50 votes

Congressman Pete Stark To Jan Helfeld - "Listen you get the eff outta here or I'll throw you out the window"

Uploaded on Aug 23, 2008

Watch Congressman Pete Stark blow up when Jan Helfeld asks him why Stark believes, "the more we owe, the wealthier we are."


http://youtu.be/UjbPZAMked0



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You don't get the government

You don't get the government you want, you get the government you deserve

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine, Godfather of the American Revolution

Cyril's picture

Observably.

Observably.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

The killer device to gauge politicians hypocrisy:

The killer device to gauge politicians hypocrisy:

the Jan-o-Meter Interview!

Home run for Pete on that device, in 2008!

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

The soviets must have had a bunch of secret bases in California

Way before the USSR collapse, the soviets must have had a big bunch of their secret bases in California.

I can't explain it otherwise.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

Two main flavors of "debt", that's what I learned!

Apparently, according to Pete, there are two flavors of "debt", with a really interesting attribute, in each:

1) the usual debt, of individuals or entreprises, that those better keep in check

2) debt for the government, which is never a biggie to let grow as large as deemed necessary

Striking contrast between the two, or what?

Pretty cool, uh?!

I wonder what kind of dictionary Pete was/is using, though...

Darn, no doubts that is/was one "D'Avant Garde" with also a "Je ne sais quoi" in it, most certainly!

So many new definitions to keep up with, now, folks!

I wonder also why he had to use argumentation by authority re: his formal, academic, credentials vs. Jan's, if these two distinct "debts" are so obvious to identify...

Now Pete's voting record makes absolutely perfect sense!

Jan, have you found that cool dictionary eventually, since then?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

Pete observably loooooves spending our money

Pete observably loooooves spending our money, among other typically leftist views:

http://www.ontheissues.org/CA/Pete_Stark.htm

Only thing he wasn't a big fan of - is going to war abroad. Although his views may have changed (as he loves shoving numbers in projective spreadsheets anyway, war is still an evergreen strategy if only for that...)

Speculation:

Maybe he found himself too busy, over decades, doing war here at home, against your Constitution, pretty much on all other accounts?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Jan -- While not

Jan -- While not interviewing, but simple interactions in the Republican Party in Colorado, I have face similar rebutals. We must all stay strong, and push-out from office, those unwilling to accept the truth, and make necessary corrections to a broken system.
God Bless America
God Damn The New World Order

Michael K-obzina
Republican District Captain 25h
3o3-933-2898
Give me Liberty, or Give me Death...
STOP Federal AND State Governments servitude to THE FED and Corp.s!

Jan Helfeld's picture

Thank you for your support and comment

Thank you for your support and comment.

Jan Helfeld

Right on Jan! An oldie but a goodie.

Back then we were only FIVE trillion in debt.

This illustrates how STUPID member sof congress are.

That idiot Stark knows NOTHING about economics. HE is the one who could have learned from Jan.

When it comes to understanding free market economics, Jan Helfeld is one of the best out there.

No one asks questions like he does.

JAN, PLEASE KEEP ON EXPOSING THESE IGNORANT IDIOTS FOR WHAT THEY ARE!

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Jan Helfeld's picture

Thank you for your support and praise.

Thank you for your support and praise.

Jan Helfeld

Jan Helfeld's picture

Where do you live?

After I escaped with the tape the Chief of Staff called me and asked if I would bring back the tape. I said maybe some other day since I was close to my home. Then he asked: Where do you live? My answer: in Washington.

Jan Helfeld

Virtual

fist bump

I bet you

Many people in politics have this pompous attitude! "I am more intelegent than you because I got elected, peasant!" He was and probably still is a jackass, just now an unemployed jackass.

You know that Pete Stark is no longer a Congressman, right?

He lost to a 31 year old lawyer, and the former California Congressman doesn't even live in California anymore.

SteveMT's picture

Grace under fire is the m.o. of Jan Helfeld.

