tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6171920818712409442.post6400861160004806258..comments2012-09-17T14:57:23.644-07:00Comments on in constant motion: Liberty vs. Equality this sunday sunday SUNDAY!!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10678519042974192626noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6171920818712409442.post-85090399832323919712011-01-25T08:05:03.968-08:002011-01-25T08:05:03.968-08:00Let me ask you another question. And I'd like ...Let me ask you another question. And I'd like you to really think about this one because your argument of "equality" over liberty will crumble if you really take a step back and look at the big picture. <br /><br />What type of economic government policy best promotes equality?<br /><br />Is it big government spending and borrowing for social programs and public works projects? Or is it limited government which only spends what it takes in as revenues? <br /><br />By starving government of money you take away its tyrannical power over the people. Our government was designed to protect individual rights not trample them and intrude and intervene in our lives.<br /><br />Take this simple fact:<br />From 1790 to 1913 (123 years) - 1913 being the cutoff because of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 - the value of the US dollar rose 8% without the existence of a central bank and with relatively little government intervention into the economy. This means if you put $1 in a bank account in 1790 with no fee and no accrued interest the amount your money would be worth in 1913 would be $1.08. During this time government spent fractions less in terms of GDP than it does now.<br /><br />Now let's compare that from 1914 to 2010 (96 years). The value of the US dollar has decreased 95% since the existence of the Federal Reserve. Again, that means that if you put $1 in that same bank account in 1914 and left it there until 2010 your dollar would be worth $0.05. In other words, it would take $22.10 in 2010 to purchase what $1.00 could in 1914.<br /><br />Now ask yourself the question: What economic government policy best promotes inequality?<br /><br />Without a doubt massive government spending, financed by the Fed and the US Treasury, promotes a gross amount of inequality. So much for a President that "truly gets it."<br /><br />The way you make people wealthier is not by increasing minimum wages. It is by allowing the market to work freely. When the market is allowed to freely coordinate production inventions/innovations come out that lower the price of goods. This is how people become more wealthy. <br /><br />Think of the great inventions in history: The light bulb, computer, microwave ovens, automobile, airplane, etc. These products have had a far greater impact/improvement on the average person's standard of living than the wealthy. The wealthy can always afford to have things the average person cannot. <br /><br />And as for injustices during the industrial revolution and child labor and all those arguments I will say that the major failure of those types of eras was the government NOT protecting individual rights sufficiently. Corporations got away with things because the government did not protect individual rights.<br /><br />So you see, I get to "have it both ways." If you promote economic freedom it will improve peoples lives. And if you protect individual rights (i.e. civil liberties) you will prevent people from taking advantage of others.<br /><br />You are most certainly NOT a liberal in the classical sense. In history it was progressives who circumvented the Constitution in order to pass legislation for sake of expediency. I don't know about you but I would not want to be associated with that type of history.<br /><br />The classical liberal, which is far different from liberals and conservatives today, were the ones who promoted liberty and freedom. Liberals have given the name a negative meaning and conservatives have decided to use a word that suggests the status quo is acceptable.<br /><br />I am not a Tea Partier, but at least their ideals for fiscal responsibility promote more freedom, liberty and equality than your half-brained "progressive" ones ever could.Kelly D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09694009364351192842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6171920818712409442.post-53829885419674036422011-01-21T13:40:25.972-08:002011-01-21T13:40:25.972-08:00Citing the gap between the rich and poor is not a ...Citing the gap between the rich and poor is not a good instrument for backing up a theory of the causes of economic depressions. If the cause of economic depressions, especially the Great Depression, was the unequal distribution of wealth then there would be economic depressions, non-stop, in every country, forever! In practically every country on Earth you’ll find the top 1% of income earners owns 25% (or whatever number you think is unacceptable) of that country’s wealth. Dictators and powerful ruler’s aside, these are the people who actually invest their money into companies and make and innovate many of the products you and I use daily. I think it is safe to say that if you are a janitor at an office building in Buffalo you are going to make multiples and multiples less then the guy who produces farm equipment that makes it possible for millions of people to eat everyday! In 1929, the top 5% of income earners owned 33% of the wealth in America. Throughout history there have been countries whose income distribution has been far greater than that and there was no economic depression. The notion that letting people keep their money is what causes depressions is absurd. So the government must take 75% of rich people’s money in order to prevent depressions? Give me a break!<br /><br />In actuality, most economic recessions and depressions are caused by a central bank (e.g. the Federal Reserve) manipulating the interest rate (or Federal Funds Rate) below the market value of interest rates. The Fed lowers the interest rate by basically lending money to member banks, i.e. Open Market Operations. How does the Fed get the money to do this? They simply add zeros onto their ledgers and do the same to the banks they lend to. Could you imagine if your bank just decided to add some zeros on the end of your account and said you had to accept this new money? The Fed participates in legalized counterfeiting. Legal, because the Congress has no authority over it and the Federal Reserve Act says they are the “lender of last resort.” Now banks have more money to lend to individuals and businesses which lowers the interest rate. When that money finally reaches the middle class the market has compensated for the increased money supply and prices rise as a result making the middle class poorer.