Conservatives and anti-intellectualism

AssHatZombie said:
They're not king makers. Never have been. They reflect what THOUGHFUL ENGAGED conseratives want. It's not johh mccain. And real conservatives also reject the "do what wins" strategy. A strategy we are told we must be happy with now.

The extreme left and extreme right are unified in their recognition that the current internationalist fascist craze sweeping humanity is indeed quite harmful.
Click to expand...

Well hell you don't even know what a conservative is then. Name one issue that these right wing extremist reactionary talking heads have been right about?

Have they been right about the economy? Hell no, were on the verge of recession, the housing market is in a mess and the national debt is approaching an untenable 10 trillion dollars.

Have they been right about national defense? Hell no, they gave up the moral high ground, threw away the international support after 911, invaded a sovereign nation on spurious grounds, under supported the millitary untill it was to late to stop an insurgency and have destablizied the entire middle east.

Were they right about emergency preparedness and response? While people in New Orleans were dying they sat on their asses and pointed fingers and fucked up the relief operation to the point that they were out performed by Wall-Mart.

So how the fuck would you right wing reactionaries now what is right and what is needed to win when you have been wrong and have fucked up just about every step of the way.

Even if you could make a valid point no rational person will listen to you as you have been such an incompetante group of fuck ups that no serious or intelligent person will give you any credibility.
 
Mottleydude said:
Well hell you don't even know what a conservative is then. Name one issue that these right wing extremist reactionary talking heads have been right about?

Have they been right about the economy? Hell no, were on the verge of recession, the housing market is in a mess and the national debt is approaching an untenable 10 trillion dollars.

Have they been right about national defense? Hell no, they gave up the moral high ground, threw away the international support after 911, invaded a sovereign nation on spurious grounds, under supported the millitary untill it was to late to stop an insurgency and have destablizied the entire middle east.

Were they right about emergency preparedness and response? While people in New Orleans were dying they sat on their asses and pointed fingers and fucked up the relief operation to the point that they were out performed by Wall-Mart.

So how the fuck would you right wing reactionaries now what is right and what is needed to win when you have been wrong and have fucked up just about every step of the way.

Even if you could make a valid point no rational person will listen to you as you have been such an incompetante group of fuck ups that no serious or intelligent person will give you any credibility.
Click to expand...

The opinions are diverse amongst "talking heads" so to have any kind of rational discussion, you'll have to be more specific. And many conservatives are Ron Paul supporters, and even against the war.

Your "one size fits all" frame is easily destroyed. You are revealed as an amateur psy-ops agent. Go retrain.

Next!
 
AssHatZombie said:
You're such a dumb douche. You go on and on in steadfast idiotic denial denying the significance of being able to create money on command.
Click to expand...

I'm going to use the argument that I use everytime, that always ends the debate (mostly because you have no good answer for it):

If fiat money is so sketchy as a currency that it can be printed as much as the goverment (sorry, military industrial complex) wants without any sort of consequences, then why is there world debt? Why don't poor countries just print a ton of money and buy whatever they want rather than remain in poverty?

I mean, it is all monopoly money anyway, right? So what is stopping them?
 
gonzojournals said:
I'm going to use the argument that I use everytime, that always ends the debate (mostly because you have no good answer for it):

If fiat money is so sketchy as a currency that it can be printed as much as the goverment (sorry, military industrial complex) wants without any sort of consequences, then why is there world debt? Why don't poor countries just print a ton of money and buy whatever they want rather than remain in poverty?

I mean, it is all monopoly money anyway, right? So what is stopping them?
Click to expand...

Everyone having to pay it back to some entity is how it's value is maintained. It's valuable because we have to work for it, well, most of us do. So the government makes it and pays the contractors (their business partners), but the PEOPLE have to pay it back through taxation. Debt = control.
 
Last edited:
AssHatZombie said:
Everyone having to pay it back to some entity is how it's value is maintained. It's valuable because we have to work for it, well, most of us do. So the government makes it and pays the contractors (their business partners), but the PEOPLE have to pay it back through taxation. Debt = control.
Click to expand...

Fiat operates on the oil standard. :)
 
AssHatZombie said:
Everyone having to pay it back to some entity is how it's value is maintained. It's valuable because we have to work for it, well, most of us do. So the government makes it and pays the contractors (their business partners), but the PEOPLE have to pay it back through taxation. Debt = control.
Click to expand...

Your theory is demolished by the fact that everywhere in the world that governments tried to print off exorbitant amounts of currency in a short period of time, they collapsed, and the politicians lost power (clearly not something they would want to have happen). Take for example Germany after WWI and South American governments throughout the 70's and 80's. American politicians (like people in cushion seats at the Fed) do not want to repeat this mistake and lose all of their power...
 
gonzojournals said:
Isn't that value there, however, because it we say it has value (for instance, the industrial value of gold comes from the fact that we decide that industry is necessary, which in turn requires gold for certain processes)?
Click to expand...

