forum is a cookie monster for my posts
a) I didn't realize there were people in this forum (including trolls such as you) who actually believed democracy was a good thing.
What we need is more of it, and better informed citizens, with politics decentralized down to the local level and strong grassroots activism. Without that, this is what happens. But that's for another thread.
b) I have no idea who David Theil is.
Sorry, Peter Theil. I think.
Prove it.
Okay, he's careful not to explicitly support any tariffs. But he does seem to hail China despite it being far more protectionist than we are.
Why? Why is this even relevant? What do libertarians have anything to do with anything we were discussing? Do you have a mental handicap we should be made aware of?
Someone's jimmies are ruffled. I was just curious if you could find any.
Clayton:
Seriously, that's what I want you to explain to me. Because Carlin doesn't mince words, so it's pretty damn clear what he's saying ... please explain to me where I'm not "getting it."
He's pissed that the businessmen own, as he says, everything- which means he might just think workers should take back ownership rather than "respect" these businesses' private property. And you seem to be willing to consider that, too.
*shrug - he thinks minimum wage helps poor people and I think he's just factually incorrect on that.
When it's fallen as low as it is, that may be untrue.
But they own and operate the government which administers the taxes and regulations. How can you miss this??
Doesn't mean we can't do as much as we can to muck up the system in a way that hurts the elites. Taxing them is one way. But priority number one is seizing the elite's property and wealth, and ultimately replacing the state in a way that prevents the elite from accumulating wealth again.
*shrug - I'm not strongly for or against any of the measures you've mentioned. I think we should look at why jobs are moving overseas rather than simply advocating for more post-hoc interventions.
We can, and it has to do with wage competition. When companies can relocate anywhere, Americans have to accept lower wages to compete with the rest of the world.
Libertarian celebrities!?!?!
Alan Moore is an anarchist.
>Drew Carey
Heh.
>Vince Vaughn
Cool guy.
>Alan Moore
Disagree on this one. Anticapitalists could just easily (actually, more easily) claim him.
No comment on libertarian Clint Eastwood, troll19? What's that, your theory is stupid? Hey, I actually agree with you on that! Maybe you're finally making some progress.
mustang19:What we need is more [democracy]
And there it is.
Guhnight everehbodeh!
That's it? That's your proof that "On trade and manufacturing Peter Schiff is further left than any officeholding Democrat"? "He doesn't explicitly support any tarriffs" and he "does seem to hail China" [whatever that means].
Well I must say, I'm convinced. How about the rest of you guys?
I don't know what "jimmies" are. And why do you care if I could find any? I thought you were concerned about trolling. Oh wait...I get it.
He's a cool dude. A lot of them are. But there aren't any women in there- that's racist.
Hey, I make stuff up a lot.
Seriously, though, I should have contemplated for two seconds and not have said that. I had assumed his vehement hatred of the US trade deficit would actually involve him suggesting restricting imports.
mustang19:>Vince Vaughn Cool guy.
Again, I'm confused. You're saying Vince Vaughn is a leftist? Could you please tell us how you define "leftist"? Maybe that would help clear things up.
Oh, crap. I see what you're doing. Sneaky sneaky!
So good job. There are cool libertarians out there. Just no women. And you're not going to bring up Rand again. Are there even five women registered on this entire website? What's the deal with that?
mustang19:Oh, crap. I see what you're doing. Sneaky sneaky!
You literally said "all the cool people in the world are leftists", I provide you some examples that refute that, and you come back and say that multiple people whom virtually no one would characterize as "leftist" are cool, and I simply admit that I'm confused by this and ask you to clarify how you define that term...and I'm sneaky?
Do you honestly not know why you're banned from forums? Or is that your goal when you participate in them?
And you're not going to bring up Rand again.
Huh? Where did I do that? The only time I ever mentioned her to you was when I was calling out your apparent obsession...Which, evidently is rearing its ugly head again, as now you're not just mischaracterizing a philosophy to project her into the discussion, you're actually pretending someone else brought her up.
Which I guess is fitting, as in your post just before this one,
mustang19:Hey, I make stuff up a lot.
Lauren Lyster, host of Capital Account. You can't even troll right. You're hardly worthy of your own name 'troll19'.
haaa you're funny
Lauren Lyster Inadvertently Blows Massive Hole In Peter Schiff's Senseless Money Supply Argument
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O-g6FIkbAo
Are you serious? Did you even watch the interview? Or did you just look at the title and assume you found a gold nugget?
