archBoston Presidential Poll 2012

[TheRifleman]

^ There is much speculation and agreement by the (shrinking number of) sane people in the Republican party that Libertarianism will become the new Republican party. In our current society, a Republican president will never be elected ever again if they continue to run on a socially conservative platform. The "right side of history" has proven itself to be socially liberal. Hopefully in the coming elections we will see this happen and the only differences between the parties will be economic ideals, not social ones.

Best post of the night.....100% on the money "Libertarianism will become the new Republican party"

 

[BostonUrbEx]

This thread sure did escalate.

 

[Justin7]

^ There is much speculation and agreement by the (shrinking number of) sane people in the Republican party that Libertarianism will become the new Republican party. In our current society, a Republican president will never be elected ever again if they continue to run on a socially conservative platform. The "right side of history" has proven itself to be socially liberal. Hopefully in the coming elections we will see this happen and the only differences between the parties will be economic ideals, not social ones.

Would your ideal Libertarian government allow corporations/businesses/schools/etc./etc. to discriminate based on ethnicity/sex/sexual orientation/etc. or do you believe the Federal government has a place in policing the civil rights of its people? Honest question.

 

[datadyne007]

Would your ideal Libertarian government allow corporations/businesses/schools/etc./etc. to discriminate based on ethnicity/sex/sexual orientation/etc. or do you believe the Federal government has a place in policing the civil rights of its people? Honest question.

First, I'm not a libertarian. I'm a bleeding blue democrat. I believe very strongly in government and taxes. Secondly, to answer your question, no, no government should ever allow discrimination and the government has every right to "police civil rights" only when they are expanding the freedoms of the citizens. The government should never be oppressing civil liberties, only working to expand them.

It's quite simple: a government ban on gay marriage would deny me liberty and the pursuit of happiness because my marriage would be invalidated. It frustrates me every day that there are so many people out there (that "love" the documents this country was founded upon) that believe the government should be oppressing the rights of its citizens when doing so violates the unalienable rights of the Declaration of Independence.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

It's quite simple: a government ban on gay marriage would deny me liberty and the pursuit of happiness because my marriage would be invalidated. It frustrates me every day that there are so many people out there (that "love" the documents this country was founded upon) that believe the government should be oppressing the rights of its citizens when doing so violates the unalienable rights of the Declaration of Independence.

Since when do libertarians believe in banning gay marriage? It's more like this: libertarians don't give a fuck what the government says about relationships, find a church that is willing to marry you and get married.

Would your ideal Libertarian government allow corporations/businesses/schools/etc./etc. to discriminate based on ethnicity/sex/sexual orientation/etc. or do you believe the Federal government has a place in policing the civil rights of its people? Honest question.

If a school denies people based on gender, they are reducing the demand for admittance. Thus, they are harming their own profit margin and will not pull in as much money as more accepting schools.

 

[datadyne007]

Since when do libertarians believe in banning gay marriage? It's more like this: libertarians don't give a fuck what the government says about relationships, find a church that is willing to marry you and get married.

If a school denies people based on gender, they are reducing the demand for admittance. Thus, they are harming their own profit margin and will not pull in as much money as more accepting schools.

I never said they did. I was responding to Justin's rather absurd post that had questions unrelated to me directed at me.

 

[statler]

If a school denies people based on gender, they are reducing the demand for admittance. Thus, they are harming their own profit margin and will not pull in as much money as more accepting schools.

If only we had a couple of centuries worth of real world samples to see if this is works as an acceptable deterrent against discrimination.

Oh yeah, we do and it doesn't.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Since when do libertarians believe in banning gay marriage? It's more like this: libertarians don't give a fuck what the government says about relationships, find a church that is willing to marry you and get married.

The problem comes in when you realize that marriage conveys several legal benefits including (but not limited to!) tax breaks and visitation rights: the reason there's a debate on gay marriage at all is because the church wants their state sponsorship, but doesn't want the state telling them what to do.

Separation of church and state... when it's convenient. You know, as you do.

