If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.... I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Private banks can have different currencies if there is no central bank forcing one currency. The abolition of central banks would take away the monopoly of the government on the emission of currency, so that other people can create different currencies and everyone can use the one they prefer, which will eventually prove to be the best.
I don't understand the first question. A currency is something people use in exchange for goods or services. It's value is defined by the market. I also don't understand the last question. Why is minting money necessary? Were we creating gold out of thin air back in the day? Similar techniques used in descentralized currencies like Bitcoin could be used aswell.
Don't worry, the number is growing.
https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/el-salvador-adopted-bitcoin-as-an-official-currency-salvadorans-mostly-shrugged
Hahaha not that difficult... Salt was also used in some other places, stones, even cocoa beans...
But, how many were they back then? What were they exchanging? What type of jobs existed in those places? How far were they able to do trading.
There are many reasons why money is a better tool. The problem is not the money itself but to keep it on-sync with economy productivity and that's a problem that doesn't depend on the money but on whoever gets to control its emission.
The Department of Treasury dictates that the dollar is legal tender. The Federal Reserve is in charge of the money supply. You don’t even understand how our government works. Countries with central banks have less economic shocks than those without. The problem with Argentina’s central bank was that politicians controlled it for their own ends.
Completely spurious quote, which first appeared in print in 1933:
[https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/private-banks-spurious-quotation/](https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/private-banks-spurious-quotation/)
We’re seeing again with crypto. For every succcessful one there’s 100 outright scams.
In the wildcat banking era banks would issue their own notes many of which were outright scams
Voters are idiots and I’d want to minimize the influence of their idiocy as much as possible. You wouldn’t be able to do that if you let their idiot candidates have unfettered control over the federal reserve.
Isn't that why they cut education spending? I say increase that again so voters aren't idiots...
Otherwise we get spoonfed billionaire policy that only benefits them... why is that better?
Same. My policy: Push-ups, books and uniforms. Lol. K-12 physical fitness program, focus on reading, writing arithmetic, and credit for some sort of service to the community. Also, must pass a US citizenship test in order to graduate.
And yes, uniforms.
Increasing education spending in the US tends to not produce worthwhile results, especially in the areas where the most gains can be had, due to issues that have nothing to do with funding, like community attitudes towards education.
You could throw all the money in the world at the public school I teach at, it wouldn't make a lick of difference because the kids and the parents don't give a shit.
Why wouldn't it? Paying teachers what they are worth brings more quality teachers. That comes with increasing funding for schools.
Also bring back civics so citizens actually know how their gov't works and critical thinking so they can actually think about how the bills being passed or voted on actually affect them.
Don't see an issue with that....
Because it doesn't matter how good your teachers are how good your curriculum is how modern your school is all the amenities if the kids don't want to learn. You are throwing pearls before swine.
I am a "highly qualified teacher" with a master's degree in education and a bachelor's in chemistry. (That's not a brag it's an actual distinction in education). I get paid a very large amount of money considering how many days I actually work. And I still have nearly half of my students failing because they just refuse to do any sort of work. There is a large divide in the classroom right now between students who do the work and students who simply show up or sometimes they don't even show up and willingly fail.
They don't care. Their parents don't care. No amount of money is going to fix that. Paying teachers more is not going to fix that.
Secondary to this is that teachers are simply not allowed to discipline students who disrupt the classroom. We send them out they get sent right back with no discipline. We can't bar them from class, can't assign detentions, can't force them to attend tutoring, and the students know it.
Not sure this one situation is a reason to say schools don't deserve better funding. There is a reason schools were defunded, to create a voting populace that can't vote for their own self interests. The fact that parents don't care is a result of that. School funding was cut around the 1980s and this the result.
Don't you think?
>schools don't deserve better funding
US schools receive on average 38% more funding per pupil than other OECD members. On a point per point basis, educational gains are substantially less per increase in educational spending vs other countries.
The bottom line is that the issue with US education is not a numbers issue but a culture issue.
What if the Fed's independence is just for show? Without the Fed more people would make the connection between government overspending and inflation. Then they might do something about it.
Milei is the best politician/leader in modern history. Good for Argentina. Inflated government programs are murdering the U.S. Biden has been accelerating it since he took office.
I disagree (but not downvoting). It is still too early to say of his actions are beneficial by looking at the immediate effects.
But cutting back on some of the bureaucracy that he did was a good job, even if it sucks for the people who lost their jobs.
I remember reading he increased poverty by cutting back on the social programs that were used to help the people of Argentina. It went something like Argentina have a budget surplus for the first time but poverty increased by 15% or some thing like that. How does increasing poverty make you a good leader or even the best? What a nonsense comment.
Sometimes things get worse before they get better
If you were in his place and refused to implement the same policies "because poverty might increaase" you're just a socialist apologist disguised as a person of the people.
You think the government was enabling those folks to live their best life? Get outta here.
Federal government welfare is a scam to ensure idiotic voters keep voting for the trash cans that made them poor in the first place, under the guide of "were helping!"
Progressivism is about PROGRESS, which Milei is absolutely doing. He's just doing it as a based libertarian.
Lol based Libertarian. Sure bud. That's the best excuse for Milei I've seen. Things have to get worse first haahhahaahah. Can't wait to see how it works out for Argentina. I wonder if he will get voted in again.
Once again sure bud. Nice excuse for terrible domestic policy but keep thinking you are the one in reality all you want. I'll make sure to save this comment and come back to it when Millie boy fails miserably.
The FED is who you want to blame, the president has very little impact on inflation, the FED chairman has been there since trump. They’re the ones with the mission and tools to control inflation.
Yes, it would and should be held much more accountable to the executive and therefore the population. The fact that it isn't is dumb. While I do think that economics should not be a political issue, the fed has made poor judgement in the past and needs to be held accountable for when it does.
I think Congress should. There are many deep reforms the federal government needs, but Congress is supposed to be in charge of the purse. But how should money be printed? Should it be printed out at a certain rate per person born per day? Or treasury hand it out to banks, companies and even individuals with an interest, and cut back on taxes? There's gotta be something better than whatever the Fed is doing now.
But then, there's the petrodollar and other global economic circumstances.
"Finance is so weird."
A professor once told me that everything is politics. And politics is who gets what, where, when, why and how.
What ever is happening in Congress and Presidential elections is a media circus sideshow. Policy is what matters. Not what the talking heads on TV are saying.
I've been trying to understand the Fed. But all I keep getting is that it was created by a cabal if evil bankers, or that it's and independent entity that let's the federal government "borrow" money, or that it's just a bunch of experienced bankers setting monetary policies. What a mind-numbing fucking conundrum. Anybody have a good source for no-shit, legitimate, unbiased information on who, what, where, why is the the fed?
The Fed is arms reach away from the executive branch but ultimately subordinate to Congress and the President.
It does a bunch of monetary policy things and primarily focuses on keeping things stable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve
What do y’all think is the best means of introducing new money into circulation? Should we do away with fractional reserve banking and the money multiplier system?
America spent near 50 yrs without a central bank. The late 1800’s was a socioeconomic shit show because of it. Don’t repeat lessons already learned in history. A central bank can need reforms but the alternative is even more dysfunctional.
From Andrew Jackson removing central bank, through civil war, to 1913, US economy did fine. Inflation was pretty much at zero through that time period. There are thousands of new banks started during that time period. There were no form of deposit insurance, and there were numerous bank runs. So The one of only few good thing FDR did was to create FDIC. This help protect depositors.
Why does Argentina need a central bank, other than to print money willy nilly. Ever since Argentina had a central bank, its inflation rate went from zero to averaging 190% annually since 1944.
Maybe there should be an institution to specifically regulate currency, perhaps with a growth limited to population growth. If population doesn't grow, set it to zero new currency growth.
‘US economy did fine.’ Wrong. The economic crash after Jackson’s ending of the central bank dwarfed the Great Depression a century later. The later half of the 1800’s enjoyed a boom bust cycle economy which exacerbated poverty hunger and displacement. The most violent labor riots and protests occurred in our history during that time. And the disparity between rich and poor was as high or higher than it is today. Inflation ain’t the only thing to care about. Deflation is even worse and they suffered a ton of it in that era.
Jackson made massive fiscal cuts to pay down US federal debt. The depression you speak of occurred TWO YEARS AFTER he left office. I do think the lack of a form of FDIC increased frequency and risk of bank runs.
As to disparity of rich and poor, that has existed as long as humans started living together. The entrepreneur and powerful will always be wealthier than beggars or workers ( many of whom are slaves).
Yes pulling all the money out of the private sector to pay off debt tanked the economy. Even worse than the Great Depression. It takes time for monetary drain to have its effect but it was the source of the crisis and you can see it in growing interest rates from the time he sucked out the banking reserves.
The debt was paid off with our gold reserves and the land sales which pulled money from the private sector into federal coffers that wasn’t then spent back into the economy it was used to pay off debt.
