I think option 2 is the best morally and practically. The creditors knew they were lending money to people who have none of their own, but must take it from others to pay back, so they deserve it. Governments should not be getting in debt in the first place. I did not get how this would raise interest rates in the economy in general, and also I do not see why this is necessarily a bad thing. None of them follow. It kind of sounds like the central planners in the FED.
Cut spending ... like ... $2,000 for a toilet seat, $500 for a hammer, $50 for each nail, $100 for a roll of toilet paper ... one day of cutting those down to moderate levels could save a fortune.
at the same time when you cut government spending you reduce aggregate demand, also reducing economic activity in a government....so its much more complicated, although i agree we do need to cut spending especially on ever growing entitlement programs.
LearnLiberty is perhaps my favorite channel currently. But I did disagree with Dr. Davies somewhat, though his position and mine did seem to converge at the end. Let me illustrate our disagreement by asking this question: Which would be better: a $3.5 trillion budget that is 100% funded (that is, no deficit); or a $2.5 trillion budget that is only 98% funded (that is, $70 billion in deficit for the current year)? The latter sucks a lot less money out of the private economy.
his ending solution is what Ron Paul is proposing. cut spending and what government does. it's very very simple. but we humans who are on the top and greedy want to continue the spending to keep themselves and all their buddies paid well in government contracts, gov plans and benefits which boost the profits of corporations.
if they legalize weed they can tax it and save money by stop arresting men and women over having weed then that means they can tax bongs and pipes rolling papers
The government is working on cuts already, but I believe they are cutting the wrong things, i.e. the Military. The military should be the last thing to ever suffer budget cuts, it is the key role of the Federal Government (that and make and uphold laws) given that policing is done by the States. We should cut things such as the BATFE, DE; I'm not saying the Fed Gov't should eliminate all means of regulations, but there should only be a slight few.
@Jhraxlin Actually, the government is talking about cuts in increases in spending, not actual cuts. I am talking about $400 billion in a one year budget and leaving the defense budget alone. Follow me, we eliminate: Interior ($90 billion) + Agriculture ($134.12 billion) + Commerce ($15 billion) + Labor ($137.97) + Transportation ($73.2 billion) + Energy ($24.1) + Education ($45.4) + Homeland Security ($40 billion) = $559.79 Billion cut in 1 year w/o effecting anyone in this country.
Before you libertarians get on me for my last post, I am for massive cuts to government and think Ron Paul's attitude should be the attitude of every GOP candidate in which we need to start talking about eliminating whole cabinet level departments. I believe we could cut $400 billion if we just eliminated all cabinet level departments, which if they didn't go into work tomorrow no one would notice, like the Department of the Interior, Commerce, Energy, etc.
I agree with cutting spending but I don't quite know where I am on taxation. I agree that lowering taxes most likely has the effect of economic growth, more taxpayers thus more tax revenue. However considering the Laffer curve, I think we should be cautious on lowering taxes too far because a rate too low loses that advantage of bringing in more tax revenue.
@MrConservative608 Tax revenue maintains a constant ~%18 of GDP, at least it has since around WWII. So, yes, if we lower the tax rate rediculously low, then we will lose tax revenue, but we are no where near that level. This is also why government stimulus won't work, we can raise GDP by $500 billion by spending $500 billion, but then we would have had a net loss of $100 billion.
I think he should have been more specific in where to cut spending, although that changes the conversation from an economic one to a moral/political one. The conclusion to cut spending is in general a good idea. However, the U.S. gov't officials seem to be interested in cutting Social programs which cost us a marginal amount of our spending compared to our highest cost spending on the military. Maybe I'm out of the loop but I'm pretty sure we've only increased military spending.
Political Interest Paradox, or more colloquially among Libertarians, "TEA Party Syndrome". Every taxpayer has an interest in cutting spending in general, so as to have to pay as little taxes as possible. At the same time, he also has an incentive to make sure that the spending which benefits him directly stays in place. So what ends up happening is that you get politicos and movements, promising unspecified spending cuts in broad, nebulous terms, but never mentioning -
- any particular program to be cut - or let alone actually cutting anything! - for fear of alienating parts of their constituency.
For an overview of exactly how screwed the US is in regards to its debt, go have a look at USDebtClock d o t org, and keep in mind that every day, more and more people plan their careers, families and retirements around the assumption that the money which comprise those unfunded liabilities will be available on them as promised, in full and on time.
What the US needs is a mechanism to limit how much congress can spend. A well constructed balanced budget amendment might work. Otherwise congress will continue to do what politicians do best, promise and lie all in the same sentence.
You are so wrong man cuase so you are not taking into considerration the dust bowl and how that screwed over all the farmers. The CCC's saved many family's from starving and it would have caused many to die if it werent for the actions of the president and you can thank the CCC's for all the national forest preserves and hoover dam. Maybe you should read the grapes of wrath and listen to "rain on the scarecrow" by john mellincamp. Im thankful for the actions our government took.
I sometimes wonder if we'd be better off just paying back all the foreign lenders with inflated money in one fell swoop. The resulting spike in interest rates might act as a brake on deficit spending (yeah right) and since only foreign lenders will get the money it will be a while for the resulting inflation to trickle back to the US.
@LibertyDownUnder There's nothing wrong with a little debt when it helps to build up a country in the long run, but the problem is that governments are like people who can't handle finances; they build up too much of it.