 

[statler]

CBS, I think you may be confusing Libertarians with Conservatives. While they do share a lot of common beliefs, gay marriage is not one of them. See also: Drugs, sex and abortion.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

If only we had a couple of centuries worth of real world samples to see if this is works as an acceptable deterrent against discrimination.

Oh yeah, we do and it doesn't.

We had a time where you were legally required to segregate/discriminate. And then we a brief time where there were still illogical stigmas ingrained into the public which perpetuated racism beyond integration. I think now more than ever we are grown up enough to know it's ridiculous and inefficient.

But it's a silly argument, anyway. If I were to have a government which had one sole purpose -- above firefighting, above military, above all else -- it would be to protect against discrimination.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

The problem comes in when you realize that marriage conveys several legal benefits including (but not limited to!) tax breaks and visitation rights: the reason there's a debate on gay marriage at all is because the church wants their state sponsorship, but doesn't want the state telling them what to do.

Separation of church and state... when it's convenient. You know, as you do.

I'm in favor of no taxes, so there's no benefit there. I've never been presented with the visitation rights argument, so that is interesting, and I am unable to respond to that at this time.

And I do believe in separation of church and state, bud. Personally, I believe in ending the church, as well. Good for nothin' thievery and deception. I'm all for people holding their own beliefs, but organized religion is horrendous.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

And I do believe in separation of church and state, bud. Personally, I believe in ending the church, as well. Good for nothin' thievery and deception. I'm all for people holding their own beliefs, but organized religion is horrendous.

We completely agree. I was just being sarcastic and pointing out (or trying to anyway) the hypocrisy inherent in the church when they argue that they have the right to a Separation of Church and State when it benefits the church (i.e., "You can't force us to conduct a gay marriage") but that they also have the right to receive benefits from the state for church rites such as marriage, Separation of Church and State be damned.

 

[Justin7]

First, I'm not a libertarian. I'm a bleeding blue democrat.

Oops. Sorry about that.

If a school denies people based on gender, they are reducing the demand for admittance. Thus, they are harming their own profit margin and will not pull in as much money as more accepting schools.

You didn't really answer my question, unless the above is meant to convey that you think discrimination is a bad idea economically, but that it is not a legal issue.

 

[TheRifleman]

This is worth the read.

And we’ve got $648 trillion in derivatives

Economics 101 in layman terms
The Piper Must Be Paid


November 19, 2012

Bob Moriarty
Kevin Michael Grace spoke with Bob Moriarty

RW: What do you think of the prospects for the US economy after the re-election of Obama?

BM: I don’t think the election has anything to do with anything. I think the 800-pound gorilla in the room is the debt situation, and certainly the US is one of the worst. We’re an economy powered by debt, and it’s a fractional reserve system, so there’s always more debt than money. Sooner or later you have to pay the piper. This concept that you can somehow spend your way to prosperity is like trying to drink yourself sober.

RW: But that’s the course the US has been on at least since 2007, and there seems to be no end in sight.

BM: Absolutely correct. How can we have a recovery with a real debt of $7 trillion dollars? I mean it’s going to blow sky high. I’m not saying this as doom and gloom or anything else. The real deficit of the US is $7 trillion a year in an economy of $14 trillion. That’s not sustainable.

RW: The Keynesians, who dominate economics, say that debt isn’t a problem because sovereign governments such as the United States can simply print as much money and buy as much of their own money as they choose. And then one day, for reasons that have never been explained to me properly, the economy is going to come roaring back.
BM: That’s one of those theories. It’s like the theory of Communism. It really sounds wonderful, but I think that everybody would agree by now that Communism failed, and it’s a bad philosophy. I don’t think there are that many serious people who believe that Keynesian economics works. I know the people in government do, but these guys are out of touch with reality. You can look at what is going on in Europe; they just came out with a report in Greece of 58% unemployment among the young people. That is an accident waiting to happen.

