Dear Wall Street: We're Sorry

[angelofdeath]

IM done with this thread homie.

 

damn. i was actually thinking there might now be a chance for some other people who wanted to talk about the housing collapse, etc. to have the opportunity to do so without some guy calling everyone an idiot and refusing to engage the actual debate. but given that after 'im done with this thread homie' was posted there were 38 more replies posted by the same guy.......... doesnt look like that is happening.

[Removed]

I am happy to say that I fully support Soups aggressive yet pragmatic stance. For a year or two now I have seen the slow and steady rise in what can only be called as 'Zeitgeistism'. This film and others of its ilk have fostered a generation of grossly misinformed, although possibly politically awakened, internet researched 'experts'. While it is fantastic that a younger generation (or even older, as it is hard to know for sure) is enthusiastic about political and economic issues, watching a film and doing some research based in information accessed through the internet does not qualify you as any kind of authority on either of these issues.

 

The internet, although an amazing tool to aid in research, however it does not provide any kind of quality assurance of the information it facilitates. In fact it would not be unreasonable to say that the large majority of information available online is flimsy at best. The most reputable sources of information on the internet are generally not accessible unless you have access to the academic journal articles available through subscription. If you want to assure authoritative information, then you must read peer reviewed articles. Furthermore, although it is definitely possible to self educate, the likelihood is that the breadth and depth of any subject will not fully be explored, as it is difficult to self direct your education without already having expert knowledge of the field. The impact of this could easily be that a bias towards one particular school of thinking is heavily reinforced, while the equally valid counter arguments are not fully understood, leading to an imbalanced understanding of the issues.

 

Not only is it counterproductive to be actively disseminating misinformation it is also personally problematic, particularly when the misinformation is that of a conspiratorial nature. It can easily trigger a paranoid loop in thinking, where any evidence, however tenuous, is reasonable affirmation. While any information that does not support the claim is evidence of conspiracy and is therefore also reasonable affirmation. In this situation your ability to think both critically and objectively about the theory becomes severely impaired. Surely you can speculate the potential damage to society when a huge consensus of misinformed and possibly paranoid people work towards destabilising a debatably effective, yet working (!), system like centralised banking? The problematic effects would be further compounded when attempting to replace centralised banking when other workable and tested systems are limited.

 

Soups aggressive stance is justified in that someone needs to stand up against the rising tide of shallow intellect that is evident in crossfire now. This is not intended to be insulting to anyone, just a call to arms. I am happy to read well formed arguments that do not agree with my own, as I am sure most other people are who frequent this message board. However, if any reasonable and informed argument is consistently drowned out by ten uninformed and paranoid opinions, the result will be that people who do know about these issues will not take the time to post stimulating replies. This would be a great loss.

[angelofdeath]

I am happy to say that I fully support Soups aggressive yet pragmatic stance. For a year or two now I have seen the slow and steady rise in what can only be called as 'Zeitgeistism'. This film and others of its ilk have fostered a generation of grossly misinformed, although possibly politically awakened, internet researched 'experts'. While it is fantastic that a younger generation (or even older, as it is hard to know for sure) is enthusiastic about political and economic issues, watching a film and doing some research based in information accessed through the internet does not qualify you as any kind of authority on either of these issues.

 

i've never seen zeitgeist.

i support the abolition of the federal reserve for numerous reasons based on austrian economics, free market theory, libertarianism and the free choice of people engaged human action. if it so happens that some movie might overlap with some of my believes... oh well.

i am anti offensive war, yet i support full arms bearing rights of whatever weapons a person wants. if i am anti war as are lunatic socialists who wear clown costumes to protests... tough luck i guess. the aclu defends nazi's rights to free speech... does the aclu support nazism?

 

im just trying to show ideological overlap and that one group holding the belief of another doesnt necessarily discredit them in a guilt by association manner.

 

one thing that i've always had a problem with was opponents of the FED that are opponents of the fed because it is not fully a federal institution. this has always rubbed me the wrong way. but i still welcome the alliance. the same way i welcome the alliance from the far left when they want to stand up for personal liberties.

 

i've had friends who were about as lefty as you can get, watch aaron russo's movie and essentially became full fledged anti fed as a result. am i to stone wall this person because they havent spent 8 years in school studying marxism and legal positivism in an effort to get a job working for the federal government, being a tax parasite all the while using their indoctrination to concoct support for the federal governments policies?

if given a choice between the former and the latter, i think we are better off with the former.

 

after all the experts in 1899 said we should shut down the patent office because everything had been invented. that people would never ever want to own a personal computer. in the 1400's they said the world was flat. the experts said that africans are inferior to whites and should be treated as such. they said that wall street had hit an all time irreversible plateau in 1929... one month before the stock market crashed. the housing sector is fully sustainable and housing prices would never fall. that iraq had wmd's and was tied to 9/11. that the ice age was coming in 1980.

yes. the 'experts' have such a great track record.

 

The internet, although an amazing tool to aid in research, however it does not provide any kind of quality assurance of the information it facilitates. In fact it would not be unreasonable to say that the large majority of information available online is flimsy at best. The most reputable sources of information on the internet are generally not accessible unless you have access to the academic journal articles available through subscription. If you want to assure authoritative information, then you must read peer reviewed articles. Furthermore, although it is definitely possible to self educate, the likelihood is that the breadth and depth of any subject will not fully be explored, as it is difficult to self direct your education without already having expert knowledge of the field. The impact of this could easily be that a bias towards one particular school of thinking is heavily reinforced, while the equally valid counter arguments are not fully understood, leading to an imbalanced understanding of the issues.