@guitardds A pacifist can detest foreign wars, but is still better off being prepared for someone invading their own country. Following that thought, I take issue with a logic that does not allow for specific circumstances in which taxes would be useful. The video did not address that, though I don't know that the speaker does not make an allowance of that sort.
The problem here is that there is no sign of the boggy-man "inflation" despite the rise in the money supply. Likewise, investment in US bonds is as good as ever. "Inflation" is just a scare tactic to push bad policy.
Davies ignores the obvious option of taking back some of the GIGANTIC tax cut giveaways to business/the wealthy which haven't helped the economy. Better to stop making the rich even richer and use the money on programs that will increase demand and get the economy going.
@Ranillon You could take all the money from the "rich" in America and it wouldn't run the federal government for a month. Your argument has been debunked multiple times. Plus no signs of inflation? What about gold and silver? What about oil? What about food? What about the dollar compared to other currencies?
@onepiecefan74 You are just repeating libertarian ideology. Overall inflation has been quite low even with a larger money supply. More telling, returns on US bonds are at historic lows, yet people/governments still rush to buy them showing that this supposed fear of inflation isn't being shown in people's actions. Trying to cherry pick evidence or take it out of context doesn't change facts -- inflation isn't the danger; it's low demand and no jobs.
@Ranillon So record gold, food, and gas prices is ideology? funny I thought those were facts. You can't explain the increase in the price of gold only %5 of Americans own gold. that's not near enough to be a bubble which to bond market is in. just like he housing bubble and the . dot com bubble. the bound bubble will bust. And what about china talking about talking about the end of the dollar as a world reserve currency? yea that sounds good.
@onepiecefan74 Gold shows all the signs of being a bubble -- but, even if it is not, it has little effect on overall inflation. As for a "bond bubble" there is no sign AT ALL of that, not when bond returns have been at rock bottum for years and years. Declaring inflation a problem before it is actually any problem is inane, especially when trying to solve this faux "problem" will just make things worse. Solve real problems now, not imaginary problems offered just to justify ideology.
@Ranillon Name the last bubble that was a huge as gold is that had less than 5% of the people in it? Maybe your right but Bounds could very well be a bubble. That's where lots of the new credit is going just like it did with housing and the dot com bubble. Your argument Is cute but outside of reality. look at the grocery store food price continue to rise and rise and yet the same silver 50 cent piece can buy just as much grocery today has it could in the 60s.
@onepiecefan74 Again, bonds have been at historic lows for years and years, even after the money supply has increased quite a bit. And, how are lower returns supposed to fuel a supposed bubble? The obvious fact is that people/governments still think the US is the safest place to invest their money.
As for your views on inflation you are offering the classic "amateur expert" fallacy where we are supposed to take your own anecdotal views over official and pro economists views -- riiiight!
@Ranillon You avoid answering the questions of why food, gas, and commodities prices have been rising at the same levels for years or how the huge rise in gold can be a bubble if less than 5% of Americans own any! You seem to think if your favorite economist from the New York Times says there no inflation then there cant possibly be inflation. so you go blindly it the stores where prices have skyrocketed and say o well this can't be inflation.
@onepiecefan74 Inflation has remained low for years now and you protesting otherwise doesn't make it so. You can't just invent facts or insist your homespun wisdom through personal experience trumps all other far more complete sources on the inflation rate. The simple fact is that the supposed boogieman of runaway inflation that libertarians and others use as an excuse to push tax cuts for the rich and entitelment cuts for everyone else just hasn't materialized and shows no sign of doing so.
@Ranillon "trumps all other far more complete sources on the inflation rate"
I have listed 5 sources that show inflation. you've only listed one that shows none and that is bounds. You could try the CPI but then I would just point out that the old (and more accurate) CPI shows much higher inflation.
Inflation is the rise in money supply not the rise in prices. That's the symptom. it's like if someone has a hangover and starts puking and you say the sickness is puking. And stop with your "ideology" fallacy. I have brought up yours because its totally irrelevant when one is arguing facts.
@onepiecefan74 Inflation isn't a rise in prices???? I think you need to go back and retake econ 101 -- or just learn to use Google. The rise in the money supply can AT TIMES promote inflation, but is not itself inflation. The fact that you make such a fundamental error and then accuse me of ideology speaks volumes about your own warped perspective. You are trying so hard to make the evidence fit your beliefs no matter what you are starting to spout gibberish.
@Ranillon That's the NEW definition but the origin of the word came from a rise in the money supply/ inflating the money supply. Now if you have ever read the "oxford dictionary of economic history" you would know this. You can stay in that play ground but I'm a little beyond econ 101.
@onepiecefan74 Congratulations -- you can answer a trivial pursuit question. But, in regards to our discussion here playing such word games out of some warped attempt to "prove" your supposed superiority is just juvenile. "Inflation" has a well defined and common usage in modern economics and your definition ain't it.
@Ranillon The difference between you and me is that I learned economics, took what I learned, thought for myself, and came to my own conclusions. and again if everyone loves the dollar why is china talking about getting out of it? Don't get cocky with me cause debating with is debating way out of you league.
@onepiecefan74 You can't prove your point so your turn to crude insults? Yup, that really "proves" you're right.
Personally, I go for the actual FACTS such as that China, at least so far, has not changed its policy toward the dollar. No amount of supposed "talking" changes that just as talking about the tooth fairy making us all rich does not in fact make us so. You can't use "maybe sometime in the future" phantoms as a replacement for real world facts and events happening right now.