Letting these miserables make asses of themselves by their own hypocrisy is the point.

Jan Helfeld's picture

Thank you for your support and praise.

Thank you for your support and praise. You can see my soul, the camera does not lie.

Jan Helfeld

The reason, Jan, is that

The reason, Jan, is that government "debt" signifies private-sector wealth.

This is a basic concept of economics that more people should understand. I cannot watch the video, and imagine that Stark was unable to convey the simple principle that experts have told him is true...but it doesn't make it any less true.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Explain

this principle, please.

'government "debt" signifies private-sector wealth'

Then explain how economic law changes for the state.

I hope I have explained how

I hope I have explained how this works for the Federal government sufficiently below.

For state-governments, this is not the case. State governments have to "borrow" to spend...they don't issue the currency.

Of course, state governments can use their credit-rating (FYI, as a side point, why did government bond rates FALL when the US credit-rating was cut? No one was actually scared the government wouldn't pay them back) to borrow money and boost the private economy of THEIR state...they can effectively borrow money from a bank just like you or I can; the bank just creates the money out of thin air after finding a credit-worthy borrower.

At least that is my understanding. IT may be possible that state governments are subject to different borrowing requirements...I am not well-versed in state-based lending.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

I did not see anything below

that would answer my questions.

Looking for the principle that would make your statement, 'government "debt" signifies private-sector wealth', plausible.

Then an explanation of why economic law changes at the federal level.

So private sector real

So private sector real FINANCIAL wealth. That is important.

I will try and keep it simple:

1) You have three main sectors. The private sector (PS), the public sector, and the foreign sector (which is just the trade deficit).

2) When it comes to financial wealth/assets (FW), the PS internally nets to zero. The PS cannot endogenously create financial, dollar-denominated wealth. This should be obvious. When I buy a product from you, I lose money, you gain money. It all nets to zero, in terms of dollar-denominated FW.

3) So how does the PS gain FW? One way, is it import it. By net exporting, not importing, the country would exchange goods and services for FW. The other way, is when the government runs a deficit. When the government spends money, it simply instructs the Federal Reserve (FR) to credit the various PS accounts, adding to the real FW of the PS. When government taxes, it removes these FR credits (reserves); real FW in the PS goes down. So when government runs a deficit, it is net adding FW to the PS.

4) When government runs a deficit, for the reasons heavily discussed in the other posts, it issues government debt to soak up the reserves from the system. Hence, the government debt represents the level of reserves added to the system by the federal government; net financial assets.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Cyril's picture

Reading suggestion: Bastiat.

1) You have three main sectors. The private sector (PS), the public sector, and the foreign sector (which is just the trade deficit).

Okay, so be it. That seems to be the model you're considering for a given economy, here, that of the US.

Just two preliminary remarks on this point #1, though, which is of no good omen for your other 3 points:

Equation (a) : "foreign sector" = "trade deficit"

Ah? You aren't very specific, if I may. "deficit"? Why is that? All the time? From anywhere? Or, to start with something very basic: deficit, for whom? In context, I assume you were alluding to a deficit for the US economy (here on topic) vs. the foreign exchanges it may engage in. Even assuming so, then, you'd have to back that claim up (evidences and evolution thereof, over time) and qualify its assessment: would (a) be a general, "nominal" situation for your model (i.e., expected to occur for ANY economy anyway, not just the US) or would it be not, depending on some factors? And also, either way, why would it be developing systematically so (as a deficit) eventually - and could you demonstrate it in a simple logic, with the weakest assumptions as possible (small number of initial conditions)?

By the way, the latter is a general remark I have about all your 4 points. It always seems suspect to me to make strong statements about either (i) non-self-evident things without providing any historical references, or (ii) arguably objectable working assumptions without a smaller rationale to build upon.