I had seen that interview back when it aired but I would never have recognized the name "Lauren Lyster", so I'm not arguing either way if she's a good example or not, but there's a good possiblity she is if she was the guest on The Lew Rockwell Show this week...
Schiff's response to the possibility that the poor harvests the past few years have something to do with food prices is "oh, droughts happen all the time". Great job.
Hmm... how would Donald/Deirdre McCloskey count in this?
And since dead people seem to count:
Enemy of J. Edgar Hoover and Thurgood Marshall.
And with dead people, we also get the threefer of Rand, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson. And there's the very strong argument for Voltairine de Cleyre.
mustang19:Schiff's response to the possibility that the poor harvests the past few years have something to do with food prices is "oh, droughts happen all the time". Great job.
Are you saying they don't? Obviously they affect supply which would usually affect prices...his point is there isn't any reason it should affect them now any more than any other random 5 or 10 year period in modern history. So obviously there are other factors involved.
Do you really deny this? I'm having a harder and harder time giving you the benefit of the doubt. I mean, you say you're trolling, but I'm starting to wonder if that's not just a cover to save face for your obtuseness.
Are you saying they don't? Obviously they affect supply which would usually affect prices...his point is there isn't any reason it should affect them now any more than any other random 5 or 10 year period in modern history.
Increase in droughts is one reason, as you seem to not want to directly contest. And interest rates have become a lot less important.
Now don't be a retard and say "You're claiming that interest rates have no effect!".
Heh, I noticed that you've required authorization for me starting new threads. Keep losing and you might just have to ban me.
mustang19:Increase in droughts is one reason
Please point to the part in that article that shows where there has been any more droughts in the last 5 or 10 years than any other such period.
And interest rates have become a lot less important.
You claim that interest rates "have become a lot less important" (whatever that means), and your support for that is a link to a 33 page paper that uses econometrics to assess the link between commodity prices and the CPI?
Please quote the portion that supports your statement.
What does that paper have to do with your allegation that I would say such a thing?
?
Not just droughts, but various adverse weather conditions associated with global warming.
East Africa.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110128113426.htm
ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2011) — The increased frequency of drought observed in eastern Africa over the last 20 years is likely to continue as long as global temperatures continue to rise, according to new research published in Climate Dynamics.
Asia.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-2-3.html
New evidences on recent trends, particularly on the increasing tendency in the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events in Asia over the last century and into the 21st century, are briefly discussed below and summarised in Table 10.3. In South-East Asia, extreme weather events associated with El-Niño were reported to be more frequent and intense in the past 20 years (Trenberth and Hoar, 1997; Aldhous, 2004).
Latin America.
http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/ipcc-on-latin-america-land-drought-and-coastlines-floodings-are-on-the-menu.html
Though most of the forecasts are in conditional tense, many of the problems announced -or at least similar forms of them- are already going on: in the past years the continent has already experimented massive rains in Venezuela, flooding in Argentina, droughts in the Amazon, hail storms in Bolivia and a record season of cyclones in the Caribbean, a Nicaraguan website informs. A Peruvian one quotes the United Nations Program for Environment (PNUMA) and states that Chacaltaya glacier in Bolivia has split and scientists confirm it will disappear in seven or eight years, and that glaciers such as Yanamarey in Peru, Cordillera Blanca and Santa Rosa, and the snowed-volcano in Santa Isabel, Colombia, are disappearing too.
The paper finds virtually no relation between inflation and commodities in the latest data sets. If that doesn't convince you that monetary policy has weak effects on commodities, well, we can disagree.
Hopefully, nothing.
mustang19:Not just droughts, but various adverse weather conditions associated with global warming.
a) All those links were included in the SeekingAlpha article? I asked for the part of the article that actually supported your point. (You know, considering you allegedly linked to it to support your statement.)
b) Global warming? So now that you need "warming" to make your case, we're switching back from "climate change"?
c) The IPCC...and treehugger.com? Seriously?
...because massive rains, flooding, droughts, hail storm, cyclones, and climate changes never occured in the past.
The paper finds virtually no relation between inflation and commodities in the latest data sets.
What does that have to do with money supply? I thought you and these authors defined "inflation" as a general rise in prices?
If that doesn't convince you that monetary policy has weak effects on commodities, you're free to accept whatever your own beliefs are without evidence.
What evidence? You've presented links to random papers that have almost no relevance to your claims, and articles that are either from discredited sources or don't support your statements at all.