@Ranillon That type of logic of not looking ahead at could happen is why so many people lost their savings and homes. Housing prices just keep going up and although some say it may crash soon that's not what I see right now so ill just wait tell it happens. Yea great idea. As for insults I didn't insult anyone. You're the one that started the conversation by saying my facts were not real and just ideology.Which makes no sense.
@Ranillon The money supply has increased exponentially since the crash and gas, commodities, and food have surged in prices at almost the same rate. At this same time the dollar keeps failing against near all major currency's (except for the euro) . The cost of living is going up around you in every are but you say. "No prices aren't going up just look at the CPI." And you accuses me of not living in the real world?
@MrHamncheez The Rich get loads of benefits from living in a properous country that defends their wealth and promotes it with roads, police, firemen, etc. In the past tax rates for the rich were MUCH higher and giving them endless new tax cuts hasn't helped the economy, but has been the cause of much of the debt.
Remember, they only have "their own money" because of the benefits of civilization. Yet, most rich and big business pay lower rates than the average citizen. Now that is wrong!
@Ranillon You are incorrect in almost every single thing you say. First of all, the government collects more revenue now at a 35% highest margin, then they ever did when the highest marginal tax rate was 90%. This is because of human incentive.
The "average" citizen pays around -0.2% income tax. The average person making over 360,000 pays 32.3% income tax. Moreover a MAJORITY of those people also pay an additional capital gains tax amounting to an additional 15%
@avatarius1000 Where do you get yours? You are repeating THEORETICAL totals that often don't reflect reality (at least for the rich/big business) as they have all sorts of ways to get out of paying the full rate. And, the absolute amount produced is higher because the US is MUCH larger and MUCH richer, but that is deceptive. What matters is the comparative amount adjusted for our circumstances. Those show that the Rich have been paying less and less.
@avatarius1000 Also, most of the greater riches that the rich get are strictly from capital gains so there is no "double-dip" from paying income taxes (which are cut down through various loopholes -- which themselves are beyond the practical use of the middle class) as well. In fact, your quote only proves my point by showing that the rich are, at best, paying a meager 15% on the vast majority of the wealth they make. That is a far smaller rate than the middle class.
I ask everyone of you to please vote for Ron Paul in 2012. He is the only one who provide America the change that it needs to return the happy and prosperous state it once was.
I ask everyone of you to please vote for Ron Paul in 2012. He is the only one who provide America the change that it needs to return the happy and prosperous state it once was.
@DigitalShaolin the only way to generate more money in a debt-based system is to take on more debt. chicken-littles keep squawking about hyperinflation, but it's not going to happen.
@sozfan1 Oh of course not! Because throughout history non backed currencies never go into hyperinflation right? Forget the fact that the monetary base is now being expanded very rapidly and no growth in the economy is achieved even with that expansion. So they will need to expand even more. But of course hyper inflation just can't happen I'm sure.
@DigitalShaolin your kung fu is good, but mine is better! the solution is to invert the money--transform the national debt into a debt-free money and revoke the power to create it from private banks! Learn from the master, grasshopper: see the "Secret of Oz" by Bill Still (channel bstill3).
Ecxept for one thing is over looked... We owe more now in Current debt and unfunded liabilities than there is money left in the world. Furthermore our debt is only moments away as i'm typing this from surpassing our GDP. Our "debt" is not real, It is as fake as our money is. It has been spend on our behalf by a legislative body that stoped representing it's people nearly 50 years ago. And WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to honor that debt?! Default now!
I have the solution. end the monetary market system. Switch to a resource based economy. If you eliminate the need for money, you eliminate the debt problem. Science should dictate the governing rules of society, not some clowns in designer suits, trained to do whatever their corporate masters tell them.
Is this the best mankind can do? Squabble over profits like some greedy pigs, squandering our potential as a species? Im so f**king sick of it man, its time to grow up
@KillerWhaleSFl A "resource based economy" - devoid of money (and therefore also devoid of economic calculation) - is a formula for poverty and misery. The fantasy of the ages has been to create the Utopia where all needs are scientifically-managed by brilliant philosopher kings or, in modern context, "experts". It is arrogant to think that a few people are capable of scientifically directing the allocation of resources. We had a "resource-based economy" before, it was called the Stone Age.
@KillerWhaleSFl Not another VP/ZM drone! Since science is incapable of dictating societal rules, since money has been a tremenous boon (even though it has been coopted and undermined by states) and profits are a result of capitalism which is entitely responsible for the improvement in living standards over the last 300 years. Its abandonment would condemn billions to death, squandering the maturity and basic economic knowledge that Mankind has achieved and VP/ZM drones lack.
@FletchforFreedom billions would die? the earth produces enough food RIGHT NOW to feed everyone on the planet. so why do 22,000 children die every day from malnutrition?
simple question. there is no money to be made, hence the right thing doesnt get done.
and your saying man would stop creating, stop inventing new things without money? man taht is laughable, ask Einstein or the Wright brothers why they did what they did, it wasnt for the money
@FletchforFreedom billions would die? the earth produces enough food RIGHT NOW to feed everyone on the planet. so why do 22,000 children die every day from malnutrition?
simple question. there is no money to be made, hence the right thing doesnt get done.
and your saying man would stop creating, stop inventing new things without money? man taht is laughable, ask Einstein or the Wright brothers why they did what they did, it wasnt for the money
@KillerWhaleSFl Yes, billions would die. Without the division of labor under capitalism, the technology required to maintain current living standards (and food production) cannot be maintained, let alone improved upon.
