Ron Paul's Farewell Speech to Congress: The End of a Cult Figure

[a completely inoffensive name]

Congressman Paul this past election decided not to run for his Congressional spot again and spent all his time on the Presidential election (which he knew he wouldn't win). The guy is 77 years old and it is not surprising that he just doesn't have it in him. If you have time, the speech is a little under 49 minutes wrong. The speech itself is a summation of what Paul has stood for for the past 25+ years and as a farewell to his followers, it does the job well. But will this man live on in history and will the libertarian cult around him hold strong? His son Rand Paul and recent Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson is waiting in the wings to take the reign of the libertarian youth, but how much fervor will remain without the original Paul? Anyway, here is the video.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q03cWio-zjk

[Major Robert Dump]

Rand Paul is supporting some things that are traditonally against the typical republitard platform and have been notably absent of the libertarian platform because so many of the libertarians come from the repulbitards. So, yes, he has a chance, with the smart ones. With your rank and file Republitards Rand will be demonized because the rank and file Republitards are slaves to corporations and the industrial military complex and in most cases do not even know it.

but I don't really care, because Obama is the anti christ and will put ia chip in my head soon so all is nigh 666 ROXXOR

[HoreTore]

One of the worst nutters goes into retirement.


This is a happy day for the world.

[Fragony]

One of the worst nutters goes into retirement.


This is a happy day for the world.

It's a great loss for you lefties really, ideoligy tends to make a full circle that never connects. Read up on what the libertatarians are about you might like it.

I don't know well a job google translate does with this but here goes anyway http://www.meervrijheid.nl/?pagina=986

[Fisherking]

One of the worst nutters goes into retirement.


This is a happy day for the world.


Another media slave who only knows what they tell him.

[HoreTore]

It's a great loss for you lefties really, ideoligy tends to make a full circle that never connects. Read up on what the libertatarians are about you might like it.

I don't know well a job google translate does with this but here goes anyway http://www.meervrijheid.nl/?pagina=986

Yes frags, I'm ignorant of libertarians. For crying out loud, there's been a zillion threads on it on this board even, so how on earth can you believe I don't know about it?

I do appreciate a comrade-in-arms on social issues, what puts them in my loonie bin is their economic policy.


Another media slave who only knows what they tell him.

The Angry Internet Kid's finest argument.

You'd better copypaste it to the comments section of a few dozen articles. That'll change the world!!!!111

[Fragony]

Not at all Horetore, libertarians just don't believe we need all that much government because we can arange that perfectly fine ourselves. There is too much government and that makes it clumbersome, that doesn't mean a decline of human rights but just doing it more effectively because there is less dead weight aka government doing it. If you look into it you won't find it all that bad, but the government obviously doesn't like it and that is why Fisherking just called you a media-slave.

[CountArach]

Economically, there is no doubt that he is totally libertarian.

But socially... Someone who believes euthanasia should be illegal? Not a libertarian. By definition, not a libertarian.

[HoreTore]

Not at all Horetore, libertarians just don't believe we need all that much government because we can arange that perfectly fine ourselves. There is too much government and that makes it clumbersome, that doesn't mean a decline of human rights but just doing it more effectively because there is less dead weight aka government doing it. If you look into it you won't find it all that bad, but the government obviously doesn't like it and that is why Fisherking just called you a media-slave.

Thank you for a good explanation of why I consider him a loonie. I could barely have done it better myself!

[Fragony]

Thank you for a good explanation of why I consider him a loonie. I could barely have done it better myself!

Stop talking with yourselve so much then

[rvg]

Ron Paul will be missed.

[Fisherking]

The Angry Internet Kid's finest argument.

You'd better copypaste it to the comments section of a few dozen articles. That'll change the world!!!!111

If you had the first idea of anything that was not filtered through extreme views your self, someone my listen to you. But since you are the best proof that there are still trolls in Norway, we will just leave it at that.

I will await your next shallow comment with baited breath.

[gaelic cowboy]

I just had a glance at some of his positions an I gotta say that he his way off the edge with this gold thing.

Gold has no value and neither does money they merely have value because everyone agrees they have value.

[rvg]

I just had a glance at some of his positions an I gotta say that he his way off the edge with this gold thing.

Gold has no value and neither does money they merely have value because everyone agrees they have value.

i.e. gold has value.

[gaelic cowboy]

i.e. gold has value.

as long as we agree.


Fiat currency requires no benchmark and any system that does has been proven to be a disaster, just look at the Euro it clearly has a similar hallmark to the gold standard and it is causing havoc in Europe.


plus there isnt actually enough gold in the world to back currencies so this only helps rich people and hoarders of gold.

[rvg]

as long as we agree.

And we do. While gold imho isn't the best way of gauging value (energy imho is the way to go), it's nonetheless a tried and true way that has worked for millenia.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Economically, there is no doubt that he is totally libertarian.

