Jump to content

Debates


MichaelWeston

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1349750033' post='1168193']
[img]http://www.digitalfox.com/digitalfox/johnf-ingkerry/foilhat_files/foil5.jpg[/img]


No actually it would be a return to what Hamilton had in mind.
[/quote]

Hamilton had absolutely no idea where the economy would be headed to in the future. If you really want to get the idea of what I am talking about, go watch The International.

Another point to make against a national bank, look at what happened in Europe and the Euro. Greece's plummet in economy happened mostly in part to the fact they were a member of the countries using the Euro. Because Greece was part of a conglomerate, when they began to hit hard times, their currency didn't match the rest of the countries deflation. So the only way to fix Greece's woes were if other members using the Euro gave them loans with either low on NO interest rates.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Henry Kissinger is one of the smartest, most well thought or men in the world. He believes a New World Order will happen soon. Kissinger has not only worked with the U.S. government, but has worked as a mediator globally for years.

[quote]Henry Alfred Kissinger was sworn in on September 22, 1973, as the 56th Secretary of State, a position he held until January 20, 1977. He also served as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs from January 20, 1969, until November 3, 1975. In July 1983 he was appointed by President Reagan to chair the National Bipartisan Commission on Central America until it ceased operation in January 1985, and from 1984-1990 he served as a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. From 1986-1988 he was a member of the Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy of the National Security Council and Defense Department. He is currently a member of the Defense Policy Board.[/quote]

Don't be so quick to dismiss the New World Order as a conspiracy theory, when there are people in important positions coming forth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1349748230' post='1168172']
There's currently one copy available on Amazon for $17.

My local library has his [b]The price of power; America since 1945[/b]


Is that one any good?
[/quote]
I've not read it but I will say that Agar was an wonderful example of a disappearing species--the secular American intellectual (i.e. not affiliated with academia.) His prose is fine and his arguments and narrative are tight. So, probably worth reading, imo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1349748598' post='1168176']
Here is the book Homer is talking about:

[url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0807114510/ref=tmm_hrd_used_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=used"]http://www.amazon.co...&condition=used[/url]

I am getting a (used) copy now.
[/quote]

Not the book I suggested, BR, though that looks interesting. The author is Herbert Agar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1349748699' post='1168178']
[url="http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?tn=price+union"]Abebooks.com[/url] has a number of copies available for $4-6...
[/quote]

Excellent. If you all want to, we can do a mini "book club" thing where we go through it and chat about the chapters. I'll pull my copy out and start re-reading it this week. I'll set up a forum somewhere for the purpose if there are interested parties.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1349748751' post='1168179']
To each their own I guess. I see 3rd party candidates as more to my liking but I am not willing to throw away my vote. The two parties can only agree on one thing and that is to blackball all 3rd parties... And it is a damn shame. I know we will all agree to that.

Our country needs more flavor. [b]Competition breeds excellence and the dems and reps seem to just be twiddle dee and twiddle dumb.[/b] Each pissing off the others base to keep us from talking about the real issues.
[/quote]

This is what reminded me of Agar's book because that is an integral argument within it. Roughly paraphrased, his claim is that the development of parties, with it concomitant Siamese twin-like sloppiness, is an essential aspect of American political character and is a big part of what holds the US together.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1349750417' post='1168195']
Hamilton had absolutely no idea where the economy would be headed to in the future.[/quote]

Finished reading the thread and I could go on and on about a number of the misperceptions here about national banks, socialism, job creation, etc..., from all three of you. Not gonna do it, but will comment on this specific one.

This claim, Lewdog, is kind of funny for a couple of reasons. The first is that of all the founders, Hamilton foremost (and then guys like Robert Morris, Tench Coxe and even G.W.) actually had a pretty refined vision for the future of the US economy. Second, we are living in the world of that outlook and not with Jefferson's competing vision. That's not to say that Ham or the others could have foretold all of the subsequent specific developments--especially those which are best classified as dysfunctional. But insofar as general trends go--it's a Hamiltonian US.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1349749951' post='1168192']
:suicide:

All you want, but Hamilton had it right regarding the National Bank.