RW: Since the dot.com bust and the decision by the Fed then not to allow what should have been a recession, we have had over a decade of this kind of economics, and the portents become darker and darker. Yet there seems to be no alternative on the horizon. Doesn’t this surprise you?

BM: It surprises me only in its duration. I believe to this day—and I’ll never change my mind on this—that we should have let the economy go into a depression in September/October of 2008. We should have let the banks collapse.

Let me give you an analogy. I just came back from Albania a week ago. I thought of Albania as some Third World shithole, that I’m going to be in a $20-a-room hotel, and they’ll be driving around in rickshaws. I was really amazed that it’s a booming economy. Those guys are absolutely going gangbusters. Now, in 1997, their economy literally was a lottery, a Ponzi scheme, and it blew up. So every bad thing that could happen to an economy since 1945 happened to the Albanians, and they’re growing like crazy now.

Two months ago I was in Turkey, and they’re not in the Euro. Greece is going under financially, and Turkey is booming. We need to let the economy reset and let all these financial pressures blow up and let the debt default, as we know it’s going to. Who in their right mind would buy a 30-year bond now?

RW: The feeling seems to be that our political systems will not allow this reset.

BM: Let me explain something to you. I spent two years in Vietnam [as an aviator in the US Marines], and we had the most powerful military in the world. The guys we were fighting against were down in the jungle with a bowl of rice in one hand and an AK-47 in the other. Who won that war?

RW: The North Vietnamese.

“It sounds like a horrible, cruel, cold thing to say, but when you can’t pay your debts, whether you’re an individual or a corporation or a country, you must default and start over again”—Bob Moriarty

BM: Exactly. Governments believe they’re powerful. Governments delude themselves far longer than you would ever believe possible. The governments aren’t powerful. If you believe I’m wrong, go down to the shore and take a bucket and empty the tide out and come back and give me a ring when you stop the tide. You can’t. Governments have been trying to do this for 5,000 years and always failed.

The government is going to fail; the bond market is going to blow up; the banking system will blow up. Anyone who has had Economics 101 knows that. One day soon we’re going to have hyperinflation. The only question is whether the $648 trillion in derivatives blows up first, and we go into a deflationary depression, or we become Weimar Germany.

RW: We have this extraordinary situation going on now with Greece and Spain where their governments insist upon what can only be described as a crucifixion of their people based on the extraordinary notion that somehow Euros borrowed from nothing are going to save them. Germany says they must do this and that, and these governments say OK. How long do you think the people there will take this?

BM: That’s a good question. That is the best question you asked, and the answer to it is when you have 58% unemployment among the under-25s, how long before they stage a revolution? The answer is not very long.

Here is the solution that no one in government wants to discuss. Is the United States ever going to pay its debt? The answer to that is no, and so the solution is to default on the debt, accept the fact that a lot of people are going to get hurt and start over. That’s what Greece, Spain and Ireland need to do. Iceland did it, and they’re going like gangbusters now.

It sounds like a horrible, cruel, cold thing to say, but when you can’t pay your debts, whether you’re an individual or a corporation or a country, you must default and start over again. But no government wants to do it because they want to keep their hands on the reins of power. There are going to be government officials in Greece hanging from telephone poles pretty soon.

RW: Before 2007, very few people had heard of derivatives. We have a situation where the putative value of derivatives is now more than the entire world economy. Yet nothing has been done about the potential derivative fiasco. Do you think anything is ever going to be done? Or is the situation simply going to resolve itself?

BM: It’s not going to resolve itself; it never does.

RW: I mean through some sort of collapse.

BM: Do you know who Brooksley Born is? She was head of the CFTC from 1996 to 1999 when derivatives were $60 trillion. She said we need to get these things under control because $60 trillion is four times the size of the US economy, and if we don’t, these derivatives will destroy everybody. She got steamrollered by Larry Summers, by Greenspan, by everybody.

