the main asshole in this situation.

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@DyneTreal A flat tax in which everyone would have to pay would be a hell of a lot more fair, no exceptions. Hell we wouldn't even need to tax income for anyone if our federal government simply went back to 2000 spending levels and then INDIVIDUALS could use more of their money to stimulate the economy. seriously check out mises dott org. Keynesian economics looks incredibly retarded compared to austrian economics, seriously i implore you to check it out.

[Burns12009]

@MrSocialandPolitical

Lol Austrian school

[boygenis]

very well explained. I agree

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@boygenis thanks man :)

[ghoreyshi]

Join The Revolution

To Save The Nation

[Born2killxx]

Never liked the whole "picking up and leave" argument.

[Born2killxx]

@Born2killxx Still though

Ron Paul 2012

[DyneTreal]

@Born2killxx That's because it's a terrible argument that assumes you just have an endless source of funds to just keep moving from place to place and that it won't effect job available nor will it slow down your career at all (which will further deplete your sums). In other words, in the world this idiot is talking about, we're all either happy, but poor nomads or depressed (and oppressed), but wealthy homebodies... Or we're in real estate and we're so rich and happy we don't care.

[QcatDoesGames]

Ultimately, it results in far less spending and a shrinking economy. Hyperinflation is just as bad as deflation, yes. However, a low inflation rate is very important for growth, as most economists would agree, and that just isn't possible under a gold standard. I'd like to go more in depth on the subject, and address the rest of the video as well, but this is already taking up multiple comment boxes. I may post a video response. Anyhow, good video, though I feel some of your criticism is flawed.

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@QcatDoesGames Actually not really, an increase in the total number of $'s in it's circulation means nothing. The ratio/buying power of each of those $'s is the true reflection of it's wealth/economic power. Wealth is increased by *productions* of goods and services. The number in circulation means nothing, its the purchasing power. Read Austrian Economics. Also google "100 reasons to end the Fed" click on the first link and read all of them. In regards to psych issues,i'd like to see thereport

[Jacnas]

@MrSocialandPolitical Increasing the amount of money that is in circulationa slightly faster than the rate of economic growth is useful in that it encourages consumers to spend it; which stimulates the economy. Gold standard tends to create deflation, especially in a modern fast growing economy, which is devastating because it encourages consumers to hoard money.

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@Jacnas as i said before not really, an increase in the total number of $'s in it's circulation means nothing. The ratio/buying power of each of those $'s is the true reflection of it's wealth/economic power. Wealth is increased by *productions* of goods and services. The number in circulation means nothing, its the purchasing power. Read Austrian Economics. Also google "100 reasons to end the Fed" click on the first link and read all of them. also check out mises dott org

[Jacnas]

@MrSocialandPolitical Your 2nd, 3th and 4th sentences makes sense but the rest doesn't. Are you arguing that printing more money doesn't create inflation and that not printing money in the amount commensurate to the economic growth doesn't create deflation? That would be lunacy. I'm not saying that printing money creates wealth, read my comment CAREFULLY.

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@Jacnas no thats not what I'm saying. inflation and deflation is bad. however fiat currency is the problem. its an economic religion. its based on faith and the idea of believing that the paper in your pocket is worth something. with a sound monetary system our currency would be backed by something more than faith and what a certain few say it is worth. the thing is sound economies are based on REAL growth/ Fiat will inevitably lead to inflation aka worthless money. rly check out mises dot org.

[Jacnas]

@MrSocialandPolitical How is that any different from believing that a lump of shiny metal (gold) in your pocket is worth something? Get over this idea that certain things have intrinsic value while others don't. It's all a matter of perspective and circumstance. For example, for a guy lost in the desert water is the most precious thing ever but it's not so for someone who is drowning. Mild inflation is good because it encourages spending and investing rather than hoarding.

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@Jacnas Its not that gold has intrinsic value, but that it is finite and since it is finite it causes government to live within their means. Fiat currency is something that can work it a benevolent society in which centralize planner won't manipulate it for their own wants. however that isn't the case. I seriously would recommend doing a Video response, you have a lot to say and i feel i could better address it in a video format. Would that be ok?

[adubaaduba]

@Jacnas Sound money doesn't inversely cause deflation. It simply makes the actual currency valuable. JFK actually wanted to go back to a sound monetary system...he was unfortunately shot months before he was suppose to signed the legislation....pretty coincidental..... Banks don't want money to be worth a set amount they want to manipulate it according to their own needs.

[Jacnas]

@adubaaduba "Sound money doesn't inversely cause deflation."

Under the gold standard, if your economy is growing faster than your supply of gold then it necessarily creates deflation. That's a simple mathematical fact like 2+2=4.

[QcatDoesGames]

Because of the psychological issues I mentioned earlier, employers will almost always fire the workers, resulting in mass unemployment. In the case that prices and worker wages are lowered, consumers will typically see the price drop and be more hesitant to buy, hoping prices will drop further. As for the workers, numerous studies have shown that it takes several years for the workers to adapt to their lowered wages.

[QcatDoesGames]

The gold standard has a number of problems associated with it. It hinders growth, as the amount of goods being produced can not exceed the amount of gold being brought into the economy, which itself is entirely unpredictable. For a number of psychological reasons, prices are sticky. As soon as anything negative happens economically, a business has two options: lower prices and worker wages, or maintain prices and fire workers.

[IntergalacticFetus99]

Great vid!

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@IntergalacticFetus99 Thanks! btw nice username lol.

[IntergalacticFetus99]

@MrSocialandPolitical Lmao thanks

[MrSocialandPolitical]

@IntergalacticFetus99 In all honesty though, do you think my video put up a good argument?

[IntergalacticFetus99]

@MrSocialandPolitical I do