But socially... Someone who believes euthanasia should be illegal? Not a libertarian. By definition, not a libertarian.

You're confusing Libertarianism with Anarchism.

Euthanasia is state sanctioned homicide, in specific circumstances, it's an example of the state choosing when homicide is OK and when it isn't, instead of just prevent citizens from killing each other - it's not a Libertarian policy.

[drone]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XknK67J5B0

[HoreTore]

i.e. gold has value.

Neither money nor gold has any value.

Labour, on the other hand, does have value. When people like Ron Paul doesn't understand the very basics of economy, it's unavoidable that the policies they propose are a little on the loonier side of things.

[gaelic cowboy]

And we do. While gold imho isn't the best way of gauging value (energy imho is the way to go), it's nonetheless a tried and true way that has worked for millenia.

But sure energy can also have different values depending on the source

[Hooahguy]

recent Libertarian candidate Ron Johnson is waiting in the wings to take the reign of the libertarian youth, but how much fervor will remain without the original Paul?

Its Gary, not Ron. But I see what you did there.

[CountArach]

You're confusing Libertarianism with Anarchism.
Which is the logical extreme of libertarianism.

Euthanasia is state sanctioned homicide, in specific circumstances, it's an example of the state choosing when homicide is OK and when it isn't, instead of just prevent citizens from killing each other - it's not a Libertarian policy.
Libertarians believe we should have our own lives in our hands and as such they cannot refuse euthanasia and still be logically consistent. Terminally ill people have as much choice over when their life ends as the rest of us, and if they are incapable of making that choice (such as in a permanent vegetative state) then their family should be able to make that choice for them. But the important thing to take from this is that at no point should the government try to stop them and a libertarian could not logically argue against that point because someone would have to legislate its illegality. And you really don't understand the purpose of euthanasia if you compare it to homicide.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Neither money nor gold has any value.

Labour, on the other hand, does have value. When people like Ron Paul doesn't understand the very basics of economy, it's unavoidable that the policies they propose are a little on the loonier side of things.

Labour has no value unless you want to do something you can't do yourself.

All things are contingent.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Which is the logical extreme of libertarianism.

No it isn't - Libertarianism is freedom within society, Anarchism is no society.

[rvg]

But sure energy can also have different values depending on the source

Not really. A Joule is a Joule no matter where it comes from.

[Fragony]

Which is the logical extreme of libertarianism.

Libertarians believe we should have our own lives in our hands and as such they cannot refuse euthanasia and still be logically consistent. Terminally ill people have as much choice over when their life ends as the rest of us, and if they are incapable of making that choice (such as in a permanent vegetative state) then their family should be able to make that choice for them. But the important thing to take from this is that at no point should the government try to stop them and a libertarian could not logically argue against that point because someone would have to legislate its illegality. And you really don't understand the purpose of euthanasia if you compare it to homicide.

Indeed. The principles of libertarism when it comes to being the master of your own destiny work pretty well here really. You don't have to agree with it but if you want to avoid dying from cancer the hard way it's possible, you won't have cough up your intestines or bleed from your anus. It isn't pretty to watch it's pretty damn horrible to watch in fact, but it's much much better than just withering and dying. Who is is the government to deny a somewhat nice death.

[Sir Moody]

Not really. A Joule is a Joule no matter where it comes from.

that's the unit of measurement not the value - value would be Joule per <insert Currency here>

[HoreTore]

Labour has no value unless you want to do something you can't do yourself.

All things are contingent.

Money is a storage for that labour, so you can conveniently trade one labour you have to one labour you want.

The reason you want money is because of the labour you can trade it into, not because of some inherent value of money itself.

[gaelic cowboy]

Not really. A Joule is a Joule no matter where it comes from.

So your talking about work then. How do you get around the problem of trying to SET the monetary value of a joule.

[rvg]

So your talking about work then. How do you get around the problem of trying to SET the monetary value of a joule.

You don't. You set the values of OTHER things in Joules.

[gaelic cowboy]

You don't. You set the values of OTHER things in Joules.


but your merely moving the goalpost here trying to tie things down in values of x = y amount of money.

You still dont explain why fixing money to anything helps it's value, plus if for any reason we increased energy production we would increase the available joules changing the potential price of an object in joules.

[Whacker]

itt communist economic education

[rvg]

but your merely moving the goalpost here trying to tie things down in values of x = y amount of money.

You still dont explain why fixing money to anything helps it's value, plus if for any reason we increased energy production we would increase the available joules changing the potential price of an object in joules.

To me it's self-evident. You need one point of reference against which everything is measured. As for why energy, it's because the demand for energy is universal and will always be that way.

[Sir Moody]

To me it's self-evident. You need one point of reference against which everything is measured. As for why energy, it's because the demand for energy is universal and will always be that way.