 

i think you are over looking something. hugely over looking something.

 

all the points soup, paul krugman and the statist apologists and economists have made about the housing collapse can be seen in the mainstream news! there is no need to even talk about 'peer reviewed academic journals' in his arm chair discussion. if we are to ban arm chair discussion in crossfire you might as well just eliminate crossfire.

 

numerous free market analysis's of the housing collapse as well as basic information, writings and material are available for free at numerous websites including 'academic journals.' im not talking about 'zeitgeistism' im talking about established, well known, tenured, published, reputable economic theoreticians.

 

its silly to me to even think that people are still trying to pull arguments like this...'must only read peer reviewed journals and stuff put out by people who know!' when in fact it was the 'peer review' economist/fed chairman/mainstream economists that were saying all along that the housing boom was sustainable, would never burst and that anyone who was talking about a bust was a doomsayer conspiracist kook. you have all been discredited. listen to the people who were right. and everyone still wants to listen to the people who were wrong on so many levels.

'yeah, lets let the people who f'ed everything up, fix it! they know what is right!'

 

if you want to talk about causes of the housing collapse... do so.

look, i talk to decyferon about historical american liberty, non aggression principles, and anti statism all the time, yet he is in the UK and self admittedly has a limited understanding of how government in america even works. but we dialog. we both enjoy it. there is no idiot name calling and stupid ass remarks.

 

Surely you can speculate the potential damage to society when a huge consensus of misinformed and possibly paranoid people work towards destabilising a debatably effective, yet working (!), system like centralised banking? The problematic effects would be further compounded when attempting to replace centralised banking when other workable and tested systems are limited.

 

the US operated just fine with out a central banking cartel for over a century.

i know all the arguments in favor of central banking, however i think it is people like yourself who refuse to hear any dissent from the status quo. you refuse to listen to any data, debate, criticism, business cycles or talk of the consequences of said policies and institutions.

 

Soups aggressive stance is justified in that someone needs to stand up against the rising tide of shallow intellect that is evident in crossfire now. This is not intended to be insulting to anyone, just a call to arms. I am happy to read well formed arguments that do not agree with my own, as I am sure most other people are who frequent this message board. However, if any reasonable and informed argument is consistently drowned out by ten uninformed and paranoid opinions, the result will be that people who do know about these issues will not take the time to post stimulating replies. This would be a great loss.

 

perhaps you should stand up for debate and education instead supporting the use of name calling and refusing to debate in the name of 'standing up against the rising tide of shallow intellect in crossfire.'

 

i dont think most of you guys were on here 5 years ago, when this section was solely composed of some form of centrists to far leftists. i was basically the only right wing/liberty oriented voice on this board aside from an old guy name Kabar who quit posting in here. for every argument that was made in support of gun rights there were 40 other people shouting it down the same manner you support. name calling. ad hominem attacks. refusing to debate because of 'shallow intellectualness'

[Zig]

I am happy to say that I fully support Soups aggressive yet pragmatic stance. For a year or two now I have seen the slow and steady rise in what can only be called as 'Zeitgeistism'. This film and others of its ilk have fostered a generation of grossly misinformed, although possibly politically awakened, internet researched 'experts'. While it is fantastic that a younger generation (or even older, as it is hard to know for sure) is enthusiastic about political and economic issues, watching a film and doing some research based in information accessed through the internet does not qualify you as any kind of authority on either of these issues.

 

The internet, although an amazing tool to aid in research, however it does not provide any kind of quality assurance of the information it facilitates. In fact it would not be unreasonable to say that the large majority of information available online is flimsy at best. The most reputable sources of information on the internet are generally not accessible unless you have access to the academic journal articles available through subscription. If you want to assure authoritative information, then you must read peer reviewed articles. Furthermore, although it is definitely possible to self educate, the likelihood is that the breadth and depth of any subject will not fully be explored, as it is difficult to self direct your education without already having expert knowledge of the field. The impact of this could easily be that a bias towards one particular school of thinking is heavily reinforced, while the equally valid counter arguments are not fully understood, leading to an imbalanced understanding of the issues.

 

Not only is it counterproductive to be actively disseminating misinformation it is also personally problematic, particularly when the misinformation is that of a conspiratorial nature. It can easily trigger a paranoid loop in thinking, where any evidence, however tenuous, is reasonable affirmation. While any information that does not support the claim is evidence of conspiracy and is therefore also reasonable affirmation. In this situation your ability to think both critically and objectively about the theory becomes severely impaired. Surely you can speculate the potential damage to society when a huge consensus of misinformed and possibly paranoid people work towards destabilising a debatably effective, yet working (!), system like centralised banking? The problematic effects would be further compounded when attempting to replace centralised banking when other workable and tested systems are limited.

 

Soups aggressive stance is justified in that someone needs to stand up against the rising tide of shallow intellect that is evident in crossfire now. This is not intended to be insulting to anyone, just a call to arms. I am happy to read well formed arguments that do not agree with my own, as I am sure most other people are who frequent this message board. However, if any reasonable and informed argument is consistently drowned out by ten uninformed and paranoid opinions, the result will be that people who do know about these issues will not take the time to post stimulating replies. This would be a great loss.