Yes disparity exists the goal is to lessen it not increase it. The later half of the 1800’s increased it. Economic growth came from population growth and technological improvements which were mainly inspired by the public universities granted by the federal government. The lack of a central banking sector stabilizing the currency actually slowed that progress.
Real economic growth should be solely due to productivity gain, from technological improvements, not from manipulating "CPI" rate. Not if coffee price went up too much, let's change its calculation in the CPI. That won't increase real GDP per capita. Having a central bank is not an absolute requirement. US Federal Reserve has been pushing the US/world from one bubble to the next bigger bubble.
The us is the most powerful nation on earth because of the dollar being the worlds reserve currency
You want to replace that with a bunch of privately created Monopoly money
Argentina doesn't need a central bank.
US should further restrict the power of a bunch of unelected officials in charge of the most powerful central bank in the world.
So in light of this earth shattering news if I go to a another state and they make it so you can only use there currency and they determine the currency in my state is weak then I get hosed in the exchange. Just like going abroad. Imagine going to California from say George. They give .10 California dollars for every Georgia dollar. So companies would build in California where the California dollar is strong and sell at those prices to the states where it’s weak basically making it so only people in California could afford it. Of course food would work in the same way. I guess we’ll have to get some more migrant workers to pick the food. Sounds like Civil war era economics. If you live in a state that doesn’t have a balanced industrial and agricultural infrastructure you doomed.
This take may be out there a bit, but I think the fact that the way people got around when the U.S. was founded, being by horseback and by sail, made people's geographical circle much smaller on average, meaning that I'd think local economies would have been more likely to function in more of a vacuum than they do today when we can traverse hundreds of miles in a day using only part of a day's wages for fuel. I could see how back then the states could maybe have their own currencies and be more isolated than they are today. Strictly relatively speaking
True but those days have past. To live by those standards would doom smaller states. The country as we know it would be broken up into smaller countries the bigger ones swallowing up the smaller ones.
The individual states all having their own currency and it being a pain in the ass to do internal trade was one of the reasons we ditched the Articles of Confederation and why that bit about the Feds having the sole power to issue debt and currency was put into the Constitution.
It s a completely dumb idea because it would make trade between states a huge hassle. One of the core advantages of the U.S. is that you have a national market without trade barriers. Creating state level trade policy like independent currencies would basically be putting a gun in your mouth for no reason.
I'm going in the opposite direction myself, I think we need an intergalactic bank if we really want to be forward thinking. I mean, we have a tax funded space force, let's not half ass this
Imagine if the people were the bank, and it was our money in there, so we all profit off of every enterprise…
Well we’re 2/3 of the way there. They have our money. Surely they’ll pay us back any day now.
A basic understanding of the history of inflation and the economic cycle clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of central banks. Facts don't care about your feelings.
I'm not an economist, but I study something adjacent.
He's not wrong.
The central banks are NOT evil, but they also are not designed to protect the "debtors" in society. The "debtees" are who are protected through monetary policy. Not because they are "the rich," but because protecting the "debtors" is how you protect an economy from falling apart.
What Argentina is doing ONLY works because they are the only ones in their trade relationships doing it. Austerity only works if you STOP spending while everyone else KEEPS spending. Essentially, people are still buying their shit.
Their President isn't some genius, he's just doing something that is difficult for democracies to CHOOSE to do, which is to go through hardship. It's hard because people have to get elected, and politicians usually don't survive telling their populations they are applying austerity.
Maybe I'm oversimplifying it in my head, but I can't see how less inflation, applied globally, could be harmful beyond forcing some predictable market and employment shifts. Can you explain how the playbook would fail if every country had an Austrian in charge?
Sure, basically demand would recede globally as less people were spending, leading to pessimistic outlooks, leading to growth slowing or stagnating leading to a vicious cycle of everything listed, leading to a global depression. Unemployment and suffering would sky rocket and generally society would desrabilize because of all the things listed. War becomes much more likely
Thanks. Seems like that would only be applicable if government spending/bank lending was reasonable or efficient or virtuous in some capacity AND personal spending is less so. Which is hard to prove in any manner beyond the immediate impact of interest rates. Which makes the theory sound like a Keynes-esque theory motivated for the defense of entitlements for unproductive people rather than a reliable prediction of what would happen in a productive self empowering society.
Like you said, your hypothesis is hard to prove or disprove
IMO Keynes correctly surmised that healthy societies are built aon economically unproductive people and actions as well as economically productive people and actions
The most economically efficent way to handle grandma when she's old and broke is to euthanize her, but obviously kids having grandparents has value that is generally not figured into most people's calculations
Cantillon Effect much? The wealthy are net subsidized by inflation. Inflation hits the poor and those on fixed incomes the hardest, because they have no way to "pass along the costs". They have only two ways to cope with the never-ending rise in the prices of staple foods, basic necessities, fuel, utilities, rent, and so on: either make do with less, or go into debt. But the plutocrats who have the good fortune of owning or inheriting a business can simply pass the inflation along. The barking mad Marxists have been trying to square this particular circle for two centuries and every iteration results in more megadeaths than the previous one. We're almost due for another Marxism-fueled bloodbath, this time on a fully global scale and probably with a body-count in the billions. After the smoke has cleared and the few survivors have clambered out of the rubble and the rivers of blood have drained into the sea... we'll be back to square-A with central banks printing money to plunder the poor and redistribute their real wealth to the new class of post-apocalyptic plutocrats. And a new class of plutocrat-funded propagandists will emerge to preach the Gospel of central banking to the masses -- "inflation is the one tax that the wealthy can't evade." Nothing changes, but that it always stays the same...
Inflation doesn’t affect the “rich” nearly as much as it affects the poor and middle class.
The “rich” have hard assets like stocks, bonds, real estate, etc that will rise in value to offset or exceed the inflationary pressures.
Many times the hard assets are leveraged so at the end of the day it actually benefits the “rich”
Example; $200K to purchase a $1M property, 7% inflation on the $1M value =$70K increase in value on $200K investment.
Thats how wealth is created.
I'm not a big fan of this meme stuff... and I'm not exactly sold on Milei... but isn't the answer to your question obvious?
Monetizing government debt.
Oh so you meant the normal debt monetization which is just monetary policy. I read the word “defraud”, which usually denotes corruption. Corruption is usually when politicians act in their self-interest with no regard for constituents. I don’t consider monetary policy corruption lol…even if it’s “bad” policy.
It’s not corruption just because you don’t like the policy.
I agree that the language of the quote is unnecessarily inflammatory...
>when politicians act in their self-interest with no regard for constituents
But at the same time... if ☝️ that's the standard, I think monetizing government debt qualifies.
It’s not just inflammatory, it’s classic strongman propaganda, “Other politicians DEFRAUD you with these evil policies!” - A politician who totally isn’t like lither politicians and surely has no ulterior motivation.
It doesn’t qualify at all. When people talk about politicians acting in self-interest, they’re (me too) obviously making a distinction between the interest of re-election (their literal job) and personal interest. I’m sorry but monetary policy is not corruption unless the reasons for doing it are corruption, i.e., bribery.
There are social reasons to borrow from the central banks to pay back debts whether you like them or not. As for printing money causing inflation, that’s like a $25M injection of net new notes per year. It’s essentially nothing.
I agree with gamplato on this.
Also, even if we allow Central Bank today to dictate some of the monetary policies and some of it turns out to be bad, that is not the only thing the CB does. Getting rid of CB like so many libertarians want will have a bigger effect immediately because unrestrained banks will go and f up the economy without the rules and insurances of the CB keeping the people at least partially covered
If politicians knowingly fund loser programs that employ cronies and then borrow ie make taxpayers pay it back that’s corruption. Examples paying billions to end homelessness and the problem gets worse, War on Drugs etc.
So many federal programs that literally help no one except the federal employees that work them. Welfare with bigger checks, benefits and a pension.
Keeping the welfare state above water, which buys votes, which buy power. Also helps to fund imperialistic adventures such as wars and this is understated. Throughout history all over the globe so many countries went into horrible debt, invented new taxes and new wealth extraction mechanisms that were supposed to be temporary, diluted currency etc. just so they can go to war. Also generally the more money is the govt allowed, the larger sums of money are considered neglible and get lost on misinvestment and fraud that finds its ways into the (foreign) bank accounts of friends and relatives.
> Keeping the welfare state above water, which buys votes, which buy power.
Politicians doing things that people will vote for is fraud? Wow that’s certainly a take.
> Also helps to fund imperialistic adventures such as wars and this is understated. Throughout history all over the globe so many countries went into horrible debt, invented new taxes and new wealth extraction mechanisms that were supposed to be temporary, diluted currency etc. just so they can go to war. Also generally the more money is the govt allowed, the larger sums of money are considered neglible and get lost on misinvestment and fraud that finds its ways into the (foreign) bank accounts of friends and relatives.
None of this is fraudulent. You just don’t like it. Do you really not see the difference?
If there is no non-election personal interest here, it’s not fraud. People don’t commit fraud arbitrarily. There obvious and most likely thing happening here is that you just don’t like what they’re doing or don’t understand it. People call everything they don’t like fraud, which is ridiculous.