Demand is universal yes but the cost of production is not

1 Joule produced from a Coal powered power plant will cost X while 1 Joule produced from a Gas Y and so on - how do you fix a value on something which is inherently linked to the form (more specifically the fuel) of its production?

This is why some think a "Gold" standard would work - because Gold is gold and the more you have the more valuable it is...

The problem with the Gold standard however is the fact the value of your money is inherently linked to the amount of Gold you have independent of how well the actual economy is performing - if you have little gold you have to raise interest rates regardless of how well the Economy is actually performing

[rvg]

1 Joule produced from a Coal powered power plant will cost X while 1 Joule produced from a Gas Y and so on - how do you fix a value on something which is inherently linked to the form (more specifically the fuel) of its production?

Same can be said about gold. Gold doesn't come from mommy and daddy gold, it needs to be mined. Mining gold is an expensive and difficult process, but it varies alot. Yet the value of gold is the same, regardless of how it was obtained.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Its Gary, not Ron. But I see what you did there.

Oh, that's 100% error on my part lol. I keep getting those two mixed up. It's like the Futurama episode between Jack Johnson and John Jackson.

[Sir Moody]

Same can be said about gold. Gold doesn't come from mommy and daddy gold, it needs to be mined. Mining gold is an expensive and difficult process, but it varies alot. Yet the value of gold is the same, regardless of how it was obtained.

actually it isn't - another reason the Gold standard fails - it is far too simplisitc

[rvg]

actually it isn't...

And the reason for that is?

[gaelic cowboy]

Same can be said about gold. Gold doesn't come from mommy and daddy gold, it needs to be mined. Mining gold is an expensive and difficult process, but it varies alot. Yet the value of gold is the same, regardless of how it was obtained.

This value your talking about is not fixed though it's merely an agreement between two parties.


And the reason for that is?

Any increase or decrease in the amounts of gold changes the variables of the two parties and so changes the price of gold.

Changes in the price of gold would severely hurt an economy no matter how robust or diversified it's industrial base.

[Ronin]

he had 2 loony ideas for every reasonable one.
the only thing surprising about him is the cult around him I find online.

[Sir Moody]

see what happens - I drive home and someone has already answered the question

[rvg]

This value your talking about is not fixed though it's merely an agreement between two parties.
So what? Every commodity is worth whatever it can be sold for.


Any increase or decrease in the amounts of gold changes the variables of the two parties and so changes the price of gold.
As it should be.


Changes in the price of gold would severely hurt an economy no matter how robust or diversified it's industrial base.
That has yet to happen...

[HoreTore]

That has yet to happen...

lol, what?

The price of grain is more stable than the price of gold.

[rvg]

lol, what?

The price of grain is more stable than the price of gold.

Its fluctuation has yet to bring down an economy.

[HoreTore]

Its fluctuation has yet to bring down an economy.

The availability of the metal has, however.

And more importantly, the economy is prone to crashing and burning no matter what the status of gold is. Gold really is irrelevant to an economy. Back in the days it served as the perfect trade item, but now we have better options. So, thankfully gold went out the window.

[Sir Moody]

Its fluctuation has yet to bring down an economy.

The Gold standard is considered one of the contributors to the great depression

[gaelic cowboy]

So what? Every commodity is worth whatever it can be sold for.

But your not trying to allow it to float so it can be sold RVG you saying you want to fix a value to a currency. Therefore increase/decrease of the denominated notional commodity be it energy, gold or oil will change value of your currency.





That has yet to happen...

Well that's cos no one has been daft enough to fix there currency to gold since the disaster we had the last time it was done.

However if you want to see what a gold standard style recession looks like then check out the euro crisis, once you tip into recession you cant print money leaving only deflation of the economy.

[rvg]

Back in the days it served as the perfect trade item, but now we have better options. So, thankfully gold went out the window.
It still can be. There's no reason why it needs to be, but it can be if we run out of options. When things go South, people still turn to gold.


But your not trying to allow it to float so it can be sold RVG you saying you want to fix a value to a currency. Therefore increase/decrease of the denominated notional commodity be it energy, gold or oil will change value of your currency.
So what? currency fluctuates all the time. Dollar rises and dips every day. That doesn't mean that prices follow it. Prices only follow long term trends.

[gaelic cowboy]

It still can be. There's no reason why it needs to be, but it can be if we run out of options. When things go South, people still turn to gold.

there isn't enough gold for all the dollars in the world never mind all of the other world currencies, and if you did go back on a gold standard everyone would have to do it or it would fail in a year.

[rvg]

The Gold standard is considered one of the contributors to the great depression

That's hardly a universal view.


there isn't enough gold for all the dollars in the world never mind all of the other world currencies, and if you did go back on a gold standard everyone would have to do it or it would fail in a year.
Sure there is. The currencies just need to be devalued according to the availability of gold.

