in addition the austrian school neglects to acknowledge all modern private sector technology is DERIVED From non other then federal infrastructure investments. For example all modern computer chips... Where did they come lfrom ?. The kennedy space program. The internet ? Darpa. modern trade routes ?. The intercontinental railway.... So you want the free markets? the free markets DONT EXIST. It is a utopian ideal. An acronym for goldman sachs and jp morgan
#1 the proposal is not to build infrastructure via NO BID contracts, but infact to build via contracts that are BIDDED on. IN addition to that, illuminists would be put in front of a Pecora Commision like entity and put in jail under Tarpley's solution.
#2 "Once the public sector has grown back again..."
And you fail to realize nothing will EVER grow back again without basic infrastructure in place, considering the railways in the US are literally FALLING APART, along with the Bridges, Roads and every other bit of infrastructure that has not been updated in 4 decades. Labour is prior to capital - you wanna print money and give it to the private sector and pray they do the right thing? it doesn't work - history is certainly not on your side here. Infact, everytime a private robber baron has patented technology it has been locked away in a vault and never resurfaced.
#3 "With economic freedom, it would be shocking how fast the economy would grow" - How do you define economic freedom? with the definition you offer Goldman Sachs and it's financial masters in London would grow and 4/5ths of the worlds population DIES.
Quote from: aerborne on July 01, 2009, 04:35:27 PM
Except that the article didn't say that did it? It said california should print and loan the money at interest didn't it?
Oh it is so typical of you to take an example (As you've done so many times) from history and then say "The article said to print and loan money at interest".... no it DID not, the article is providing a possible solution FOR California by monetizing infrastructure as you can clearly see :"The committee realized that if the Guernsey States issued their own notes to fund the project, rather than borrowing from an English bank, there would be no interest to pay. This would lead to substantial savings. Because as anyone with a mortgage should understand, the debtor ends up paying at least double the amount borrowed over the long-term.” The article was giving an example of a situation that occured in 1815, and you of course have to bring in a load of irrelivant crap that has nothing to do with the article...., just like the historic example of the Bank of North DakotaWhat is the point anymore? What is your goal here? ......... why are you bringing up things that haven't anything to do with what i just posted?
Oh by the way, i love the NeoCon tactics that you use, pointing to Webster Tarpley as if he thought up the idea of the Greenback System and was responsible for Benjamin Franklin, Washington, Hamilton and many other of our leaders in the 18th and 19th Century.
Get with the program, this has nothing to do with Tarpley - It has to do with Monetary Reform and U.S. History.
Tarpley just has enough brains to point that out, you on the other hand - just kick and scream and throw temper tantrums whenever someone posts anything that disproves your Austrian "THEORY" , because that is all the Austrian School is. A tremendous hoax of a theory, that has never succeeded economically and has no historic base.
You also fell right into the "WAHH WAHH that's Socialism" Trap, so i suppose Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were Socialists! That is a new one to me. Is the Post Office Socialism? How about the Fire Department? Developing Canals for River Traportation that never would have been developed by the "Free Markets". ?
You going to provide an argument or just stamp your feet and post Patriotic Austrian threads that have been debunked?.
Yes, i ALREADY DID so by writing an ESSAY on it here : http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=105934.0
If you read this, you will see that you are calling BENJAMIN FRANKLIN and GEORGE WASHINGTON "Socialists"
And i agree with virtually everything GeoLibertarian says in this THREAD as well.............
NEWSFLASH! SOCIALISM: WHEN THE GOVERNMENT SEIZES THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION
NEWSFLASH! when you CALL OBAMA a Socialist, you give him LEFT COVER and people LIKE HIM MORE
hello! is anyone there Lord Edward? ANYONE?
You are interpreting the "General Welfare" Clause , as if you were a lawmaker? who do you think you are, GOD?