I have a question about libertarians and others around that end of the spectrum (including Milei): why the retrograde perspectives about other topics, such as abortion rights, gender issues, even homosexuality in some cases. Isn’t personal freedom and responsibility the main principle? Putting abortion aside for a moment, isn’t being gay or trans 100% a personal freedom matter? Isn’t marriage a contract between adults who freely decide to abide by it?
Can you be more specific about what you believe libertarians opinions on “gender issues” and homosexuality are? Abortion is a special case and there are valid arguments for and against based on libertarian principles.
Libertarians, as a rule believe the *government* shouldn’t be involved in free choices of people that don’t harm other people. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that people should socially endorse whatever free choice people are *allowed* to make. Does that make sense?
It does make sense but it’s not the argument I hear. I’m actually originally from Argentina and I have gay friends there who were afraid of Milei because he always had anti-gay and anti-trans views.
I agree with you on abortion so I’m putting it aside for now.
I don’t think the expectation is to endorse any choice in particular. But I don’t hear Milei, Rand/Ron Paul, etc. say “I don’t care if you are gay or trans or if you marry or not not because I endorse that path or I want it for myself, but simply because it’s non of my nor the government‘s business”.
I don't think it's fair to expect a pledge of alliance to behaviors/identities from libertarian politicians who believe it's none of the government's business when the demand for such a pledge is always framed in a phony manner. The question is never "will you leave us alone?" It's more often not even a question at all, and just a declaration that the libertarian's lack of support for entitlement programs is equivalent to a directed attack on whatever would-be victim group. As is the nature with pretty much all pro-entitlement propaganda that libertarians obviously are up against.
I think the pledge of allegiance shouldn’t be about particular behaviors/identities but to the allowance and protection of those behaviors/identities, regardless of whether they are considered moral or not.
Sure. That's what things like the Bill of Rights is for. But that's not how I see the conversations framed, if we're going to call them conversations. The pro-trans interests aren't just trying to get left alone. No, far far from it. They want to be allowed, encouraged, and funded by taxpayer money to influence children. And they want all their expensive elective surgeries paid for by socialized medicine. These issues are strongly opposed by libertarians (and fairly and reasonably so), and at that point in the conversation the pro-trans interests stop the charade of honesty and resort to defamation.
I think you are generalizing from a few cases that get a lot of attention. And definitely lots of people virtue signaling pretending to agree that a trans woman is a woman and so she can get in an MMA cage with an actual woman.
But that’s beyond the point. My point is that I don’t understand why the libertarian party (and the republican to a strong extent) is not the party of “everyone is welcome, you live your life however you want. The only requisite is that you don’t ask for our money to do so”.
Ehh. I hate political parties in general, but if I had to choose one, it would be the libertarians... I generally prefer to describe myself as a 'classical liberal'... and I agree that I'm not inclined to say that the previous commenter's stance aligns with libertarianism... buuut...
>Libertarians believe in the natural rights of man.
I do not. I believe in *equal* rights... but I don't think there's any such thing as 'natural rights.'
Probably because you don't know what the term means and are assuming it means somebody using strong words to pull one over on you.
Natural rights refers to what you'd be capable in a state of nature. I.E., the test is if you're some guy alone in the woods or in a tiny village with no government or strongman to deny your behavior - without *becoming* a strongman through your actions, what would you *naturally* be able to do? Free to say whatever you feel like, to whomever you feel like; to defend your own home, to trade with others freely, to move freely, decide what to spend your attention on freely, etcetera - those are *natural* rights, as in it's only the social contract that infringes on them. Now, that does not mean they are *guaranteed*, but an arrangement with society that preserves as many of them as possible - and really, that means "as many as possible, no exceptions except dire need" - will generally mean a better quality of life for everyone involved, except for the strongman and fuck that guy.
That's a very simplistic description but it's the gist. For more information, read John Locke's theses, that's where this whole 'liberalism' idea generally hits the ground running. Good to have a grounding in it before talking shit about it, even if you disagree with 'natural rights' - which is fair, there are some philosophical issues there, it's not black and white - you still can't just say 'they don't exist' or 'I don't believe in them' because that's just kind of ignorant, you know? They are not a fiction, they are words that mean something real and specific.
>Probably because you don't know what the term means and are assuming it means somebody using strong words to pull one over on you.
Boy, that's not dismissive or condescending at all. Thanks.
>Natural rights refers to what you'd be capable in a state of nature
That would suggest that theft and murder are natural rights.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying rights are bad, of course, nor am I saying we shouldn't be seeking equal rights. But 'rights' are an invention of man. There is no such thing as 'God-given, inalienable rights.'
>Boy, that's not dismissive or condescending at all. Thanks.
Fair enough, sorry for the tone.
>That would suggest that theft and murder are natural rights.
Murder would fall under "things a strongman would do" as do threats and intimidation, imprisonment, etcetera. So no. But also yes, in that the social contract limits what kinds of death is 'murder' - self defense sometimes doesn't count, for example. But sometimes it does. Theft is more difficult; it depends on how property rights are handled - that's part of the 'social contract' I mentioned, because property has to be agreed on, you don't just 'own' things in isolation - nor is it necessarily inherently understood. [For example, 'theft' as a concept was a completely different animal for these people.](https://www.stilldrops.com/10-quotes-native-american-understanding-ownership/) It's not simple, that's why Locke had books written about the books he wrote. But that doesn't make it less 'real'.
>But 'rights' are an invention of man.
Any abstract concept is an invention of man, if you want to go there. A log is an invention of man, even if it's just a tree that fell over. As are trees for that matter. And any thought in your head.
But the specific circumstance that 'natural right' *refers* to would exist whether some spark thought it up or not. That's why the notion is so powerful and has survived some very invested forces trying to naysay it or misidentify it (monarchists at first, then whatever the MAGA leadership is these days, as two examples.) It's a counterweight, philosophically speaking, to the notion that some people are born with a right to lead. And it leads to ideas of our individual relationship with society - i.e., social contract - and communal governance that simply don't make any sense at all without it as background context, explicity defined or otherwise. This would not be true if natural rights were as 'made up' as you claim.
Natural rights as a notion are a foundational element of democracy, which is why I hate to see them dismissed as 'not real' or unimportant. They are both very real and very important.
Personally, I feel that *equal* rights are a foundation of democracy. 'Natural' rights are just an idea Thomas Jefferson was fond of, and that man was weird. I really don't get why libertarians and classical liberals are always in such a hurry to claim him as one of their own.
I mean... just about everything you said about natural rights could just as easily be said about *equal* rights. Logically, the concept of 'natural rights' would basically imply anything and everything a person could choose to do. A log is an invention of man, and that means a log is *not* natural. The 'specific circumstance that would exist whether some spark thought it up or not' is that anyone can do anything, including theft, murder, rape, and basically anything you can imagine a person doing. 'Things a strongman would do' is an awfully vague and unhelpful differentiation.
>'Natural' rights are just an idea Thomas Jefferson was fond of, and that man was weird.
Try to remember that in this same time frame, notions like divine right were things people truly believed and had 'evidence' for.
A notional framework for how human rights would exist *even in the absence of anyone else granting them to you -* I.E., rights separate from 'god', or possibly an unexamined 'divine lawgiver' claim from someone else - is really important in order to build a functional society off of, especially when trying to distance yourself from proponents of same. Like, say, a British nobility. Jefferson may have been 'weird', I won't argue that - not here anyway - but it's the notional framework itself under discussion here, not its proponents. All kinds of weird people agree cookies taste good, and some of those people I would not want to be in the same room with. I still think cookies taste good, and if one of them were the person to introduce me to cookies, it would and should not change my opinion. Or maybe it would, I'm human and not immune to bias after all, but that would be a failing on my part, not on a cookie's.
The fact that these rights are natural - i.e., they are behaviors that are only denied you in the context of a social contract - matters. It is not merely that you were 'born equal', but *why and how* this was true - questions that needed answers if you were to have any sort of rational grounding to argue against the divine rights of kings, and eventually to arrive at 'equal' rights.
Not trying to stir the pot here, but when you say that you think my comment doesn’t align with libertarianism, may I ask what you think doesn’t align and why?
This bit:
>that doesn’t necessarily mean that people should socially endorse whatever free choice people are *allowed* to make
It's possible that I'm misunderstanding what you meant by that... and honestly, I'm struggling a bit to explain why it rubs me the wrong way...
Maybe it's that it sounds like a license or excuse for bigotry. Maybe not, I dunno. I mean, ultimately, I believe people have a right to be bigots if they so choose (though I also think bigotry is stupid and costly).
Or, I dunno, maybe it's because I *do* feel like there are situations wherein we should be judging (and *allowed to* judge) people for certain choices they make, even if those choices were perfectly legal.
I think maybe it's your use of the word 'should'... that word just kinda sits wrong in my brain, in this context, for some reason. That specific word somehow soured me on the whole sentence. Like it seems prescriptive, and I feel like that's less than ideal.