[gaelic cowboy]

That's hardly a universal view.

it's a fact that rigidly sticking to a universal standard at a time of economic weakness lengthened the recession.



Sure there is. The currencies just need to be devalued according to the availability of gold.

but that's the point you couldn't devalue it as it would be worth X gold, instead you would have to stop money creation through high interest rates and you would need to deflate the economy instead.

[rvg]

it's a fact that rigidly sticking to a universal standard at a time of economic weakness lengthened the recession.
A fact? Highly debatable (http://mises.org/daily/3778/The-Gold-Standard-and-the-Great-Depression) at best.



but that's the point you couldn't devalue it as it would be worth X gold, instead you would have to stop money creation through high interest rates and you would need to deflate the economy instead.
Something's gotta give. If the currency is to be static, the printing presses must be stopped.

[gaelic cowboy]

Something's gotta give. If the currency is to be static, the printing presses must be stopped.

the last thing you want is a static currency but anyone who invested in gold or is already very wealthy would love it.

[rvg]

the last thing you want is a static currency but anyone who invested in gold or is already very wealthy would love it.

I disagree. Those who invested in gold have nothing to fear from inflation.

[gaelic cowboy]

I disagree. Those who invested in gold have nothing to fear from inflation.

You can only realise the value of your holdings when you sell them, but then your subject to inflation again.

[rvg]

You can only realise the value of your holdings when you sell them, but then your subject to inflation again.

Why would they need to sell their gold? That's like selling Apple shares == dumb idea. And I don't need to sell my gold to know that it's appreciating in value.

[gaelic cowboy]

Why would they need to sell their gold? That's like selling Apple shares == dumb idea. And I don't need to sell my gold to know that it's appreciating in value.

you cant go into the local supermarket and buy a loaf of bread for a gold share you would need to sell some of it eventually.

[rvg]

you cant go into the local supermarket and buy a loaf of bread for a gold share you would need to sell some of it eventually.
Some of it, sure. Only as much as you need to spend though. There's absolutely no reason to sell more than that. And whatever you immediately sell for spending purposes is not affected by inflation unless you're talking about hyperinflation, in which case it's actually better to barter rather than use currency at all.

[rvg]

I will always hold the highest regard for Ron Paul as an unwavering champion of individual freedom, no matter the cost. He was, is, and always will be one of the most honest politicians in American history, and certainly the only politician of our modern era who wasn't afraid to say what he meant.

This is very true. His integrity was a huge part of his appeal.

[The Lurker Below]

there aren't enough dissenting voices being heard in the U.S. - most everybody is so certain their party is Move On perfect in every way and that the other party is full of wackos - any third party noise isn't normally given the time of day. for Ron Paul to gain as much traction as he did for as long as he did is to be congratulated. wouldn't it be great if more differing ideas could get some air time here.

[Strike For The South]

An economic policy with no empathy
A social policy that assumes the bad side of humanity reigns over the good

I don't care for narrow minded people and their ideological pet projects

Remember kids government is bad, unless a stranger is sticking something in your vagina without your consent

Every rich white university student loves Ron Paul becuase their idea of struggling is a part time job.

Good riddance to bad rubbish

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Money is a storage for that labour, so you can conveniently trade one labour you have to one labour you want.

The reason you want money is because of the labour you can trade it into, not because of some inherent value of money itself.

Nah - I want a sword and a longship so I can take stuff from people weaker than myself.

What's all this "Labour" rubbish?

Go down to the shore and get some more Irish thrawls, find a pretty one and she might even cheer you up.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Libertarians might be well meaning, but their words are as credible as those who insist all computer programs should run in real mode, and we should do away with this bloat called an OS.

In other words: utter bunk.

Let's hope any replacements have a more practical and realistic worldview.

[HoreTore]

Nah - I want a sword and a longship so I can take stuff from people weaker than myself.

What's all this "Labour" rubbish?

Go down to the shore and get some more Irish thrawls, find a pretty one and she might even cheer you up.

And that, of course, creates no wealth in itself.

[a completely inoffensive name]

A social policy that assumes the bad side of humanity reigns over the good

I just imagined some 2nd year libertarian sociology student calling you naive, and you punching him in the face.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And that, of course, creates no wealth in itself.

You can't create wealth, just amass it - that's true of individuals and nations.

"Wealth Creation" is what we call extracting wealth from other countries - it's all about Viking in the end.

[rvg]

You can't create wealth, just amass it - that's true of individuals and nations.

Is that the Law of Preservation of Wealth?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is that the Law of Preservation of Wealth?

I don't know, did I invent it, or are you quoting someone?

To me it seems obvious - gaining wealth is about trade, buying low and selling high so that you have more than either the guy you buy from, or the one yo sell to.

You get richer, they get poorer.

[rvg]

I don't know, did I invent it, or are you quoting someone?

Quoting? Hardly. Mocking, mostly.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You get richer, they get poorer.