Sorry Rick but I really think you got alot more reading to do with that.
[/quote]

It goes completely against what I believe in. I believe that competition is the key to the 'free' market. I say 'free' because a true free market would never work. It needs to be well regulated and transparent but I would never buy into a national bank, no matter how much I read...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1349765020' post='1168221']
Excellent. If you all want to, we can do a mini "book club" thing where we go through it and chat about the chapters. I'll pull my copy out and start re-reading it this week. I'll set up a forum somewhere for the purpose if there are interested parties.
[/quote]

OK, on this note I just bought the right one. I'm cheap though so for free shipping I'm looking at 7-10 days before I get it.

I'm in on the 'book club' though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1349749338' post='1168186']
I'm trying to be respectful here but Jamie, are you reading these posts? [i][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(247,247,247)]The government can't essentially create new jobs through them [/background][/size][/font][/color][/i][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(247,247,247)]means that although you create jobs, you are paying for them through taxes. Not exactly a healthy economy right? There is a word for what that is on a grand scale but I don't want to piss anyone off so I will let each of you figure that out yourself.[/background][/size][/font][/color]
[/quote]

For all the talk about deficit spending and the push to reduce the deficit, does anyone care to take a few minutes and tell me why its such a bad idea to marginally increase our already tremendous nation debt to get people back to work?

Cant those things be addressed when the economy and jobs situation has stablized?

It just seems to me that the priority, above all else for the next few years, should be to get people working. I feel like it shouldnt matter if it private vs public sector...what am i missing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1349766135' post='1168223']
Finished reading the thread and I could go on and on about a number of the misperceptions here about national banks, socialism, job creation, etc..., from all three of you. Not gonna do it, but will comment on this specific one.

This claim, Lewdog, is kind of funny for a couple of reasons. The first is that of all the founders, Hamilton foremost (and then guys like Robert Morris, Tench Coxe and even G.W.) actually had a pretty refined vision for the future of the US economy. Second, we are living in the world of that outlook and not with Jefferson's competing vision. That's not to say that Ham or the others could have foretold all of the subsequent specific developments--especially those which are best classified as dysfunctional. But insofar as general trends go--it's a Hamiltonian US.
[/quote]

I don't know if I follow you on this Homer. On my comment you mentioned how competition between the parties is what basically holds the US together. My belief is that competition is extremely important in almost everything in life. I think businesses thrives, government parties thrive, segments within business thrive, you can go almost down the line... Competition brings out the best in people and forces them to think more inventively and to improve on what is the status quo. Bad businesses get crushed, good businesses become great, and great businesses become even better.

With that being said, how can putting all the banks into one large lump with nothing to compete with it be the answer? Even if we didn't nationalize all the banks and let private banks exist, the government can and will make rules that will eventually start to hurt private banks. It screams USPS all over again in my opinion. Can you try to explain why you think competition within parties is essential but you don't agree with the same principles when it comes to business?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='mullichicken25' timestamp='1349791403' post='1168255']
For all the talk about deficit spending and the push to reduce the deficit, does anyone care to take a few minutes and tell me why its such a bad idea to marginally increase our already tremendous nation debt to get people back to work?

Cant those things be addressed when the economy and jobs situation has stablized?

It just seems to me that the priority, above all else for the next few years, should be to get people working. I feel like it shouldnt matter if it private vs public sector...what am i missing?
[/quote]

Your not missing anything and your right. Jobs are jobs but I think that creating jobs for the sake of creating them isn't the way to go though. In other words, are these career jobs that are being created, or jobs that will go away in 6 months?

I am encouraged that there are gov't jobs being created but the majority of job creation in this country comes from small businesses hiring them (historically speaking). And on that note, other than part time jobs the private sector is still hurting tremendously.

What brought this up overall is that Jamie was making the point that the unemployment rate is going down, which causes all the poll data to be skewed. My point towards that is that people don't look at the rate to determine how good things are. They look around them and decide for themselves. And even if they did look at the unemployment rate, 7.8% is still not good. Better than 8.1% but still not good.