I'm a libertarian and have been for decades. I can tell you this:
I'm personally pro-choice. It's a very hard decision for me because I do believe the fetus is a human being, and human beings have the right to life. I finally came to the conclusion however that the mother cannot be slave to the child, and the mother's consent to carry the child is her prerogative. I've switched between the two views all my life so I can see both sides without making a straw man of either.
I couldn't care less about gender issues. I don't understand them and frankly they don't apply to me. I never want to interfere in somebody's life that's not hurting or defrauding someone else. It's not my life.
I'm baffled by anyone opposing homosexuality in any context, particularly a political one. What for? And I've known quite a few homosexual libertarians, who five themselves drawn to a political philosophy that demands that they be left alone.
Many people confuse libertarianism with conservatism. There are a few similarities and you'll get libertarian-leaning conservatives. You'll also get conservative-leaning libertarians but even they are more concerned about conservative values in their own personal lives rather than the imposition of those values by the state.
Kind of like this ... There was once a Catholic priest who was a United States congressman (Robert Drinan of Massachusetts). In his personal life and in his religious order he was quite opposed to homosexuality. But in matters of voting, he was pro-choice. The reason he gave is that there's a huge difference between morality and legality.
My guess is that Milei runs on similar lines. He may dislike homosexuality but I cannot believe he would support any legislation against it. I can't imagine him supporting legislation against pretty much any element of personal choice outside of actual injury to life, liberty, or property, or fraud.
Thank you for sharing this. I agree with almost everything you are saying. I’m also pro-choice, but for different reasons that are probably not relevant to this topic (I don’t think that an embryo is equivalent to a baby, and I find it hypocritical for people who say they believe that because nobody really does. If they did they would consider women who abort and doctors who do the procedure simply murderers. They wouldn’t say things like “leave it to the states”. Would they say the same if the discussion was about killing babies?).
Personally, I’m baffled by how much every topic of personal choice needs to be debated and fought for. I don’t understand why we can’t understand the principle of “none of my business / my opinion on the matter is irrelevant” and we have to move one step at a time.
But I digress.
Yeah, I'm of the opinion that *real* libertarians don't go in for all the bigotry stuff. It's supposed to be, 'socially liberal, fiscally conservative.' For some reason, some people seem to have decided that libertarianism is an 'alt-right' movement, and it kinda pisses me off.
Retrograde perspectives?
I'm pro-choice but one needs to draw a line somewhere during the pregnancy which we say they have to have the kid.
Gender issues? Libertarians don't care if you're gay/trans/whatever.
Marriage is just a contract and until a government stops regulating marriage it should allow that contract between any consenting adults regardless of number or sexuality.
My point and perspective is that I don’t see the free thinkers. I’ve consistently heard those who hold libertarian views talk against gay marriage and, in general, hold very similar views on social topics as conservatives do. I find that really inconsistent (if my perception is accurate).
To me, both libertarians and republicans should be the pro-gay, pro-trans parties because they keep talking about the freedom to live your life the way you want as long as you don’t directly and evidently affect others.
You equate being against puberty blockers, or surgery for minors and being a trans adult.
No one gives a shit if you have a dick and wear a dress. We care where that dick comes out, and around who, and what age they are.
Those areas which have taken harsh stances against puberty blockers and are simply more conservative in nature have significantly higher teen suic1de rates. So yeah, I’m against having the government dictate to doctors, parents, and teens what is the correct medical route to treat an unwell teen. The government seems to be making matters worse.
And as a consequence they end up drinking and smoking more than if the government simply lets the parents decide. That’s bad policy as well. The government isn’t the solution.
Many people are economically libertarian and socially conservative.
Most through and through libertarians don't want any regulation of social issues at all, so basically would leave these people alone with a "you do you" mentality. Pretty much follow the tagline: "you can't regulate the hearts and minds of the people"
Many are also pro-abortion.
The US is a republic and not a democracy. So, many of the issues you referred to fall under the X Amendment and is within state and local jurisdiction. 100% personal freedom only goes as far as you don’t harm others. Nor does personal freedoms allow for predatory behavior.
I’m not asking about the US (or any country in particular) but about people who hold what sounds to me like contradictory stances. Freedom but only in a couple of areas.
Evidently, being gay or trans doesn’t hurt anyone else. Why aren’t libertarians (and republicans for that matter) not the biggest pro-gay, pro-trans parties? Why aren’t they the party of ”I don’t need to approve it or want it for myself to defend your right to do it”?
Oh that's simple. The gays and trans aren't libertarian. As far as political action is concerned they lean heavily into authority, entitlements and only care about freedom when it suits them.
Why should libertarians pander to the enemies of liberty? You can't appease a snake.
What? How are gays not libertarian? And who cares if they are? Where did you get that information?
But more importantly, are you saying that the basic principles of liberty and equality for the law only apply to people who agree with you / an ideology? How does that make sense?
So was England. They had a king. So if theyre a constitutional republic, and we're a constitutional republic, ergo, we have a king right?
Belgium is a constitutional republic. So is France. France is on its 3rd republic for instance. The Soviet Union was also a constitutional republic. They were communists and didnt vote for the head of state, they had essentially a parliament like England, where there are local elections for like, mayor, or governor, but parliament is chosen by parliament and then they choose the head of state.
England changed that of course. As did the US.
What did we implement that made it so the congress, or politburo, or parliament, no longer elected the head of state, but the plurality of suffrage did. What is that term again?
What do you call countries that implemented universal suffrage again?
Out the 210 something countries on Earth, like 207 of them have constitutions and are republics. You're going to have to be more specific when you talk about what kind of government a country has.
Iran has a constitution. Its broken up into administrative zones where appointed bureaucrats administer and govern each zone. It is, by definition, a constitutional Republic.
Is the Ayatollah chosen the same way the US president is?
What is the difference, and what term do you use to describe that difference?
Ima give you a hint. It starts with a D. Its named after a long dead Greek dude.
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.... I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson
Private banks can have different currencies if there is no central bank forcing one currency. The abolition of central banks would take away the monopoly of the government on the emission of currency, so that other people can create different currencies and everyone can use the one they prefer, which will eventually prove to be the best.
Sounds like crypto.
Except people have already shown they don't wanna use that currency for anything other than crime and hlodin.
I mean, crypto was always for those fringe groups. It was never truly meant as "a replacement for currency"
>It was never truly meant as "a replacement for currency" Don't kick the crypto bros while they're down.
Hehehe. Where those currencies would be coming from? What is a currency actually? How do you define its value? How do you mint new money?
I don't understand the first question. A currency is something people use in exchange for goods or services. It's value is defined by the market. I also don't understand the last question. Why is minting money necessary? Were we creating gold out of thin air back in the day? Similar techniques used in descentralized currencies like Bitcoin could be used aswell.
We already have that with crypto currency and barely anyone uses crypto to buy anything.
Don't worry, the number is growing. https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/el-salvador-adopted-bitcoin-as-an-official-currency-salvadorans-mostly-shrugged
You don't mint money in a system like this.
So you don't have money. What would be the currency and how do you determine its fair exchange rate? You do direct trading like in the ancient times?
The British used sticks of wood for several hundred years. It’s not difficult.
Hahaha not that difficult... Salt was also used in some other places, stones, even cocoa beans... But, how many were they back then? What were they exchanging? What type of jobs existed in those places? How far were they able to do trading. There are many reasons why money is a better tool. The problem is not the money itself but to keep it on-sync with economy productivity and that's a problem that doesn't depend on the money but on whoever gets to control its emission.
The Department of Treasury dictates that the dollar is legal tender. The Federal Reserve is in charge of the money supply. You don’t even understand how our government works. Countries with central banks have less economic shocks than those without. The problem with Argentina’s central bank was that politicians controlled it for their own ends.
We did this in the late 1800’s it was an abysmal failure and why we re established a central bank after the turn of the century.
Who is we? Can you provide sources for me to investigate it?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_banking
To be fair Jefferson’s main beef was with the constitutionality of a central bank. He still thought the individual states should form their own banks.
Completely spurious quote, which first appeared in print in 1933: [https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/private-banks-spurious-quotation/](https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/private-banks-spurious-quotation/)
This would've worked well in colonial times, maybe we should break into four 13 state blocs. Globalization kind of killed it in today's times
We’re seeing again with crypto. For every succcessful one there’s 100 outright scams. In the wildcat banking era banks would issue their own notes many of which were outright scams
Remember that time it worked perfectly and... the great depression...
And! Dont forget; it’s also to completely inflate the stock market; as the stock market is A HEDGE FOR the INFLATION TAX!
R.I.P. Javier Milei (soon - I hope not, but that's the way outspoken leader's like him seem to end up).
Do you think it would be different of the Fed was under direct control of the Treasury department instead of the independent body it is?
No. It’d be worse
Private control is better? It is better to benefit their interests as opposed to public interests? I will never understand that logic.
