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.

That is because you don't

That is because you don't understand how fiat currency works. It can fail, but not for the reasons you necessarily think.

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

Look at your own inconsistency with a magnifier, if necessary:

Look at your own inconsistency with a magnifier, if necessary:

Yes, because I am only taking about NET FINANCIAL WEALTH

So, you're considering a flawed, unjust, even irrational system - ONLY ON ITS FINANCIAL SIDE based on... what again? FAKE MONEY = DECEPTION... and still, to continue to speak in the same phrase, just after "financial", of "WEALTH" which by then has become VOID of any meaning? (because that's a scam, based on whatever you call it, but certainly not money, precisely - Duh!)

So, besides doing semantic battles mixed with funky math what are you ACTUALLY competent in, wrt. economics?

You're living in La-La-Land or what?

"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

Try harder!

Go ahead. Prove to me your "public sector" can create anything ... without taking people's money by force, first.

PROVE IT.

Good luck!

Btw, your fraudulent Keynesian math has been debunked:

http://www.dailypaul.com/284503

And my own comment, from a slightly different angle:

http://www.dailypaul.com/284503#comment-3066743

Observably, you have missed both.

Try harder!

"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

You god-damned mathematically

You god-damned mathematically illiterate dumbass.

I'm not talking about the Keynesian money multiplier, I am talking about sectoral balances. The links your posted and my math are involving two COMPLETELY different things! I love how you see some numbers and letters and just assume it must be the same equation! What intellectual ineptitude! That, or not even bothering to read.

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

name calling

generally signifies that the name caller is losing confidence in his argument.

Cyril's picture

Many qualifiers for my insignificant person. Thank you.

Many qualifiers for my insignificant person. Thank you.

Back on topic, if you don't mind:

I'm still waiting for my proof.

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

Cyril's picture

Beautiful equations!

Beautiful equations!

So, you believe in Santa Claus?

I'm asking because you DO apparently believe in government's reporting of "surplus" vs. "total spendings", etc.

The problem with people like you is you'll maybe never get it:

what ACTUAL EVIDENCE do you have that the actual figures fit into your beautiful equations?

WHAT EVIDENCE.

SHOW ME.

RIGHT NOW - YOUR OWN spreadsheet, with the raw numbers.

Did you make all the inventories by yourself?

See, in the private sector, company/individual A can hire company/individual B, to check on the actual POSITIONS of company/individual C (say, before buying) using the accounting conventions they choose from company/individual D.

A - B - C - D !

See, no need for sophisticated equations!

But quite a useful principle, if you ask ME.

MIND YOU.

FOOL!

"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

In regards to the specific

In regards to the specific equations, I shared a link with you to a graph in one of the previous posts.

As is no doubt your lot, you probably didn't even read it.

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

Philosophically speaking, let me make my point clearer

Philosophically speaking, let me make my point clearer, with a very feet-on-ground, pragmatic example - hopefully, it'll finally! get you to the meat of the issue...

... because, when you generalize it to economics and human affairs in the broadest sense, the scope of implications is I think self-evident when we go in the WRONG vs. the RIGHT directions.

Only two working assumptions:

1) all men are driven by self-interest - no angels at birth, no true evil either - yet, many, many opportunities in life for ANYONE to tend EITHER WAY - with a sad TRUTH we MUST acknowledge: power often CORRUPTS men

(and what is greater power than the one found by the men in government vs. individuals living under their laws? - Q.E.D.)

2) men's self-interest, at birth, and before the same basic, natural rights which ought to be secured by just laws in society, are inherently HARMONIOUS - there is no "conqueror class", by nature's design, to prey on other "victim classes" - only individuals driven by (1)

If I have to use name calling in context of the latter - that wouldn't be against you - but against Marx instead:

What he wrote WAS pure b s .

There you have it.

Then:

I have no idea what you do for a living (and I'm not sure I'm even interested to know) but I'm already 99.99% sure you are definitely remote from, for example, my own domain : software engineering by, for, in the private sector.

Or... remaining 0.01% uncertainty... if you are close to that... then that means:

1) you are making YOUR OWN requirements for the software to be built

2) you are funding the making of the software BY YOURSELF

3) you are making the software YOURSELF

4) you are testing it BY YOURSELF

5) you are using it FOR YOURSELF

(obviously... most unlikely for all 5 to make sense...)