Entity (b) : "Public sector". Ah ah! That one again! I've noticed for a while - decades actually! - this overwhelming tendency of some people, like you seemingly, to take this "public sector" notion practically unquestioned and would be-"naturally" functioning as clearly, logically, legitimately, as the other two. What I almost never see acknowledged (if only as a prudent reserve) is that the "public sector" is, IN FACT, a rather strange animal to be prudent with, when you look at it closely:

Maybe that will be news for you, but it NEVER, EVER creates anything that looks like a desirable, reasonably expectable, and significant positive net to hope for in its outcome, mind you. At best, it will only have a zero (output minus input) differential or one only slightly, slightly greater than zero, and that'd be thanks to very extraordinary dedicated individual efforts or genius, or whatever you want to call it. Anyway, if you accept to look at reality (I hope you will, one day) it can BY NO MEANS play remotely close to the same ballpark of economic outcome as the "private sector" or "foreign exchanges".

Why is that? Here's why: because IT - the "public sector" - TAKES FIRST, and in practice AT GUN POINT at that, after following the whims of the legislator to prop up whatever grand "public projects" - public education, trade regulations, infrastructures, national security.

Re-read : IT TAKES first - and seldom even bothers reporting ANYTHING TRUSTABLE of its use of THE WEALTH it has decided to manage.

The RULE of the public sector activity actually IS to incur deficits - more or less accurately gaugeable in their depth - and by very construction of its MODUS OPERANDI!

"You" need TO TAKE from someone FIRST (or from a body of people, or of entreprises) AND BY FORCE before hoping to do anything that "you" ("you" is rhetorical, read: the gov't "public sector" whims) have deemed useful to endeavor in!

Anyway... time for the main course, now.

2) When it comes to financial wealth/assets (FW), the PS internally nets to zero. The PS cannot endogenously create financial, dollar-denominated wealth. This should be obvious. When I buy a product from you, I lose money, you gain money. It all nets to zero, in terms of dollar-denominated FW.

Do you even suspect why this point is a disaster. Let's take it bit by bit:

"When it comes to financial wealth/assets (FW), the PS internally nets to zero."

That you explain by:

"The PS cannot endogenously create financial, dollar-denominated wealth."

Really?

The big fallacy here, even when considering your closed model (that I chose to accept a priori as a first approximation) is that you focus exclusively on the monetary exchanges aspect.

You forgot: incentives in economic activities, free-will to decide whether or not to engage in entreprises, risk taking, rewards by market recognition (with larger and larger slices for the rewarded), and sanctions by the market (with smaller and smaller slices for the sanctioned, when not bankrupting), competition, emulation, price discovery...

Put me in a closed room, give me tools, and spare parts, and leave me alone with a car to fix.

And let time pass ... Because I have absolutely no competence, and maybe not even a taste / interest ... you'll find the same broken car, and your time wasted.

You - as the market - are not going to reward me. I have created NO WEALTH - in the sense I have NOT EVEN RENDERED A USEFUL SERVICE to put the car back in working condition.

Now, take someone else from my relatives : then, the odds will be that with the right investment in tools and spare parts - AND THANKS TO THE FREE WILL AND COMPETENCE of that person ... you may end up having a car working even better than before it got broken.

This is wealth creation - by investment WITH BOTH CAPITAL AND HUMANS.

This is NOT a zero sum game : if it were, you could put every single human being in a computing spreadsheet and devise once and for all the ultimate formula to have a completely deterministic, stable model.

So, it all depends of which wealth you are talking about : is it THE TRUE wealth - that one which can spontaneously originate from our free will to create, produce, or serve, in hope for a return of something we cannot do for ourselves...

Or... is it THE FAKE wealth of fiat monies you're alluding to.

So, NO, sorry : it doesn't "all net to zero".

Thousands of factors (like incentives, competitions, emulation, motivation, tastes, risk taking with reward vs. sanctions, etc - as I recalled) make it so that it doesn't "all net to zero". AT ALL.

