The government can never run out of money.

Only the right is infidel, protestant, and renegade to having Faith in Capitalism, simply because we have an official Mint to work with.

 

There's logic, reason, facts and evidence, and NOTHING else.

If you claim it's so, then state how you're going to do it.

This is something the Left never acknowledges. Some people CHOOSE to poor. Some are just lazy, some just prefer to live a gypsy sort of lifestyle. But if they make those choices, then they must live with the consequences.

We've had social safety nets at the government level, and we still have poverty.

 

dude; economics is about understanding the Nature of an economy through observation and metrics.

Simple poverty can be solved, simply and easily and on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States through equal application of the law for Labor as the least wealthy in our Republic.

If you refer to Individual Liberty, then, the Religious claim to have a Good reason for poverty; the rest of us are not that holy or that moral. I am simply advocating for repeal of our useless drug war to help pay for initial funding of unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines, at the rock bottom cost of that form of "minimum wage".

dude; Capitalism died in 1929 and Socialism has been bailing out Capitalism ever since, but the right claims Capitalism is everything (in their right wing Orwellian fantasy).

 

After looking over your material, I believe the Fed Reserve system does get audited. I checked one year audit and it is in order.

I have had training to evaluate audits of financials in a former task on the budget and finance committee of a major real estate board in California.

Thank you for the proof.

 

I said, not a "net creator of wealth". The government must first seize the wealth from others, and much is destroyed in that process, then wasted on so many other boondoggles and bureaucracies, before some things are created.

 

So you believe money is wealth. Logically, government can create endless wealth by printing more money. So why doesn't it?

By your reasoning, Zimbabwe ought to be the wealthiest country on Earth. Given your strawman, I don't think logic is something you concern yourself with.

 

Money is a form of wealth. Printing money can therefore create more wealth if you have the ability to create more wealth. Zimbabwe doesn't have the capacity to create more wealth, so printing more money for them doesn't have the effect as printing money in a country that does have the capacity and resources to produce more wealth... such as the United States.

 

Dude, I've already told you that economics doesn't exist. You can try to quantify the peaceful, honest, voluntary actions of individual human beings, but that's what causes what you call the economy to exist.

The Left always has to speak in broad based terms like this, because they rely on word magic. The Left always promises the solution, yet can never deliver. So they keep telling everyone "If you just surrender more of your rights and give us more money, this next time we'll fix it, we promise. We haven't done magic policy ABC yet, and that one will fix it. You can count on it!"

The Left always has to resort to emotional arguments because logic and reason refute all their nonsense. Left: "If we'd just LOVE the poor more, they wouldn't be poor..." They're demonstrating this idiocy now with Muslims, thinking if they bring them in and hold them close to their bosom they will love us all. They're in for a rude awakening.

I agree with you there, but giving people money will only create dependency. People need to learn how to become self-sufficient.

You better check yourself. So you claim implementing two full planks of the Communist Manifesto in 1913, the graduated income tax and the central bank known as the Federal Reserve equates to the U.S. becoming more Capitalist???????????????? Then you are totally delusional, dude. The government caused the Great Depression through the manipulations of its central bank, massive income tax increases by Hoover, who was a statist, and the Smoot-Hawley tariff act, among other government actions.

LOL. The remnants of the free market are the only thing holding up the colossal failure of Socialism. That and the biggest debt bubble in history that these (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s have used to borrow prosperity out of the future to prop up their failed collectivist schemes.

 

If you're waiting on the Left to resort to logic, you're going to be waiting an eternity.

 

That usually Only happens when we get our "management" from "Hostess".

Otherwise, Commerce, well regulated, usually produces a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

- - - Updated - - -

it could be claimed, that money is a fungible, representation of wealth.

 

Nothing but propaganda and rhetoric?

Why do you believe solving for a simple poverty of money in our Republic is not promoting the general welfare.

Socialism has been bailing out Capitalism in the US since 1929. We don't have a truer capital economy since then, we have mixed-market economy; no amount of right wing Orwellian fantasy can appeal to ignorance of that fact.

Why do you believe the private sector will be worse off if Labor can simply quit on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

 

You literally have no clue what you are talking about, lol. Economics is very complex and has been used to increase economic activity for centuries. It is constantly evolving like everything else. But to act like things just magically work out is a right wing/austrian level BS that is not accepted by anyone in academia. And the fact you guys make up this BS that problems in the economy would not happen if it weren't for economists or central planners is absolutely hilarious. Leave economics up to intelligent people.

 

It is you who have no clue what you're talking about.

Economics is unnecessarily complex. There's a difference.

Lol. Right now it's being used to run up a whole lot of debt and negative interest rates. The combo of which will eventually destroy the world's economies.

What I said before is that even the free market won't offer perfection, but you won't have the major boom / bust cycles that you have now. And this next bust is going to be the mother of all busts. Will make 2008 look like a cake walk.

Appeal to Authority fallacy. The vast majority of those fools haven't predicted anything accurately. They all missed 2008. The Austrians were the only ones who got it right.

Again, all of your so-called experts were flat out wrong about 2008. And they're about to be wrong again when the next downturn hits, most likely either this year or next. We're already overdue for a recession.

Guess that leaves you out.

 

It's very necessary and it will continue to get more complex as economies get more complex. There's a reason why we listen to economists and not conservatives/austrians with their BS armchair economics.

