Russia threatens to dump the dollar

[Jack V Savage]

I think the point being made is that converting the government into an authoritarian "oikos" is not necessarily the win-win it is portrayed as.

Where you're losing me is in equating basic, relatively inexpensive programs to help poor people have a chance to move up and to ensure that a rough stretch doesn't condemn people to a lifetime of poverty with "converting the gov't into an authoritarian 'oikos'." I'm not wondering why CTers don't want authoritarianism; I'm wondering why they respond to their fears by wanting to cut taxes on the rich and food stamps (for example). And, as I've said, I think race is the key to understanding that.

Food stamps the path to freedom? Uh, well, I do think it's a bit more complicated than that; it's better to have food than starve, but let's not kid ourselves about certain aspects of the reason why the slave is getting bread, and how that distribution works as part of the overall political economy. These factors are not so simply segregated.

Food stamps are absolutely a path to freedom, if the alternative is not having them. I went to school with people who were as smart as I was but had to frequently miss school to attend to younger siblings and then had to drop out to help the family make ends meet. With a more-generous safety net, they could have gone the same path I did.

It isn't necessarily done from kindness, and its existence often serves malign interests who are subverting political opposition of any more meaningful kind. You talk about white Americans and the ACA; their fear, of course, is that their present high-quality health care (obtained through individual employment) will slowly convert into state-mandated garbage healthcare, while elites enjoy top-level healthcare. A lot of ifs in that fear, sure, but it's not irrational in my mind; we all know health costs must be decreased, we all know that ACA is intended to universalize health care under Fed control, etc.

We do? The ACA is intended to cut costs for healthcare, sure, and to make sure everyone can get it. The screeching from the right is because it has large redistributional effects (from the subsidies, the fees that will be paid by higher-income Americans, and from the increased bargaining power of workers, who will be less tied to their jobs). This "Fed control" thing isn't based on anything that I can see.

If you view the Feds as the corrupt tool of interests who do not give a fvck about the white middle class (apart from meaningless sops like social posturing), you aren't going to be happy about that. Ever gone to the AAA for your automobile registration? Ever gone to the DMV? Enthused about the DMV, are you?

It's one thing to view it that way; it's another to actively push to make it that way. Again, I can see the first thing--the second is the really interesting phenomenon. Like I said, if the thinking is "those evil bankers/CFR members/politicians are fucking us over," why is the response, "so let's make sure to cut their taxes, get the gov't off their backs, and make sure the gov't stops doing anything positive for the poor and middle class?"

I do not foresee any such financial crisis in the future of the United States, at least not over the next couple decades.

I think we're at a point where we'll start to see pretty big changes--like a large, permanent decline in the workforce. I'm always suspicious when people predict big changes in society, and doubly so when those changes are just a continuation of present trends, but it seems to me that labor productivity is rising at a rate that demand can't support. That is, we're going to get to a point where we can supply more goods and services than we can expect to use without employing more than half the population (and then, who knows? Maybe a third, maybe less?). The long-term solution to that seems to be a much more generous safety net and more-progressive taxation. I don't believe we'll have a situation in America where the vast majority of the population is living in dire poverty, while robots do all the work for a handful of unimaginably rich people, and I don't think we'll revolt.

 

[IDL]

It's one thing to view it that way; it's another to actively push to make it that way. Again, I can see the first thing--the second is the really interesting phenomenon. Like I said, if the thinking is "those evil bankers/CFR members/politicians are fucking us over," why is the response, "so let's make sure to cut their taxes, get the gov't off their backs, and make sure the gov't stops doing anything positive for the poor and middle class?"

Just to clarify in regards to the CFR and bankers..

It's not about getting the governments off their backs.. I hardly think that is an issue.

It's about getting them off the government's back.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Just to clarify in regards to the CFR and bankers..

It's not about getting the governments off their backs.. I hardly think that is an issue.

It's about getting them off the government's back.

What's your view on Dodd/Frank?

BTW, your appearance reminds me of another example--CTers seem to really, really hate inflation. Excessively low inflation has been brutal on workers all over the developed world (the non-stupid attack on the Fed is that it has prioritized the desires of the rich and bankers--keeping inflation low--over the needs of the working class), and yet you guys A) think it should be even lower and B) simply refuse to believe that it's low in the first place, despite all the evidence (and despite the fact that that particular CT makes nonsense of so many other beliefs).

 

[ncordless]

What's your view on Dodd/Frank?