I will be honest here and also say that I find it extremely weird that there was such a large bump in gov't jobs a month before the election... tin foil hat I know, but I don't think I'm the only one that is weary of these numbers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the type of things people see and pay attention to, not unemployment rates.

[i][color=#000000][font=arial, sans-serif][size=3]President Obama touted it in 2010 as evidence "manufacturing jobs are coming back to the United States,” but two years later, a Michigan hybrid battery plant built with $150 million in taxpayer funds is putting workers on furlough before a single battery has been produced.[/size][/font][/color][/i]

[color=#000000][font=arial, sans-serif][size=3]Read more: [url="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/08/lg-plant-that-got-150m-to-make-volt-batteries-in-michigan-puts-workers-on/#ixzz28oQ2zRiV"]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/08/lg-plant-that-got-150m-to-make-volt-batteries-in-michigan-puts-workers-on/#ixzz28oQ2zRiV[/url][/size][/font][/color]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of a blanket reply here.

Ok, br, even if it is just you and me, it'll be fun to go through the Agar book. It had a profound effect on me the first time I read it, partly because I found myself in a position of being "wowed" by the insights of a fellow whom I considered to be on the other side of many issues from my own stance.

A lot of the misperceptions we all have about various aspects of US history, economics, etc... are remedied by a little focused study in relevant areas. If for no other reason than that, the Agar book is worthwhile. I can think of a lot of other books that fit the bill, too. Perhaps I ought to set up an informal course for folks who want to do some leisurely, personal study.

A couple of other things: The history of banking in the US is interesting in itself. The 1st and 2nd national banks were not intended to be a monopoly--they were backstops and institutions of "last resort." The Fed serves a similar role today in this respect. What is different between then and now is that the cultural consensus of the times is different. Whereas in the 19th century banks were intended to be subordinate to the productive economy, those tethers do not apply in the post Cold War world. So what we are experiencing is a "financialization" of the economy in which finance operates in-and-of itself, almost completely independent of the productive economy. It's much more complicated and nuanced than that, but in essence, that's the biggest difference.

BTW, Jamie's mention of the state bank in North Dakota is a fine example of what it means to have a bank that is based on providing credit for enterprise in the productive economy. That's very similar in outlook to the vision of our early national bankers. One way of putting it is that the provision of credit to fund specific kinds of economic activity is essential to the health of an economy as a whole. Of course, there would be debates about just what kinds of economic activity fit that bill. And that is as it should be. And, to go with BRs comments about competition, it is precisely the conjunction between the market and political consensus (after debate) which has fueled many of the advances in our economy. Likewise, many of the political decisions about the economy have been bad, too. The trick is in identifying the reasons which distinguish between what is good and what is bad. Any doctrine which ideologically is unwilling to compromise tends to lead towards the bad stuff and that applies to communism as well as free market radicalism pretty equally. In a country as geologically large and economically diverse as ours, there must be moments when people are willing to attend to the interests of other regions, or classes, etc... . Not only to keep the peace, but to semi-rationally create prosperity for all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1349797890' post='1168286']
Kind of a blanket reply here.

Ok, br, even if it is just you and me, it'll be fun to go through the Agar book. It had a profound effect on me the first time I read it, partly because I found myself in a position of being "wowed" by the insights of a fellow whom I considered to be on the other side of many issues from my own stance.

A lot of the misperceptions we all have about various aspects of US history, economics, etc... are remedied by a little focused study in relevant areas. If for no other reason than that, the Agar book is worthwhile. I can think of a lot of other books that fit the bill, too. Perhaps I ought to set up an informal course for folks who want to do some leisurely, personal study.

A couple of other things: The history of banking in the US is interesting in itself. The 1st and 2nd national banks were not intended to be a monopoly--they were backstops and institutions of "last resort." The Fed serves a similar role today in this respect. What is different between then and now is that the cultural consensus of the times is different. Whereas in the 19th century banks were intended to be subordinate to the productive economy, those tethers do not apply in the post Cold War world. So what we are experiencing is a "financialization" of the economy in which finance operates in-and-of itself, almost completely independent of the productive economy. It's much more complicated and nuanced than that, but in essence, that's the biggest difference.