Who cares and no it won't

Who says there are no booms and bust cycles in your "free market"? What are your examples, stuff from centuries ago where they rode horses and dug shiny rocks out of the ground? Please, the economy would be subject to booms and busts regardless of what system you choose in present day economies.

Surgeons and doctors are wrong sometimes. Should we stop practicing medicine also and rely on random uneducated commoners? 2008 just shows how complex economies are. There will be more downturns in the future as more complex ways of using money are invented from the private sector.

 

That is what you're posting, yes. You really should stop posting propaganda and rhetoric.

The problem is you're lying about what the general welfare clause means. It granted no power to the government to create modern welfare programs. I'll let James Madison explain it to you. You might remember him, he's known as the father of the Constitution:

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

What he's saying is that Congress does not have the power to do anything outside of the enumerated powers to promote the general welfare. The original intent of the Constitution is the ONLY thing they're supposed to uphold to support the general welfare. Liberals have been twisting the meaning of that clause forever.

Why do you keep lying? I think you believe your own lies. All innovation has come from Capitalism. We're only running on momentum and debt spending now. The aspects of Socialism in our economy have been slowly destroying it for decades.

I believe the private sector is worse off anytime the peaceful, honest, voluntary actions of adult individuals are impeded or prevented.

 

I have made it my personal habit to never engage with an originalist, an Austrian/Mizes/Hayek follower, a creationist and most recently, a racist. It is a waste of time but I commend you for your efforts. Conspiracy theory supporters cannot be swayed. No amount of evidence will move them. You might as well shout into the wind for all the good it does.

 

And when they listened to your guys in 2008, they damn near ended up losing it all. And the Fed won't be able to bail them out this time.

Lol. Don't prepare. I'll keep buying gold and silver. We'll see who wins.

That's precisely what I was saying. No system offers perfection. But the booms and busts will be far more gradual and less severe.

Bad analogy. Because you can be educated without having the professional title. People should educate themselves so they don't have to rely as much on experts. Most people are simply lazy and don't want to take the time. And regardless, just because someone has a title, that doesn't mean they'll be speaking truth. That is still an Appeal to Authority fallacy.

No, 2008 shows how wrong the mainstream economists were. They all missed it completely.

 

So what about 1940-2007? Were they right?

 

"Not an argument." - Stefan Molyneux

 

Do you know, (the Ministry of) TruthDetector?

I am not the one appealing to (right wing Orwellian) fantasy.

We really do have a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will.

Both, promoting and providing for the general welfare is in our social Contract. You merely missunderstand Madison.

Congress can be as fantastical as they want, subject to our Constitution, in the federal Districts. (Article 1, Section 8 )

I don't have to lie since I resort to the fewest fallacies. You are simply, clueless and Causeless.

How is Labor worse off by having equal protection of the law regarding the concept of employment (at the will of either party)?

 

No, they were wrong about all kinds of things during that period. They were wrong about the '71 to '80 gold bull market, wrong about the '87 crash, wrong about the '99 dot com bust, wrong about other countries as well such as the crash of Japan in the 90's. For the most part they seem unable to think outside the box.

 

Former poster here? Neocon if I recall correctly. His truth detection wasn't always top notch.

No, you're appealing to left wing delusional fantasies of rainbow farting unicorns.

I wonder how the Amish survive without it? Seriously, we don't need centralized control. The Soviets had it and they were employed, but very, very poor. Their products weren't very good, their food quality and choice was very poor, and they had virtually no chance to acquire any wealth unless they were higher ups in the Communist party.

There is no social contract. No one is given a choice on whether to accept it or not. For a contract to be valid, it has to meet certain criteria, none of which the alleged "social" contract meets. No full disclosure, no voluntary agreement by two separate parties, both at the age of consent, etc. And don't forget, one part cannot be under duress, i.e. under threat by men with guns to force compliance. Government tends to make people do things that way.

I didn't misunderstand anything. You did. I get clarification from Madison's own words in the Federal Papers. It's you who wants to distort the truth and destroy the original intent so you can cede all authority to the government. You Leftists are sick in the head that way, but you're control freaks.

Yeah, you do have to lie because that's what the Left does. The Left couldn't fool everyone unless they lied.

Blah, blah, blah, blah. Adult human beings have a right to engage in peaceful, honest, voluntary actions in the market. That is a logical truth. If you say it isn't, then refute it. If not, then stop blabbering nonsense.

 

Well, your Truth bringing leaves a lot to be desired as well.

at least, my left wing Utopian fantasies have some basis in Truth. We have a social Contract and supreme (social) law of the land.

What do you mean by, "centralized control". I am referring to mostly State laws. Your right wing, appeals to false analogies is duly noted.

Regulating forms of Commerce seems to fall under the Commerce Clause. Are you claiming health insurance is not a form of Commerce?

Sorry; the right only believes the left has to lie, twice a day. This is not of those moments. I am on the federal left. I subscribe to the federal doctrine.

Nothing but diversion? How is Labor worse off by having equal protection of the law regarding the concept of employment (at the will of either party)?

 

Logic is never your strong point. Let's try this: what is your definition of wealth and how is money consistent with that definition?

- - - Updated - - -

I feel that way about almost all statists.

 

What does "well regulated" mean to you? Other than to create tooth fairy economics "multiplier effects".

It can measure wealth. How something "represents" wealth does not make sense. It's either a resource that is valuable to people for it's usefulness, or it is not. Money is not a resources, it's a