This is blatantly wrong and I don't understand how you can have such an opinion. If wealth is zero sum, then logically India, Africa, and South America must be poorer than ever before in world history since us Westerners are so rich. But they are not, South America and India are richer than ever before as well.

[HopAlongBunny]

... - gaining wealth is about trade, buying low and selling high so that you have more than either the guy you buy from, or the one yo sell to.

To have trade/exchange you must have some thing to trade or vend. The thing can be appropriated or created through the investment of labour. Without labour, we cannot even begin the "game".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Quoting? Hardly. Mocking, mostly.

Thanks for clearing that up.


This is blatantly wrong and I don't understand how you can have such an opinion. If wealth is zero sum, then logically India, Africa, and South America must be poorer than ever before in world history since us Westerners are so rich. But they are not, South America and India are richer than ever before as well.

Well, the distribution of wealth is more equitable than in the past, and goods in general have become devalued (hence the massive inflation of the last few hundred years)

Western Nations are not that Rich - we just have more junk than ever before. In meaningful ways we are much poorer, and the "Third" world is consequently richer. Bear in mind, in the past, wealth was so prevalent in the West that private companies could afford vast private armies in addition to all the workers, flunkies, clerks and whores they could keep track of.

What has changed is the overall quality of life of the world's population - but that's the result of industrialisation making everything cheaper, not people or Nations getting richer.

Think about it - how is China getting richer?

By making the US poorer, and then extending credit to make us even poorer.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To have trade/exchange you must have some thing to trade or vend. The thing can be appropriated or created through the investment of labour. Without labour, we cannot even begin the "game".

Labour generates product - not wealthy, it is trade that generates wealth.

Consider the farmer with a plow - what is the plow worth?

Is it worth the amount of grain the farmer can plant using it?

The amount the smith and carpenter made it for?

The price of the raw iron?

Or is it's worth wholly dependent on who is buying or selling it?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Western Nations are not that Rich - we just have more junk than ever before.
Define "junk", I hope you are not talking about smartphones and computers. To classify the greatest tool ever created by mankind as junk is absurd....



In meaningful ways we are much poorer, and the "Third" world is consequently richer.
This is just religious morality shaming. The fact is that people own more wealth in "things" than they did before.



Bear in mind, in the past, wealth was so prevalent in the West that private companies could afford vast private armies in addition to all the workers, flunkies, clerks and whores they could keep track of. Again, this just reeks of a Christian morality thing. The culture has become more materialistic and you wan't to spin that as "poorer" because it's immoral.



What has changed is the overall quality of life of the world's population - but that's the result of industrialisation making everything cheaper, not people or Nations getting richer.
People are paid more, people get more of what they produce than in any other century of world history. This is all just nonsense, complete nonsense. You can make a shaving blade that costs 10 cents, but if you are living the life of a serf in the 1600s, you can't even afford that, you are spending all your time on just putting food on the table.



Think about it - how is China getting richer?
Nope, I am done here. I will wait for someone with an actual degree or experience in economics to pick this apart. If this is a serious question, I am just walking out of the thread. My own thread.



By making the US poorer, and then extending credit to make us even poorer.
Government debt is not bad, that's a dumb idea that people think because personal debt isn't good for them. As long as the US government is trusted to pay it off at some point in the future, there is no problem.

[rvg]

Western Nations are not that Rich - we just have more junk than ever before.
No offense, but this is hogwash. The "junk" you're referring to is wealth. Material wealth. Something that can be both produced and destroyed en masse.


In meaningful ways we are much poorer, and the "Third" world is consequently richer.
Meaningful how?



Bear in mind, in the past, wealth was so prevalent in the West that private companies could afford vast private armies in addition to all the workers, flunkies, clerks and whores they could keep track of.
Um... They can afford that now even easier than before.


What has changed is the overall quality of life of the world's population - but that's the result of industrialisation making everything cheaper, not people or Nations getting richer.
That would suggest that wealth is static, which is absolutely ridiculous. Wealth can be created literally out of nothing. Lady Gaga can fart into a microphone, record it, then watch sheeple buy it and praise on facebook.


Think about it - how is China getting richer? By making the US poorer, and then extending credit to make us even poorer.
China is getting richer by manufacturing lots of low priced junk, i.e. creating lots of wealth out of raw materials.

[Papewaio]

Not really. A Joule is a Joule no matter where it comes from.

But to get it or store it may take different amounts of effort ie fat is a useful form of energy as it is accessible, dense and minimal problems to convert in the human body compared with protein.

Same applies to energy in the economy. Wind is accessible when it blows, need some sort of storage to make it more useful. Sure a joule is a joule, but it doesn't mean there isn't a cost to create, transport or store that energy.

[Ironside]

Western Nations are not that Rich - we just have more junk than ever before. In meaningful ways we are much poorer, and the "Third" world is consequently richer. Bear in mind, in the past, wealth was so prevalent in the West that private companies could afford vast private armies in addition to all the workers, flunkies, clerks and whores they could keep track of.