BTW, Jamie's mention of the state bank in North Dakota is a fine example of what it means to have a bank that is based on providing credit for enterprise in the productive economy. That's very similar in outlook to the vision of our early national bankers. One way of putting it is that the provision of credit to fund specific kinds of economic activity is essential to the health of an economy as a whole. Of course, there would be debates about just what kinds of economic activity fit that bill. And that is as it should be. And, to go with BRs comments about competition, it is precisely the conjunction between the market and political consensus (after debate) which has fueled many of the advances in our economy. Likewise, many of the political decisions about the economy have been bad, too. The trick is in identifying the reasons which distinguish between what is good and what is bad. Any doctrine which ideologically is unwilling to compromise tends to lead towards the bad stuff and that applies to communism as well as free market radicalism pretty equally. In a country as geologically large and economically diverse as ours, there must be moments when people are willing to attend to the interests of other regions, or classes, etc... . Not only to keep the peace, but to semi-rationally create prosperity for all.
[/quote]
I am in. have not been around much lately but pm me with the info.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1349765020' post='1168221']
Excellent. If you all want to, we can do a mini "book club" thing where we go through it and chat about the chapters. I'll pull my copy out and start re-reading it this week. I'll set up a forum somewhere for the purpose if there are interested parties.
[/quote]

Just bought a copy myself, though I also went with the free shipping so it looks like 4-14 days for me as well...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1349797890' post='1168286']
Kind of a blanket reply here.

Ok, br, even if it is just you and me, it'll be fun to go through the Agar book. It had a profound effect on me the first time I read it, partly because I found myself in a position of being "wowed" by the insights of a fellow whom I considered to be on the other side of many issues from my own stance.

A lot of the misperceptions we all have about various aspects of US history, economics, etc... are remedied by a little focused study in relevant areas. If for no other reason than that, the Agar book is worthwhile. I can think of a lot of other books that fit the bill, too. Perhaps I ought to set up an informal course for folks who want to do some leisurely, personal study.

A couple of other things: The history of banking in the US is interesting in itself. The 1st and 2nd national banks were not intended to be a monopoly--they were backstops and institutions of "last resort." The Fed serves a similar role today in this respect. What is different between then and now is that the cultural consensus of the times is different. Whereas in the 19th century banks were intended to be subordinate to the productive economy, those tethers do not apply in the post Cold War world. So what we are experiencing is a "financialization" of the economy in which finance operates in-and-of itself, almost completely independent of the productive economy. It's much more complicated and nuanced than that, but in essence, that's the biggest difference.

BTW, Jamie's mention of the state bank in North Dakota is a fine example of what it means to have a bank that is based on providing credit for enterprise in the productive economy. That's very similar in outlook to the vision of our early national bankers. One way of putting it is that the provision of credit to fund specific kinds of economic activity is essential to the health of an economy as a whole. Of course, there would be debates about just what kinds of economic activity fit that bill. And that is as it should be. And, to go with BRs comments about competition, it is precisely the conjunction between the market and political consensus (after debate) which has fueled many of the advances in our economy. Likewise, many of the political decisions about the economy have been bad, too. The trick is in identifying the reasons which distinguish between what is good and what is bad. Any doctrine which ideologically is unwilling to compromise tends to lead towards the bad stuff and that applies to communism as well as free market radicalism pretty equally. In a country as geologically large and economically diverse as ours, there must be moments when people are willing to attend to the interests of other regions, or classes, etc... . Not only to keep the peace, but to semi-rationally create prosperity for all.
[/quote]

I think I get it. Would take a lot of political manuevering to 'talk' the right into something like this. But I guess I can open up my mind and try to understand better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1349766135' post='1168223']
Finished reading the thread and I could go on and on about a number of the misperceptions here about national banks, socialism, job creation, etc..., from all three of you. Not gonna do it, but will comment on this specific one.

