That Would Be Great

https://i.imgflip.com/16icqo.jpg

Here's the typical liberal response to that, since no liberals seem to have replied to your comment yet.

The image is true. But:
a) What are his sources, because I have seen other graphs which go the opposite way.
b) He only used data that benefitted his view, and ignored the lower unemployment rate, lower gas prices, lower dependency on foreign oil, and a lower number of Iran's centrifuges.
c) Are some of those things really Obama's fault? The federal debt goes back to Clinton's day, lower home ownership means a better rental market in that part of the industry, and how the HECK do you measure black inequality?
Oh, and Bush sucked! ;)

Iran has less centrifuges? According to who. Them? Sort of like how Germany wasn't planning to take anymore territory, according to Hitler. I don't blame ALL of our problems on Obama, I just think he hasn't done anything very amazing in 8 years tbh

And Bush isn't president anymore ;)

I meant the Iran deal, but I guess it is true that Iran isn't necessarily going to willingly scrap their nukes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy

Very true.

There was immense voter fraud for the remain side

Nice meme so true. If anyone argued this they are probably tyrannists

The United States is both a democracy and a constitutional republic. Both democracy and the constitution are tools. Democracy to express the will of the people, the constitution to outline basic government powers and the basic rights of the individual. The constitution can be amended by democratic processes but it is a laborious and drawn-out process in order to keep mob mentality from taking away individual rights on a whim. Constitutional rights are not absolute; the bill of rights written in a non-directly-specific way so that they could be interpreted by future jurists (it's why we have a Supreme Court). Like the checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, democracy and the constitution check and balance each other. If the US were a full-on democracy it could lead to rule by the mob and possibly to an 'oligarchy' if said mob chose an 'enlightened' - but more likely 'benighted' - few to rule over them in desperation. If the country relied solely on the constitution for its order the danger would be an authoritarian state in which a powerful few would control the many by insisting on the supremacy of their own rights. Without the constitution democratic functions would lead to a constantly shifting landscape of contradictory laws of a prejudiced nature in which order is impossible to maintain and the people's freedoms would be difficult to enjoy. Without democracy the constitution would be a dead document. Neither the constitution nor democracy are sacred. Arguing these concepts on a textual basis means very little beyond a parlour game; it's like the carpenter praising his hammer while failing to focus on what he's building.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Good point it is up to the people, not the government officials.

'...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...' '...it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government...' From the Declaration of Independence of course, but the point is made of people's ability to change the government. In the United States this is done through democratic means. The Constitution was hashed out among representatives in democratic fashion. Too often nowadays a minority reinterprets the Constitution as an anti-democratic rights protector, allowing them to decide to intimidate through the threat of violence, and to attempt to force their values on others. Watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants sounds patriotic but is meaningless when there are no tyrants. Closed-minded men, loaded to the teeth with weaponry, deciding they are the ones to determine our rights and freedoms, are the ones closest to tyrants. Blood was spilled in the revolutionary war to keep self-interested groups from controlling the many. NOT to allow single-minded citizens to interpret the laws for their own prejudices.

Ironically enough basic rights protect a group of individuals while they harm others through the economic medium and thus lead to a form of oligarchy.

There's the executive, legislative and judicial but there's also that fifth power which is the monetary system.

You'll have to hash out the concept of the fifth column of the monetary system for me.

5th power = money creation (and destruction).

This has a huge influence on economics and any economist who does not talk of the effects the current monetary system should not be trusted.

https://mises.org/library/our-money-based-debt
http://positivemoney.org/how-money-works/how-banks-create-money/
http://www.skedline.com/news/canada/absolute-power-creates-money-matters/
http://positivemoney.org/how-money-works/banking-101-video-course/how-money-gets-destroyed-banking-101-part-6/
http://positivemoney.org/2013/09/can-money-be-converted-to-everlasting-tokens/

But who are you? And should I trust you?

Ah. The Austrian school. Still don't buy into it. 'Full faith and credit'. It sounds like wank but the economy works on the presupposition that one can expect government bills to function as tradable. Basing on gold supposes gold has a worth beyond it being pretty. Now if we based it on something useful like copper or iron....but nonetheless it's nice to point fingers at monetarism as a villain, but the basis of human interaction is the capacity to trust. A Federal Reserve bill acts on the concept of worth determined by the willingness of humans to use it at face value. To base it on some form of material defeats the very idea of what the economy exists for: human interaction.