 

This argument is the one posed by anyone who disagrees with any ideas they deem are conspiratorial in nature. You call it "Zeitgeistism", yet the documentary Zeitgeist like I've stated before is not the progenitor of these ideas and concepts. There is truth to your stance that formal education holds weight over self-taught education for the reasons you've stated, yet let us keep in mind that the age of information which our generation is living through, is shining light on ideas and information that has been suppressed and shunned throughout your generation. This information was and would never have been allowed to reach the masses of people it has in our generation had it not been for the internet, and the reasons being that the many institutions you are referring to as authority have themselves censored it.

 

There is paranoia going around, this is absolutely certain. The reason being because so much information, conflicting information, and contradicting information from many different sides of many different debates, is available to anyone who is interested from many different sources. This was never the case during your generation, this is the case now for the people of the world on a global scale. That has created a deep rifting generation gap. Internet information is flimsy, but those who get their information from an internet source and do not research for themselves as to whether or not that information is accurate are at fault and only fooling themselves. One of the leading conspiracy theory information sources comes from infowars.com, prisonplanet.com, and Alex Jones who puts out information that is not mainstream and conspiratorial in nature, yet is mostly just collections of mainstream articles from relevant and credible publications around the world.

 

But to me, it is interesting how all of this information gets lumped into the conspiracy theory category by people of your generation and individuals like Soup. Here, in this thread we are talking about the economy, bailouts, and the Federal Reserve. The information discussed and sourced in this thread, the books referenced, the politicians referenced, the documentaries suggested, are not conspiracy theories. This information is factual, and can be found to be true very quickly through your own independent research, or even confirmed by the institutions you consider authoritarian over education. The problem here is that, you consider any of the ideas or concepts that are similar to the documentary Zeitgeist, to simply be conspiracy theory, and you deflect these ideas and concepts out of spite towards those who hold interest in them. Not because, you have any further education or knowledge on the matter, but simply because to you it is "internet conspiracy theory". Yet, the factual information that comes from this documentary, and the facts that stem from these concepts you label conspiracy are never discussed or even given credence.

 

There is absolutely nothing that justifies insults and aggressiveness from anyone during debate. First of all, not only is it entirely disrespectful, but it also is a poor form of communication. For you to not only claim that the ideas expressed here are conspiracy theory, and that we are paranoid, and then justify someone insulting and ridiculing another person because of the opinions they hold is ridiculous. You don't want to debate the facts of the matter, and you justify labels, insults, and derogatory behavior towards the people you disagree with. Maybe it isn't necessarily true on these forums, but I believe you are aware that this generation is thinking more along the lines of those who are in support of these ideas you label conspiracy theory because you state that there could be potential damage to society due to what you deem as a misinformed paranoid consensus. But, let us not discuss though, the ideas and concepts you shun which exhibit the damage to society that these institutions you uphold have already caused?

[Removed]

i've never seen zeitgeist.

i support the abolition of the federal reserve for numerous reasons based on austrian economics, free market theory, libertarianism and the free choice of people engaged human action. if it so happens that some movie might overlap with some of my believes... oh well.

i am anti offensive war, yet i support full arms bearing rights of whatever weapons a person wants. if i am anti war as are lunatic socialists who wear clown costumes to protests... tough luck i guess. the aclu defends nazi's rights to free speech... does the aclu support nazism?

 

im just trying to show ideological overlap and that one group holding the belief of another doesnt necessarily discredit them in a guilt by association manner.

 

one thing that i've always had a problem with was opponents of the FED that are opponents of the fed because it is not fully a federal institution. this has always rubbed me the wrong way. but i still welcome the alliance. the same way i welcome the alliance from the far left when they want to stand up for personal liberties.

 

i've had friends who were about as lefty as you can get, watch aaron russo's movie and essentially became full fledged anti fed as a result. am i to stone wall this person because they havent spent 8 years in school studying marxism and legal positivism in an effort to get a job working for the federal government, being a tax parasite all the while using their indoctrination to concoct support for the federal governments policies?

if given a choice between the former and the latter, i think we are better off with the former.

 

after all the experts in 1899 said we should shut down the patent office because everything had been invented. that people would never ever want to own a personal computer. in the 1400's they said the world was flat. the experts said that africans are inferior to whites and should be treated as such. they said that wall street had hit an all time irreversible plateau in 1929... one month before the stock market crashed. the housing sector is fully sustainable and housing prices would never fall. that iraq had wmd's and was tied to 9/11. that the ice age was coming in 1980.

yes. the 'experts' have such a great track record.

 

 

 

i think you are over looking something. hugely over looking something.

 

all the points soup, paul krugman and the statist apologists and economists have made about the housing collapse can be seen in the mainstream news! there is no need to even talk about 'peer reviewed academic journals' in his arm chair discussion. if we are to ban arm chair discussion in crossfire you might as well just eliminate crossfire.

 

numerous free market analysis's of the housing collapse as well as basic information, writings and material are available for free at numerous websites. im not talking about 'zeitgeistism' im talking about established, well known, tenured, published, reputable economic theoreticians.

 

its silly to me to even think that people are still trying to pull arguments like this...'must only read peer reviewed journals and stuff put out by people who know!' when in fact it was the 'peer review' economist/fed chairman/mainstream economists that were saying all along that the housing boom was sustainable, would never burst and that anyone who was talking about a bust was a doomsayer conspiracist kook. you have all been discredited. listen to the people who were right.

 

if you want to talk about causes of the housing collapse... do so.

look, i talk to decyferon about historical american liberty, non aggression principles, and anti statism all the time, yet he is in the UK and self admittedly has a limited understanding of how government in america even works. but we dialog. we both enjoy it. there is no idiot name calling and stupid ass remarks.

