[arnold]

What do you think people wanted freedom from when the colonies here revolted against England?

The very thing you are advocating, Government intervention.

[jeffkrol]

The very thing you are advocating, Government intervention.

THEY didn't want NO government .. they wanted THEIR government..They didn't revolt to become "libertarians" and "free spirits" roaming the Capitalistic world .......

and spent years developing the ideal..........

Merchants and master manufacturers are . . . the two classes of people who commonly employ the largest capitals, and who by their wealth draw to themselves the greatest share of the public consideration. As during their whole lives they are engaged in plans and projects, they have frequently more acuteness of understanding than the greater part of country gentlemen. As their thoughts, however, are commonly exercised rather about the interest of their own particular branch of business, than about that of the society, their judgment, even when given with the greatest candour (which it has not been upon every occasion) is much more to be depended upon with regard to the former of those two objects, than with regard to the latter. . . . The interest of the dealers . . . in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. [Emphasis added.]

"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order [that is, 'those who live by profit'], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." [Emphasis added.]

Adam Smith

http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/09/adam-smith-vs-crony-capitalism

apparently our forefathers were smarter and wiser than us................

[arnold]

jeffkrol you are fighting a straw man here. I do not endorse what you imply. I do believe governments have a roll to play in keeping the peace and maintaining the law, and military. Crony-Capitalism (which by definition is not real free market Capitalism) is a result of government regulation, as explained for in your second quote "The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce" to benefit a special interest group . I happen to believe all exchanges between people should be voluntary, including commercial transactions, and that the force of the law should come down on those who deceive or otherwise violate this principle. I voluntarily bought an iPhone from Steve Jobs, and did not for one second feel exploited or resentful of his wealth. Instead I an grateful that men like this are free to produce the goods I value.

[jeffkrol]

jeffkrol you are fighting a straw man here. I do not endorse what you imply. I do believe governments have a roll to play in keeping the peace and maintaining the law, and military. Crony-Capitalism (which by definition is not real free market Capitalism) is a result of government regulation, as explained for in your second quote "The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce" to benefit a special interest group . I happen to believe all exchanges between people should be voluntary, including commercial transactions, and that the force of the law should come down on those who deceive or otherwise violate this principle. I voluntarily bought an iPhone from Steve Jobs, and did not for one second feel exploited or resentful of his wealth. Instead I an grateful that men like this are free to produce the goods I value.

Actually I was a bit confused by what you were endorsing.. so I threw A. Smith to see a clarification of it.. which you have now provided..
Libertarianism and free markets are just fine..when enmeshed in a socially beneficial "net"....

Pure free market is anarchy........and few can argue, based on all of human history, that this is a "good thing"......

[Nesster]

The only way to get equality of outcome is to destroy liberty. As long as you have liberty, you will never have equality. ["All men are equal" is in reference to the rule of law, not social engineering.] That is why Obama is seen as un-American. He has a collectivist soul that has forgotten the American melting-pot had the fire of liberty uniting people of all types.

Your very first assumption is in error, either that or you aren't talking about Obama and most Democrats or Liberals.

The aim is not to get equality of outcome. The aim is towards greater equality of opportunity.

That this is measured by looking at outcomes is a limitation of metrics; the assumption is that as a given segment becomes more diverse the opportunities have been better equalized.

These days it is all down to pressure groups using law to force their ways on everyone else. Forced inclusiveness won't work, because people will only unite when they see no threat from other pressure groups.

People unite when they see a threat from outside the group.

[wildman]

Jeff, Les and Nesster,

You are wasting your time.

He has his bumper sticker dogma that gives him all the certainty he requires.
Anything beyond this is irrelevant to him.

[arnold]

The aim is not to get equality of outcome. The aim is towards greater equality of opportunity.

.

If you change that to Freedom of opportunity, we are in agreement. Other than that, I would have to write a book to explain my position, and I would rather refer you to the likes of Milton Friedman (Free to Choose), Ludwig von Mises (Planning for Freedom), Henry Hazlitt (Economics in One lesson) or even Frenchman Frederic Bastiat (Economic Sophisims).
Not in the hope of changing opinion, but that the position you argue against is understood more fully.

[GeneV]

Jeff, Les and Nesster,

You are wasting your time.

He has his bumper sticker dogma that gives him all the certainty he requires.
Anything beyond this is irrelevant to him.

And now von Mises. This will go nowhere.

[Nesster]

If you change that to Freedom of opportunity, we are in agreement. Other than that, I would have to write a book to explain my position, and I would rather refer you to the likes of Milton Friedman (Free to Choose), Ludwig von Mises (Planning for Freedom), Henry Hazlitt (Economics in One lesson) or even Frenchman Frederic Bastiat (Economic Sophisims).
Not in the hope of changing opinion, but that the position you argue against is understood more fully.

I have read / read about them (I was a long term Forbes subscriber, for one). There is a lot of misunderstanding on both sides, but that's understandable, or else how to make sure there are sides

[jeffkrol]

If you change that to Freedom of opportunity, we are in agreement. Other than that, I would have to write a book to explain my position, and I would rather refer you to the likes of Milton Friedman (Free to Choose), Ludwig von Mises (Planning for Freedom), Henry Hazlitt (Economics in One lesson) or even Frenchman Frederic Bastiat (Economic Sophisims).
Not in the hope of changing opinion, but that the position you argue against is understood more fully.