This is not specific to the Austrian school, there is no question here of a gold standard and this is about lack of monetarism.

It is all clearly explained in this video about a quote from a certain Robert Hemphill :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TTVoNIpBjE

I'm a member of this movement:

http://internationalmoneyreform.org/

You don't need to trust me since you'll find a variety of different sources saying more or less the same thing which have sprouted up since 2008.

This is also what brought about the Great Depression since monetary reform was already debated then but was forgotten since.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Program_for_Monetary_Reform.

I skimmed through the wiki. You're correct in that it spurns the gold standard (good) and supports monetarism (good); in fact it would appear their concept of the Monetary Authority in one form or another is basically the function of the Federal Reserve, particularly in the most recent crises. I still don't buy into 100% reserve. Too stationary. The movement and creation of capital must go beyond mere (strict) monetary worth. I think the biggest problem nowadays is that investment banks can create new forms of unusual investment concepts before regulators and, indeed, simple human interaction can catch up - thus the subprime mortgage crisis. (And also millisecond equity trades.) This isn't necessarily 'wrong' as much as it is fast. Capital flows to where it gets highest returns. Getting a grip on it may require a slowing of innovation. But I don't perceive inevitable economic collapse.

Then again I only have time to skim. Bastards expect me to work at work.

Lol.

Full reserve may be just one of a few possibilities.

I will summarise the issue for you.

As money is mostly credit, there are two options right now:

- Reduce debt towards credit institutions and thus reduce the money supply through money destruction (banks only keep interest).
- Increase the amount of money and thus increase the amount of debt.

Sounds rational doesn't it?

Somewhat. On the surface. But I often find things - all things - aren't simple enough to reduce to two possibilities. I'll look into it more.

Thanks for the intelligent discussion. Don't get that often on this site. With an exception of a half-dozen or so members - yourself included - by the end of 'debates' I engage in I'm usually called something obscene. ;)

Democracy might not bring consensus but if there's a better way, answers on a postcard.

It's a Majority Vote. That's fair enough for the people.

It's majority rules so yea go throw a fit in a corner somewhere because you can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time

The majority rule is not democratic in itself.

Actually you're right... Democracy is in reality a system which leads to an oligarchy... the people are then given the illusion of having some say in how their slave masters conduct business.

How about saying that the oligarchy is now an pseudo-aristocracy?

With capitalist industry leaders having replaced nobility, a monarch having been replaced by representatives, a feudal system being replaced by "social classes", priests promising better times being replaced by economists and the right-left divide among ordinary people being between those who support or reject the "noble".

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy :

"Ochlocracy ("rule of the general populace") is democracy ("rule of the people") spoiled by demagoguery, "tyranny of the majority", and the rule of passion over reason, just as oligarchy ("rule of a few") is aristocracy ("rule of the best") spoiled by corruption, and tyranny is monarchy spoiled by lack of virtue."

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monarchy (mono-arkhe or single ruler)
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/republic (rep-resent)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/feudalism
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/capitalism
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/socialism

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aristocrat
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aristocracy

"A class of people considered (not normally universally) superior to others"

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics :

"The political terms Right and Left were first used during the French Revolution (1789–99), and referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament; those who sat to the right of the chair of the parliamentary president were broadly supportive of the institutions of the monarchist Ancien Régime. The original Right in France was formed as a reaction against the Left, and comprised those politicians supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism. The use of the expression la droite (the right) became prominent in France after the restoration of the monarchy in 1815, when le droit was applied to the Ultra-royalists. The people of English-speaking countries did not apply the terms "right" and "left" to their own politics until the 20th Century."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clericalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy (hierarchia, "rule of a high priest")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy (an- not arkhe)

MaskedCrusader, Thanks for all the research that's interesting stuff...

You're welcome.

I didn't care about politics up until very recently but...

“Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you. ”
- Pericles

Since then I've been churning away on Wikipedia. It's quite fascinating :)