It can actually go down (when too much plunder, or corruption, ...) eventually, ending in chaos, or it can prosper (usually when free markets are not only respected, but encouraged).

Why do you think there have been "revolutions" (or coup d'etats) all over the globe for milleniums, with major human migrations - if the "private" part of an economy would always "net to zero".

We should have noticed fantastically boring and stable economies, and soporific political history instead!

Because you were using #2 as a major - and before the facts, surprising! - assumption, your argument isn't in good shape for your point #3, now, but which has also flaws of its own:

3) So how does the PS gain FW? One way, is it import it. By net exporting, not importing, the country would exchange goods and services for FW. The other way, is when the government runs a deficit. When the government spends money, it simply instructs the Federal Reserve (FR) to credit the various PS accounts, adding to the real FW of the PS. When government taxes, it removes these FR credits (reserves); real FW in the PS goes down. So when government runs a deficit, it is net adding FW to the PS.

I am not so sure whether in this point you are denouncing vs. supporting the system that you try to explain.

Again, it is based on the wrong assumption (point #2) anyway.

However, let's just assume we've seen nothing of the former flaw.

"When the government spends money, it simply instructs the Federal Reserve (FR) to credit the various PS accounts"

Interesting!

So, I should see gov't money coming to my employer's bank account?

Or, when I was a self-employed independent consultant (in the private sector), the central bank of my country would automatically deposit money on my bank account?

Weird. I've noticed quite the opposite ... through my taxes (and my employers) ... for decades!

Are you not confusing with whatever happens with ONLY THE FEW DOZENS CRONY CAPITALIST corporations THAT OUR GOVERNMENTS cherry pick ON A REGULAR basis, if only for making the rigging of the official statistics easier?

Are you not making a (much undesirable, granted) general case out of an (as much undesirable) specific case?

The rest of the point then becomes meaningless.

If I were nitpicking I could always make the case, anyway, that the fiat money you allude to (created by the Fed out of thin air) is only based on deception to maintain a reckless, blind trust, and is by no means any "financial wealth".

True financial wealth for your information:

the land, the walls, the vaults, the gold, the pieces of arts, the furniture, the equipment, ... that an individual or company ACTUALLY owns with NOBODY ELSE having a claim on any part of it any longer.

The balance lines in banks' accounts valued in fiat money DO NOT count.

Point #4, finally:

4) When government runs a deficit, for the reasons heavily discussed in the other posts, it issues government debt to soak up the reserves from the system. Hence, the government debt represents the level of reserves added to the system by the federal government; net financial assets.

At least, you are somehow consistent in your logic derivation - as you are now deducing that it eventually all comes down to a sophisticated system of "communicating vases" for fiat money, from government debt to the "private sector" (that you are then probably angry with, for accepting to play such a rigged game).

Sadly, because you overlooked what I recalled above, and because you wrongly generalized the case of a few (powerful) crony capitalists to the entire "private sector" ... you are now also failing to notice EVEN WORSE:

Well, sorry, but no, "Dr. NO"... it's not just about (presumably, after your logic development) fiat money reserves transiting from wrong hands to other wrong hands, mind you.

If that were only that, it wouldn't be so TRAGIC.

It's also, and ACTUALLY FIRST AND FOREMOST about TRUE WEALTH DESTRUCTION:

waste of people's energy, waste of people's time, waste of people's inventivity AND potential, besides also PHYSICAL DESTRUCTION of honorably acquired ASSETS (when government infrastructure project decide to reuse space after their whims)...

The plunder by fiat money, Dr. NO, is not so much about how it serves cynical, irresponsible, dishonest special interests, as it is about THE TRAGIC WASTE AND DESTRUCTION, irreversible of what HAD BEEN ALREADY BUILT or... what COULD HAVE BEEN BUILT for the benefit of many, and thus won't be before long.

All in all, I only recommend you re-read(?) Bastiat about "That Which is Seen and That Which is NOT Seen."

