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

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

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

One of the worst nutters goes into retirement.


This is a happy day for the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

Ron Paul will be missed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

i.e. gold has value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You're confusing Libertarianism with Anarchism.

---

Which is the logical extreme of libertarianism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Which is the logical extreme of libertarianism.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

itt communist economic education

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

actually it isn't...

---

And the reason for that is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

That has yet to happen...

---

lol, what?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

lol, what?

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

---

Its fluctuation has yet to bring down an economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Its fluctuation has yet to bring down an economy.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

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

---

That's hardly a universal view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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

---

A fact? Highly debatable at best.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

---

Is that the Law of Preservation of Wealth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

---

Quoting? Hardly. Mocking, mostly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

... - 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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Quoting? Hardly. Mocking, mostly.

---

Thanks for clearing that up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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....

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Meaningful how?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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 (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 (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)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.