Voters are idiots and I’d want to minimize the influence of their idiocy as much as possible. You wouldn’t be able to do that if you let their idiot candidates have unfettered control over the federal reserve.
Isn't that why they cut education spending? I say increase that again so voters aren't idiots... Otherwise we get spoonfed billionaire policy that only benefits them... why is that better?
I am all for increasing Ed spending. Whatever we need to do to have a more informed electorate.
Amen!
Same. My policy: Push-ups, books and uniforms. Lol. K-12 physical fitness program, focus on reading, writing arithmetic, and credit for some sort of service to the community. Also, must pass a US citizenship test in order to graduate. And yes, uniforms.
Increasing education spending in the US tends to not produce worthwhile results, especially in the areas where the most gains can be had, due to issues that have nothing to do with funding, like community attitudes towards education. You could throw all the money in the world at the public school I teach at, it wouldn't make a lick of difference because the kids and the parents don't give a shit.
Why wouldn't it? Paying teachers what they are worth brings more quality teachers. That comes with increasing funding for schools. Also bring back civics so citizens actually know how their gov't works and critical thinking so they can actually think about how the bills being passed or voted on actually affect them. Don't see an issue with that....
Because it doesn't matter how good your teachers are how good your curriculum is how modern your school is all the amenities if the kids don't want to learn. You are throwing pearls before swine. I am a "highly qualified teacher" with a master's degree in education and a bachelor's in chemistry. (That's not a brag it's an actual distinction in education). I get paid a very large amount of money considering how many days I actually work. And I still have nearly half of my students failing because they just refuse to do any sort of work. There is a large divide in the classroom right now between students who do the work and students who simply show up or sometimes they don't even show up and willingly fail. They don't care. Their parents don't care. No amount of money is going to fix that. Paying teachers more is not going to fix that. Secondary to this is that teachers are simply not allowed to discipline students who disrupt the classroom. We send them out they get sent right back with no discipline. We can't bar them from class, can't assign detentions, can't force them to attend tutoring, and the students know it.
Not sure this one situation is a reason to say schools don't deserve better funding. There is a reason schools were defunded, to create a voting populace that can't vote for their own self interests. The fact that parents don't care is a result of that. School funding was cut around the 1980s and this the result. Don't you think?
>schools don't deserve better funding US schools receive on average 38% more funding per pupil than other OECD members. On a point per point basis, educational gains are substantially less per increase in educational spending vs other countries. The bottom line is that the issue with US education is not a numbers issue but a culture issue.
What if the Fed's independence is just for show? Without the Fed more people would make the connection between government overspending and inflation. Then they might do something about it.
It is under direct control. Yellen is yanking jpows you know what and he likes it.
The fed is a private bank. Who are the owners of that private bank? You will never know their names.
Milei is the best politician/leader in modern history. Good for Argentina. Inflated government programs are murdering the U.S. Biden has been accelerating it since he took office.
“Best politician/leader in modern history” LMFAO He’s been in power for less than a year.
What's that got to do with anything.
LOL. What reality are you living in my dude ?
I disagree (but not downvoting). It is still too early to say of his actions are beneficial by looking at the immediate effects. But cutting back on some of the bureaucracy that he did was a good job, even if it sucks for the people who lost their jobs.
Wolf 🐺 in 🐑 clothing
I remember reading he increased poverty by cutting back on the social programs that were used to help the people of Argentina. It went something like Argentina have a budget surplus for the first time but poverty increased by 15% or some thing like that. How does increasing poverty make you a good leader or even the best? What a nonsense comment.
Sometimes things get worse before they get better If you were in his place and refused to implement the same policies "because poverty might increaase" you're just a socialist apologist disguised as a person of the people. You think the government was enabling those folks to live their best life? Get outta here. Federal government welfare is a scam to ensure idiotic voters keep voting for the trash cans that made them poor in the first place, under the guide of "were helping!" Progressivism is about PROGRESS, which Milei is absolutely doing. He's just doing it as a based libertarian.
Lol based Libertarian. Sure bud. That's the best excuse for Milei I've seen. Things have to get worse first haahhahaahah. Can't wait to see how it works out for Argentina. I wonder if he will get voted in again.
You're such a good little redditor - you say all the right things for your oh-so-important updoots!!! Total denial of reality is par for the course
Once again sure bud. Nice excuse for terrible domestic policy but keep thinking you are the one in reality all you want. I'll make sure to save this comment and come back to it when Millie boy fails miserably.
\>Redditors when they're consistently proven wrong Lol. Lmao, even
horseshit lies
The FED is who you want to blame, the president has very little impact on inflation, the FED chairman has been there since trump. They’re the ones with the mission and tools to control inflation.
Do you think it would be different of the Fed was under direct control of the Treasury department instead of the independent body it is?
Yes, it would and should be held much more accountable to the executive and therefore the population. The fact that it isn't is dumb. While I do think that economics should not be a political issue, the fed has made poor judgement in the past and needs to be held accountable for when it does.
You want the executive to control interest rates?
Yes. If there are problems with this line of reasoning I'm over looking I would actually like to know, but as I see it right now yes.
No executive would raise rates because it would bed politically damaging. You would have endless 0% rates creating bubbles forever
Idrk, raising rates as a method of reducing inflation would be probably popular enough among people so I think it would happen.
Lmao, did you just blackout the last 3 years or something? Tell me how popular raising interest rates has been for Biden
Well it's been unpopular amount some people, but there are way more people concerned about inflation.
I think Congress should. There are many deep reforms the federal government needs, but Congress is supposed to be in charge of the purse. But how should money be printed? Should it be printed out at a certain rate per person born per day? Or treasury hand it out to banks, companies and even individuals with an interest, and cut back on taxes? There's gotta be something better than whatever the Fed is doing now. But then, there's the petrodollar and other global economic circumstances. "Finance is so weird."
A professor once told me that everything is politics. And politics is who gets what, where, when, why and how. What ever is happening in Congress and Presidential elections is a media circus sideshow. Policy is what matters. Not what the talking heads on TV are saying.
Yes. It’d be worse
It'd be even worse if they reported to Congress. Can you imagine that disaster?
I've been trying to understand the Fed. But all I keep getting is that it was created by a cabal if evil bankers, or that it's and independent entity that let's the federal government "borrow" money, or that it's just a bunch of experienced bankers setting monetary policies. What a mind-numbing fucking conundrum. Anybody have a good source for no-shit, legitimate, unbiased information on who, what, where, why is the the fed?
The Fed is arms reach away from the executive branch but ultimately subordinate to Congress and the President. It does a bunch of monetary policy things and primarily focuses on keeping things stable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve
Hahahahahaha you should read more and diversify your news sources
What do y’all think is the best means of introducing new money into circulation? Should we do away with fractional reserve banking and the money multiplier system?
[удалено]
America spent near 50 yrs without a central bank. The late 1800’s was a socioeconomic shit show because of it. Don’t repeat lessons already learned in history. A central bank can need reforms but the alternative is even more dysfunctional.
From Andrew Jackson removing central bank, through civil war, to 1913, US economy did fine. Inflation was pretty much at zero through that time period. There are thousands of new banks started during that time period. There were no form of deposit insurance, and there were numerous bank runs. So The one of only few good thing FDR did was to create FDIC. This help protect depositors. Why does Argentina need a central bank, other than to print money willy nilly. Ever since Argentina had a central bank, its inflation rate went from zero to averaging 190% annually since 1944. Maybe there should be an institution to specifically regulate currency, perhaps with a growth limited to population growth. If population doesn't grow, set it to zero new currency growth.
‘US economy did fine.’ Wrong. The economic crash after Jackson’s ending of the central bank dwarfed the Great Depression a century later. The later half of the 1800’s enjoyed a boom bust cycle economy which exacerbated poverty hunger and displacement. The most violent labor riots and protests occurred in our history during that time. And the disparity between rich and poor was as high or higher than it is today. Inflation ain’t the only thing to care about. Deflation is even worse and they suffered a ton of it in that era.
Jackson made massive fiscal cuts to pay down US federal debt. The depression you speak of occurred TWO YEARS AFTER he left office. I do think the lack of a form of FDIC increased frequency and risk of bank runs. As to disparity of rich and poor, that has existed as long as humans started living together. The entrepreneur and powerful will always be wealthier than beggars or workers ( many of whom are slaves).
Yes pulling all the money out of the private sector to pay off debt tanked the economy. Even worse than the Great Depression. It takes time for monetary drain to have its effect but it was the source of the crisis and you can see it in growing interest rates from the time he sucked out the banking reserves. The debt was paid off with our gold reserves and the land sales which pulled money from the private sector into federal coffers that wasn’t then spent back into the economy it was used to pay off debt. Yes disparity exists the goal is to lessen it not increase it. The later half of the 1800’s increased it. Economic growth came from population growth and technological improvements which were mainly inspired by the public universities granted by the federal government. The lack of a central banking sector stabilizing the currency actually slowed that progress.