Thanks.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Absolute junk and nonsense.

Absolute junk and nonsense. You fail to understand the difference between financial, dollar-denominated wealth, and "REAL" wealth.

"Okay, so be it. That seems to be the model you're considering for a given economy, here, that of the US. Just two preliminary remarks on this point #1, though, which is of no good omen for your other 3 points: Equation (a) : "foreign sector" = "trade deficit"

"Ah? You aren't very specific, if I may. "deficit"? Why is that? All the time? From anywhere?"

I use deficit in this specific context because the US has run a trade deficit for the world for years.

"And also, either way, why would it be developing systematically so (as a deficit) eventually - and could you demonstrate it in a simple logic, with the weakest assumptions as possible (small number of initial conditions)?"

OK, so here is proof of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sectoral_Financial_Balance...

"By the way, the latter is a general remark I have about all your 4 points. It always seems suspect to me to make strong statements about either (i) non-self-evident things without providing any historical references, or (ii) arguably objectable working assumptions without a smaller rationale to build upon."

Here is the math behind it. I realize you probably can only do math at a first-grade level, but here it goes:

Flows are derived from the National Accounting relationship between aggregate spending and income. So:

(1) Y = C + I + G + (X – M)
where Y is GDP (income), C is consumption spending, I is investment spending, G is government spending, X is exports and M is imports (so X – M = net exports).

Another perspective on the national income accounting is to note that households can use total income (Y) for the following uses:

(2) Y = C + S + T
where S is total saving and T is total taxation (the other variables are as previously defined).
You than then bring the two perspectives together (because they are both just “views” of Y) to write:

(3) C + S + T = Y = C + I + G + (X – M)

You can then drop the C (common on both sides) and you get:
(4) S + T = I + G + (X – M)

Then you can convert this into the familiar sectoral balances accounting relations which allow us to understand the influence of fiscal policy over private sector indebtedness.

So we can re-arrange Equation (4) to get the accounting identity for the three sectoral balances – private domestic, government budget and external:
(S – I) = (G – T) + (X – M)

The sectoral balances equation says that total private savings (S) minus private investment (I) has to equal the public deficit (spending, G minus taxes, T) plus net exports (exports (X) minus imports (M)), where net exports represent the net savings of non-residents.

Another way of saying this is that total private savings (S) is equal to private investment (I) plus the public deficit (spending, G minus taxes, T) plus net exports (exports (X) minus imports (M)), where net exports represent the net savings of non-residents.

All these relationships (equations) hold as a matter of accounting and not matters of opinion.
Thus, when an external deficit (X – M < 0) and public surplus (G - T < 0) coincide, there must be a private deficit. While private spending can persist for a time under these conditions using the net savings of the external sector, the private sector becomes increasingly indebted in the process.

"Entity (b) : "Public sector". Ah ah! That one again! I've noticed for a while - decades actually! - this overwhelming tendency of some people, like you seemingly, to take this "public sector" notion practically unquestioned and would be-"naturally" functioning as clearly, logically, legitimately, as the other two. What I almost never see acknowledged (if only as a prudent reserve) is that the "public sector" is, IN FACT, a rather strange animal to be prudent with, when you look at it closely:"

See, you take this idea that because it is the Public SEctor, there is no way anything good can come from it. It is a purely ideological position, not an empirical one.

"Maybe that will be news for you, but it NEVER, EVER creates anything that looks like a desirable, reasonably expectable, and significant positive net to hope for in its outcome, mind you."

See, no fact to back it up. Just your ideology. The public sector cannot create anything because the public sector cannot create anything.

And, by the way, when taking about the FINANCIAL system, I am only taking about the Federal government system. The states are obligated to borrow and return money mostly like an individual has to.

"Why is that? Here's why: because IT - the "public sector" - TAKES FIRST, and in practice AT GUN POINT at that, after following the whims of the legislator to prop up whatever grand "public projects" - public education, trade regulations, infrastructures, national security."