 

 

 

the US operated just fine with out a central banking cartel for over a century.

i know all the arguments in favor of central banking, however i think it is people like yourself who refuse to hear any dissent from the status quo. you refuse to listen to any data, debate, criticism, business cycles or talk of the consequences of said policies and institutions.

 

 

 

perhaps you should stand up for debate and education instead supporting the use of name calling and refusing to debate in the name of 'standing up against the rising tide of shallow intellect in crossfire.'

 

i dont think most of you guys were on here 5 years ago, when this section was solely composed of some form of centrists to far leftists. i was basically the only right wing/liberty oriented voice on this board aside from an old guy name Kabar who quit posting in here. for every argument that was made in support of gun rights there were 40 other people shouting it down the same manner you support. name calling. ad hominem attacks. refusing to debate because of 'shallow intellectualness'

 

Perhaps I could have tailored my previous post to be a little more specific. I have also been posting (occasionally) or reading before the inception of crossfire.In this time I have read a lot of your posts of the years and they are clearly informed, for this you deserve credit! You might be interested to know that I have even referred to points in your posts about ultra free market economics as well as gun ownership in actual conversations.

 

Unfortunately, my guess is that you fit the bill for a point that I was addressing previously, which is when one self educates, one tends towards an imbalanced understanding of the range of perspectives on various issues. Again this is not intended to be insulting, I am just noting my observation. Personally I don't feel I have an informed enough opinion to comment directly on this issue. Although I feel as if I have a basic enough understanding of economic concepts and arguments in order to say confidently that this recent crisis was far more complex than can be explained by simply blaming thet federal reserve.

 

My previous post was an attempt to address the issues of crossfire more generally, some of which that have been somewhat illustrated in this thread. I have no problem with arm chair discussions. My issue is what I see as uninformed and mislead arguments ringing out together like a deafening choir of fools, which then drowns out any other informed opinion. This is clear in almost every thread these days.

[lord_casek]

I am happy to say that I fully support Soups aggressive yet pragmatic stance. For a year or two now I have seen the slow and steady rise in what can only be called as 'Zeitgeistism'. This film and others of its ilk have fostered a generation of grossly misinformed, although possibly politically awakened, internet researched 'experts'. While it is fantastic that a younger generation (or even older, as it is hard to know for sure) is enthusiastic about political and economic issues, watching a film and doing some research based in information accessed through the internet does not qualify you as any kind of authority on either of these issues.

 

The internet, although an amazing tool to aid in research, however it does not provide any kind of quality assurance of the information it facilitates. In fact it would not be unreasonable to say that the large majority of information available online is flimsy at best. The most reputable sources of information on the internet are generally not accessible unless you have access to the academic journal articles available through subscription. If you want to assure authoritative information, then you must read peer reviewed articles. Furthermore, although it is definitely possible to self educate, the likelihood is that the breadth and depth of any subject will not fully be explored, as it is difficult to self direct your education without already having expert knowledge of the field. The impact of this could easily be that a bias towards one particular school of thinking is heavily reinforced, while the equally valid counter arguments are not fully understood, leading to an imbalanced understanding of the issues.

 

Not only is it counterproductive to be actively disseminating misinformation it is also personally problematic, particularly when the misinformation is that of a conspiratorial nature. It can easily trigger a paranoid loop in thinking, where any evidence, however tenuous, is reasonable affirmation. While any information that does not support the claim is evidence of conspiracy and is therefore also reasonable affirmation. In this situation your ability to think both critically and objectively about the theory becomes severely impaired. Surely you can speculate the potential damage to society when a huge consensus of misinformed and possibly paranoid people work towards destabilising a debatably effective, yet working (!), system like centralised banking? The problematic effects would be further compounded when attempting to replace centralised banking when other workable and tested systems are limited.

 

Soups aggressive stance is justified in that someone needs to stand up against the rising tide of shallow intellect that is evident in crossfire now. This is not intended to be insulting to anyone, just a call to arms. I am happy to read well formed arguments that do not agree with my own, as I am sure most other people are who frequent this message board. However, if any reasonable and informed argument is consistently drowned out by ten uninformed and paranoid opinions, the result will be that people who do know about these issues will not take the time to post stimulating replies. This would be a great loss.

 

Sorry, another non Zeitgeist fan. I've been discovering information for myself (reading whitepapers, watching C SPAN, reading the criminals books, etc. Don't really need a movie (I don't want to call it a documentary since only some of its information is good) to tell me how things are.

 

As for the internet and information, you have no idea what you speak of. I can go anywhere I'd like and find anything I'd like. I'm especially fond of whitepapers found

on the National Security Database at GWU, but also like to browse other places.

 

If I want authoritative literature, I'll look at what the ilks of Bernanke are saying....in their own words (and writings, respectively).

 

Frankie, I've said it before and I'll say it again, you sound like some sort of apologist.

[Removed]

Sorry, another non Zeitgeist fan. I've been discovering information for myself (reading whitepapers, watching C SPAN, reading the criminals books, etc. Don't really need a movie (I don't want to call it a documentary since only some of its information is good) to tell me how things are.

 

As for the internet and information, you have no idea what you speak of. I can go anywhere I'd like and find anything I'd like. I'm especially fond of whitepapers found

on the National Security Database at GWU, but also like to browse other places.

 

If I want authoritative literature, I'll look at what the ilks of Bernanke are saying....in their own words (and writings, respectively).