That has to do with nation tolerance for private armies. Now modern US soldiers are extremely expensive, and several times more expensive than say China's soldiers, but a lot of companies could easily have 5.000, and the largest around 40.000. Doesn't sound that much, but using wwii standards (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/weekinreview/25bumiller.html) (that's equal to well trained war lord militia I suppose, gear wise: gun, food, tools, clothes), we're talking 5-600.000. Would eat up the entire profit, but it would work.
It's also worth remembering that a company like East India company would immidiatly be cut to pieces today, by anti-monopoly laws. They would've deployed about 40.000 of those wwii soldiers at 1857 (http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/26.%20Administration%20and%20Finance%20of%20East%20India%20Company.htm) (which were a profitable year) anyway. Too big to exist today, yet less than 10% of the possible force.
Had 24.000 soldiers when they got dissolved.

Name in what meaningful ways we're much poorer.

And who gets poorer in Fordism (the fundamental idea behind today's salary policy, compared to the one that's paying your worker as little as possible)?

[HoreTore]

You can't create wealth, just amass it - that's true of individuals and nations.

"Wealth Creation" is what we call extracting wealth from other countries - it's all about Viking in the end.

I'm curious to know where you've found your economic theories... But I do have a creeping feeling that this idea just reveals a low economic knowledge...

The wealth of a country depends on how much is being produced in said country. If the country produces more, the country's wealth increases. No international trade needs to be taking place at all for that to happen, of course.

Economy is far from a zero sum game. For England to get richer, France doesn't have to get poorer. In fact, a richer France means an even richer England, while a poorer France makes a poorer England.

[Fragony]

Libertarians might be well meaning, but their words are as credible as those who insist all computer programs should run in real mode, and we should do away with this bloat called an OS.

In other words: utter bunk.

Let's hope any replacements have a more practical and realistic worldview.

Never beyond impossible but always a direction to having the goverment eliminated. But that is just a goal, a take on things.

[HoreTore]

Labour generates product - not wealthy, it is trade that generates wealth.

Consider the farmer with a plow - what is the plow worth?

Is it worth the amount of grain the farmer can plant using it?

The amount the smith and carpenter made it for?

The price of the raw iron?

Or is it's worth wholly dependent on who is buying or selling it?

Product = wealth. More product = more wealth.

As to the price of the plow, it's got two different ones:

The first is the plows natural price, which is the cost of the labour that produced it as well as the costs associated with getting the plow from the producer to the one who needed it.

The second price is the market price, which may be the same as the natural price, or it may be higher or lower. In a market economy, the market price tends to gravitate towards the natural price.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No offense, but this is hogwash. The "junk" you're referring to is wealth. Material wealth. Something that can be both produced and destroyed en masse.

Meaningful how?

Um... They can afford that now even easier than before.

That would suggest that wealth is static, which is absolutely ridiculous. Wealth can be created literally out of nothing. Lady Gaga can fart into a microphone, record it, then watch sheeple buy it and praise on facebook.

China is getting richer by manufacturing lots of low priced junk, i.e. creating lots of wealth out of raw materials.


Meaningful how?

Well, consider the money.

What is a modern penny made of? Steel washed in copper-nickle when 20 years ago they were copper alloy. The most expensive modern coins are made out of various nickle alloys, not gold.

We are rich is products - over expensive but useless clothes, gadgets we don't need - but poor in useful things or skills.

I don't have an iPhone, I manage.

The gulf between what I write and what people read is something I occasionally find quite disturbing, to wit ACIN's post.

Again, not just a Christian.


Product = wealth. More product = more wealth.

As to the price of the plow, it's got two different ones:

The first is the plows natural price, which is the cost of the labour that produced it as well as the costs associated with getting the plow from the producer to the one who needed it.

The second price is the market price, which may be the same as the natural price, or it may be higher or lower. In a market economy, the market price tends to gravitate towards the natural price.

This sort of thinking is predicated on Adam Smith's concept of Labour as modified by Marx, but it no longer applies because Smith was talking about Artisanal Labour, when today much Labour is (comparatively) unskilled, and many people have no actual trade or marketable skills at all. This is why so many people have unstable careers and have to keep changing jobs.

You also missed something about the plow, it's also got a base cost - the iron and wood have an inherent value based on what you can do with them.

The real point is - it's not the Labour, it's the time.

[rvg]

Meaningful how?

Well, consider the money.

What is a modern penny made of? Steel washed in copper-nickle when 20 years ago they were copper alloy. The most expensive modern coins are made out of various nickle alloys, not gold.
Throughout the ages the majority of coins was made out of non-precious metals, sometimes not out of metals at all. The coin itself doesn't really matter. Only its buying power does.