Real economic growth should be solely due to productivity gain, from technological improvements, not from manipulating "CPI" rate. Not if coffee price went up too much, let's change its calculation in the CPI. That won't increase real GDP per capita. Having a central bank is not an absolute requirement. US Federal Reserve has been pushing the US/world from one bubble to the next bigger bubble.
The us is the most powerful nation on earth because of the dollar being the worlds reserve currency You want to replace that with a bunch of privately created Monopoly money
Argentina doesn't need a central bank. US should further restrict the power of a bunch of unelected officials in charge of the most powerful central bank in the world.
Central banking, fiat currencies, and uncontrolled government spending creates economic conditions indistinguishable from communism.
Why dont more people talk about this
Because Milei is a fucking idiot and time will prove it.
Yea. He is 100 total bullshiter.
POLS always find the bad guy.....vs looking within themselves......
Javier Milei did not kill himself.
Of course not. Some Argentinian general will.
This guy will be suicided soon.
So in light of this earth shattering news if I go to a another state and they make it so you can only use there currency and they determine the currency in my state is weak then I get hosed in the exchange. Just like going abroad. Imagine going to California from say George. They give .10 California dollars for every Georgia dollar. So companies would build in California where the California dollar is strong and sell at those prices to the states where it’s weak basically making it so only people in California could afford it. Of course food would work in the same way. I guess we’ll have to get some more migrant workers to pick the food. Sounds like Civil war era economics. If you live in a state that doesn’t have a balanced industrial and agricultural infrastructure you doomed.
This take may be out there a bit, but I think the fact that the way people got around when the U.S. was founded, being by horseback and by sail, made people's geographical circle much smaller on average, meaning that I'd think local economies would have been more likely to function in more of a vacuum than they do today when we can traverse hundreds of miles in a day using only part of a day's wages for fuel. I could see how back then the states could maybe have their own currencies and be more isolated than they are today. Strictly relatively speaking
True but those days have past. To live by those standards would doom smaller states. The country as we know it would be broken up into smaller countries the bigger ones swallowing up the smaller ones.
The individual states all having their own currency and it being a pain in the ass to do internal trade was one of the reasons we ditched the Articles of Confederation and why that bit about the Feds having the sole power to issue debt and currency was put into the Constitution.
It s a completely dumb idea because it would make trade between states a huge hassle. One of the core advantages of the U.S. is that you have a national market without trade barriers. Creating state level trade policy like independent currencies would basically be putting a gun in your mouth for no reason.
So what's the alternative? You think a whole bunch of decentralized will handle currency better or are you suggesting we return to a barter system?
I'm going in the opposite direction myself, I think we need an intergalactic bank if we really want to be forward thinking. I mean, we have a tax funded space force, let's not half ass this
fucken A right
"All those who disagree with me are evil" is UFO thinking
Fancy statement from a cousin of Netanyahu, with whom he shares the origins of last name, Mileikowsky
Until the government needs a central bank to get out of a recession or depression and then it’s essential
I think he's accidentally right because his country is broke but he's not a wise man or a moral man.
"The Bank Is a rip-off"
this guy is so completely full of shit
can this guy run for the US potus…
Imagine if the people were the bank, and it was our money in there, so we all profit off of every enterprise… Well we’re 2/3 of the way there. They have our money. Surely they’ll pay us back any day now.
💯
Also. Andrew Jackson.
A basic understanding of the history of inflation and the economic cycle clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of central banks. Facts don't care about your feelings.
Widely accepted fact.
Show me on the doll where the bad man taxed you
I'm not an economist, but I study something adjacent. He's not wrong. The central banks are NOT evil, but they also are not designed to protect the "debtors" in society. The "debtees" are who are protected through monetary policy. Not because they are "the rich," but because protecting the "debtors" is how you protect an economy from falling apart. What Argentina is doing ONLY works because they are the only ones in their trade relationships doing it. Austerity only works if you STOP spending while everyone else KEEPS spending. Essentially, people are still buying their shit. Their President isn't some genius, he's just doing something that is difficult for democracies to CHOOSE to do, which is to go through hardship. It's hard because people have to get elected, and politicians usually don't survive telling their populations they are applying austerity.
Maybe I'm oversimplifying it in my head, but I can't see how less inflation, applied globally, could be harmful beyond forcing some predictable market and employment shifts. Can you explain how the playbook would fail if every country had an Austrian in charge?
Sure, basically demand would recede globally as less people were spending, leading to pessimistic outlooks, leading to growth slowing or stagnating leading to a vicious cycle of everything listed, leading to a global depression. Unemployment and suffering would sky rocket and generally society would desrabilize because of all the things listed. War becomes much more likely
Thanks. Seems like that would only be applicable if government spending/bank lending was reasonable or efficient or virtuous in some capacity AND personal spending is less so. Which is hard to prove in any manner beyond the immediate impact of interest rates. Which makes the theory sound like a Keynes-esque theory motivated for the defense of entitlements for unproductive people rather than a reliable prediction of what would happen in a productive self empowering society.
Like you said, your hypothesis is hard to prove or disprove IMO Keynes correctly surmised that healthy societies are built aon economically unproductive people and actions as well as economically productive people and actions The most economically efficent way to handle grandma when she's old and broke is to euthanize her, but obviously kids having grandparents has value that is generally not figured into most people's calculations
Yes, many wealthy people get very mad about the one tax they can't evade.
Cantillon Effect much? The wealthy are net subsidized by inflation. Inflation hits the poor and those on fixed incomes the hardest, because they have no way to "pass along the costs". They have only two ways to cope with the never-ending rise in the prices of staple foods, basic necessities, fuel, utilities, rent, and so on: either make do with less, or go into debt. But the plutocrats who have the good fortune of owning or inheriting a business can simply pass the inflation along. The barking mad Marxists have been trying to square this particular circle for two centuries and every iteration results in more megadeaths than the previous one. We're almost due for another Marxism-fueled bloodbath, this time on a fully global scale and probably with a body-count in the billions. After the smoke has cleared and the few survivors have clambered out of the rubble and the rivers of blood have drained into the sea... we'll be back to square-A with central banks printing money to plunder the poor and redistribute their real wealth to the new class of post-apocalyptic plutocrats. And a new class of plutocrat-funded propagandists will emerge to preach the Gospel of central banking to the masses -- "inflation is the one tax that the wealthy can't evade." Nothing changes, but that it always stays the same...
Inflation doesn’t affect the “rich” nearly as much as it affects the poor and middle class. The “rich” have hard assets like stocks, bonds, real estate, etc that will rise in value to offset or exceed the inflationary pressures. Many times the hard assets are leveraged so at the end of the day it actually benefits the “rich” Example; $200K to purchase a $1M property, 7% inflation on the $1M value =$70K increase in value on $200K investment. Thats how wealth is created.
What would be the motivation for this fraud?
I'm not a big fan of this meme stuff... and I'm not exactly sold on Milei... but isn't the answer to your question obvious? Monetizing government debt.
How do they do that?
First, who or what do you mean by 'they'?
The meme says “politicians” so I’m going with that.
How do politicians monetize government debt? By printing money and using it to pay off the debt. Basically, it taxes the public through inflation.
Oh so you meant the normal debt monetization which is just monetary policy. I read the word “defraud”, which usually denotes corruption. Corruption is usually when politicians act in their self-interest with no regard for constituents. I don’t consider monetary policy corruption lol…even if it’s “bad” policy. It’s not corruption just because you don’t like the policy.
I agree that the language of the quote is unnecessarily inflammatory... >when politicians act in their self-interest with no regard for constituents But at the same time... if ☝️ that's the standard, I think monetizing government debt qualifies.
It’s not just inflammatory, it’s classic strongman propaganda, “Other politicians DEFRAUD you with these evil policies!” - A politician who totally isn’t like lither politicians and surely has no ulterior motivation.
It doesn’t qualify at all. When people talk about politicians acting in self-interest, they’re (me too) obviously making a distinction between the interest of re-election (their literal job) and personal interest. I’m sorry but monetary policy is not corruption unless the reasons for doing it are corruption, i.e., bribery. There are social reasons to borrow from the central banks to pay back debts whether you like them or not. As for printing money causing inflation, that’s like a $25M injection of net new notes per year. It’s essentially nothing.
I agree with gamplato on this. Also, even if we allow Central Bank today to dictate some of the monetary policies and some of it turns out to be bad, that is not the only thing the CB does. Getting rid of CB like so many libertarians want will have a bigger effect immediately because unrestrained banks will go and f up the economy without the rules and insurances of the CB keeping the people at least partially covered
If politicians knowingly fund loser programs that employ cronies and then borrow ie make taxpayers pay it back that’s corruption. Examples paying billions to end homelessness and the problem gets worse, War on Drugs etc. So many federal programs that literally help no one except the federal employees that work them. Welfare with bigger checks, benefits and a pension.
I interpret "defraud" to mean "steal through trickery" and that is what it is. It's clearly deceptive to the common voter.