Once again I can't be sure if this is just your way of trolling, like you think it's a way to waste my time, or if it's another tactic to mask your ignorance by just doing a Gish gallop of random sources to make it look like you actually know something and have a ton of documented support. Kind of like this idiot.
Then why did you hyperlink to it while making your allegation?
The part where it went into how weather was a "huge" factor, in its own words, and listed the various climate events.
b) Global warming? So now that you need "warming" to make your case, we're switching back from "climate change"? c) The IPCC...and treehugger.com? Seriously?
Hey, ignore empirical evidence. If you want to know whether climate events are increasing, there's the sources I gave. If you think the IPCC is a conspiracy full of Jew lies, well, great.
The point is the increase.
Yes, which tends to happen when you print money.
At all? Sure. Okay. Moving on.
Because it was a convenient way to show that commodity prices fell after positive (inflationary) monetary shock announcements like QE.
While we're on this, I don't mean to advocate QE. It might have been great for the US but it trashed a lot of emerging economies. I was just amused by Schiff's way of dismissing worsening harvest conditions as "oh, droughts happen all the time."
mustang19:The part where it went into how weather was a "huge" factor, in its own words, and listed the various climate events.
And? I don't think I ever heard anyone make the claim that "climate events" don't happen.
Not necessarily Jews, but plenty of bureaucrats and lobbiests for sure. Do you even know who most of those people are? Plenty of chapters of the IPCC don't include a single scientist.
And apparently your defintion of "empirical evidence" is different than mine. See I don't consider "'speculation' lifted from a popular magazine", "climbers' anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine", and weather data from monitoring stations that don't even exist, to be "empirical evidence."
Evidently, you and the IPCC do. (Indeed, it's included in their papers as part of the basis for their assertions.)
Where is the mention of the increase? All I saw was reports of "climate events".
Oh does it? Then why do people like you allege we haven't seen such a thing?
mustang19:What evidence? You've presented links to random papers that have almost no relevance to your claims, and articles that are either from discredited sources or don't support your statements at all.At all? Sure. Okay. Moving on.
lol. Can't actually provide real support for your actual claims can you.
I'm actually a little surprised you thought just linking to a bunch of random stuff would fool anyone here, but then again, like I've said, I'm beginning to realize I probably mistook what is quite possibly sheer ignorance and ineptitude for actual trolling the whole time you've been here.
...didn't you just tell me that all prices tend to rise when you increase the money supply? Which is it?
If you didn't read the page or the "Key trend" columns, I can't help you.
Did I allege that we haven't seen increases in inflation due to QE? Nope. Just that there are other factors which could have played an even larger part in commodities.
Not "all". I don't how much affect QE had on commidities, but other factors were at least as important.
[split from Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com]
JJ, what's incredibly obvious is that my position has been refined as I did more research. What's also incredibly obvious is that while people like Marko and Graham were able to understand this (even if they were swayed by Clayton instead), you cannot see this. Some of my earlier statements are inaccurate, but that doesn't matter. What matters are the refined statements from my increased understanding.
So, what you do is hone in on older, incorrect statements instead of reading my updated arguments. I don't know if you do this because you don't see that my arguments have changed slightly, or if you do this because you are determined to be correct without understanding what others are actually saying.
What you could do is actually restate, in your own words, what my arguments were in that post I linked to. You have yet to actually demonstrate that you even read that post.
gotlucky:what's incredibly obvious is that my position has been refined as I did more research.
lol is that what that is. You mean you realized you didn't know what you were talking about, and that your claims didn't actually agree with the posititon you were taking so you finally realized you needed to shift away and stop spouting them and instead start spouting new things that contradict the things you were orginially saying.
I have to assume this is also why you have been so apprehensive to actually address anything I've actually said, out of fear you might say something else that disagrees with your position (that you are evidently so intellectually shaky on), so instead you just elect to use an easy analogy to explain DNS, and then assert that it debunks everything/ or even anything I or Stephan Kinsella has said.
And then anytime I specifically ask you to actually demonstrate or even just point out what specifically I or Kinsella have said that is incorrect, you just resort back to a simple "hey it's all here in the thread man. Anyone can read it."
It's quite obvious it is you who has little understanding and/or a severely lacking grasp of the concepts being discussed here, so you've simply (and wisely) decided to stop putting your foot in your mouth and resorted simply playing the role of sidekick troll. (While projecting your own lack of understanding of the situation onto me, of course.)