And the daily death of children from malnutrition is almost without exception the direct result of regimes that prevent accesss to food (and/or entrench them in poverty), not capitalism or a lack of money to be made.
And self-interest is not the same thing as "money".
"holy shit, they manufactured items for the sole purpose of selling them to generate corporate profit, they ran a global economy based on cyclical consumption, it required everyone to constantly work so they could spend money to buy things, over and over and over agian, if not the whole thing collapsed! and get this, they paid absolutley no regard to the social or environmental conseqeunces of their actions!"
"holy shit, they manufactured items for the sole purpose of selling them to generate corporate profit, they ran a global economy based on cyclical consumption, it required everyone to constantly work so they could spend money to buy things, over and over and over agian, if not the whole thing collapsed! and get this, they paid absolutley no regard to the social or environmental conseqeunces of their actions!"
"holy shit, they manufactured items for the sole purpose of selling them to generate corporate profit, they ran a global economy based on cyclical consumption, it required everyone to constantly work so they could spend money to buy things, over and over and over agian, if not the whole thing collapsed! and get this, they paid absolutley no regard to the social or environmental conseqeunces of their actions!"
"holy shit, they manufactured items for the sole purpose of selling them to generate corporate profit, they ran a global economy based on cyclical consumption, it required everyone to constantly work so they could spend money to buy things, over and over and over agian, if not the whole thing collapsed! and get this, they paid absolutley no regard to the social or environmental conseqeunces of their actions!"
"holy shit, they manufactured items for the sole purpose of selling them to generate corporate profit, they ran a global economy based on cyclical consumption, it required everyone to constantly work so they could spend money to buy things, over and over and over agian, if not the whole thing collapsed! and get this, they paid absolutley no regard to the social or environmental conseqeunces of their actions!"
@KillerWhaleSFl you are very well adjusted to this "profoundly sick society". you are using a electricity and a computer, i assume you have hot and cold running water, have frozen food and a refrigerator, get food from far far away, etc. so you are a very sick person. sucks to be you huh?
Dr. Davies speaks clearly, he doesn't provoke controversy, and he supports his assertions. Its stuff like that why us libertarians don't get any respect!
Come on guys! Call someone a fascist or make an inflammatory statement about another culture. We have a lot of ground to cover, the other parties have been making bad decisions and gaffs for years but I think if we lower the educational bar and start screaming instead of fostering reasonable debate we might just have a shot!
I think option 2 is the best morally and practically. The creditors knew they were lending money to people who have none of their own, but must take it from others to pay back, so they deserve it. Governments should not be getting in debt in the first place. I did not get how this would raise interest rates in the economy in general, and also I do not see why this is necessarily a bad thing. None of them follow. It kind of sounds like the central planners in the FED.
mortalisk 3 days ago
Cut spending ... like ... $2,000 for a toilet seat, $500 for a hammer, $50 for each nail, $100 for a roll of toilet paper ... one day of cutting those down to moderate levels could save a fortune.
KittenKoder 1 week ago
at the same time when you cut government spending you reduce aggregate demand, also reducing economic activity in a government....so its much more complicated, although i agree we do need to cut spending especially on ever growing entitlement programs.
ATT12211 2 weeks ago
learn liberty gives me a raging brainer
benxr2006 3 weeks ago
@benxr2006 HOT!
Ravengaurd6 3 weeks ago
LearnLiberty is perhaps my favorite channel currently. But I did disagree with Dr. Davies somewhat, though his position and mine did seem to converge at the end. Let me illustrate our disagreement by asking this question: Which would be better: a $3.5 trillion budget that is 100% funded (that is, no deficit); or a $2.5 trillion budget that is only 98% funded (that is, $70 billion in deficit for the current year)? The latter sucks a lot less money out of the private economy.
NOLAMarathon2010 2 months ago
Balance the budget. Cut a Trillion year one.
Ron Paul 2012
Cornampoo 2 months ago
his ending solution is what Ron Paul is proposing. cut spending and what government does. it's very very simple. but we humans who are on the top and greedy want to continue the spending to keep themselves and all their buddies paid well in government contracts, gov plans and benefits which boost the profits of corporations.
TroySmithforD 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
if they legalize weed they can tax it and save money by stop arresting men and women over having weed then that means they can tax bongs and pipes rolling papers
bigman535 3 months ago
We need flat taxes; I absolutely despise people who think they deserve a cut of money from someone who makes more than them.
Jhraxlin 3 months ago
Mrconservative, I like your comment.
The government is working on cuts already, but I believe they are cutting the wrong things, i.e. the Military. The military should be the last thing to ever suffer budget cuts, it is the key role of the Federal Government (that and make and uphold laws) given that policing is done by the States. We should cut things such as the BATFE, DE; I'm not saying the Fed Gov't should eliminate all means of regulations, but there should only be a slight few.
Jhraxlin 3 months ago
@Jhraxlin Actually, the government is talking about cuts in increases in spending, not actual cuts. I am talking about $400 billion in a one year budget and leaving the defense budget alone. Follow me, we eliminate: Interior ($90 billion) + Agriculture ($134.12 billion) + Commerce ($15 billion) + Labor ($137.97) + Transportation ($73.2 billion) + Energy ($24.1) + Education ($45.4) + Homeland Security ($40 billion) = $559.79 Billion cut in 1 year w/o effecting anyone in this country.
MrConservative608 2 months ago
Oops, I meant to put "billion" next to "$137.97", "$24.1" & "$45.4" in the last post.