The whole point is, when you call CORPORATISM, SOCIALISM - you are providing OBAMA with COVER and you do it virtually EVERY DAY. This means all the liberals who are brainwashed by Obama see you as another right wing Rush Limbaugh CLOWN because they think Obama is actually re-distributing wealth, and providing everyone with Government assistance, when he is doing the OPPOSITE
But i am a "Socialist" because i advocate a monetary reform where the Government merely issues currency into productive infraststructure...... perhaps you should read the communist manifesto and educate yourself as to what "Socialism" is rather then calling every thing the Government does "Socialism" when we currently have FASCISM - and perhaps you should stop posting 5-10 page long American Liberty League (Rockefeller/Morgan/DuPont) and American Enterprise Institute (Rupert Murdoch) documents that have re-written history? I've caught you doing so numerous times but you of course, go ahead and do it again - then attack people from the 9-11 Truth movement as "Socialists".... It's just the epidamy of STUPIDITY to do these things and intentionally MISLEAD people.
Again, this essay has nothing to do with Tarpley other then using his quotes to point the obvious situation and history of the United States out, or highlight it.When people revert to attacking the "messenger" instead of the "message" it means they have no logical argument - sort of like Ron Paul says he is just the messenger. This essay does not ecompass half of the ideals Tarpley would like to see instituted as he is a progressive democrat and i am not.No one advocated "Enlarging" Government, this essay is on monetary reform and the Constitution grants specifically grants the Government the duty to issue currency.What it is issued INTO, is the primary focus - productive activity (In this case, meaning infrastructure) , -or- loaning to banks so they can do whatever they want with it.Attacking Tarpley, as shown - is just more pointless , substanceless blathering.
Hey Clearmyst, FDR was surely not perfect however, the New Deal was an expermental process. Things were done right, things were done incorrectly.
There are MASSES of Dis-Information on the net about FDR, it would require going to an actual bookstore or amazon and ordering a detailed book on him , and reading his quotes to actually understand his intentions. A fellow by the name of Shayler has written a complete book of BS about FDR and it is circulating around the world/net. I would suggest reading about his history has a Naval officer, there are some interesting things to be read.
It is absurd to call FDR a fascist ( i am not saying you did this, nor is this directed at you, however it is a common theme to associate FDR with Keynes, which is nonsense, infact they argued throughout the entire Bretton Woods Conference about a 1 world currency) considering a group of fascist bankers header by JP Morgan tried to assassinate and overthrow him.
The key thing to understand about Roosevelt's Infrastructure policy is, it was not Spending money - it was Federal Credit, or simply an investment for the Nation based on Lincolns economic policy.
Aspects of the New Deal / FDR that were correct things to do considering the crisis:
1) Put the insolvent FED into Bankruptcy for the issuence of 100 billion dollars in Gold Convertable Currency in the prior 2 administrations with only 4 Billion in Gold Reserves (This leads to the de-coupling of gold from the dollar , quite obviously)
2) Using the FED during bankruptcy as a Federal Credit Window to the ECONOMY, not the Commercial Banking system for the sole purpose of investing in high tech infrastructure
3) Enacting some Social programs to stop elderly people from starving to death
4) The Bretton Woods System, an International Fixed Rate system anchored by gold, which in reality prevented speculators from creating bubbles from 1944 to 1971 when Kissinger and Nixon collapsed it.
Things FDR Did that were wrong:
1) Price Fixing in the Agriculture markets to fight Deflation
2) Allowing Congress to stomp on his Infrastructure policies in 1936 and caving into them, hence allowing the economy to re-collapse to some extent in 1937
3) (I cannot accuse him of caving into the FED because he died in 1944 before the war ended, his intentions were to take the machine tool capabilities of the War and convert them into Physical goods and infrastructure. However, if you must go there - He did not get rid of the FED.
As i said, the new deal was an experiment, based on Lincolns "Science Driver" economic policies of investing federal funds directly into infrastructure - there were some programs that ended up being detrimental to the country however as a whole, the New Deal actually in REALITY did save the country from complete economic melt down, contrary to the idiotic assumption that WW2 saved the US economy *LAUGH* we are in 2 wars right now, is it saving the economy? I Wish!.