This claim, Lewdog, is kind of funny for a couple of reasons. The first is that of all the founders, Hamilton foremost (and then guys like Robert Morris, Tench Coxe and even G.W.) actually had a pretty refined vision for the future of the US economy. Second, we are living in the world of that outlook and not with Jefferson's competing vision. That's not to say that Ham or the others could have foretold all of the subsequent specific developments--especially those which are best classified as dysfunctional. But insofar as general trends go--it's a Hamiltonian US.
[/quote]

I'm not sure if I can agree with you on this. The founding fathers of this country believed in a small representative government where states held more power than the national government. Today we have a strong national government who's laws trump that of the states, controls the military, and controls the economy. That's just the start of things. If the federal government created one centralized bank, do you know how big of an outcry that would create? There would be riots everywhere. Just look at the occupy Wall Street, and Tea Party movements and multiply that by 1,000.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent. Pulled my copy off the shelf. It's about 700 pages and there is not too much fluff so we can read it in bits, taking our time. I have a domain I can set up for this purpose and in the time it'll take for you all to receive the book I can be getting that set up. Also, I've noticed that [url="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-price-of-union-herbert-agar/1026708513"]Barnes and Noble has this for free as an ebook[/url], so those with a Nook can get it at a great price! Let me work on it for a day or two and I'll have details on the site, etc... I'll post details then.

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1349804123' post='1168313']
I'm not sure if I can agree with you on this. The founding fathers of this country believed in a small representative government where states held more power than the national government. Today we have a strong national government who's laws trump that of the states, controls the military, and controls the economy. That's just the start of things. If the federal government created one centralized bank, do you know how big of an outcry that would create? There would be riots everywhere. Just look at the occupy Wall Street, and Tea Party movements and multiply that by 1,000.
[/quote]

Okay. What do I know... ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1349806673' post='1168322']
Excellent. Pulled my copy off the shelf. It's about 700 pages and there is not too much fluff so we can read it in bits, taking our time. I have a domain I can set up for this purpose and in the time it'll take for you all to receive the book I can be getting that set up. Also, I've noticed that [url="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-price-of-union-herbert-agar/1026708513"]Barnes and Noble has this for free as an ebook[/url], so those with a Nook can get it at a great price! Let me work on it for a day or two and I'll have details on the site, etc... I'll post details then.



Okay. What do I know... ?
[/quote]

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I'm just trying to point out that there was no way that members of the government and founding fathers could have known what we would be like today. When he was approached to lead the country, George Washington refused to be called a king. He pointed out that he didn't risk his life and those lives of his army, to break away from a monarchy, and create a new one.

I really don't know anything about you, you could be an Economy professor at Harvard for all I know, but I'm not going to change my mind based solely by someone's position in society. Then again, you don't know much about me do you? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1349806673' post='1168322']
Excellent. Pulled my copy off the shelf. It's about 700 pages and there is not too much fluff so we can read it in bits, taking our time. I have a domain I can set up for this purpose and in the time it'll take for you all to receive the book I can be getting that set up.[b] Also, I've noticed that [url="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-price-of-union-herbert-agar/1026708513"]Barnes and Noble has this for free as an ebook[/url], so those with a Nook can get it at a great price![/b] Let me work on it for a day or two and I'll have details on the site, etc... I'll post details then.


[/quote]

Damn my wife and her Kindle... :shakesfist:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1349806673' post='1168322']
Excellent. Pulled my copy off the shelf. It's about 700 pages and there is not too much fluff so we can read it in bits, taking our time. I have a domain I can set up for this purpose and in the time it'll take for you all to receive the book I can be getting that set up. Also, I've noticed that [url="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-price-of-union-herbert-agar/1026708513"]Barnes and Noble has this for free as an ebook[/url], so those with a Nook can get it at a great price! Let me work on it for a day or two and I'll have details on the site, etc... I'll post details then.
[/quote]

This could definitely be interesting as long as the discussion stayed focused around the book and what it is trying to convey... without turning into some folks posting 50,000+ (yes, I'm being hyperbolic!) articles supporting political positions. Would like to read the give and take strictly about the books content...

Homer - I'm not referring to you in this regard... just that it could be a really good give and take provided it is used for its intended purpose. Does that make sense?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...