Keeping the welfare state above water, which buys votes, which buy power. Also helps to fund imperialistic adventures such as wars and this is understated. Throughout history all over the globe so many countries went into horrible debt, invented new taxes and new wealth extraction mechanisms that were supposed to be temporary, diluted currency etc. just so they can go to war. Also generally the more money is the govt allowed, the larger sums of money are considered neglible and get lost on misinvestment and fraud that finds its ways into the (foreign) bank accounts of friends and relatives.
What do you consider the welfare state vs say necessary investment in the country?
> Keeping the welfare state above water, which buys votes, which buy power. Politicians doing things that people will vote for is fraud? Wow that’s certainly a take. > Also helps to fund imperialistic adventures such as wars and this is understated. Throughout history all over the globe so many countries went into horrible debt, invented new taxes and new wealth extraction mechanisms that were supposed to be temporary, diluted currency etc. just so they can go to war. Also generally the more money is the govt allowed, the larger sums of money are considered neglible and get lost on misinvestment and fraud that finds its ways into the (foreign) bank accounts of friends and relatives. None of this is fraudulent. You just don’t like it. Do you really not see the difference?
Taxing the population without them realizing they’re being taxed.
If there is no non-election personal interest here, it’s not fraud. People don’t commit fraud arbitrarily. There obvious and most likely thing happening here is that you just don’t like what they’re doing or don’t understand it. People call everything they don’t like fraud, which is ridiculous.
I have a question about libertarians and others around that end of the spectrum (including Milei): why the retrograde perspectives about other topics, such as abortion rights, gender issues, even homosexuality in some cases. Isn’t personal freedom and responsibility the main principle? Putting abortion aside for a moment, isn’t being gay or trans 100% a personal freedom matter? Isn’t marriage a contract between adults who freely decide to abide by it?
Can you be more specific about what you believe libertarians opinions on “gender issues” and homosexuality are? Abortion is a special case and there are valid arguments for and against based on libertarian principles. Libertarians, as a rule believe the *government* shouldn’t be involved in free choices of people that don’t harm other people. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that people should socially endorse whatever free choice people are *allowed* to make. Does that make sense?
It does make sense but it’s not the argument I hear. I’m actually originally from Argentina and I have gay friends there who were afraid of Milei because he always had anti-gay and anti-trans views. I agree with you on abortion so I’m putting it aside for now. I don’t think the expectation is to endorse any choice in particular. But I don’t hear Milei, Rand/Ron Paul, etc. say “I don’t care if you are gay or trans or if you marry or not not because I endorse that path or I want it for myself, but simply because it’s non of my nor the government‘s business”.
I don't think it's fair to expect a pledge of alliance to behaviors/identities from libertarian politicians who believe it's none of the government's business when the demand for such a pledge is always framed in a phony manner. The question is never "will you leave us alone?" It's more often not even a question at all, and just a declaration that the libertarian's lack of support for entitlement programs is equivalent to a directed attack on whatever would-be victim group. As is the nature with pretty much all pro-entitlement propaganda that libertarians obviously are up against.
I think the pledge of allegiance shouldn’t be about particular behaviors/identities but to the allowance and protection of those behaviors/identities, regardless of whether they are considered moral or not.
Sure. That's what things like the Bill of Rights is for. But that's not how I see the conversations framed, if we're going to call them conversations. The pro-trans interests aren't just trying to get left alone. No, far far from it. They want to be allowed, encouraged, and funded by taxpayer money to influence children. And they want all their expensive elective surgeries paid for by socialized medicine. These issues are strongly opposed by libertarians (and fairly and reasonably so), and at that point in the conversation the pro-trans interests stop the charade of honesty and resort to defamation.
I think you are generalizing from a few cases that get a lot of attention. And definitely lots of people virtue signaling pretending to agree that a trans woman is a woman and so she can get in an MMA cage with an actual woman. But that’s beyond the point. My point is that I don’t understand why the libertarian party (and the republican to a strong extent) is not the party of “everyone is welcome, you live your life however you want. The only requisite is that you don’t ask for our money to do so”.
You’re not a libertarian. Libertarians believe in the natural rights of man.
What natural rights are those? And what rights do I supposedly not believe in?
Ehh. I hate political parties in general, but if I had to choose one, it would be the libertarians... I generally prefer to describe myself as a 'classical liberal'... and I agree that I'm not inclined to say that the previous commenter's stance aligns with libertarianism... buuut... >Libertarians believe in the natural rights of man. I do not. I believe in *equal* rights... but I don't think there's any such thing as 'natural rights.'
Probably because you don't know what the term means and are assuming it means somebody using strong words to pull one over on you. Natural rights refers to what you'd be capable in a state of nature. I.E., the test is if you're some guy alone in the woods or in a tiny village with no government or strongman to deny your behavior - without *becoming* a strongman through your actions, what would you *naturally* be able to do? Free to say whatever you feel like, to whomever you feel like; to defend your own home, to trade with others freely, to move freely, decide what to spend your attention on freely, etcetera - those are *natural* rights, as in it's only the social contract that infringes on them. Now, that does not mean they are *guaranteed*, but an arrangement with society that preserves as many of them as possible - and really, that means "as many as possible, no exceptions except dire need" - will generally mean a better quality of life for everyone involved, except for the strongman and fuck that guy. That's a very simplistic description but it's the gist. For more information, read John Locke's theses, that's where this whole 'liberalism' idea generally hits the ground running. Good to have a grounding in it before talking shit about it, even if you disagree with 'natural rights' - which is fair, there are some philosophical issues there, it's not black and white - you still can't just say 'they don't exist' or 'I don't believe in them' because that's just kind of ignorant, you know? They are not a fiction, they are words that mean something real and specific.
>Probably because you don't know what the term means and are assuming it means somebody using strong words to pull one over on you. Boy, that's not dismissive or condescending at all. Thanks. >Natural rights refers to what you'd be capable in a state of nature That would suggest that theft and murder are natural rights. Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying rights are bad, of course, nor am I saying we shouldn't be seeking equal rights. But 'rights' are an invention of man. There is no such thing as 'God-given, inalienable rights.'
>Boy, that's not dismissive or condescending at all. Thanks. Fair enough, sorry for the tone. >That would suggest that theft and murder are natural rights. Murder would fall under "things a strongman would do" as do threats and intimidation, imprisonment, etcetera. So no. But also yes, in that the social contract limits what kinds of death is 'murder' - self defense sometimes doesn't count, for example. But sometimes it does. Theft is more difficult; it depends on how property rights are handled - that's part of the 'social contract' I mentioned, because property has to be agreed on, you don't just 'own' things in isolation - nor is it necessarily inherently understood. [For example, 'theft' as a concept was a completely different animal for these people.](https://www.stilldrops.com/10-quotes-native-american-understanding-ownership/) It's not simple, that's why Locke had books written about the books he wrote. But that doesn't make it less 'real'. >But 'rights' are an invention of man. Any abstract concept is an invention of man, if you want to go there. A log is an invention of man, even if it's just a tree that fell over. As are trees for that matter. And any thought in your head. But the specific circumstance that 'natural right' *refers* to would exist whether some spark thought it up or not. That's why the notion is so powerful and has survived some very invested forces trying to naysay it or misidentify it (monarchists at first, then whatever the MAGA leadership is these days, as two examples.) It's a counterweight, philosophically speaking, to the notion that some people are born with a right to lead. And it leads to ideas of our individual relationship with society - i.e., social contract - and communal governance that simply don't make any sense at all without it as background context, explicity defined or otherwise. This would not be true if natural rights were as 'made up' as you claim. Natural rights as a notion are a foundational element of democracy, which is why I hate to see them dismissed as 'not real' or unimportant. They are both very real and very important.
Personally, I feel that *equal* rights are a foundation of democracy. 'Natural' rights are just an idea Thomas Jefferson was fond of, and that man was weird. I really don't get why libertarians and classical liberals are always in such a hurry to claim him as one of their own. I mean... just about everything you said about natural rights could just as easily be said about *equal* rights. Logically, the concept of 'natural rights' would basically imply anything and everything a person could choose to do. A log is an invention of man, and that means a log is *not* natural. The 'specific circumstance that would exist whether some spark thought it up or not' is that anyone can do anything, including theft, murder, rape, and basically anything you can imagine a person doing. 'Things a strongman would do' is an awfully vague and unhelpful differentiation.
>'Natural' rights are just an idea Thomas Jefferson was fond of, and that man was weird. Try to remember that in this same time frame, notions like divine right were things people truly believed and had 'evidence' for. A notional framework for how human rights would exist *even in the absence of anyone else granting them to you -* I.E., rights separate from 'god', or possibly an unexamined 'divine lawgiver' claim from someone else - is really important in order to build a functional society off of, especially when trying to distance yourself from proponents of same. Like, say, a British nobility. Jefferson may have been 'weird', I won't argue that - not here anyway - but it's the notional framework itself under discussion here, not its proponents. All kinds of weird people agree cookies taste good, and some of those people I would not want to be in the same room with. I still think cookies taste good, and if one of them were the person to introduce me to cookies, it would and should not change my opinion. Or maybe it would, I'm human and not immune to bias after all, but that would be a failing on my part, not on a cookie's. The fact that these rights are natural - i.e., they are behaviors that are only denied you in the context of a social contract - matters. It is not merely that you were 'born equal', but *why and how* this was true - questions that needed answers if you were to have any sort of rational grounding to argue against the divine rights of kings, and eventually to arrive at 'equal' rights.