We are rich is products - over expensive but useless clothes, gadgets we don't need - but poor in useful things or skills.
I'm not sure why you dismiss them as useless. Cars, fridges, clothes, computers etc. are anything but useless. They enhance our quality of life. Charlemagne would probably trade half of his kingdom for a functioning fridge.


I don't have an iPhone, I manage.
You can also manage without a house, a car, a fridge, a tv, a pc, or even clothes. Ultimately, all you need to sustain yourself is about 1500 calories worth of food. That would be about on par with the quality of life enjoyed by a slave in ancient Babylon, but yeah you can manage. We can manage without lots of things, but why would we want to? A life of misery is hardly something valuable. Wealth enhances our lives to the point where they are actually fun to go through.

[Major Robert Dump]

Hey I heard a Neocon say on the radio that, in addition to threatening israel, Iran should not have nukes because then they can raise the price of oil without worryuing about retaliation.

Are there really people who believe that war is justified because someone who sells you something raises the price? Am I the only one who sees the irony of people in a "capitalist" country saying this? What a bunch of fat greedy babies we have become

I only mention this because so many conservatives were appalled at Pauls thoughts on Iran policy. It is, afterall, very unpoular to admit that a country might hate us because we have sodomized them on several occasions.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Throughout the ages the majority of coins was made out of non-precious metals, sometimes not out of metals at all. The coin itself doesn't really matter. Only its buying power does.

Most coins were made out of copper, tin, silver and gold.

At worst, coins were copper or tin washed in silver.

I suggest you look up monetary policy in post-Anglo Saxon England or during the latter Roman Empire.

The further your actual value is from the face value, the weaker your treasury is - because it can't afford to hold the necessary metal for striking coins.


I'm not sure why you dismiss them as useless. Cars, fridges, clothes, computers etc. are anything but useless. They enhance our quality of life. Charlemagne would probably trade half of his kingdom for a functioning fridge.

I was thinking more of the three TV's and two XBoxes many "poor" families have - that's "junk".


You can also manage without a house, a car, a fridge, a tv, a pc, or even clothes. Ultimately, all you need to sustain yourself is about 1500 calories worth of food. That would be about on par with the quality of life enjoyed by a slave in ancient Babylon, but yeah you can manage. We can manage without lots of things, but why would we want to? A life of misery is hardly something valuable. Wealth enhances our lives to the point where they are actually fun to go through.

Um, yes, but the XBox is just a very expensive toy, and one that just doesn't last.

[HoreTore]

This sort of thinking is predicated on Adam Smith's concept of Labour as modified by Marx, but it no longer applies because Smith was talking about Artisanal Labour, when today much Labour is (comparatively) unskilled, and many people have no actual trade or marketable skills at all. This is why so many people have unstable careers and have to keep changing jobs.

You also missed something about the plow, it's also got a base cost - the iron and wood have an inherent value based on what you can do with them.

The real point is - it's not the Labour, it's the time.

Adam Smith used nail making for half his examples. Most of the other examples were farming. Oh, and that greedy baker, of course. Plus some scots picking fancy-looking stones on the shores.

Not exactly highly skilled jobs, eh?

Anyway: this sort of economic thinking is mainstream today. You're the one coming up with the slightly whacky take on what wealth is.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Adam Smith used nail making for half his examples. Most of the other examples were farming. Oh, and that greedy baker, of course. Plus some scots picking fancy-looking stones on the shores.

Not exactly highly skilled jobs, eh?

Anyway: this sort of economic thinking is mainstream today. You're the one coming up with the slightly whacky take on what wealth is.

Actually - it was pin making and that is highly skilled when you are doing it by hand. I'd like to see you make the head of the pin, attach it to the wire stem and then sharpen the end.

Baking - likewise, highly skilled. Ditto farming.

The fact that you don't realise this just proves my point, you lack the skills and therefore do not appreciate the value of the craft, you assume those jobs are easy and your job is harder because you have a profession.

Smith was wrong, and as Marx was essentially responding to Smith he was wrong also.

This is a basic problem today - lack of useful skills.

If someone tries to tell me a profession is the same as a craft I might scream - or just declare you all beyond redemption.

[rvg]

Most coins were made out of copper, tin, silver and gold. At worst, coins were copper or tin washed in silver.
Copper was by far the most popular method for coinage.


I suggest you look up monetary policy in post-Anglo Saxon England or during the latter Roman Empire.
There's more to the world than just England and Roman Empire.


The further your actual value is from the face value, the weaker your treasury is - because it can't afford to hold the necessary metal for striking coins.
Like I said, only the buying power is what matters. The Chinese used paper money loooooong before the modern age and without any trouble.



I was thinking more of the three TV's and two XBoxes many "poor" families have - that's "junk".
This is rather subjective. One man's trash is another man's treasure.



Um, yes, but the XBox is just a very expensive toy, and one that just doesn't last.
Thankfully the new one is just a store away.