On a (more or less) free market, for every of the above 5 points - it's DISTINCT people - with DISTINCT self-interests.

Government intervention in economy (and/or its study, economics) HIJACKS #1, #4, and #5 - SIMULTANEOUSLY. FORCEFULLY.

NOT GOOD.

There is PLENTY of Historical evidence for that - TO DATE. Mind you, it is STILL ongoing.

So, think about it.

When it's ripe and you finally get it - the idea - then, you'll see the whole of the REAL problem I have with most of your claims, so far - much, much, abstract - and unfounded.

Claims maybe sincere in the motivations behind them - yet, only WISHFUL THINKING when confronted with the facts, past and present.

RECKLESSLY.

Goodnight.

"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

More useless inane babble.

More useless inane babble. Trying to tie in software design to an economy.

I would love to see the historical evidence behind this claim that the current monetary and fiscal policy has not provided an abundance of wealth for the average American.

Literally, look at the numbers for yourself. The average American can buy nearly 4 times what he could back in 1913. From 1800 to 1900, the average American could only buy 2x as much.

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

You live in La-La-Land.

"The average American can buy nearly 4 times what he could back in 1913"

Riiiight.

So, you have a time machine to go as far back?

How is it relevant?

How about going back to only the mid 80s and considering my comment below?

Oh wait. I forgot.

You live in La-La-Land.

You only care about making "points" with your wishful semantic.

Facts, or history, or literal meaning of words? Oh that, nevermind.

"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

You have no freaking clue of what you're talking about have you?

You have no freaking clue of what you're talking about, have you?

Do you think gold is completely done with being in a bubble today, and can only go lower, much lower?

And, do you think gold was in a bubble in the mid 80s?

I'm asking because here's a clue for you:

even accepting the idea of a minimum wage valued in fiat currency legitimate, for comparison, it was requiring 1.5 ounces of gold in the mid 80s to match a MONTHLY minimum wage income - in my country which has a relatively greater minimum wage than yours - that is, when OUR minimum wage is compared to OUR median income, vs. when YOUR minimum wage is compared to YOUR median income, here in the US.

It now requires only 0.8 ounces of gold - in my country - to match the today's monthly income with our minimum wage in Euros.

THAT'S how purchasing power was destroyed by two fiat currencies working hand in hand - here and there.

Are you a troll?

Or are you totally DELUSIONAL?

"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

Why does gold matter? Gold

Why does gold matter? Gold doesn't represent purchasing power. Purchasing power is represented by how much stuff you can buy with your wages.

This obsession with gold is ridiculous. The US is not on a gold standard. IT hasn't been since 1971. There is NO LINK between gold price and inflation. There is no link between gold price and the money supply. There is no link between gold price and base money.

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

You are correct, for once; my bad, my misplaced pride, there.

You are correct, for once; my bad, my misplaced pride, there.

I didn't bust you. I had indeed little to do with it, actually.

You did it to yourself. You did bust yourself.

And beautifully at that, for all to see in your writings!

For that, thank you again!

"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

Gold is money, you idiot.

Gold is money, you idiot.

On a post and thread denouncing a (leftist) politician crook who rides the wave of plunder and slavery by debt thru FAKE money - that same fake one created and managed by central planners parasites... the same fellow crooks of his that you cite as sources of reference materials, btw...

... TRUE money IS relevant.

Duh!

Get a freaking clue.

Strike that, in fact... You are no idiot, I realize.

You're an intellectual fraud.

You know why?

Because, although you PRETENDED to be concerned with fiat currencies in how - the hell I know - many comments...

you are STILL denying the usefulness of acknowledging the role of gold, or silver, or other tangible assets, as points of reference, to begin with, in an argument all about wealth and how wealth is destroyed or stolen.

I confirm:

you can, and should, try harder, with your meaningless equations (of the level of a 13 year old learning algebra, big deal!) and single-sourced graphs and tables.

Try harder!

Aren't you bored with these forums?

Who are you trying to lesson, on here?

I don't get it.

You're weird.

I enjoyed the exercise of busting you, though.

So, thank you.

"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

Gold isn't legal tender. You

Gold isn't legal tender. You can't use gold to pay off your taxes, or pay off debts (in the legal sense).