 

Frankie, I've said it before and I'll say it again, you sound like some sort of apologist.

 

Well that's just lovely Casek. I have no interest having a game of ping pong right now, I have better things to do with my time. I will say this though; It is clear that you read a lot, although I am yet to be convinced how much of what you read is quality information for several reasons; Your insistence on constantly talking about the NWO and other conspiratorial concepts. Your constant quoting and referring to people like Alex Jones. The barrage of links that you post whenever attempting to back up a claim, which rarely correspond with the point you try to illustrate. Christo-f called you out on this most recently, but this was not the first time or the only person to have done it. If you are to call me an apologist I will return the favour and say that you are attempting to deceive the people posting on this forum in order to appear more widely read and informed than you actually are.

[lord_casek]

Well that's just lovely Casek. I have no interest having a game of ping pong right now, I have better things to do with my time. I will say this though; It is clear that you read a lot, although I am yet to be convinced how much of what you read is quality information for several reasons; Your insistence on constantly talking about the NWO and other conspiratorial concepts. Your constant quoting and referring to people like Alex Jones. The barrage of links that you post whenever attempting to back up a claim, which rarely correspond with the point you try to illustrate. Christo-f called you out on this most recently, but this was not the first time or the only person to have done it. If you are to call me an apologist I will return the favour and say that you are attempting to deceive the people posting on this forum in order to appear more widely read and informed than you actually are.

 

 

Homeslice, the NWO is no longer "conspiracy theory". I thought everyone had figured that out by now. The people who are in that cabal openly speak about it now.

 

 

I can keep posting stuff like that all day. The leaders in their own words remarking on global governance, a new world order, etc.

 

You know why I post links so much? I post them because people don't believe that there

is a shadow government, or that Bernanke and Geithner aren't corrupt, etc. I get questioned on it day in and day out. Easiest thing to do is post the article(s)/papers/interview I got it from. I try not to post things that come from Jones, but some of it is good, verifiable info.

 

If I were attempting to deceive people you'd think I'd be a bit more shrewd than I am

here.

[Removed]

Homeslice, the NWO is no longer "conspiracy theory". I thought everyone had figured that out by now. The people who are in that cabal openly speak about it now.

 

 

I can keep posting stuff like that all day. The leaders in their own words remarking on global governance, a new world order, etc.

 

You know why I post links so much? I post them because people don't believe that there

is a shadow government, or that Bernanke and Geithner aren't corrupt, etc. I get questioned on it day in and day out. Easiest thing to do is post the article(s)/papers/interview I got it from. I try not to post things that come from Jones, but some of it is good, verifiable info.

 

If I were attempting to deceive people you'd think I'd be a bit more shrewd than I am

here.

 

See that would seem logical wouldn't it? I have actually thought that myself when reading the incongruent links that you have posted.

[lord_casek]

See that would seem logical wouldn't it? I have actually thought that myself when reading the incongruent links that you have posted.

 

 

incongruent to whom? to you? to that infamous "everybody"?

[Zig]

Homeslice, the NWO is no longer "conspiracy theory". I thought everyone had figured that out by now. The people who are in that cabal openly speak about it now.

 

 

I can keep posting stuff like that all day. The leaders in their own words remarking on global governance, a new world order, etc.

 

You know why I post links so much? I post them because people don't believe that there

is a shadow government, or that Bernanke and Geithner aren't corrupt, etc. I get questioned on it day in and day out. Easiest thing to do is post the article(s)/papers/interview I got it from. I try not to post things that come from Jones, but some of it is good, verifiable info.

 

If I were attempting to deceive people you'd think I'd be a bit more shrewd than I am

here.

 

Yea, I mean this stuff is mainstream news now and we are still dealing with people who want to call it a theory. It's amazing to me how this stuff can blatantly be right in your face but you still want to resort to attacking personalities like Alex Jones, when it has NOTHING to do with the person delivering the information but the INFORMATION itself.

 

Let's continue to attack each other personally though and avoid discussing topics, because they are not academically approved by your authority. That's going to get us places. :rolleyes:

 

here is the REAL paranoia going on today:

[Zig]

Man flies plane into IRS building after leaving 6 page diatribe explaining why:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0218102stack1.html

 

i absolutely do not condone his act of terrorism, the fact the he killed himself, and put other people are risk possibly even injuring or murdering someone. the stuff he wrote though is an interesting read and relates to this topic as well, showing you how many Americans are beginning to feel (and have been feeling) about this system, and the extremes it is pushing them towards.

[lord_casek]

Man flies plane into IRS building after leaving 6 page diatribe explaining why:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0218102stack1.html

 

i absolutely do not condone his act of terrorism, the fact the he killed himself, and put other people are risk possibly even injuring or murdering someone. the stuff he wrote though is an interesting read and relates to this topic as well, showing you how many Americans are beginning to feel (and have been feeling) about this system, and the extremes it is pushing them towards.

 

 

I agree. This is an act by a person who felt desperate, though. We can't forget that.

When people lose everything, they have nothing to lose. I think Gerald Celente says that

a lot.

[angelofdeath]

blow back.

[Zig]

interesting to note also is that, even with all of this so called increased security we have now, some disgruntled person can still simply get into a plane and fly it into a federal building pretty easily.

[lord_casek]

interesting to note also is that, even with all of this so called increased security we have now, some disgruntled person can still simply get into a plane and fly it into a federal building pretty easily.

 

 

Unfortunately, we're probably going to be seeing a lot more people who got screwed

going nuts and doing these types of things.