MrConservative608 2 months ago
Before you libertarians get on me for my last post, I am for massive cuts to government and think Ron Paul's attitude should be the attitude of every GOP candidate in which we need to start talking about eliminating whole cabinet level departments. I believe we could cut $400 billion if we just eliminated all cabinet level departments, which if they didn't go into work tomorrow no one would notice, like the Department of the Interior, Commerce, Energy, etc.
MrConservative608 3 months ago
I agree with cutting spending but I don't quite know where I am on taxation. I agree that lowering taxes most likely has the effect of economic growth, more taxpayers thus more tax revenue. However considering the Laffer curve, I think we should be cautious on lowering taxes too far because a rate too low loses that advantage of bringing in more tax revenue.
MrConservative608 3 months ago
@MrConservative608 Tax revenue maintains a constant ~%18 of GDP, at least it has since around WWII. So, yes, if we lower the tax rate rediculously low, then we will lose tax revenue, but we are no where near that level. This is also why government stimulus won't work, we can raise GDP by $500 billion by spending $500 billion, but then we would have had a net loss of $100 billion.
david52875 2 months ago
Best way is to sell off Alaska, Hawaii and other pacific islands to China.
stephentsang2000 5 months ago
@stephentsang2000 shut the fuck up.
Wornskibum 4 months ago
I think he should have been more specific in where to cut spending, although that changes the conversation from an economic one to a moral/political one. The conclusion to cut spending is in general a good idea. However, the U.S. gov't officials seem to be interested in cutting Social programs which cost us a marginal amount of our spending compared to our highest cost spending on the military. Maybe I'm out of the loop but I'm pretty sure we've only increased military spending.
Mazdem 5 months ago
@Mazdem
Political Interest Paradox, or more colloquially among Libertarians, "TEA Party Syndrome". Every taxpayer has an interest in cutting spending in general, so as to have to pay as little taxes as possible. At the same time, he also has an incentive to make sure that the spending which benefits him directly stays in place. So what ends up happening is that you get politicos and movements, promising unspecified spending cuts in broad, nebulous terms, but never mentioning -
-
PanzerDivisionBOM 5 months ago
-
- any particular program to be cut - or let alone actually cutting anything! - for fear of alienating parts of their constituency.
For an overview of exactly how screwed the US is in regards to its debt, go have a look at USDebtClock d o t org, and keep in mind that every day, more and more people plan their careers, families and retirements around the assumption that the money which comprise those unfunded liabilities will be available on them as promised, in full and on time.
PanzerDivisionBOM 5 months ago
What the US needs is a mechanism to limit how much congress can spend. A well constructed balanced budget amendment might work. Otherwise congress will continue to do what politicians do best, promise and lie all in the same sentence.
sw8741 5 months ago
No shit sherlock.
jdrizd2 5 months ago
cut spending, i watched this video to figue that out lol
andstrel11 5 months ago
You are so wrong man cuase so you are not taking into considerration the dust bowl and how that screwed over all the farmers. The CCC's saved many family's from starving and it would have caused many to die if it werent for the actions of the president and you can thank the CCC's for all the national forest preserves and hoover dam. Maybe you should read the grapes of wrath and listen to "rain on the scarecrow" by john mellincamp. Im thankful for the actions our government took.
zalooolssdd1 5 months ago
The third option is to sell Alaska, Hawaii and Okinawa military base to China.
stephentsang2000 5 months ago
I sometimes wonder if we'd be better off just paying back all the foreign lenders with inflated money in one fell swoop. The resulting spike in interest rates might act as a brake on deficit spending (yeah right) and since only foreign lenders will get the money it will be a while for the resulting inflation to trickle back to the US.
PissedFechtmeister 5 months ago
Best way to deal with debt: Don't have it in the fucking 1st place.
Pardon my french.
LibertyDownUnder 5 months ago 37
@LibertyDownUnder
is that really french?
theframerswereright 5 months ago
@theframerswereright
It stands for "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge".
I believe the word was created by the early Puritans in America.
Buffalo122333 5 months ago
@LibertyDownUnder Hey! I'm French (French-Canadian actually... does it count?) and... I agree!! ;p
testdummy007 4 months ago
@LibertyDownUnder debt can be good the problem is not paying it off
lynchmatt23 1 month ago
@LibertyDownUnder There's nothing wrong with a little debt when it helps to build up a country in the long run, but the problem is that governments are like people who can't handle finances; they build up too much of it.
TWSceptic 1 month ago
Fair enough, except that by using this logic exclusively, taxes would never go up.
JacobDragyn 5 months ago
@JacobDragyn good
Riskygodfather 5 months ago
@JacobDragyn
And that's bad because?
guitardds 5 months ago
@guitardds A pacifist can detest foreign wars, but is still better off being prepared for someone invading their own country. Following that thought, I take issue with a logic that does not allow for specific circumstances in which taxes would be useful. The video did not address that, though I don't know that the speaker does not make an allowance of that sort.
JacobDragyn 5 months ago
The problem here is that there is no sign of the boggy-man "inflation" despite the rise in the money supply. Likewise, investment in US bonds is as good as ever. "Inflation" is just a scare tactic to push bad policy.
Davies ignores the obvious option of taking back some of the GIGANTIC tax cut giveaways to business/the wealthy which haven't helped the economy. Better to stop making the rich even richer and use the money on programs that will increase demand and get the economy going.