Gold is a physical asset. Just like stock in a company. I can easily show how the purchasing power of gold sank in the early 2000s. Or the volatility of silver. Or, if you look at oil/gas, the American buying power is much higher. There are plenty of commodities you can look at, and see how considering how much income and wages has gone up, the Average American can buy so much more with his labor.

The problem with gold-backed currency is that you need to acquire gold to maintain the currency.

You have relatively inelastic supply, and varying demand.

You busted nobody, man. You just don't understand the system. You think that we operate in this gold-backed world. US dollars are fiat money. The only issues is the US federal government. That is it. That changes the equation. The US CANNOT go bankrupt.

You know what holders of US debt are obligated to receive? US dollars! Guess who controls the supply of US dollars? Gee, I wonder!

The problem is you will distrust any fact or paper or statistic I show you, because you'll just say it was created by someone under the thumb of the communist-facist-liberal-Nazi-socialist-world-order-Rothschild machine.

The fact that you dispute the graph I showed you...I guess everyone is just lying about the federal deficit! And those trade numbers are obviously false! And of course all that money in private bank accounts; nope, FALSE!

There's no arguing with you. You have decided on a truth, and simply created facts to fit it (without sharing any of them).

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

^^^ A proponent of statist status quo, and planned economy...

^^^ A proponent of statist status quo, and planned economy...

Someone who doesn't care about sound money whatsoever, either (... unsurprisingly)

Random peculiarity:

loves Keynesian-look alike abstract equations in "economics", and to be fed with single-sourced numerical data (from the Federal Reserve, yup, you guessed it right!)

... among many other flavors of nonsense.

Refer to last comments of the poster's trail.

'Hope this helps!

"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

Whatever.

Whatever.

Bis repetita.

Cheers,

P.S.

So, I note that you probably don't find desirable anyhow to return to what Article I, Section 10 of YOUR Constitution states.

Also, the idea of the technical feasibility of mining gold (even if should it be constrained by nature - binding men to a naturally controlled inflation) seems totally foreign and/or silly to you.

Ah, now I see where you're coming from, and where you want to go.

You DO prefer to continue with whatever other scheme of fake money that your imagination will come up with.

Thank you!

You should have started there, for other readers of this thread, don't you think?

Goodbye.

"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

deacon's picture

There's only way for what you say to make sense

or even be remotely true,and that is if you are talking about debt.
And that means to borrow,and keep borrowing.
This is what the fed gov does,they borrow and borrow,but the difference is,they can steal from you and I,we cannot do that legally(well,they can't either,but they still do it)
I read your other comments about the feds debt,and how it is good,just so you know,I disagree,but hey,this isn't the first time you talked about this topic,now is it?
D

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

So again, the Federal

So again, the Federal government does not NEED to borrow. Not in the sense that you think of it.

The Federal Government, LITERALLY, and I mean LITERALLY, prints the money. They control it. When they run a deficit, they PRINT MONEY (electronically) and inject it into the monetary systems. It ends up as money in private bank accounts and as reserves on a bank's asset sheet.

However, here is the problem with that. The Federal Reserve likes to control the interest rate. They do that by specifically targeting the level of reserves in the system. The Federal Government has just largely thrown that out of wack. So, the Federal Reserve comes in, and offers an attractive asset (US treasury bonds) for the banks's reserves. The bank exchanges the reserves for the US treasury bonds. This drains reserves from the system and allows the Fed to set interest policy.

There is no "theft" involved. Technically, the banks use *your* money to buy that government debt...however, as long as they can provide the money for you at anytime (upon request), they are not legally, and IMO even ethically, at fault.

That is why the whole "borrow and spend" rhetoric is not really accurate. If anything, the government as an entity including the Federal Reserve spends, then "borrows".

The reason it is beneficial...well, look at what happened when the government ran surpluses in the late 90s. Private wealth shrank, the market responded by borrowing, and debt/savings soared. This of course contributed to the crash.

Fundamentally, the Federal Government uses the above as a means to attack unemployment. By running a deficit, they are able to tap into the productive capacity of the economy (like the unemployed) that there is no endogenous demand for.

Why is there no endogenous demand? Maybe because 700 billion of American yearly spending is going to workers in China, India, and Europe.

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

It doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter.