“In relative terms, gold stocks are cheaper today than they were in September 2008; they’re cheaper today than they were in the summer of 2001. As an opportunity, it’s probably the greatest time in history”—Bob Moriarty

I wrote an article in February 2002 that said derivatives were totally out of control. They were $100 trillion, and there is no way you can justify derivatives of $100 trillion in a $65 trillion world economy. They went up to $700 trillion and change in 2008 and have come down to $648 trillion now. Derivatives are bets. How can you have an economy based on a $648-trillion casino? The answer is you can’t. We’re living in never-never land where everybody is pretending they have assets, pretending they have money, and they don’t.

RW: Why can’t they simply be cancelled?

BM: You can’t do it because no one is willing to take a haircut, which is exactly why the Greek bond situation is so bad. Nobody will say, “Hey, by the way, we’re not going to get paid, so why don’t we write this money off?” Each side of the derivatives contract is claiming to be in profit when, in fact, each side of most derivative contracts is in a negative position. A lot of people are going to wake up one day and find out that the assets they think they have don’t exist.

I think if you took the value of all the hard assets in the world—every stock, bond, house, car, boat, plane, everything in the world—I think you’d be around $200 trillion. And we’ve got $648 trillion in derivatives. That is clearly insane.

 

[bosdevelopment]

This is worth the read.

But... what about gay marriage and birth control?

 

[TheRifleman]

But... what about gay marriage and birth control?

When shit hits the fan..........Nobody will even give a shit about gay marriage or birth control. As the majority of the American sheep are DEBT slaves to the politicans and their corporate masters

 

[statler]

But not you. You got it all figured out. You cracked the code. You see through the lies and deception. Only you know THE TRUTH.

 

[TheRifleman]

But not you. You got it all figured out. You cracked the code. You see through the lies and deception. Only you know THE TRUTH.

Are you serious I have it all figured out? Do you think I would be blogging to you if I had anything figure out.

I do understand the current economic situation and honestly its very sad that its come to this. A bunch of GREEDY political hacks have destroyed this great free nation on pure selfishness to help enslave the American Population with unlimited amounts of DEBT.

Its basic math.

We never had to worry about the Terrorists only to be destroy from WITH-IN.
Thats how I see this playing out.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Are you serious I have it all figured out? Do you think I would be blogging to you if I had anything figure out.

I do understand the current economic situation and honestly its very sad that its come to this. A bunch of GREEDY political hacks have destroyed this great free nation on pure selfishness to help enslave the American Population with unlimited amounts of DEBT.

Its basic math.

We never had to worry about the Terrorists only to be destroy from WITH-IN.
Thats how I see this playing out.

You know, the whole thing breaks down when you realize it isn't simple math. Simple math can't predict human behavior. There's no formula for determining reactions, no proof that can tell you what people do and why.

But, here, let me ask you a question. To whom do we owe this unlimited debt?

 

[bosdevelopment]

You know, the whole thing breaks down when you realize it isn't simple math. Simple math can't predict human behavior. There's no formula for determining reactions, no proof that can tell you what people do and why.

But, here, let me ask you a question. To whom do we owe this unlimited debt?

I can haz treasury bondz?

Hong Kong: $121.9 billion (0.9 percent)
Caribbean banking centers: $148.3 (1 percent)
Taiwan: $153.4 billion (1.1 percent)
Brazil: $211.4 billion (1.5 percent)
Oil exporting countries: $229.8 billion (1.6 percent)
Mutual funds: $300.5 billion (2 percent)
Commercial banks: $301.8 billion (2.1 percent)
State, local and federal retirement funds: $320.9 billion (2.2 percent)
Money market mutual funds: $337.7 billion (2.4 percent)
United Kingdom: $346.5 billion (2.4 percent)
Private pension funds: $504.7 billion (3.5 percent)
State and local governments: $506.1 billion (3.5 percent)
Japan: $912.4 billion (6.4 percent)
U.S. households: $959.4 billion (6.6 percent)
China: $1.16 trillion (8 percent)
The U.S. Treasury: $1.63 trillion (11.3 percent)
Social Security trust fund: $2.67 trillion (19 percent)