Ranillon 5 months ago
@Ranillon You could take all the money from the "rich" in America and it wouldn't run the federal government for a month. Your argument has been debunked multiple times. Plus no signs of inflation? What about gold and silver? What about oil? What about food? What about the dollar compared to other currencies?
onepiecefan74 5 months ago
@onepiecefan74 You are just repeating libertarian ideology. Overall inflation has been quite low even with a larger money supply. More telling, returns on US bonds are at historic lows, yet people/governments still rush to buy them showing that this supposed fear of inflation isn't being shown in people's actions. Trying to cherry pick evidence or take it out of context doesn't change facts -- inflation isn't the danger; it's low demand and no jobs.
Ranillon 5 months ago
@Ranillon So record gold, food, and gas prices is ideology? funny I thought those were facts. You can't explain the increase in the price of gold only %5 of Americans own gold. that's not near enough to be a bubble which to bond market is in. just like he housing bubble and the . dot com bubble. the bound bubble will bust. And what about china talking about talking about the end of the dollar as a world reserve currency? yea that sounds good.
onepiecefan74 5 months ago 9
@onepiecefan74 Gold shows all the signs of being a bubble -- but, even if it is not, it has little effect on overall inflation. As for a "bond bubble" there is no sign AT ALL of that, not when bond returns have been at rock bottum for years and years. Declaring inflation a problem before it is actually any problem is inane, especially when trying to solve this faux "problem" will just make things worse. Solve real problems now, not imaginary problems offered just to justify ideology.
Ranillon 5 months ago
@Ranillon Name the last bubble that was a huge as gold is that had less than 5% of the people in it? Maybe your right but Bounds could very well be a bubble. That's where lots of the new credit is going just like it did with housing and the dot com bubble. Your argument Is cute but outside of reality. look at the grocery store food price continue to rise and rise and yet the same silver 50 cent piece can buy just as much grocery today has it could in the 60s.
onepiecefan74 5 months ago
@onepiecefan74 Again, bonds have been at historic lows for years and years, even after the money supply has increased quite a bit. And, how are lower returns supposed to fuel a supposed bubble? The obvious fact is that people/governments still think the US is the safest place to invest their money.
As for your views on inflation you are offering the classic "amateur expert" fallacy where we are supposed to take your own anecdotal views over official and pro economists views -- riiiight!
Ranillon 5 months ago
@Ranillon You avoid answering the questions of why food, gas, and commodities prices have been rising at the same levels for years or how the huge rise in gold can be a bubble if less than 5% of Americans own any! You seem to think if your favorite economist from the New York Times says there no inflation then there cant possibly be inflation. so you go blindly it the stores where prices have skyrocketed and say o well this can't be inflation.
onepiecefan74 5 months ago
@onepiecefan74 Inflation has remained low for years now and you protesting otherwise doesn't make it so. You can't just invent facts or insist your homespun wisdom through personal experience trumps all other far more complete sources on the inflation rate. The simple fact is that the supposed boogieman of runaway inflation that libertarians and others use as an excuse to push tax cuts for the rich and entitelment cuts for everyone else just hasn't materialized and shows no sign of doing so.
Ranillon 5 months ago
@Ranillon "trumps all other far more complete sources on the inflation rate"
I have listed 5 sources that show inflation. you've only listed one that shows none and that is bounds. You could try the CPI but then I would just point out that the old (and more accurate) CPI shows much higher inflation.
onepiecefan74 5 months ago
@Ranillon P.S
Inflation is the rise in money supply not the rise in prices. That's the symptom. it's like if someone has a hangover and starts puking and you say the sickness is puking. And stop with your "ideology" fallacy. I have brought up yours because its totally irrelevant when one is arguing facts.
onepiecefan74 5 months ago
@onepiecefan74 Inflation isn't a rise in prices???? I think you need to go back and retake econ 101 -- or just learn to use Google. The rise in the money supply can AT TIMES promote inflation, but is not itself inflation. The fact that you make such a fundamental error and then accuse me of ideology speaks volumes about your own warped perspective. You are trying so hard to make the evidence fit your beliefs no matter what you are starting to spout gibberish.
Ranillon 5 months ago
@Ranillon That's the NEW definition but the origin of the word came from a rise in the money supply/ inflating the money supply. Now if you have ever read the "oxford dictionary of economic history" you would know this. You can stay in that play ground but I'm a little beyond econ 101.
onepiecefan74 5 months ago
@onepiecefan74 Congratulations -- you can answer a trivial pursuit question. But, in regards to our discussion here playing such word games out of some warped attempt to "prove" your supposed superiority is just juvenile. "Inflation" has a well defined and common usage in modern economics and your definition ain't it.
Ranillon 5 months ago
@Ranillon The difference between you and me is that I learned economics, took what I learned, thought for myself, and came to my own conclusions. and again if everyone loves the dollar why is china talking about getting out of it? Don't get cocky with me cause debating with is debating way out of you league.
onepiecefan74 5 months ago
@onepiecefan74 You can't prove your point so your turn to crude insults? Yup, that really "proves" you're right.
Personally, I go for the actual FACTS such as that China, at least so far, has not changed its policy toward the dollar. No amount of supposed "talking" changes that just as talking about the tooth fairy making us all rich does not in fact make us so. You can't use "maybe sometime in the future" phantoms as a replacement for real world facts and events happening right now.