The scientific method requires:

1) observing, 2) conjecturing, 3) modeling, 4) sampling and measuring, 5) checking against the model in (3), then 6) validating or invalidating the same model, or refining it, and 7) loop and repeat

Math algebra is only but a neutral formal system which requires consistency and order in applying operations.

The variables HAVE NO MEANING if above (4) and (5) cannot be done by independent entities with NEITHER conflicting or converging interest.

That's essentially the problem I have with your equations. Not so much the form or complexity - although I'd argue as unreasonable to have anything more complex than, typically, the demand / supply law curves - but it's in THE ACTUAL MEANING of the variables, qualitatively or quantitatively.

I guess we'll never know, or not until you convince your gov't friends to abide by the scientific workflow above and the "A ... B ... C ... D" principle I recalled.

And thanks, I wouldn't ever think of going for a Fields medal, too old anyway, but I do know what differential calculus is about vs. discrete math, where integration fits in, how that can relate to number theory, etc.

Cheers,

"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

Is it not hypocritical of you

Is it not hypocritical of you to cite the scientific method while doing none of it yourself?

And citing Bastiat, who doesn't do any kind of empirical research, but just comes at it from a point of philosophy and ideology.

The graph I published isn't "from the government". Its just literally what is. It isn't like employment numbers or GDP or something else. It is literally just an observation of the account balances.

In fact, it doesn't take a study or experiment to see what the federal budget deficit, what the private account balance is, and what the trade deficit is.

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

Where has your brain gone?

The wikipedia graph you linked was made out of whichever figures the Federal Reserve decided to see published as part of their "balances" lines.

The same Federal Reserve we already know as unsafe to be trusted, regarding its notion and motivations wrt. "money".

The same Federal Reserve that has never been audited... BY THE PEOPLE.

Remember?

Have you been living under a rock all this time with those "Audit the Fed" projects of bill to see how they ACTUALLY put their figures in the books?

Or maybe you trust them? Do you "work" for them?

You have no logic whatsoever.

"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

LOL. Good one. Too bad it doesn't hold water.

LOL. Good one. Too bad it doesn't hold water.

Let me know if you want me to invalidate your points #2, 3, 4, one by one.

As for point #1, it's over-simplifying, but still useable as a basis I suppose.

"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

Invalidate. Go ahead.

Invalidate. Go ahead.

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

Money from nothing

measures wealth?

I have explained in detail

I have explained in detail how the system works. You don't have to like it, but the facts are the facts.

If you're only interested at making an ideological point, or just digging your heels in on that ideological point, I've got no interest in wasting my time.

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

TwelveOhOne's picture

Seeing all the downvotes, I disagree with your last phrase

You certainly seem interested not only in wasting your time, but in wasting all of our time in reading your pathetic attempts to defend a corrupt system, and our valiant efforts to slay that dragon.

"The facts are the facts", while a tautology, does not describe the true nature of this, as a lot of the discourse regarding fractional reserve banking and the slavery nature of debt consists of outright lies told by the Federal Reserve and its captured Department of Education.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

Nonsense. I'm not defending

Nonsense.

I'm not defending the system. I am merely pointing out what the system is. You can't ignore it, and I've yet to see people actually rebuke the points I've made.

Secondly, fractional reserve banking, as Ron Paul and YOU probably see its what is taught in all economic textbooks. From high school to college. That is what is considered the truth. Yet the empirical evidence doesn't back that up.

Banks don't "loan out" deposits. Banks use deposits to buy US government debt, meet reserve requirements, and fulfill balance-of-transfers. Literally, any perusal of a bank asset and liability sheet should show this. If that isn't enough, look at how the ratio of money supply/credit to reserves is not at all consistent. If you need even more proof about federal debt representing income, look at the yearly statements for private savings, federal government debt, and the external deficit. You will find that they net to zero.

And, it makes a lot of sense. Why didn't QE cause massive expansion of the money supply? Why do huge government deficits not cause huge inflation? Why did private sector savings go down when Clinton balanced the deficit? Why is it there are is no correlation between reserves and money supply? Why has confidence in US debt been so high despite so much of it? Why did the US credit rating going down coincide with a decrease in the yield on treasury bonds? Etc. etc.

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

You neglected

to present the underlying principle.

I'll take one more shot.

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.