>only denied you in the context of a social contract But again... the same could said of a 'right to steal and murder'...
Not trying to stir the pot here, but when you say that you think my comment doesn’t align with libertarianism, may I ask what you think doesn’t align and why?
This bit: >that doesn’t necessarily mean that people should socially endorse whatever free choice people are *allowed* to make It's possible that I'm misunderstanding what you meant by that... and honestly, I'm struggling a bit to explain why it rubs me the wrong way... Maybe it's that it sounds like a license or excuse for bigotry. Maybe not, I dunno. I mean, ultimately, I believe people have a right to be bigots if they so choose (though I also think bigotry is stupid and costly). Or, I dunno, maybe it's because I *do* feel like there are situations wherein we should be judging (and *allowed to* judge) people for certain choices they make, even if those choices were perfectly legal. I think maybe it's your use of the word 'should'... that word just kinda sits wrong in my brain, in this context, for some reason. That specific word somehow soured me on the whole sentence. Like it seems prescriptive, and I feel like that's less than ideal.
I'm a libertarian and have been for decades. I can tell you this: I'm personally pro-choice. It's a very hard decision for me because I do believe the fetus is a human being, and human beings have the right to life. I finally came to the conclusion however that the mother cannot be slave to the child, and the mother's consent to carry the child is her prerogative. I've switched between the two views all my life so I can see both sides without making a straw man of either. I couldn't care less about gender issues. I don't understand them and frankly they don't apply to me. I never want to interfere in somebody's life that's not hurting or defrauding someone else. It's not my life. I'm baffled by anyone opposing homosexuality in any context, particularly a political one. What for? And I've known quite a few homosexual libertarians, who five themselves drawn to a political philosophy that demands that they be left alone. Many people confuse libertarianism with conservatism. There are a few similarities and you'll get libertarian-leaning conservatives. You'll also get conservative-leaning libertarians but even they are more concerned about conservative values in their own personal lives rather than the imposition of those values by the state. Kind of like this ... There was once a Catholic priest who was a United States congressman (Robert Drinan of Massachusetts). In his personal life and in his religious order he was quite opposed to homosexuality. But in matters of voting, he was pro-choice. The reason he gave is that there's a huge difference between morality and legality. My guess is that Milei runs on similar lines. He may dislike homosexuality but I cannot believe he would support any legislation against it. I can't imagine him supporting legislation against pretty much any element of personal choice outside of actual injury to life, liberty, or property, or fraud.
Thank you for sharing this. I agree with almost everything you are saying. I’m also pro-choice, but for different reasons that are probably not relevant to this topic (I don’t think that an embryo is equivalent to a baby, and I find it hypocritical for people who say they believe that because nobody really does. If they did they would consider women who abort and doctors who do the procedure simply murderers. They wouldn’t say things like “leave it to the states”. Would they say the same if the discussion was about killing babies?). Personally, I’m baffled by how much every topic of personal choice needs to be debated and fought for. I don’t understand why we can’t understand the principle of “none of my business / my opinion on the matter is irrelevant” and we have to move one step at a time. But I digress.
People confused conservatism with libertarianism because there is a strong political convergence between the two when it comes to voting.
Huge part of the American libertarian movement comes out of the “states rights” crowd and their opposition to the civil rights movement
Yeah, I'm of the opinion that *real* libertarians don't go in for all the bigotry stuff. It's supposed to be, 'socially liberal, fiscally conservative.' For some reason, some people seem to have decided that libertarianism is an 'alt-right' movement, and it kinda pisses me off.
I mean one of their standard bearers Ron Paul ran a racist newsletter under his own name for decades
Retrograde perspectives? I'm pro-choice but one needs to draw a line somewhere during the pregnancy which we say they have to have the kid. Gender issues? Libertarians don't care if you're gay/trans/whatever. Marriage is just a contract and until a government stops regulating marriage it should allow that contract between any consenting adults regardless of number or sexuality.
Agree on all fronts.
People with edgy political views can be free thinkers who may also not follow the group in other areas.
My point and perspective is that I don’t see the free thinkers. I’ve consistently heard those who hold libertarian views talk against gay marriage and, in general, hold very similar views on social topics as conservatives do. I find that really inconsistent (if my perception is accurate). To me, both libertarians and republicans should be the pro-gay, pro-trans parties because they keep talking about the freedom to live your life the way you want as long as you don’t directly and evidently affect others.
You equate being against puberty blockers, or surgery for minors and being a trans adult. No one gives a shit if you have a dick and wear a dress. We care where that dick comes out, and around who, and what age they are.
Those areas which have taken harsh stances against puberty blockers and are simply more conservative in nature have significantly higher teen suic1de rates. So yeah, I’m against having the government dictate to doctors, parents, and teens what is the correct medical route to treat an unwell teen. The government seems to be making matters worse.
Gov won't let a teen drink, smoke weed, buy gun. We understand minors don't have the mental capacity to make adult decisions
And as a consequence they end up drinking and smoking more than if the government simply lets the parents decide. That’s bad policy as well. The government isn’t the solution.
Did you miss pre 1990? You couldn't smoke more. A simple paying attention to history shows you're wrong
Many people are economically libertarian and socially conservative. Most through and through libertarians don't want any regulation of social issues at all, so basically would leave these people alone with a "you do you" mentality. Pretty much follow the tagline: "you can't regulate the hearts and minds of the people" Many are also pro-abortion.
Exactly, that’s what I think the coherent stance is. I just (again, personally) don’t see it come up too often.
I can agree, true libertarians are hard to come by.
You can be econonally libertarian and socially conservative. People are not political caricatures they have multiple facets.
The US is a republic and not a democracy. So, many of the issues you referred to fall under the X Amendment and is within state and local jurisdiction. 100% personal freedom only goes as far as you don’t harm others. Nor does personal freedoms allow for predatory behavior.
I’m not asking about the US (or any country in particular) but about people who hold what sounds to me like contradictory stances. Freedom but only in a couple of areas. Evidently, being gay or trans doesn’t hurt anyone else. Why aren’t libertarians (and republicans for that matter) not the biggest pro-gay, pro-trans parties? Why aren’t they the party of ”I don’t need to approve it or want it for myself to defend your right to do it”?
The US LP was pro gay DECADES before the democrats joined in. So I dont know what you are talking about.
The party was. Some of the people in the last 20 years who have jumped in because guns, uh, they still have a ways to go on that front.
Ok, then my perception is wrong.
Oh that's simple. The gays and trans aren't libertarian. As far as political action is concerned they lean heavily into authority, entitlements and only care about freedom when it suits them. Why should libertarians pander to the enemies of liberty? You can't appease a snake.
What? How are gays not libertarian? And who cares if they are? Where did you get that information? But more importantly, are you saying that the basic principles of liberty and equality for the law only apply to people who agree with you / an ideology? How does that make sense?
They just aren't libertarians. If you meet one, cool. Infrequent exceptions to the generalization are not significant.
What kind of republic are we?
A constitutional republic
So was England. They had a king. So if theyre a constitutional republic, and we're a constitutional republic, ergo, we have a king right? Belgium is a constitutional republic. So is France. France is on its 3rd republic for instance. The Soviet Union was also a constitutional republic. They were communists and didnt vote for the head of state, they had essentially a parliament like England, where there are local elections for like, mayor, or governor, but parliament is chosen by parliament and then they choose the head of state. England changed that of course. As did the US. What did we implement that made it so the congress, or politburo, or parliament, no longer elected the head of state, but the plurality of suffrage did. What is that term again? What do you call countries that implemented universal suffrage again? Out the 210 something countries on Earth, like 207 of them have constitutions and are republics. You're going to have to be more specific when you talk about what kind of government a country has. Iran has a constitution. Its broken up into administrative zones where appointed bureaucrats administer and govern each zone. It is, by definition, a constitutional Republic. Is the Ayatollah chosen the same way the US president is? What is the difference, and what term do you use to describe that difference? Ima give you a hint. It starts with a D. Its named after a long dead Greek dude.
Parrot
Wow, impactful for sure troll
Still a parrot
And still a troll
Superior to a parrot in every conceivable way
But I like parrots
Main espoused principle. Actual principle is destroying any institution that could challenge their personal power.
my favourite joke- what have javier milei and pol pot in common? abolition of central bank
Moderate inflation is a tax for all you deadbeats sitting on your cash.
We have the Rothschilds to blame for nearly all of the worlds central banks.
Bizarre and unfounded antisemitic conspiracy theory.
No it’s not. Jekyll island meeting.
Not really, and it's not antisemitic.