No, industry is valuable not because we say it is but because it has utility in furthering our lives, our survival and our comfort. You could say that your beating your head against a wall has value and while it might bring others great pleasure, it is not likely to further your life, survival or comfort.

To a degree it is true to say that value is subjective, utility can vary by person and be somewhat subjective, especially when it comes to things like entertainment values. But in other areas there are not two ways about it. For instance, medical treatment and science. Gold is a better conductor than most other metals. No amount of wishing or silly sophistry changes that FACT.

gonzojournals said:
What is the difference between the market saying that money has value and the government saying that money has value?
Click to expand...

The market chooses the money that works best to further the lives of traders and it is enforced by nothing but the free choice of traders. The government chooses money that works to further the lives of the elite at the expense of others and it is enforced by guns.
 
Watermark said:
Not one is literally calling for a currency in which you carry around the gold you're planning on using. They issue notes that are redeemable in that metal. And then, the value doesn't really matter. You'd simply have to set it to a lot of copper rather than a little gold, but in the end it wouldn't make a difference.
Click to expand...

You did not say copper, dumbass, you said bread.

You could use paper notes backed 100% by the commodity, yes. And that would be likely for large transactions. But just think of carrying $100 in gold versus a $100 in bread. Even using notes, someone still has to wharehouse the commodity. There is going to have to be a huge ass breadhouse to hold Bill Gates' money.

Maybe, now you are being a little more serious, which is why you switched to copper. Copper is certainly preferrable to bread but gold is better than copper. Portability, divisibility, scarcity, durability, and uniformity are the advantages of gold. Try and learn something new water. I know after you figured out that free trade was good you closed your mind to all other market economics, but give it a shot.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/whygold.html

Watermark said:
YOu seem to be laboring under the impression that a system in which no inflation at all is present would be best. That's not necessarily true. Whenever there was no inflation in the 1870's the economy crashed.
Click to expand...

My concern is not solely inflation. The people are being robbed, without them even knowing it, to finance war after war after war.

Between 1865 and 1873 bank deposits went up 132%. The money supply leveled off in 73 with a panic and crash.

http://www.mises.org/books/historyofmoney.pdf
 
Watermark said:
Damo, same thing. No one has ever advocated people actually going around and trading in gold. That would be ridiculous.

You can do it now anyway. Surprise, no one does it, because the mere thought is retarded. What they did whenever they had the gold standard was to issue notes that were redeemable in a specific amount of gold. People DID NOT literally carry around bars of gold.

So, why not give people a note that's redeemable in a certain amount of uranium? Uranium keeps its value even better than gold! Or maybe just a whole buttload of copper?

That's the point he was trying to make. Don't be - disingenous.
Click to expand...

You are simply wrong. People did trade in gold, for small purchases. As I noted, the fact that you might use the note does not change the fact that storing the need value in gold is still much easier for the same reasons it is easier to carry around.
 
gonzojournals said:
I'm going to use the argument that I use everytime, that always ends the debate (mostly because you have no good answer for it):

If fiat money is so sketchy as a currency that it can be printed as much as the goverment (sorry, military industrial complex) wants without any sort of consequences, then why is there world debt? Why don't poor countries just print a ton of money and buy whatever they want rather than remain in poverty?

I mean, it is all monopoly money anyway, right? So what is stopping them?
Click to expand...

Who is arguing there are no consequences? Right now, fluctuating currencies is the biggest thing that keeps some check on the system.
 
Threedee said:
Your theory is demolished by the fact that everywhere in the world that governments tried to print off exorbitant amounts of currency in a short period of time, they collapsed, and the politicians lost power (clearly not something they would want to have happen). Take for example Germany after WWI and South American governments throughout the 70's and 80's. American politicians (like people in cushion seats at the Fed) do not want to repeat this mistake and lose all of their power...
Click to expand...


I can't make much sense of what he said. But where do you get that it means the government can do it abandoning all restraint without any repercussions? If that is his argument then he is wrong. Still does not mean fiat money is not a problem.
 
RStringfield said:
Ignore nAHZi. He's retarded. It's valuable because we work for it... :rolleyes: He's a Marxist and he does not even know it. Just because he is an idiot does not mean fiat money is not a problem.
Click to expand...

I'm mostly arguing with AHZ, not you, because he believes that fiat currency is some sort of limitless well of evil.
 
Watermark said:
Maybe in the middle ages.
Click to expand...

Late 1800s. Not so much in the cities. But as I pointed, really it does not matter, water. The problems of carrying around the commodity become problems of storing it and golds advantages once again make it the better money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top