[HoreTore]

Actually - it was pin making and that is highly skilled when you are doing it by hand. I'd like to see you make the head of the pin, attach it to the wire stem and then sharpen the end.

Baking - likewise, highly skilled. Ditto farming.

The fact that you don't realise this just proves my point, you lack the skills and therefore do not appreciate the value of the craft, you assume those jobs are easy and your job is harder because you have a profession.

Smith was wrong, and as Marx was essentially responding to Smith he was wrong also.

This is a basic problem today - lack of useful skills.

If someone tries to tell me a profession is the same as a craft I might scream - or just declare you all beyond redemption.

This all has zero relevance to the simple fact that wealth is created through labour worked on the products of the land.

You seem to be barking at the moon right now - not arguing against anyone. Well, not me at least.

By the way:

Adam Smith wasn't the one who removed the quality of labour and replaced it with quantity - that dubious honour goes to David Ricardo. Personally though, I find the technologically drien theories of Erik Reinert, Carlota Perez, etc, much more meaningful.

[Ironside]

Meaningful how?

Well, consider the money.

What is a modern penny made of? Steel washed in copper-nickle when 20 years ago they were copper alloy. The most expensive modern coins are made out of various nickle alloys, not gold.


That's intentional. The thing is if the metal price gets above the coin value, those coins will magically "disappear" and some new precious metal traders will appear. 1 SEK coin from 1967 is worth 20 SEK today because of the silver content. That's about 2,5 times more than the inflation btw.

Precious metal content of the coins always seems to go down with time, increasing inflation. Finding a new vast amount of gold and silver caused inflation (the Spanish painfully learned that). Lacking those precious metals created heavy copper coins (up to 19,7 kg) instead. Interestingly, that caused the European development of the paper money.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Copper was by far the most popular method for coinage.

Copper is a high-value metal.


There's more to the world than just England and Roman Empire.

There was Europe - China and Asia at the time. Read up on it - instead of being glib. English coinage in the 1100's was a really problem for Henry I in a European context.


Like I said, only the buying power is what matters. The Chinese used paper money loooooong before the modern age and without any trouble.

China was a Monolithic Command-State - the value of money was set by the Emperor


This is rather subjective. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

Thankfully the new one is just a store away.

And here - the problem.


This all has zero relevance to the simple fact that wealth is created through labour worked on the products of the land.

You seem to be barking at the moon right now - not arguing against anyone. Well, not me at least.

By the way:

[quote[Adam Smith wasn't the one who removed the quality of labour and replaced it with quantity - that dubious honour goes to David Ricardo. Personally though, I find the technologically drien theories of Erik Reinert, Carlota Perez, etc, much more meaningful.

I didn't was he was DID I?

No - I said his Capitalist theories were wrong because they were predicated on an Artisanal economy.

[HoreTore]

I have zero idea what you're on about right now.

[rvg]

I have zero idea what you're on about right now.

I second that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have zero idea what you're on about right now.

I'm attacking Received Wisdom on Capitalism and orthodox Marxism - what's not to get?

[HoreTore]

I'm attacking Received Wisdom on Capitalism and orthodox Marxism - what's not to get?

This is like the time I cracked a joke abut muslims going whacko because of pictures(while christians don't), and you stormed in screaming about how I was parroting 3rd century anti-christian propaganda...(or something)

Sometimes, we talk in different languages.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Quisque barbarus est alio

Edit: See below.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Actually Tiaexz the translation is literally: Each is a Barbarian to another. A small difference but an important one.

On topic: the value of money is entirely arbitrary - if you artificially attach it to the value of something else, ie: gold, the value of which is entirely arbitrary, it does not make a difference.

Value is caused by demand: it is entirely subjective. All that 'fixing' value does is persuade society writ large that that value is underwritten, in some quantity of another item which has no fixed value...

Economic theory is fundamentally confusing and counterintuitive - people generally don't question it until the theory fails though...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Quisque barbarus est alio

Everyone else is a barbarian

Oh Come on I get an edit but Strike's swearing doesn't?

My thanks to Curio, but in fact the original meaning is, "Everyone is a Barbarian to Someone" which is actually about respecting other people's perspectives and not just dismissing them as hairy apes.

[Beskar]

It was a simple edit, so others could enjoy the statement. The problem with other languages including Latin is that not that many understand it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It was a simple edit, so others could enjoy the statement. The problem with other languages including Latin is that not that many understand it.

If you wanted the translation it would have been better if you had simply asked - as it is you got it wrong twice.

The only correct translation is "Everyone is a Barbarian to Someone" because it was English rendered into Latin, not vice versa. It was originated by the EB team, specifically one of our Linguists.

[rvg]

Yeah, google translate failed this one.

[Beskar]

Yeah, google translate failed this one.

:laugh4: Cat is out of the bag.