Ranillon 5 months ago
@Ranillon That type of logic of not looking ahead at could happen is why so many people lost their savings and homes. Housing prices just keep going up and although some say it may crash soon that's not what I see right now so ill just wait tell it happens. Yea great idea. As for insults I didn't insult anyone. You're the one that started the conversation by saying my facts were not real and just ideology.Which makes no sense.
onepiecefan74 5 months ago
@Ranillon The money supply has increased exponentially since the crash and gas, commodities, and food have surged in prices at almost the same rate. At this same time the dollar keeps failing against near all major currency's (except for the euro) . The cost of living is going up around you in every are but you say. "No prices aren't going up just look at the CPI." And you accuses me of not living in the real world?
onepiecefan74 5 months ago
@onepiecefan74 Well spoken,ankama!
Ravengaurd6 3 weeks ago
@Ranillon You realize that energy and commodity prices have been removed from inflation index, yes?
avatarius1000 5 months ago
@Ranillon allowing people to keep their own money is a giveaway?
MrHamncheez 5 months ago
@MrHamncheez The Rich get loads of benefits from living in a properous country that defends their wealth and promotes it with roads, police, firemen, etc. In the past tax rates for the rich were MUCH higher and giving them endless new tax cuts hasn't helped the economy, but has been the cause of much of the debt.
Remember, they only have "their own money" because of the benefits of civilization. Yet, most rich and big business pay lower rates than the average citizen. Now that is wrong!
Ranillon 5 months ago
@Ranillon You are incorrect in almost every single thing you say. First of all, the government collects more revenue now at a 35% highest margin, then they ever did when the highest marginal tax rate was 90%. This is because of human incentive.
The "average" citizen pays around -0.2% income tax. The average person making over 360,000 pays 32.3% income tax. Moreover a MAJORITY of those people also pay an additional capital gains tax amounting to an additional 15%
Where do you get your facts?
avatarius1000 5 months ago
@avatarius1000 Where do you get yours? You are repeating THEORETICAL totals that often don't reflect reality (at least for the rich/big business) as they have all sorts of ways to get out of paying the full rate. And, the absolute amount produced is higher because the US is MUCH larger and MUCH richer, but that is deceptive. What matters is the comparative amount adjusted for our circumstances. Those show that the Rich have been paying less and less.
Ranillon 5 months ago
@avatarius1000 Also, most of the greater riches that the rich get are strictly from capital gains so there is no "double-dip" from paying income taxes (which are cut down through various loopholes -- which themselves are beyond the practical use of the middle class) as well. In fact, your quote only proves my point by showing that the rich are, at best, paying a meager 15% on the vast majority of the wealth they make. That is a far smaller rate than the middle class.
Ranillon 5 months ago
@MrHamncheez Allowing hosts to keep their own blood is very damaging to a leach.
avatarius1000 5 months ago
@avatarius1000 LEECHES ARE PEOPLE TOO!
MrHamncheez 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I ask everyone of you to please vote for Ron Paul in 2012. He is the only one who provide America the change that it needs to return the happy and prosperous state it once was.
Pleas vote RON PAUL 2012
pareody 5 months ago
I ask everyone of you to please vote for Ron Paul in 2012. He is the only one who provide America the change that it needs to return the happy and prosperous state it once was.
Pleas vote RON PAUL 2012
pareody 5 months ago
@pareody Ron Paul is the only one who has a very good idea on how to fix the US economy...
aykayddon 5 months ago
@aykayddon hes the only one who has any sense on how a government should run.
pareody 5 months ago
Also every time government revenues have increased so has government spending.
rockinandout 5 months ago
@rockinandout Yup. Whenever a government has a higher revenue, they'll just use that revenue as collateral to borrow more sadly.
DoctorCapitalist 5 months ago in playlist Videos from LearnLiberty
Disagree. Since we have a debt-based money supply, spending cuts will reduce it, thus accelerating the economic contraction.
sozfan1 5 months ago
@sozfan1 Ah so we should incur more debt and go into hyper inflation instead? Genius!
DigitalShaolin 5 months ago
@DigitalShaolin the only way to generate more money in a debt-based system is to take on more debt. chicken-littles keep squawking about hyperinflation, but it's not going to happen.
sozfan1 5 months ago
@sozfan1 Oh of course not! Because throughout history non backed currencies never go into hyperinflation right? Forget the fact that the monetary base is now being expanded very rapidly and no growth in the economy is achieved even with that expansion. So they will need to expand even more. But of course hyper inflation just can't happen I'm sure.
DigitalShaolin 5 months ago
Comment removed
sozfan1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DigitalShaolin your kung fu is good, but mine is better! the solution is to invert the money--transform the national debt into a debt-free money and revoke the power to create it from private banks! Learn from the master, grasshopper: see the "Secret of Oz" by Bill Still (channel bstill3).
sozfan1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Solution to the problem: don't get in debt.
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 5 months ago
Solution to the problem: don't get in debt.
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 5 months ago
Ecxept for one thing is over looked... We owe more now in Current debt and unfunded liabilities than there is money left in the world. Furthermore our debt is only moments away as i'm typing this from surpassing our GDP. Our "debt" is not real, It is as fake as our money is. It has been spend on our behalf by a legislative body that stoped representing it's people nearly 50 years ago. And WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to honor that debt?! Default now!
TacticalCitySlicker 5 months ago
I have the solution. end the monetary market system. Switch to a resource based economy. If you eliminate the need for money, you eliminate the debt problem. Science should dictate the governing rules of society, not some clowns in designer suits, trained to do whatever their corporate masters tell them.