BTW, your appearance reminds me of another example--CTers seem to really, really hate inflation. Excessively low inflation has been brutal on workers all over the developed world (the non-stupid attack on the Fed is that it has prioritized the desires of the rich and bankers--keeping inflation low--over the needs of the working class), and yet you guys A) think it should be even lower and B) simply refuse to believe that it's low in the first place, despite all the evidence (and despite the fact that that particular CT makes nonsense of so many other beliefs).

The idea that inflation is always bad is rooted in the 70's. Most don't understand that some inflation is a good thing, especially if you owe debt such as a student loan.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The idea that inflation is always bad is rooted in the 70's. Most don't understand that some inflation is a good thing, especially if you owe debt such as a student loan.

I also think that a lot of people don't seem to understand that it drives nominal wages and asset prices up.

 

[crowded]

As I said, if your claim is that anything can happen, that's totally vacuous, and no, I'm not arguing with it. Anything can happen. There can be a nuclear accident that wipes out the planet. Maybe some huge disease will break out. You're dishonestly hiding from the implications of your comments. You were saying more than just "anything can happen" in context; you were suggesting that this is a serious threat because people can't prove that there will be no huge consequences, even though the action itself is insignificant. That's a common line of bad reasoning worth commenting on.

My claim is that you don't know what is going to happen. Nobody posting in this thread does. Prove otherwise if you can. Until then it's pretty simple, you typing over and over on your keyboard that escalated hostilities of this nature won't lead to anything significant means diddly. You got some math or some sworn statements from world leaders that you're going on? You're the guy claiming there's absolutely nothing to worry about and are trying to turn it around on me to prove your claim is false.

I'll reiterate, I don't know what's going to happen but I do know that when things escalate and shit becomes heated that decision making moves more toward the extreme. Go ahead and predict exactly what's going to happen and stand by it if you know so much. Time will tell if you're right. Me, I'll just see how all this unfolds because near as I can tell this isn't an everyday situation.

Jack hedges his bets all the time.

I don't even see him placing bets, unless you count expressing doubt over unlikely scenarios. I wonder if Jack pulled his funds out of the market when he saw the market ready to crash. That'd be an actual bet. Otherwise talk is cheap.

This thread is amusing. Everyone knows Russia aint gonna do shit or have sanctions imposed on them but they are arguing to the death about what might happen if something they know won't happen actually happens.

Tag team match Crowded & Ben v Jack and Jukai.

You're not reading very well if you think I'm claiming things will or won't happen. Looks like you've got it all figured out though. Hope you're right.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

You're not reading very well if you think I'm claiming things will or won't happen. Looks like you've got it all figured out though. Hope you're right.

My reading is fine. I see you claiming Jack V Savage can't predict the future with any certainty, pretty groundbreaking analysis there. How did you know he wasn't psychic?

 

[Jack V Savage]

My claim is that you don't know what is going to happen. Nobody posting in this thread does. Prove otherwise if you can.

My claim is that that's an empty claim, and you're using it to try to get away with more. "Nobody knows what's going to happen *so we should believe X rather than Y*." That's not logical. What I'm saying is that the volume being discussed here is insignificant. Whether it leads to some weird cascade, yes, I don't know, but, you know, there's no reason to think it will.

Until then it's pretty simple, you typing over and over on your keyboard that escalated hostilities of this nature won't lead to anything significant means diddly. You got some math or some sworn statements from world leaders that you're going on? You're the guy claiming there's absolutely nothing to worry about and are trying to turn it around on me to prove your claim is false.

And here's another fallacy. You're the one making a positive claim--this event is likely to cause some big consequence. Again, why? Why would it? I'm willing to listen, but the only thing I've seen is ben's "it's going to create some level of inflationary pressure." But if you think it through, you'll see that that level is nothing.

I don't even see him placing bets, unless you count expressing doubt over unlikely scenarios.

A) That's what I'm doing here, too. B) Inflation rising, interest rates spiking, unemployment slowly and steadily declining, gold prices falling, etc. weren't "unlikely scenarios" to people who truly believed in Austrian "economics" or who generally accepted the CT worldview. They were in fact, and, yes, I knew that. Again, I'm not claiming any special insight--just that CTers/Austrians are clueless.

I wonder if Jack pulled his funds out of the market when he saw the market ready to crash. That'd be an actual bet. Otherwise talk is cheap.

I'm in it for the long term. I did stop adding on my regular schedule before crash, and I did start adding more aggressively after it (BTW, how many people who claim to be wizards for being among the many to have seen a recession on the horizon have benefited from the huge run-up since?). I'd say that the market is pretty hot right now, and people investing today aren't likely to get good returns over the next, say, 10 years, but I'm still adding because over a longer period, I think the returns will be roughly in line with long-term norms (another one of those unimpressive, but most likely accurate predictions that you hate so much).