 

Glad no one was hurt other than the pilot today.

 

I also hope this isn't pinned on the Constitutionalists or 9/11 truthers.

[angelofdeath]

interesting to note also is that, even with all of this so called increased security we have now, some disgruntled person can still simply get into a plane and fly it into a federal building pretty easily.

 

Ban planes! Obviously you cannot trust any with a plane

[lord_casek]

Nah, first we need a law to make it illegal to fly into buildings. I think we can work around the same law that bans suicide.

 

When that doesn't work, we can start by banning private pilots from flying without a government issued video camera. When that doesn't work, we ban "aerial assault weapons".

[lord_casek]

U.S. Economy Grinds To Halt As Nation Realizes Money Just A Symbolic, Mutually Shared Illusion

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_s_economy_grinds_to_halt_as?utm_source=onion_rss_daily

[Zig]

 

Purchasing this today. It's Paul Craig Roberts new book, here is the description:

 

The US economy has disintegrated, and with it into the abyss plummet the blueprints of neoliberal economists, whose theories about "the free market" have now gone the way of medieval alchemy. No voice has been stronger, no prose more forceful, than that of Paul Craig Roberts in predicting collapse. His weekly columns in CounterPunch have won an audience of millions around the world, grateful for a trained economist who can explain lucidly how the well-being of the planet has been held hostage by the gangster elite. Now Dr. Roberts has written the shortest, sharpest outline of economics for the twenty-first century ever put between book covers. He traces the path to ruin and lays out the choices that must be made. There is the "empty world" of corporate exploitation, abetted by the vast majority of economists; or the "full world" of responsible management and distribution of our resources. Amid crisis, this is the guide you've been waiting for.

 

Paul Craig Roberts was assistant secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was associate editor of The Wall Street Journal and has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University; and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President François Mitterrand and is the co-author, with Lawrence M. Stratton, of The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice.

 

Purchase it:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Was-Lost-Worlds/dp/1849350078/ref=sr_1_2/183-2211084-4724442?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266908479&sr=1-2

[Smart]

to have the opportunity to do so without some guy calling everyone an idiot and refusing to engage the actual debate.

 

Yeah, some guy calls everyone an idiot, but mostly you, and refuses to 'engage' the actual debate when he practically disects your posts line for line and further points out how your arguments are not only 'idiotic' (your word) but fail to actually the address the points stated. Some guy pisses me off when he points out how 'everyone' talks out their ass and massages the info to suit their own agenda... like the time 'everyone' said:

 

there is an 'index' that was popularized by an austrian economist called the 'sky scraper index.' and it basically details the tallest sky scrapers are built during unsustainable booms fueled by central bank credit. the taller they are built... the more likely hood of a serious collapse.

 

OK, just up front, likelyhood is one word.

 

Next, Andrew Lawrence (who I am not sure is actually Austrian) created the skyscraper index as a bit of a joke and freely points out that while there seems to be an anecdotal relationship between the construction of US landmark skyscrapers and economic busts; He ONLY looked at the United States for his data and ONLY considered the most ostentatious examples. He further points out that he did NO study or speculation on the underlying economic trends. There was nothing scientific at all involved in his analysis. NOTHING about unsustainable booms fueled by central bank credit. It was merely pointing out that in America, historically, this seems to be the trend.

 

Some guy once said until 'everyone' quits injecting their bullshit opinions into the actual factual side of the story they are not only going to be continually called an idiot, but they also run the risk of being called a flat out liar. 'Everyone' should also look into the finer aspects of point/counterpoint because injecting previously undiscussed parameters or refusing to actually recognize truths that run against their personal beliefs isn't considered 'entirely kosher'.

[Soup]

This is smart

 

This is crossfire

[lord_casek]

this is soup:

 

lips.gif

 

this is smart

 

ass.jpg

[angelofdeath]

Next, Andrew Lawrence (who I am not sure is actually Austrian) created the skyscraper index as a bit of a joke and freely points out that while there seems to be an anecdotal relationship between the construction of US landmark skyscrapers and economic busts; He ONLY looked at the United States for his data and ONLY considered the most ostentatious examples. He further points out that he did NO study or speculation on the underlying economic trends. There was nothing scientific at all involved in his analysis. NOTHING about unsustainable booms fueled by central bank credit. It was merely pointing out that in America, historically, this seems to be the trend.

 

someone who was SMART enough to look into exactly what i was pointing out would of found of that austrian school economist mark thornton took the idea of the skyscraper index and noted that it matched perfectly with the austrian theory of the business cycle and proved that the skyscraper index is indeed valid.

 

http://mises.org/daily/3038

http://blog.mises.org/archives/010654.asp

 

audio:

https://mises.org/media/3992

https://mises.org/media/2909

 

you can remove yourself from my sack at any time

[lord_casek]

A visual look at TARP

http://www.visualeconomics.com/a-detailed-look-at-tarp/

[Zig]

oh yea, here are those new regulations Soup was praising Obama for in another thread explained in a pretty hilarious way:

 

http://tv.gawker.com/5478876/jon-stewart-sums-up-everything-that-is-wrong-with-america-in-under-four-minutes

[Soup]

Bwahaha yeah ok. So i just gotta wait for John Stewart to say what im saying and THEN you'll listen.

 

Also Mr. Stewart forgot to elaborate on how a 45 day notice before the interest rate goes up helps people and some other shit.