Is this the best mankind can do? Squabble over profits like some greedy pigs, squandering our potential as a species? Im so f**king sick of it man, its time to grow up
KillerWhaleSFl 5 months ago
@KillerWhaleSFl A "resource based economy" - devoid of money (and therefore also devoid of economic calculation) - is a formula for poverty and misery. The fantasy of the ages has been to create the Utopia where all needs are scientifically-managed by brilliant philosopher kings or, in modern context, "experts". It is arrogant to think that a few people are capable of scientifically directing the allocation of resources. We had a "resource-based economy" before, it was called the Stone Age.
gergenheimer 5 months ago
@KillerWhaleSFl Not another VP/ZM drone! Since science is incapable of dictating societal rules, since money has been a tremenous boon (even though it has been coopted and undermined by states) and profits are a result of capitalism which is entitely responsible for the improvement in living standards over the last 300 years. Its abandonment would condemn billions to death, squandering the maturity and basic economic knowledge that Mankind has achieved and VP/ZM drones lack.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
@FletchforFreedom billions would die? the earth produces enough food RIGHT NOW to feed everyone on the planet. so why do 22,000 children die every day from malnutrition?
simple question. there is no money to be made, hence the right thing doesnt get done.
and your saying man would stop creating, stop inventing new things without money? man taht is laughable, ask Einstein or the Wright brothers why they did what they did, it wasnt for the money
KillerWhaleSFl 5 months ago
@FletchforFreedom billions would die? the earth produces enough food RIGHT NOW to feed everyone on the planet. so why do 22,000 children die every day from malnutrition?
simple question. there is no money to be made, hence the right thing doesnt get done.
and your saying man would stop creating, stop inventing new things without money? man taht is laughable, ask Einstein or the Wright brothers why they did what they did, it wasnt for the money
KillerWhaleSFl 5 months ago
@KillerWhaleSFl Yes, billions would die. Without the division of labor under capitalism, the technology required to maintain current living standards (and food production) cannot be maintained, let alone improved upon.
And the daily death of children from malnutrition is almost without exception the direct result of regimes that prevent accesss to food (and/or entrench them in poverty), not capitalism or a lack of money to be made.
And self-interest is not the same thing as "money".
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
@FletchforFreedom historians will look back at us and laugh..
"holy shit, they manufactured items for the sole purpose of selling them to generate corporate profit, they ran a global economy based on cyclical consumption, it required everyone to constantly work so they could spend money to buy things, over and over and over agian, if not the whole thing collapsed! and get this, they paid absolutley no regard to the social or environmental conseqeunces of their actions!"
how primitive
KillerWhaleSFl 5 months ago
@FletchforFreedom historians will look back at us and laugh..
"holy shit, they manufactured items for the sole purpose of selling them to generate corporate profit, they ran a global economy based on cyclical consumption, it required everyone to constantly work so they could spend money to buy things, over and over and over agian, if not the whole thing collapsed! and get this, they paid absolutley no regard to the social or environmental conseqeunces of their actions!"
how primitive
KillerWhaleSFl 5 months ago
@FletchforFreedom historians will look back at us and laugh..
"holy shit, they manufactured items for the sole purpose of selling them to generate corporate profit, they ran a global economy based on cyclical consumption, it required everyone to constantly work so they could spend money to buy things, over and over and over agian, if not the whole thing collapsed! and get this, they paid absolutley no regard to the social or environmental conseqeunces of their actions!"
how primitive
KillerWhaleSFl 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FletchforFreedom historians will look back at us and laugh..
"holy shit, they manufactured items for the sole purpose of selling them to generate corporate profit, they ran a global economy based on cyclical consumption, it required everyone to constantly work so they could spend money to buy things, over and over and over agian, if not the whole thing collapsed! and get this, they paid absolutley no regard to the social or environmental conseqeunces of their actions!"
how primitive
KillerWhaleSFl 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FletchforFreedom historians will look back at us and laugh..
"holy shit, they manufactured items for the sole purpose of selling them to generate corporate profit, they ran a global economy based on cyclical consumption, it required everyone to constantly work so they could spend money to buy things, over and over and over agian, if not the whole thing collapsed! and get this, they paid absolutley no regard to the social or environmental conseqeunces of their actions!"
how primitive
KillerWhaleSFl 5 months ago
@KillerWhaleSFl You really don't understand what money is, do you...
eagleeye1975 5 months ago
@KillerWhaleSFl Dose that include commodity currency?
TravistheHuman 5 months ago
@KillerWhaleSFl you're lost dude! no clue of reality! too much time fantasizing on computers or music
sw8741 5 months ago
@sw8741 “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” - Krishnamurti
KillerWhaleSFl 5 months ago
@KillerWhaleSFl you are very well adjusted to this "profoundly sick society". you are using a electricity and a computer, i assume you have hot and cold running water, have frozen food and a refrigerator, get food from far far away, etc. so you are a very sick person. sucks to be you huh?
sw8741 5 months ago
Dr. Davies speaks clearly, he doesn't provoke controversy, and he supports his assertions. Its stuff like that why us libertarians don't get any respect!
Come on guys! Call someone a fascist or make an inflammatory statement about another culture. We have a lot of ground to cover, the other parties have been making bad decisions and gaffs for years but I think if we lower the educational bar and start screaming instead of fostering reasonable debate we might just have a shot!
Wilsontheterrible 5 months ago
Fiat debt-currency is NOT debt, it is FRAUD!
All debt based on fiat currency should be simply cancelled!
yakyakyak69 5 months ago