<br /><br />In a sound economy the interest rate is lowered by people saving their money, or in other words deferring consumption now for consumption later. When people save money banks have more to lend so it lowers the interest rate. In the 1920’s consumer prices generally remained level but with all of the innovation and decrease in unemployment one would expect the prices of goods to drop as we find cheaper ways to produce goods. Instead what was happening is the Fed was lowering the interest rate to negate the lowering of prices. For some reason modern economists, such as your beloved Paul Krugman, believe that deflation is decreasing prices and that inflation is “too much money chasing too few goods.” Inflation is actually an increase in the money supply. This is why prices rise as a result of inflation. If you have 100 dollars and I create 100 new dollars out of thin air, like the Federal Reserve, your 100 will be able to purchase 50 dollars worth of goods once the market realizes there is twice as many dollars in the economy. This is what makes the average person poorer not because the rich have stolen all the wealth from the middle class. <br /><br />If you truly want greater equality in America (total equality is impossible) the answer is to liberalize the economy and let it make people wealthier by reducing the price of goods. Inventions and innovations, which make it more efficient to produce goods, is what drives costs down and makes the middle class richer in terms of real wages. Striving for total equality takes the incentive out of producing products. You must first produce something of value to consume something of value.Kelly D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09694009364351192842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6171920818712409442.post-10556607386090323192011-01-21T13:40:11.731-08:002011-01-21T13:40:11.731-08:00Now, onto the content of my argument:
While I agr...Now, onto the content of my argument:<br /><br />While I agree with you that we have “broken cities” and “broken schools” I think we most likely disagree on the cause and the solution. Since the federal government has gotten involved in education in the 1950’s and health care in the 1970’s the costs of both have gone up while the quality has gone down. Americans gave the education system to the government, which delivered a colossal, reductive, stultifying, homogeneous education system costing hundreds of billions of dollars per year, and primarily serving the needs of the bureaucrats who administer it. There is no evidence whatsoever that indicates that government is competent enough to be in charge of any industry let alone the entire economy under the guise of “equality.” <br /><br />Furthermore, who is to define “equality?” Your definition and mine are most likely two different things. What knowledge could you or anybody possibly possess that gives them the definitive answer as to what “equality” is or how to obtain it? There is no such being of that magnitude that exists on this earth. I believe F. A. Hayek said it best: “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” Attempts at central planning have never worked in history and they never will without undermining both liberty and equality.Kelly D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09694009364351192842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6171920818712409442.post-47207308411032225042011-01-21T13:39:44.076-08:002011-01-21T13:39:44.076-08:00Ed, I was surprised to find an article in response...Ed, I was surprised to find an article in response to my comments and I thank you for some insight into your thought process. However, I would like to clear up a few things and I apologize for responding to this article almost 4 months after it was posted. My question to you was actually asking: if the government shouldn’t regulate marriage (gay or hetero) should they regulate the economy? When you first brought my question up in this article you misstated it but you then corrected yourself and certainly explained why you think government should not regulate social issues but should regulate economic ones. To be clear, I fully support the right for gays to marry. They can do what they want and call it what they want. Again, marriage is a religious function and the only reason the government got involved with it in the first place was for “health reasons.” This fact alone makes the act of government involving itself with marriage unconstitutional since it violates the religious aspect of our First Amendment.<br /><br />If you look to the Bill of Rights, which is a part of our Constitution and you cite in your article as a “document soaked in liberty,” you can peruse the profound words as much as you want but you will not find the word marriage anywhere. Likewise, you will not find the word economy or a clause designating that Congress regulates it in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or any of the Amendments. Now if I haven’t convinced you that the economy is not under the jurisdiction of the government by this simple fact I will make my argument in more detail. I find it interesting that you use the Constitution to help you argument of gay marriage but refuse to look at the very same text to derive your position on economic issues. You are correct that the Constitution is a bill that tells the government what it cannot do. The Constitution was created to protect our rights and liberties not trample on them or arbitrarily create new ones. Man does not create rights. Rights are “endowed by our Creator.” The Constitution was NOT intended to leave “wiggle room” for politicians to pick and choose what they think is right. The only lawful way the Constitution can be altered to change a current clause/meaning is through the amendment process.Kelly D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09694009364351192842noreply@blogger.com