Again, we are talking about FINANCIAL WEALTH.

The private sector LITERALLY cannot create financial wealth.

Let us say the Daily Paul is a completely closed economy. No outside trade, no government, just inward trade. Let us say the total real US dollars that exist in this economy is $1 million. At the end of the year, it comes back that due to economic activity, there is now $1.2 million of real US dollars in the Daily Paul economy.

How is this possible? Where did the extra 200,000 come from? After all, the only one who can create the physical 200,000 US dollars is the Federal government.

What the Daily Paul economy can do, in the above situation, is through technological innovations can make it so that the standard of living rises...with only that 1 million/base, it can make it so that that 1 million can purchase a lot more.

But it can't every have more than 1 million in such a situation, with a completely closed economy. This is a central point to understand.

"'When it comes to financial wealth/assets (FW), the PS internally nets to zero.'

That you explain by:

'The PS cannot endogenously create financial, dollar-denominated wealth.'

Really?

The big fallacy here, even when considering your closed model (that I chose to accept a priori as a first approximation) is that you focus exclusively on the monetary exchanges aspect."

Yes, because I am only taking about NET FINANCIAL WEALTH. I am not trying to discuss how real wealth (buying power/standard of living) can increase in an economy. I am solely focused on net financial wealth.

You of course fail to understand this difference.

"This is NOT a zero sum game : if it were, you could put every single human being in a computing spreadsheet and devise once and for all the ultimate formula to have a completely deterministic, stable model."

It is a zero sum game when it comes to NET FINANCIAL ASSETS, meaning US-dollar denominated assets. Look, if you have $100 and a broken car, and he has $0 and his labor (sitting there doing nothing). After the transaction, maybe you have $10 and a fixed car, and he has $90. Yes, you now have a fixed car (increase in real wealth of the system). But overall, the $ in the system is still $100. There is no increase in the net financial assets of the systems.

"Or... is it THE FAKE wealth of fiat monies you're alluding to."

Yes, it is the fiat money. Except that despite your childish ranting against it, fiat money has value. Otherwise, you can send all your fiat money to me! Since you obviously think it is valuable.

It should also be obvious to see how in our society, this "fake wealth" is very necessary for the engine to tick.

"Because you were using #2 as a major - and before the facts, surprising! - assumption, your argument isn't in good shape for your point #3, now, but which has also flaws of its own:"

I haven't seen a single "fact" provided by you. Just ideological nonsense with no logic or empirical evidence

"'When the government spends money, it simply instructs the Federal Reserve (FR) to credit the various PS accounts'

Weird. I've noticed quite the opposite ... through my taxes (and my employers) ... for decades!

Are you not confusing with whatever happens with ONLY THE FEW DOZENS CRONY CAPITALIST corporations THAT OUR GOVERNMENTS cherry pick ON A REGULAR basis, if only for making the rigging of the official statistics easier?"

Again, this is irrelevant. I am sure there are many studies of how government spending goes to the different sectors of the private sector itself. However, the net financial wealth of the private sector goes up when government spends money in the way outlined above.

Understand the difference. Let us say your employer has an account at BOA. You have an account at BOA and Citibank.

So when you get paid, the employer gives you a check that you cash.

When you cash the check at BOA, BOA simply changes the electronics behind the scenes. Numbers go down in your employer's account and up in yours. When you cash the check at Shittybank, BOA has to go to its account at the FED, and transfer $ in reserves to Shittybank to meet balance-of-payments. Citibank then increases your account by that same $.

When the Federal Government pays someone, they simply create the money out of thin air, and credit the bank account. So if you cashed a presumable welfare check at BOA, BOA would go to the federal government, who would *poof* print the $, and give it to BOA, who would then credit your account. Financial assets have been added to the private sector, while the public sector incurs a deficit.