 

[IDL]

What's your view on Dodd/Frank?

BTW, your appearance reminds me of another example--CTers seem to really, really hate inflation. Excessively low inflation has been brutal on workers all over the developed world (the non-stupid attack on the Fed is that it has prioritized the desires of the rich and bankers--keeping inflation low--over the needs of the working class), and yet you guys A) think it should be even lower and B) simply refuse to believe that it's low in the first place, despite all the evidence (and despite the fact that that particular CT makes nonsense of so many other beliefs).

I don't know enough about it to have a solid opinion for you really.

My appearance has something to do with inflation? You sure bring it up a lot. Like anything else, it has pros and cons.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't know enough about it to have a solid opinion on it really.

My appearance has something to do with inflation? You sure bring it up a lot. Like anything else, it has pros and cons.

Because you're an example of what I was talking about. The evil bankers control the world so you want to give them more money at the expense of everyone else (by lowering inflation even more). Again, you're saying that the Fed has been doing the right thing by prioritizing the interests of bankers above those of workers (when there has been a conflict), but that they haven't gone far enough. Anyone who disagrees with your analysis is super pro-Fed in your warped view.

 

[IDL]

Because you're an example of what I was talking about. The evil bankers control the world so you want to give them more money at the expense of everyone else (by lowering inflation even more). Again, you're saying that the Fed has been doing the right thing by prioritizing the interests of bankers above those of workers (when there has been a conflict), but that they haven't gone far enough. Anyone who disagrees with your analysis is super pro-Fed in your warped view.

Up is down, and down is up in JVS world.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Up is down, and down is up in JVS world.

It's you who have it backwards, friend. And that was my point. I was asking why the CT worldview leads to the far right, rather than to the far left, as the left seems to have at least a natural response to their concerns. Personally, I think they both have the wrong answers, but as the balance is currently too far to the right, the left is less harmful. But that's me. I want to know why *you* think the answer to the excessive power of bankers is to give them more money at the expense of everyone else.

 

[Jukai]

Up is down, and down is up in JVS world.

Since this is literally how things work, do you want to explain why he is wrong? Or should we just do research?

 

[IDL]

It's you who have it backwards, friend. And that was my point. I was asking why the CT worldview leads to the far right, rather than to the far left, as the left seems to have at least a natural response to their concerns. Personally, I think they both have the wrong answers, but as the balance is currently too far to the right, the left is less harmful. But that's me. I want to know why *you* think the answer to the excessive power of bankers is to give them more money at the expense of everyone else.

If you are going to stereotype 'CT' views, then the closest thing to being able to rationalize what you said was that once people know how the system works (built by bankers for bankers) then you tend to want OUT of that system because it farms people.

So if removing the parasites is 'far right' then so be it.

So there you have it. I do not want them to have more power, I want them to piss off.

 

[IDL]

Since this is literally how things work, do you want to explain why he is wrong? Or should we just do research?

Nah it's the way he twists what people mean into new things.

 

[wandiswar]

Nah it's the way he twists what people mean into new things.

It's an conspiracy.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

Since this is literally how things work, do you want to explain why he is wrong? Or should we just do research?

Leave him alone, he is just looking at things from a different angle. An angle which is approximately 180 degrees different than the rest of us.

 

[IDL]

Leave him alone, he is just looking at things from a different angle. An angle which is approximately 180 degrees different than the rest of us.

That's actually true for the most part. I'm looking at it from the top down, rather than the bottom up.

Reversed polarity :icon_chee

 

[PEB]

Putin hates how well the US dollar has done as Russia currency has slogged in the basement. He will do whatever he needs to drive the US currency down. The problem no one else is going to follow him. Trust me China has a good thing going with the US and for China to follow Putin's lead would be very bad for China. Things are happening that continue to favor China and Putin would set China back two decades. Last thing China needs to do is accelerate a bubble in their own economy to follow Putin's lead.

Heck even Iran of all people has worked to close their deal with the UN. It looks like Iran could be one of the big winners if Russia continues down this path. Funny because Iran has always had a good relationship with Russia but it was more beneficial to Russia. Putin is likely trying to figure out how to save face because he is hugely popular in Russia. There is no simple way to walk away from what he has started so it will likely come down to some kind of deal between the EU and Russia. The US will likely have to agree to whatever the EU does to resolve this issue.

I give it another few weeks and the possibility of Ukraine separating from Crimea. Not the best of ideas but Russia wants some skin out of this deal.

 

[Jimmy Tuna**]

At some point we'll have to accept that each region of the world has it's big dogs and it's small dogs.

Russia is the big dog in Europe, China in Asia, the US in the west.