I honestly wouldn't even be surprised if you ran off to Clayton or your old lady lykos in private to get some much needed moral support for your bruised ego. "Hey Auto, have you been in the forum lately? JJ's at it again. Have a look at this thread. Man is he wrong or what?!" "Hey Clayton, what do you think JJ's problem is? Is he just crazy or dumb?"
[translation: "Please help me feel better. Tell me I'm right, or at least that my opponent is wrong and stupid. I need to hear it right now."]
I hope they were able to give you the comfort you needed, Lucky, I really do.
Some of my earlier statements are inaccurate, but that doesn't matter.
Oh of course not.
So, what you do is hone in on older, incorrect statements instead of reading my updated arguments.
How the hell was I supposed to know you all of a sudden became an Internet expert in page and a half of thread posts? You make it sound like I went and dug up some obscure pamphlet you authored 35 years ago and used it claim you were a neocon. This was probably less than half a dozen posts of yours ago. In fact you were still defending your ownship of roads crap on the very second post of this page (right before you wised up and started to say less and switched to responding with simple "lol"s). It's not exactly unfathomable that you would un-realizingly contradict yourself. I mean, you did put forth some pretty ridiculous claims in the first place...is it so out of the question that someone who came up with that parade analogy would say something that conflicted with something else he said, without realizing it? Gotta play the odds here.
gotlucky:What you could do is actually restate, in your own words, what my arguments were in that post I linked to. You have yet to actually demonstrate that you even read that post.
I could say virtually the exact same thing to you. You have done nothing to demonstrate what it is I have said that is wrong, you have done nothing to refute virtually anything I've said. All you've done is make assertions and then claim "the proof is in the thread, man. Anyone can read it."
tl;dr:
Again, if you could actually demonstrate what is wrong about anything I've said, you would have happily done so already. But obviously you can't, so you haven't. But you can't leave it at that either, and simply bow out once you recognized you didn't know what you were talking about. That would be "letting the other guy win...get the best of you". Can't let that happen. Then the bully wins! Can't show any weakness!" It may be wise to find a new friend. I think your current one is rubbing off on you.
So instead of restating what I said in this post, you decided to do everything but that. It's fascinating, because I really think you would expend less energy doing that then trying to dodge the issue.
gotlucky:So instead of restating what I said in this post, you decided to do everything but that. It's fascinating, because I really think you would expend less energy doing that then trying to dodge the issue.
Nice projection! All I've ever asked is for you to actually back up your assertions and demonstrate what I have wrong, yet "instead of doing that", you decide to keep dancing around and pretend there is some onus on me to explain your own posts to you. Gee, I wonder why.
Yet you still refuse to restate my argument.
And you still refuse to back up your bare assertions and demonstrate what I have wrong. Gee, I wonder why.
There's no need when you have yet to actually attempt to refute my argument.
And Clayton was referring to this list that you apparently didn't read. Even ICANN doesn't control all the current offical root servers.
gotlucky:There's no need when you have yet to actually attempt to refute my argument.
Wha? You have essentially asserted that there is something I don't understand about the Internet, or that I have gotten something wrong. All I asked was a specific explication of what that is. And you can't give it. If I'm so wrong, tell us all why.
Oh wait. Lemme guess. "It's all here in the thread, man. Anyone can read it."
Nope, just this one post I keep referring you to. Anybody can read the thread and see that you have yet to actually restate what I said there. Twice I said I would not engage you further on this conversation, but I'm willing to do that if you can restate what I said so that I know that you even read that post. That you keep not doing that signals to me that you haven't read it nor that you care to. And I don't care to keep typing out the same thing over and over again, so I will just keep pointing you there until you restate it.
The ball is in your court.
lol. So you claim I'm wrong about some unnamed point, that I don't understand the Internet...I ask what it is I allegedly got wrong, and the ball is somehow in my court.
Perhaps a course in logic? I'm pretty sure the onus is on you to actually support your assertions. But of course it's painfully obvious by now that you won't. Because you obviously can't. Because you made it up. You (admittedly) didn't know what you were talking about, and tried to tell me that it was I who was confused.
So now to try and save face you're going to pretend as if there is some onus on me, and that way when I don't dance for you, it means you "win". Perhaps lykos should have been taking lessons from you.
You are cute. Since the link to my post is only two posts up, I'll wait a bit before reposting it. You let me know when you are ready to debate.