All you need to understand

HR2990
(12) The aforementioned conditions require comprehensive action by the United States Congress to create full employment, invest in America and secure our Nation’s long-term economic, social and political future; and that such action is within our Constitutional right and responsibility.
(13) The authority to create money is a sovereign power vested in the Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
(14) The enactment of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 by Congress effectively delegated the sovereign power to create money, to the Federal Reserve system and private financial industry.
(15) This ceding of Constitutional power has contributed materially to a multitude of monetary and financial afflictions, including:
(A) growing and unreasonable concentration of wealth;
(B) unbridled expansion of national debt, both public and private;
(C) excessive reliance on taxation of citizens for raising public revenues;
(D) devaluation of the currency;
(E) drastic increases in the cost of public infrastructure investments;
(F) record levels of unemployment and underemployment; and
(G) persistent erosion of the ability of Congress to exercise its Constitutional responsibilities to provide resources for the general welfare of all the American people.
(16) A debt-based monetary system, where money comes into existence primarily through private bank lending, can neither create, nor sustain, a stable economic environment, but has proven to be a source of chronic financial instability and frequent crisis, as evidenced by the near collapse of the financial system in 2008.
(17) Banks increased their value by lending money imprudently, which greatly inflated the value of bank holdings, exposing depositors and taxpayers to the risks of schemes like the bundling of subprime mortgages, and ultimately bringing undercapitalized banks and the entire financial system to the edge of ruin, creating circumstances where the taxpayers of the United States were called upon to save the
banks from their own imprudent lending practices, misspending and mis-investments. The banks’ ability to create money out of nothing ultimately became the taxpayers’ liability, and raises a fundamental question about a practice of money creation which threatens the wealth of the American people.
(18) Abolishing private money creation can be achieved with minimal disruption to current banking operations, regulation, and supervision.
(19) The creation of money by private financial institutions as interest-bearing debts should cease once and for all.
(20) Reclaiming the power of the Federal Government to originate money, and to spend or lend money into circulation as needed, eliminates the need to treat money as a Federal liability or to pay interest charges on the Nation’s money supply to financial institutions; it also removes the undue influence of private financial institutions over public policy.
(21) Under the current Federal Reserve System, the persons responsible for the conduct of United States monetary policy have been unaccountable to the Congress and the Nation, have resisted auditing by the Government Accountability Office, and have claimed exemptions from some Federal statutes, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that apply to all agencies of the Federal Government.
(22) The implementation of United States monetary policy by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System has failed to promote full employment, and the failure of the Board of Governors to safeguard the financial system against wholesale fraud and abuse of citizens, demonstrates the risks of maintaining a system wherein the power to create and regulate money has been delegated to private individuals who are unaccountable to the People of the United States in any way, even through their representatives in Congress.
(23) An examination of the historical record demonstrates that the exercise of control by the United States Government over the money system has provided greater moderation in the supply of money and promoting the general welfare, and has been indispensable in times of national emergency for generating resources required to support public investment, provide for national defense, and promote the general welfare, and is therefore superior to private control over the money system.
(24) As our money system is a key pillar in maintaining general economic welfare and as the Federal Reserve System and its private banking partners has consistently failed to promote or preserve the general welfare, it is essential that Congress, in the name of protecting the economic lives of the American people and the long-term security of our Nation, reassume the powers and responsibilities granted to it by the Constitution ect

http://www.monetary.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/HR-2990.pdf

[arnold]

All you need to understand


http://www.monetary.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/HR-2990.pdf

I do understand. I just didn't realize people were happy with the results of this, along with the current general economic health of the USA and Europe. For me, if the current situation was the result of the ideas and policies applied over centuries, it was time to check our premises. Perhaps we should leave it at that. You are welcome to have the last word.

[jeffkrol]

I do understand. I just didn't realize people were happy with the results of this, along with the current general economic health of the USA and Europe. For me, if the current situation was the result of the ideas and policies applied over centuries, it was time to check our premises. Perhaps we should leave it at that. You are welcome to have the last word.

sorry you are even a bit more opaque here........
How old is the "Fed"??
how old is "trickle down" and "classic economics??

do you accept some of the premise of HR2990 or not??

Here is an interesting POV (consider the source):
Vision & Goals | Forum | HR 2990 IS NOTHING BUT A LIE AND A SCAM… do not be fooled, it changes nothing. | NYC General Assembly # Occupy Wall Street

I take it you don't subscribe to the belief that if both sides hate it it must be good...............

http://www.thedailybell.com/3028/The-Myth-of-Constitutional-Money

One of the most assumption and morally tinged articles against it........
and then there is this:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/why-the-gold-standard-is...charts/261552/

Why the Gold Standard Is the World's Worst Economic Idea, in 2 Charts

And funny ho the "bastion of capitalism" and "free markets" is awaiting their free money............

http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/story/2012/09/12/wall-street-has-hopes...fed/57770316/1

Wall Street has hopes for QE3 from Fed

Which I suspect you and I both know it is not going to work well...... though I assume from 2 completely different perspectives......