 

First off the banks kept shortening the number business days between payments so if you had automatic payments setup at a certain amount on a certain date every month, you were totally fucked because a.) they'd make it some random fucking number like payments every 26 days and b.) they'd up the interest rate whenever so what you pay may not be the minimum payment anymore. NOW that's fixed so they cant charge you late fees for 45 days nor can they raise the interest rate without 45 days notice.

 

The other big thing that this bill fixed was that introductory rate bullshit. Say your card gave you one month to buy whatever you wanted at 6.9% APR for the first year. After that month it was like 14% APR. in the first month you buy a bunch of shit, and the second month you buy a bunch of shit, so you're paying off a bunch of shit at the lowest monthly installment you can make. In that second month and every month after, what they'd do is put all that money you were paying towards the LOWER interest rate meaning you're going to have a bigger balance to pay off at the end of the year. That's all fixed so they have to pay off the higher interest rate first.

 

 

They also forced college students (ie: people without JOBS) to have their parents cosign on the credit card, so kids werent just racking up debt with no way to pay it off and too young to understand how it happened. I personally dont use credit cards... at all. I use loans and a checking acct. If "variable interest" doesnt scare the shit out of you, you deserve to be broke, son.

[Smart]

someone who was SMART enough to look into exactly what i was pointing out would of blah blah blah

 

Yeah, well I didn't look into anything except the guys name. Google 'sktscraper index' and you'll find it in the first sentence of the 1st abstract in the search results. I happen to be SMART enough to have been in college in 1999 and I heard about it from my Economics prof, my Finance prof AND my Foreign Finance prof. What I posted was basically rehashed from memory. I never heard about the follow up study.

 

So, in conclusion, some of us SMART enough to talk about things without doing any research. Like this myth about me being 'on your sack'. Errbody knows you eunuch-types are smooth like a Ken doll.

[Soup]

AOD, since you want to speak for the Austrian School of Economic Theory, explain this:

 

In my opinion Keynesian and Austrian economics share one major flaw: Zero consideration for real-world limitations to natural resources/Modern-day environmentalism. In other words, the sole foundation of economic theory is this: finite resources have a price, infinite ones are free. Therefor economic growth is determined by how many things were once free that you now have to pay for. There is no reason for ANY economy to keep resources such as sun, air, water, and arable land infinite and free, except the government. This is why landfills, water pollution, and air pollution even exist, because what they're polluting is less valuable than the trash its polluted with... as dictated by today's market prices.

 

While Keynesian economics artificially protects these natural resources through government intervention [artificial inflation, land preservation, basically all of politics], there isnt anything within the Austrian's entire economic theory about who it is that will be maintaining our natural environment. We would essentially be turning the planet into something individuals have to pay eat, sleep, shit and breathe... on a totally different scale than today.

 

While you can argue that the Austrian School's "Free Market" will self correct because of the high price of finite resources will make once-unprofitable "renewable" resources profitable, the reality is everything is in flux and nothing is free, infinite, or "renewable" for long.

 

So. why do you think your free market will protect you and your family better than capitalism when in the distant future a "rural" way of life will be artificial and need "artificial protecting"-- something that doesnt exist in a free market? You cant live on a wildlife reservation since they wont exist, because after all that's the federal government artificially inflating the cost of land by making land more finite than it actually is.

[angelofdeath]

While Keynesian economics artificially protects these natural resources through government intervention [artificial inflation, land preservation, basically all of politics], there isnt anything within the Austrian's entire economic theory about who it is that will be maintaining our natural environment. We would essentially be turning the planet into something individuals have to pay eat, sleep, shit and breathe... on a totally different scale than today.

 

While you can argue that the Austrian School's "Free Market" will self correct because of the high price of finite resources will make once-unprofitable "renewable" resources profitable, the reality is everything is in flux and nothing is free, infinite, or "renewable" for long.

 

So. why do you think your free market will protect you and your family better than capitalism when in the distant future a "rural" way of life will be artificial and need "artificial protecting"-- something that doesnt exist in a free market? You cant live on a wildlife reservation since they wont exist, because after all that's the federal government artificially inflating the cost of land by making land more finite than it actually is.

 

there are so many different things and examples we can talk about here.

i'll run through a few.

 

the short answer is private property rights. these are the 'protectors' of property.

 

your basic belief that the price system and private property rights are not effective in resource allocation is very untrue.

the first thing that needs to be recognized is that we dont currently have a free market/capitalism. we have a mixed economy. there are many conflicting things going on. an austrian (as in the austrian school) or libertarian doesnt really have a view on which energy form is better or worse. this is decided by consumers and entrepreneurs. i say, let 1000 flowers bloom as uncle mao said... and see what people buy. competition will determine what is best and most efficient. but at the same time, we cannot have government subsidizing various fossil fuel industries and endeavors, limiting the liability of energy producers and courts that rule that private property owners have no legal recourse to hold these companies accountable for their actions. we also cant have government going around with its price gouging laws, etc that distort the market place. prices to the market are what streets signs are to the geography. if a price is high, such as the way gas was a few years ago, we need to let the price system work and this is essentially a cry for help. a cry from the people that we need something cheaper. if gas stays high, it is a sign that cheaper more efficient energy forms will come about. if profits can be made, resources and capital flow into that industry and help to supply the consumers with what they are demanding.

 

so it is with nuclear energy. the government in the 1950's started subsidizing nuclear energy. how do we know how much it really costs? we dont. we have a price anderson act that limits the liability of these facilities. it basically says...'nuclear waste in your back yard.... sorry, tough luck... we have decided that for the common good, we need you to forget about your silly selfish private property rights and take one for the people!'