"If I were nitpicking I could always make the case, anyway, that the fiat money you allude to (created by the Fed out of thin air) is only based on deception to maintain a reckless, blind trust, and is by no means any 'financial wealth'".

So 1) You call it reckless, blind trust, yet how many people value the US dollar? Secondly, you can always use the US dollar to pay off your tax obligations. That creates a huge built-in demand. Lastly, the US dollar is legal tender an acceptable as payment of debt.

Again, you don't have to like it. But that is the way it is.

"the land, the walls, the vaults, the gold, the pieces of arts, the furniture, the equipment, ... that an individual or company ACTUALLY owns with NOBODY ELSE having a claim on any part of it any longer."

So those things are all "real" wealth. Those are goods-and-services...things.

"The balance lines in banks' accounts valued in fiat money DO NOT count."

Accept they do to anyone who looks at the empirical evidence - the economy. It looks like you do not care about the fiat money you have, so you should give all of it to me. After all, it is not at all desirable!

"Sadly, because you overlooked what I recalled above, and because you wrongly generalized the case of a few (powerful) crony capitalists to the entire "private sector" ... you are now also failing to notice EVEN WORSE:"

So, just wanted to mention. The government gives about 1 trillion a year to people on SSI and medicare. Are these guys "crony capitalists?" About 500 billion goes to food stamps, unemployment, and Welfare. Are these guys "crony capitalists?" How about the couple hundred billion that is salary for the US marines, army, and naval forces? How about Pell grants, to students? Or EITC? These are all payments made to "crony capitalists"?

For all your ranting about hating fiat money and the system, etc. etc. The system has provided the highest increase in standard of living....since I don't even know how long! Definitely in the history of America. The average American can buy nearly 4x what he could 100 years ago. From 1800 to 1900, before the Fed and fiat money, the average American could only buy 2x...and this was with the industrial revolution, a WEALTH of unspoiled natural resources, and the slaves being freed.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Cyril's picture

Here's your graph's "source" that you may have failed to notice:

Here's your graph's "source" that you may have failed to notice:

"Source Data: FRED database"

http://www.research.stlouisfed.org/fred2

Can you only read English?

That's your source.

And I am free to decide their figures as unsafe to be trusted, as they still haven't allowed any independent audit since their creation.

And THAT is part of the scientific method I care about - while YOU don't, observably.

Hello!

So, deal with it.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

[...] The government gives

[...] The government gives about 1 trillion a year to people on SSI and medicare. Are these guys "crony capitalists?" About 500 billion goes to food stamps, unemployment, and Welfare. Are these guys "crony capitalists?"

"The government gives about 1 trillion a year to people on SSI and medicare."

Wrong.

The government doesn't "give".

It:

1) TAKES BY FORCE

2) AND THEN, IT REDISTRIBUTES

TWO verbs. TWO steps. Not just one. BIG difference.

Whether SSI and Medicare are well- or poorly implemented doesn't matter - it remains that it's the same, if not unfair, UNWISE PRINCIPLE : (i) the government deemed those necessary and (ii) too bad for the folks who wouldn't agree "with the plan" once it has force of law.

Don't serve me the b s that human compassion and charity can't exist without government.

Or worse yet : that free market solutions can't provide good care of the elderly or the disabled, or the unhealthy, locally or not.

Next...

"Are these guys 'crony capitalists?'"

Of course they aren't. But can you deny that the broader the fraction of potential beneficiaries, the better the odds for those to vote in the politician demagogues who, obsessed with their career (and certainly not by their total absence of morality or accountability) can make whatever promises X, Y, Z will work ... if only to get their votes, precisely?

Do you think I don't like free stuff?

Do you think I wouldn't like free healthcare?

Free food?

Free ... WHATEVER!

I'm all for it!

