Political and economic history

[zabu of nΩd]

Only time for one reply tonight, and i pick this one:

Eh, I just "get" the bigger picture is why I said that. In the grand scheme of things, money is meaningless and pointless. Just like governments are meaningless and pointless. If there was neither of each the world would be a much better and safer place.

Do you really, honestly believe governments are pointless? I think we need laws and the enforcement of them to keep society working (especially as complex and easily gamed for profit as society is today), and i'm not convinced that there exists a realistic way to privatize the work of upholding the rule of law. Unless maybe it were done through the creation of a mixed private/public institution such as the Fed or Fannie Mae, but i don't really understand such entities well enough to know their pros/cons.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

P.S. just came across this on wikipedia -- holy shit, haha

As of July 1997, the debt of the major GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] stood at:

Organization | Debt ($ in billions)

Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) | 348.6
Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks) | 291.9
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) | 161.5
Farm Credit System (FCS) Farm Credit Banks (FCBanks) | 61.9
Student Loan Marketing Association (Sallie Mae) | 45.5
Resolution Funding Corporation (REFCORP) | 30.0
Financing Corporation (FICO) | 8.2
Farm Credit System (FCS) Financial Assistance Corporation (FAC) | 1.3
Total debt | 948.8

I wonder what those numbers are at today. Especially for Sallie Mae

 

[Der Morgenstern]

Oil prices have to stay at $70-80 to support the petrodollar/oil economies from what I understand. I read the full explanation somewhere, but I can't remeber for the life of me where. Something to look into.

The backing of the dollar shift from a pseudo-gold standard to petro roughly at the same time the Dept of Energy was formed to "get us off foreign oil". Guess what didn't happen.

Money does not need to be abolished, fiat currency does, as well as the violent monopoly entertwined with it.

Edit: @ Vimana Not all, but most.

The ideal oil price per barrel is also highly dependent on th the type of crude being extracted. Heavy oil vs. light oil, etc all have different COGS.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Just checked the balance sheets of the publicly traded GSEs on Google Finance, and here's where the debt stands now (i added equity for comparison):

Organization | Debt ($ in billions) | Equity ($ in billions)

Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) | 3222 | -8
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) | 2163 | -6
Student Loan Marketing Association (Sallie Mae) | 189 | 5

Out of control.

 

[Einherjar86]

I have decided that i want to study these topics in my free time. Anyone here who studied either in school should explain some of it and send linx to boox plz.

If you're planning on having time to read, perhaps you'd be interested in listening to a fairly good interview with Noam Chomsky.

Chomsky is very anti-statist to the point of anarchism, but has some interesting ideas that stand in contrast to the typical anarcho-capitalist perspective:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkaO12X-h1Y&feature=related[/ame]

Chomsky, of course, has dozens of books that warrant attention if you're interested in politics and economics; Hegemony or Survival, Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order, and of course Manufacturing Consent: the Political Economy of the Mass Media.

 

[SkeletonWitch]

I'm surprised how no one mentioned John Maynard Keynes when it comes to must-read material regarding this subject, particularly his views on inflation. The same applies to Milton Friedman.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

True. From what I know, Friedman's ideas were a hell of a lot more sensible that Keynes.

 

[King Richard]

Only time for one reply tonight, and i pick this one:



Do you really, honestly believe governments are pointless? I think we need laws and the enforcement of them to keep society working (especially as complex and easily gamed for profit as society is today), and i'm not convinced that there exists a realistic way to privatize the work of upholding the rule of law. Unless maybe it were done through the creation of a mixed private/public institution such as the Fed or Fannie Mae, but i don't really understand such entities well enough to know their pros/cons.

How can you really, honestly believe governments aren't pointless? They're the true root of all evil in this world, aside from money.

The bottom line is this; governments are inherently oppressive and do stupid evil shit for silly reasons. Hell, in America, a country with the slogan "Land of the free and home of the brave," we can't even grow or smoke a plant that is naturally occuring in the world without being locked up in a cage like a fucking animal because our ignorant oppressive government says we can't. Who the fuck are they to say I can't do what I want? What about war? Who invented war? If you look back throughout history, all of the great conquerers have been governments or "nations," not "a people." Most people are worried about making ends meet and providing for their family on a daily basis, government isn't. Government is responsible for the murdering of millions of innocent people, government is responsible for the oppression of people in the Middle East (hence the Arab spring), governmentS are responsible for the GLOBAL economic crisis, not people. If we had no government, do you think we'd be bombing the fuck out of people in the Middle East? NO! We'd mind our own business and they'd mind theirs and none of this shit would have ever escalated to the point it is now. But because our government decided it wanted to be the next badass conquering nation, it's been over their meddling in shit it shouldn't have and then 9/11 comes and shit hits the fan.

People have good moral compasses. People understand the difference between right and wrong. People know you shouldn't lie, cheat, and steal, yet that's all the government does on a daily basis and people seem willing to support them to do so based on a socially engineered sense of "pride" in their country, but in reality they had no choice in the country they were born in.

I think if people were left to fend for themselves as a collective without the silly rules of a government entity pressing down on us we would live a much happier and peaceful life.

 

[King Richard]

Prices on a free market aren't arbitrary. You need to do some more reading. In regards to the economics stuff and then wars I think you are kind of combining apples and oranges.


Peaceful transactions/interactions between free peoples is not the enemy.

@ Vimana : Re Economic problems/selfishness.

How are prices not arbitrary? Is there a Jesus in the sky who sets pricing for all goods and services in the world? No, they're set to whatever price a person wants them to be at. The "market" is generally around the same price range for competition sake but that's it. It's not so both companies make the same amount of money, otherwise all gasoline would cost the same, all donuts would cost the same, all blowjobs would cost the same.

Besides, people disassociate the "free market" with "people" far too often. There is no such thing as a free market, that's just the collective of people who run things. There would be no free market without people, just like there would be no business without people. Ultimately it's people who set all of this shit up.

Take for instance the DOW experiencing 800 point swings within a two day period. Or crude oil prices jumping from record lows to record highs in a 10 year period. If you don't think that's arbitrary pricing then either you're crazy or I'm retarded.

 

[Dak]

How are prices not arbitrary? Is there a Jesus in the sky who sets pricing for all goods and services in the world? No, they're set to whatever price a person wants them to be at. The "market" is generally around the same price range for competition sake but that's it. It's not so both companies make the same amount of money, otherwise all gasoline would cost the same, all donuts would cost the same, all blowjobs would cost the same.

Besides, people disassociate the "free market" with "people" far too often. There is no such thing as a free market, that's just the collective of people who run things. There would be no free market without people, just like there would be no business without people. Ultimately it's people who set all of this shit up.

Take for instance the DOW experiencing 800 point swings within a two day period. Or crude oil prices jumping from record lows to record highs in a 10 year period. If you don't think that's arbitrary pricing then either you're crazy or I'm retarded.

If the current stock exchanges are the basis for your attack on voluntary transactions, you are way off base.

A seller can set whatever price he likes, but demand must accept it. If there is no demand high enough to accept the price, the price must come down until it meets the demand. Prices are mutually agreed upon. Any priced out of demand range is irrelevant, whether it's a dollar out or a million dollars out. You need to read more on this subject.

Also, since we operate in an economy denominated in paper currency tied to nothing substantial, prices on non-tech goods have nowhere to go but up. As more money is printed, the value of the monetary units are decreased. The dollar has lost 95% of it's value since 1913.

Some people dismiss this by saying that "real incomes have risen and necessities cost less". Only in America, and only temporarily. As we have seen, the affects of inflation always lag behind the actual printing. I have seen claims that "food costs are outpacing the rate of inflation". THat's a facepalm worthy statement. Rising prices due to money printing is inflation, regardless of whatever the central bank thinks the results of their actions *should* be.

Excluding the top ten percent, real incomes have been stagnate or falling for years. This is the lagging result of inflationary, fractional reserve central banking policy.

I'm surprised how no one mentioned John Maynard Keynes when it comes to must-read material regarding this subject, particularly his views on inflation. The same applies to Milton Friedman.

Following Friedman and Neo-Keynesianism got us where we are today. Both views require a violent monopoly of ther currency/centralo bank for management. Both views are flawed in their very foundation.

The ideal oil price per barrel is also highly dependent on th the type of crude being extracted. Heavy oil vs. light oil, etc all have different COGS.

The major oil producing countries are heavily dependent on oil exports for the majority of their national income, therefore production costs hold much less significance since government is involved. The only "ideal" price for anything is what a buyer and seller can agree to without coercion in the picture.

 

[Dak]

If you're planning on having time to read, perhaps you'd be interested in listening to a fairly good interview with Noam Chomsky.

Chomsky is very anti-statist to the point of anarchism, but has some interesting ideas that stand in contrast to the typical anarcho-capitalist perspective:

Chomsky, of course, has dozens of books that warrant attention if you're interested in politics and economics; Hegemony or Survival, Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order, and of course Manufacturing Consent: the Political Economy of the Mass Media.

While I like a lot of charges Noam makes, he loses complete track of his logic when turning to any form of socialism, which is inherently statist. Rothbard was extremely critical of anarcho-syndicalism, which would find itself in the same economic and provisional perils communism found itself in, due to the disrespect of the individual and private property, as well as no logical price mechanisms.

 

[King Richard]

If the current stock exchanges are the basis for your attack on voluntary transactions, you are way off base.

A seller can set whatever price he likes, but demand must accept it. If there is no demand high enough to accept the price, the price must come down until it meets the demand. Prices are mutually agreed upon. Any priced out of demand range is irrelevant, whether it's a dollar out or a million dollars out. You need to read more on this subject.

That can't be true, especially if we continue using oil as an example. The demand for oil is increasing every year, but yet we're paying less for a gallon of gas today than we did three or four years ago. The price of oil fluctuates each day. If what you said was true, there wouldn't be such large fluctuations in the price of oil, instead a gradual increase in price, not random spikes and dropoffs.

It's all nonsensical speculative wagering, aka bullshit.

Also, since we operate in an economy denominated in paper currency tied to nothing substantial, prices on non-tech goods have nowhere to go but up. As more money is printed, the value of the monetary units are decreased. The dollar has lost 95% of it's value since 1913.

Arbitrary.

 

[Dak]

That can't be true, especially if we continue using oil as an example. The demand for oil is increasing every year, but yet we're paying less for a gallon of gas today than we did three or four years ago. The price of oil fluctuates each day. If what you said was true, there wouldn't be such large fluctuations in the price of oil, instead a gradual increase in price, not random spikes and dropoffs.

It's all nonsensical speculative wagering, aka bullshit.

http://www.thecowl.com/world/gas-prices-drop-as-oil-prices-skyrocket-1.2732251

Demand is down right now for gas, but not for oil. Also, speculation is something else entirely.

Arbitrary.

Explain.

 

[Einherjar86]

While I like a lot of charges Noam makes, he loses complete track of his logic when turning to any form of socialism, which is inherently statist.

I always encounter this claim, and I would like to hear why you think this. Actually, before you even begin with something that profound, could you describe how you (or Rothbard, perhaps more appropriately) would define the "State"? I think this would be a good place to start.

Rothbard was extremely critical of anarcho-syndicalism, which would find itself in the same economic and provisional perils communism found itself in, due to the disrespect of the individual and private property, as well as no logical price mechanisms.

It might, but I'd like to get more into specifics rather than disregard the option entirely.

Chomsky has described anarcho-syndicalism, in a summarizing remark from a 1976 interview, as "voluntary socialism." This, in my opinion, is extremely problematic. However, in other areas he describes it more completely and even cites historical examples of anarchist-syndicalist societies that, he claims, have functioned successfully. These societies are, almost always, very few and far between, and always on a small scale.

I'd suggest that, in practice, there actually isn't much difference between Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism and Chomsky's anarcho-syndicalism; I think it's only when these societies begin to reach national- or international-sized populations that we would begin to see differences in them (as well as their flaws). Does this give us some insight as to how such societies should be organized?

 

[Dak]

I always encounter this claim, and I would like to hear why you think this. Actually, before you even begin with something that profound, could you describe how you (or Rothbard, perhaps more appropriately) would define the "State"? I think this would be a good place to start.

Rothbard's attempts at definition is:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html

Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as "taxation"; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state.

I feel that this is a servicable, but incomplete definition. The wiki entry on "coercive monopoly" gives him a mention with a more complete definition pulling from an overall picture of his work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercive_monopoly

Economist Murray Rothbard, noted for his espousal of anarcho-capitalism, argues that the state itself is a coercive monopoly as it uses "violence" to establish "a compulsory monopoly over police and military services, the provision of law, judicial decision-making, the mint and the power to create money, unused land ('the public domain'), streets and highways, rivers and coastal waters, and the means of delivering mail." He says that "a coercive monopolist tends to perform his service badly and inefficiently". In addition to moral arguments over the use of force, free market anarchists often argue that if these services were open to competition that the market could supply them at a lower price and higher quality.

It might, but I'd like to get more into specifics rather than disregard the option entirely.

Chomsky has described anarcho-syndicalism, in a summarizing remark from a 1976 interview, as "voluntary socialism." This, in my opinion, is extremely problematic. However, in other areas he describes it more completely and even cites historical examples of anarchist-syndicalist societies that, he claims, have functioned successfully. These societies are, almost always, very few and far between, and always on a small scale.

I'd suggest that, in practice, there actually isn't much difference between Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism and Chomsky's anarcho-syndicalism; I think it's only when these societies begin to reach national- or international-sized populations that we would begin to see differences in them (as well as their flaws). Does this give us some insight as to how such societies should be organized?

The difference in recognition of private property vs "socialized" property is immense. There is no incentive for long term progress outside of the basic necessities, as effort and reward are completely decoupled. At some point, in a utopic progression where violence never entered the picture to get a segment of the population to "pull their fair share of the load", social syndicalism would find itself most likely hovering at a subsistence mean. To be fair, that is still heavily desirable to any current statist system.

Something important Choamsky pointed out in that interview was that all statist regimes quickly worked together to a more or less degree to attack and stamp out any attempt at "self governance" before it could find it's legs. Of course, almost all of those regimes which did so are now gone. So in response to "anarcho-__blank__" can't work, I can readily point to all statist regimes as not having "worked" either.

 

[Vimana]

How can you really, honestly believe governments aren't pointless? They're the true root of all evil in this world, aside from money.

Governments aren't the root of all human evil, and neither is money. It's the instincts we developed for our survival and ultimately dominance. We're far more predatory, hateful, and hostile than the other great apes. There's not really any other species that needed to develop the ability to hate something it knows little about to ensure its survival. Humans that could so easily dehumanize and ultimately kill other humans that did not belong to their groups outcompeted those who couldn't.

I don't think we're entirely hopeless, though. I think humans can overcome many aspects of their instincts through certain conditioning. But that's another topic. I just wanted to clarify that it's not the governments or money that are inherently evil.

 

[Dak]

Governments aren't the root of all human evil, and neither is money. It's the instincts we developed for our survival and ultimately dominance. We're far more predatory, hateful, and hostile than the other great apes. There's not really any other species that needed to develop the ability to hate something it knows little about to ensure its survival. Humans that could so easily dehumanize and ultimately kill other humans that did not belong to their groups outcompeted those who couldn't.

I don't think we're entirely hopeless, though. I think humans can overcome many aspects of their instincts through certain conditioning. But that's another topic. I just wanted to clarify that it's not the governments or money that are inherently evil.

I think KR is referring to them being constructs, which both money and government are, and that they are inherently evil. While organization and money in themselves are not inherently evil, the way they are constructed can be (IE: Coercive, theft funded, violently monopolistic entities, or fractional reserve central bank printed paper, etc.)

 

[Vimana]

But I disagree there. I don't think the constructs are inherently evil, but the nature of the people are, and that's what makes the constructs evil. I guess it's just semantics.

 

[Dak]

Hardly. Coercion, regardless of the details of the construct, is evil. Counterfeiting is evil. Nothing semantic about it.

 

[Vimana]

I don't think coercion is necessarily evil if it's for a greater good. Well, I guess it depends on one's definition of evil.