 

the thing that always puzzles me is that people just dont seem to understand basic economics theory when they make 'environmental' arguments. when the cost of something is 0, what incentive is there to keep anything clean or take care of it? sure you can make moral arguments, but why not some good old fashioned self interest? examples are everywhere. section 8 HUD housing is nothing but a total dump in any city i have seen it in. where as the privately owned houses are nice. although im not in favor of this, but it proves the point.... margaret thatcher, instead of letting the poor live in govt housing in the section 8 'renting' fashion, she gave them the housing so they owned it. and the housing was kept much better than when it was 'public.'

 

another example of how the price system would protect the environment is if garbage collection was privatized. right now, most counties, cities, etc have a socialized system of garbage collection and land fills. in another words, it doesnt matter what you put into the land fill, its the same price no matter what. so lets get deeper.

lets assume that plastic bags are harmful to the environment. so if consumers actually were responsible for the burden of disposal, they would be paying much more in a private garbage dump to dispose of them. if the cost of disposal for plastic is much greater than paper, the land fill owner will charge much more to have this fill up his land fill than if it was biodegradable paper bags. this would also create the incentive through self interest to save money by bringing boxes or your own cloth bags to the grocery store to get your groceries.

 

then there is species extinction. i cant remember the countries off hand, but in africa there is the problem of the slaughter of elephants for their ivory. one country had a totally socialized elephant herd and poachers killed all the elephants in short time. another country privatized the elephant heard and the private property owners have the incentive to keep the species alive.... and so they did. no elephants in the socialist country, mad elephants in the privatized elephant herd country.

this is why we had the extinction of the plains and eastern woodland buffalo. they were running around everywhere, the cost of killing a buffalo was nothing, so they killed them for the hides. with the tragedy of the commons, you have everyone running around trying to get more than the other guy because its free. where as, the domestic cow is booming. there is no cow extinction problem at all. because they are privately owned.

 

why do you feel a 'rural way of life' will need to be governmentally subsidized or protected? what about private property rights? do you really think everyone who enjoys a rural lifestyle would want to sell their vast acreage? if you have any experience with rural types you'll find that their 300 acres is worth more to them than anything in the world and they tend to be very protective of it. look at all the displaced communities by the hands of the government in tennessee when the govt put in all the dams. through eminent domain, we have displaced communities with no choice by the land owners whether they want to sell their land or not nor any choice in the price given. given that i have experience in this area... you can go from a privately owned farm walk across to a national forest boundary and you can see the difference, night and day. the public land is all tore up, trees cut down, trash everywhere, but the privately owned farms are pristine. who is a better steward?

 

as for pollution... murray rothbard has put forth a considerable amount of work in this area. he basically details how the trend in the early 1800's was for property owners to sue or hold liable the companies or people who were polluting private property. examples like when teh railroad first came through... the sparks were setting hay fields on fire. soon it was decided by the courts that the common good of the railroad was more important than sniveling private property rights and property owners had to suck it up and take one for the team. these were called 'nuisance' cases early on. by the progressive era that trend was that people who engaged in industry were not liable for their pollution trespassing and that the common good was served if we just put up a little bit with pollution. there was one case of a woman attempting to sue a company for emitting soot on her clothes. the court basically told her to deal with it, but made the company put the smoke stack a little higher up. private property rights are not protected like they are supposed to be. the government has failed to do its most important and only legitimate function.

 

property owners should be able to hold polluters liable for the pollution trespass. your water source gets polluted by the farm run off... that person polluting should be held liable, however they are pretty much immune from liability.

 

one thing i've always liked seeing is when you go to a city and you see big high rises all around a city block... then you see 2 little run down shack like houses. in these houses you find people that wanted to keep their house and private industry had no recourse to force these people to sell their property. you never saw this in soviet russia.

the easiest way to protect the environment if you dont like mining, industry, or ____________ is to not sell your property to the people who want to develop it, mine it, etc. i've seen it way to much. people talking about how they want to protect the environment and want to keep things the way they are, but then in the next breath they are signing contracts with developers to sell their acreage. then after they sell it, they walk around like victims and wish for the good old days when they used to hunt on their back 40. all the while the sole decision maker was themselves to sell the land and they willingly entered into the contract.

there are numerous places around the country that people are up to their necks with privately owned and controlled 'nature preserve' type communities. based on voluntarism and contracts... people each have houses that are on a certain amount of acreage and they voluntarily govern themselves with what can and cannot be done with the land. there is even common areas that are unable to be touched. all enforced by voluntarism and private property.

 

its like the pro choicers say about abortion.... dont want an abortion? dont have one. dont want land to be developed into a community? dont sell your land to them.

 

but the main thing that troubles me with the environmental crowd is that they dont put their money where their mouths are. instead of doing all this green jobs and green energy lobbying in direct contradiction to government policies already in place... why not use the market/capitalism to start buying up vast sums of acreage to protect it?!!?! if all the environmentalists did this, there would be no issue at all. there is nothing stopping them. i'll gladly go in with you, if you let me shoot on the property. why dont environmentalists do this? they'd rather have their bmw's and city houses than to put their cash wealth into a mosquito infested swamp or rattle snake infested desert. they arent really serious about protecting the environment. but they'll support a government policy of robbing citizens of wealth through taxes to buy and maintain literally worthless and undesirable cesspools like i described as long as they dont have to put up their own money.