But because I have memory - and I can read others WHO HAVE SERIOUSLY THOUGHT AND WRITTEN about it more than 150 years ago, demonstrating their claims by empirical evidence around them at the time and around us today - I have learned (and I have seen by my own eyes) that there is only the "free stuff" which, not coming from nature itself, comes from my fellow men either by:

a) voluntary donation / contribution (from them - our closest are family, relatives, true friends maybe)

or

b) LEGAL PLUNDER (against them)

(And anything else being some sort of trade - still voluntary, but with good/service A exchanged for good/service B, instead)

And I refuse to endorse or encourage the latter - LEGAL PLUNDER of WEALTH DISTRIBUTION BY ARBITRARY FORCE OF GOVERNMENT - to continue, in any way, politically.

I had enough of it already.

SHOOT ME DEAD in the head, please, the day you hear me asking or pushing to plunder strangers by the force of unjust laws and of government, for my benefits. You would do it for the posterity I appeal for, at least.

SERIOUSLY. I was hearing the same arguments as yours from (some of) my high school class mates 25 years ago - MIND YOU !

So, answer this question, if you can:

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G063

DIRECTLY. No beating around the bush.

Good luck making me forget THE LIE that I EVENTUALLY LEARNED TO UNDERSTAND HOW IT WORKS ON THE FEEBLE MINDS.

Thanks.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

The link you sent me has

The link you sent me has several questions.

Again, you have shifted this discussion from the topic of what happens, to what *should* happen. I am not interested in discussing the philosophical conundrums of what the government does. Merely, I am trying to explain HOW the financial and monetary system works.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Cyril's picture

Whatever.

Whatever.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

On this one, btw, you are being dishonest

On this one, btw, you are being dishonest because you certainly know better:

Accept they do to anyone who looks at the empirical evidence - the economy. It looks like you do not care about the fiat money you have, so you should give all of it to me. After all, it is not at all desirable!

You DO know that I am trapped in that scam, just as you are, and like hundreds millions other americans, french, ... or whomever.

Like billions of people on this planet, actually.

Therefore, you DO know JUST AS WELL that when fiat monies meet their UNAVOIDABLE fate (either in hyperinflation, or in devaluation + brutal change of nominal currency) ... I can turn your argument inside out:

indeed, then, YOU would(will?) WANT my gold and for sure as death and taxes, and YOU CERTAINLY would(will?) NOT want whatever amount of fiat money I'd still hold... unless even more desperate, if imaginable in such situation.

Intellectual dishonesty is NOT good.

You should know.

I hope you really were only forgetful.

Either way, apparently you weren't around when they devalued our old "French Franc" into our "New French Franc" (at a ratio 100:1) - and what it meant for at least two generations before mine - and when they did it again, when we left the "New French Franc" for the "Euro" (at a ratio of 6.55:1)

Have you EVER lived thru a hyperinflation or a major devaluation of your currency into another one - with all what that sort of arbitrary implies for the daily of your business, bills, trades, budgeting... and no matter what is the length transition period?

Do you actually know what we are talking about, here - in regard to the stakes for understanding the importance of true money (gold or silver) vs. fiat currencies?

I am not too sure about that.

You may find one day how irrelevant and futile whatever sophisticated, speculative equations about the global economy of a country start to feel in such circumstances.

Clue for you:

when that happens, here's what your new hot thing is about - guaranteed:

mental calculus.

And especially for performing divisions and multiplications - fast, really fast - when you have to buy or sell, with old/new mostly-worthless fiat money bills and coins.

Sincerely,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

The reason you fear

The reason you fear hyperinflation is that you do not understand the system.

Hyperinflation will only come when the productive capacity of the American labor force is destroyed.

Anyways, I have little interest in continuing the discussion with your further. All you are doing is ranting and raving with no substance.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Cyril's picture

I don't fear hyperinflation. I'll know how to care of myself

I don't fear hyperinflation. I'll know how to care of myself, should that occur, thank you.

And I've heard about one major fiat currency devaluation and I lived thru another one myself.

In that respect, I suspect your own experience is NULL, considering the nonsense I've read from you thus far.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius