Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/index.php)
-   Off the Court Lounge (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   What America was built on, Vs what it's been replaced with. (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=212433)

joe 03-08-2011 12:54 PM

What America was built on, Vs what it's been replaced with.
 
Things America was built on, And what they've been replaced with.

America was built on:

Restricting government. The purpose of the US constitution is not to provide rights to the citizen. No, its sole purpose is to restrict the government. This was to prevent government from becoming overpowered and corrupted. The constitution clearly lays out the powers the federal government has, and any power not given to the federal government is given to the states or the people. The citizens were passionate in their belief of personal freedom and privacy.

Which has been replaced with:

An out of control government that disregards the constitution on a daily basis. The federal government outlaws things that should be left to the states to decide. The President goes to war without a declaration of congress. Worst yet, the people don't even care. They in fact think the constitution is "outdated" and doesn't apply to modern times.

America was built on:

Capitalism. Many Europeans and other settlers came to this country because the promise of prosperity. This prosperity was based on anybody, no matter how rich or poor their father was, having the ability to work hard and eventually make something of themselves. Poor people took risks and started successful businesses, increasing the quality of life for everyone.

Which has been replaced with:

We still have capitalism, though it's becoming more regulated. Sadly though, many people have begun to lose faith in it. They call for more government interference in markets out of a well intentioned, but misguided desire to help people. They don't realize that this supposed "help" only hurts them in the long run, by destroying incentives to work and raising taxes for the entire country to pay for these entitlement programs. This makes doing business in America less profitable and causes companies to move, or cut workers.

America was built on:

Sound money. The gold standard. The founding fathers wrote plenty about a fear of central banking, and they specifically wrote in the constitution that:

Quote:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;


Also, Congress was to be the only entity in the United States with the power to coin money:

Quote:


Section 8 - Powers of Congress
.....
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;


Which has has been replaced with:

However, in 1913 the power to coin money was given to the Federal Reserve Bank. At no point in the constitution does it say the Congress has the power to wave this right to a private bank. And if it doesn't say it in the constitution, the government cannot do it, PERIOD. As noted here:
Quote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This has led to runaway inflation, lower standards of living, and less purchasing power of the dollar. No wonder you need two parents working today to support a family of four, when in the 60's just the Dad could work and the family could lead a middle class lifestyle. It's inflation.


-------

Feel free to add your own. I might add some more later. Hopefully clearly laid out posts like this remind dissenters that America is founded on a constitution, and on capitalism. Those beliefs made us the greatest country in the world once upon a time. It seems today many have forgotten those beliefs, and instead rely on their own gut instincts in assessing politics. However, we don't need to use gut instinct.. the constitution lays out exactly how this country should be run.

JtotheIzzo 03-08-2011 01:25 PM

Re: What America was built on, Vs what it's been replaced with.
 
Don't you think Americans are better off endlessly printing money and forcing other countries to comply with American regulations?

RidonKs 03-08-2011 01:28 PM

Re: What America was built on, Vs what it's been replaced with.
 
let's dissect, shall we?

Quote:

The purpose of the US constitution is not to provide rights to the citizen.
it's ONLY to provide rights to the citizen. the CITIZEN is what Jefferson and Madison and Adams and Franklin had in mind! but i understand this was probably somewhat of a miswording. the citizen is all that matters, and based on what i know of your ideology, that should be as concrete as any political statement

let me rebut your argument in favor of capitalism and against government regulation, because i desperately want to be taken seriously in this matter.

first off, i think declaring that "the people were passionate in their belief of personal freedom and privacy" is more than a fallacy, and doesn't quite tell the whole story. i don't think the PEOPLE, as in collective Americans circa 1787, were rights slaves who believed wholeheartedly and unforgivably in a government that protected individual freedom. rather, i think more accurately, that citizens of that age were interested in WHAT WAS FAIR. the taxes that were collected by the Crown but remained completely unpaid to American workers were totally unfair. taxes being paid to the government, to be redistributed (oooooh, scary word) to the general population under reasonable disparagement makes perfect sense to me, in the context of the American revolution. to understand the wording of the American Constitution any differently is to me, at least, total revisionary history.

so how about the constitution. you specifically mention that certain folks believe the constitution is 'outdated'. forgive my insolence, but i can only assume that this is an issue raised most specifically at me, since i'm the only one with whom you've discussed the absolute interpretation of the constitution (and with whom, i may politely add, i haven't had the satisfaction of hearing a response from my latest rebuttal). the constitution, once more, IS a document dated to 1787, and therefore, should be UNDERSTOOD in the context of 1987. if it isn't, it should be taken as the absolute word of God, which regards the only circumstance under which documents shouldn't be contextualized. so, uhh, good luck with that.

Quote:

by destroying incentives to work
with a smithian understanding of capitalism, incentives are still very meaningful.

Quote:

and raising taxes for the entire country to pay for these entitlement programs
the majority of which help countless Americans.



i won't add anything to your further rants against the Fed and in favour of standardized currency. in a global economy, a part of which the United States just so -happens- to play the LARGEST part, a material standard is horribly impractical. this is common sense.

let me play out a hypothetical with you, for fun. you argue in favour of the gold standard. my question to you is thus: should that gold standard continue to be understood as the basis of the American economy, even as the population continues to grow? at what point do even Austrian schooled economists realize that there flat-out isn't enough gold under American control to warrant an economy built on its very standard? i do believe your most hated Keynesian economists believe that tbat very threshold was surpassed long ago, and since then, the American global economy has grown to such a vast size that using a concrete material as a standard, unless it's plastic, is flat out no longer feasible. this is the modern contention. if you believe it to be wrong, at what point does the American economy surpass material standard maximums? i can only imagine it would have to be at some point, assuming economic growth, which rarely fails.


i'll leave alone your contention that the dollar is automatically worth more, as a result of increased printing. there are some things wrong with that argument that i don't have the expertise to argue against. nevertheless, i do agree with you that the over-printing of money is incredibly dangerous. for examples, see every hyperinflated economy of recent history. however, i do believe that you're overstating America's abuse of this practice. it is a problem, but not nearly the sized problem you seem to argue. it ISNT the main economic problem of the United States, which would be in an economic disaster, even if it has printed millions less over the last year.





edit: bear in mind for every point that i was drunk as i typed everything in this post

Sarcastic 03-08-2011 01:31 PM

Re: What America was built on, Vs what it's been replaced with.
 
This is not 1776 anymore. Just because things worked back then, does not mean they are going to work now. We live in a global community now, and thus we must be able to adapt to our changing world. Back then it took weeks for information to travel between America and Europe. Now we can pass information instantaneously to any part of the planet.

If we were to try to live up to the exact same principles that the country was founded upon, we would find ourselves falling way behind. Not that we aren't already.

joe 03-08-2011 01:39 PM

Re: What America was built on, Vs what it's been replaced with.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarcastic
This is not 1776 anymore. Just because things worked back then, does not mean they are going to work now. We live in a global community now, and thus we must be able to adapt to our changing world. Back then it took weeks for information to travel between America and Europe. Now we can pass information instantaneously to any part of the planet.

If we were to try to live up to the exact same principles that the country was founded upon, we would find ourselves falling way behind. Not that we aren't already.


Straying from these principles is what has got us far behind. As you note, "not that we arent there aleady." How do you think we got here? It sure as hell wasn't sound money or free markets. Haven't had either of those for quite some time.. especially sound money.

RidonKs 03-08-2011 01:42 PM

Re: What America was built on, Vs what it's been replaced with.
 
my other point that i completely forgot to make was the role of the corporation in today's economy. no, it probably isn't quite as significant as what Michael Moore or John Perkins might have you believe (can you believe it? a name drop of somebody i JUST heard about), but the corporation is as far from powerless as OKC is from the 13th seed they were fighting for last year). business matters now more than it has mattered any other time in history, and not an argument in the world could possibly convince me otherwise.

Lebowsky 03-08-2011 01:44 PM

Re: What America was built on, Vs what it's been replaced with.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by joe
Straying from these principles is what has got us far behind. As you note, "not that we arent there aleady." How do you think we got here? It sure as hell wasn't sound money or free markets. Haven't had either of those for quite some time.. especially sound money.


Your idea of going back to the gold standard is not only impossible to implement in the present day, but it's also stupid. It'd be terribly impractical, it'd limit and constrain your economy and its potential and it'd leave your country powerless towards its own monetary policy, because it'd be subject to an exogenous and very erratic factor like the the price of gold is.

beermonsteroo 03-08-2011 02:00 PM

Re: What America was built on, Vs what it's been replaced with.
 
It was build on a genocide in the first place.
I agree with the rest of your post though

joe 03-08-2011 02:14 PM

Re: What America was built on, Vs what it's been replaced with.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by RidonKs
let's dissect, shall we?


it's ONLY to provide rights to the citizen. the CITIZEN is what Jefferson and Madison and Adams and Franklin had in mind! but i understand this was probably somewhat of a miswording. the citizen is all that matters, and based on what i know of your ideology, that should be as concrete as any political statement

let me rebut your argument in favor of capitalism and against government regulation, because i desperately want to be taken seriously in this matter.

first off, i think declaring that "the people were passionate in their belief of personal freedom and privacy" is more than a fallacy, and doesn't quite tell the whole story. i don't think the PEOPLE, as in collective Americans circa 1787, were rights slaves who believed wholeheartedly and unforgivably in a government that protected individual freedom. rather, i think more accurately, that citizens of that age were interested in WHAT WAS FAIR. the taxes that were collected by the Crown but remained completely unpaid to American workers were totally unfair. taxes being paid to the government, to be redistributed (oooooh, scary word) to the general population under reasonable disparagement makes perfect sense to me, in the context of the American revolution. to understand the wording of the American Constitution any differently is to me, at least, total revisionary history.

so how about the constitution. you specifically mention that certain folks believe the constitution is 'outdated'. forgive my insolence, but i can only assume that this is an issue raised most specifically at me, since i'm the only one with whom you've discussed the absolute interpretation of the constitution (and with whom, i may politely add, i haven't had the satisfaction of hearing a response from my latest rebuttal). the constitution, once more, IS a document dated to 1787, and therefore, should be UNDERSTOOD in the context of 1987. if it isn't, it should be taken as the absolute word of God, which regards the only circumstance under which documents shouldn't be contextualized. so, uhh, good luck with that.


with a smithian understanding of capitalism, incentives are still very meaningful.


the majority of which help countless Americans.



i won't add anything to your further rants against the Fed and in favour of standardized currency. in a global economy, a part of which the United States just so -happens- to play the LARGEST part, a material standard is horribly impractical. this is common sense.

let me play out a hypothetical with you, for fun. you argue in favour of the gold standard. my question to you is thus: should that gold standard continue to be understood as the basis of the American economy, even as the population continues to grow? at what point do even Austrian schooled economists realize that there flat-out isn't enough gold under American control to warrant an economy built on its very standard? i do believe your most hated Keynesian economists believe that tbat very threshold was surpassed long ago, and since then, the American global economy has grown to such a vast size that using a concrete material as a standard, unless it's plastic, is flat out no longer feasible. this is the modern contention. if you believe it to be wrong, at what point does the American economy surpass material standard maximums? i can only imagine it would have to be at some point, assuming economic growth, which rarely fails.


i'll leave alone your contention that the dollar is automatically worth more, as a result of increased printing. there are some things wrong with that argument that i don't have the expertise to argue against. nevertheless, i do agree with you that the over-printing of money is incredibly dangerous. for examples, see every hyperinflated economy of recent history. however, i do believe that you're overstating America's abuse of this practice. it is a problem, but not nearly the sized problem you seem to argue. it ISNT the main economic problem of the United States, which would be in an economic disaster, even if it has printed millions less over the last year.





edit: bear in mind for every point that i was drunk as i typed everything in this post


I'll bear in mind that you were drunk while writing this. :-)
Quote:

it's ONLY to provide rights to the citizen.

This isn't a debatable point, the constitution is meant to restrain government. The Bill of Rights defines what rights we have.. but the constitution itself restrains government. If you read the constitution, you'll see that the entire document just simply lists the powers the government has, then states "any powers not given to the government here, they do not have." After that, it gets into the Bill of Rights. Common misconception but an important semantic.

Quote:

taxes being paid to the government, to be redistributed (oooooh, scary word) to the general population under reasonable disparagement makes perfect sense to me, in the context of the American revolution. to understand the wording of the American Constitution any differently is to me, at least, total revisionary history.


This isn't meant to sound rude or what have you, but it may.. It doesn't matter what makes perfect sense to you. Or to me for that matter. All that matters is what's in the constitution. I don't mind if a tax is legal under the constitution, that's all well and good. But things like taxing for universe health care is illegal based on the constitution.. It gives no power to the federal government to tax every single person in the united states and force them to buy a product they may or may not want. Whatever you and I personally feel about it.. it's still illegal.

joe 03-08-2011 02:15 PM

Re: What America was built on, Vs what it's been replaced with.
 
Quote:

so how about the constitution. you specifically mention that certain folks believe the constitution is 'outdated'. forgive my insolence, but i can only assume that this is an issue raised most specifically at me, since i'm the only one with whom you've discussed the absolute interpretation of the constitution (and with whom, i may politely add, i haven't had the satisfaction of hearing a response from my latest rebuttal). the constitution, once more, IS a document dated to 1787, and therefore, should be UNDERSTOOD in the context of 1987. if it isn't, it should be taken as the absolute word of God, which regards the only circumstance under which documents shouldn't be contextualized. so, uhh, good luck with that.


Sorry, which thread was it that we argued about the constitution before? I don't remember but if you point me to it or reiterate your arguments I'll respond.

I do believe that the constitution should be strictly interpreted, and you should too. Why? Because it was written to protect you and I. The people who wrote it had just fought a war against corrupt government. They lived in a time when corrupt governments were in fact the standard. The constitution is written to prevent us, the united states, from going down a similar road. Once we abandon the principles o the constitution we are putting our freedom at risk. To think that just because something is old means it's outdated is silly. What exactly is this "context" from 1787 you speak of? What has changed that makes the constitution any less relevant? Especially when it comes to restricting the government?
Quote:

let me play out a hypothetical with you, for fun. you argue in favour of the gold standard. my question to you is thus: should that gold standard continue to be understood as the basis of the American economy, even as the population continues to grow? at what point do even Austrian schooled economists realize that there flat-out isn't enough gold under American control to warrant an economy built on its very standard? i do believe your most hated Keynesian economists believe that tbat very threshold was surpassed long ago, and since then, the American global economy has grown to such a vast size that using a concrete material as a standard, unless it's plastic, is flat out no longer feasible. this is the modern contention. if you believe it to be wrong, at what point does the American economy surpass material standard maximums? i can only imagine it would have to be at some point, assuming economic growth, which rarely fails.

Well first, you're taking the word of Keynesian economists. Ever since that line of thinking became the mainstream we've had inflation through the roof, soaring trade deficit, bigger government, higher taxes, more periodic recessions, etc.. There's massive amounts of people who believe in that line of economic thought, but just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it any more correct. The proof is in the pudding.. we're in the midst of the 2nd great depression thanks to Keynesian economic models. And they caused the first one. lol.. Not the greatest track record.

Sadly I still don't feel entirely comfortable talking about the gold standard. I know a little but not all of it down to a Tee. I'm basically self teaching myself all of this stuff so I don't have the benefit of a teacher bringing me through everything. But I believe some of your doubts are unfounded, particularly I don't think it matters whether or not the population grows. The value of every dollar would equal the corresponding amount of gold you could trade it in for, or that it was tied down to. There'd be no need to expand the money supply, it would just stay stable thanks to gold.

But if you're not a fan of the gold standard, another suggestion I've heard and liked is for us to life the outlaw on competing currencies. As it is, you're not allowed to just go use Yen or a Euro to pay for whatever you like in America. If we made that legal, Americans would be more safe from dollars value dropping. If the dollar dropped, we could all convert them to Swiss Frank's and use that at the grocery store instead.
Quote:

i'll leave alone your contention that the dollar is automatically worth more, as a result of increased printing. there are some things wrong with that argument that i don't have the expertise to argue against. nevertheless, i do agree with you that the over-printing of money is incredibly dangerous. for examples, see every hyperinflated economy of recent history. however, i do believe that you're overstating America's abuse of this practice. it is a problem, but not nearly the sized problem you seem to argue. it ISNT the main economic problem of the United States, which would be in an economic disaster, even if it has printed millions less over the last year.

Maybe I overstated but I don't think I did. I think I did lay out the worst case scenario, so maybe I was a bit dramatic at times.. but the things I laid out are definite possibilities. Especially if we stay down the road we're on. But at the very least, we're not doing ourselves any favors to say it nicely.

What would you say is the main economic problem of the United States?

joe 03-08-2011 02:20 PM

Re: What America was built on, Vs what it's been replaced with.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebowsky
Your idea of going back to the gold standard is not only impossible to implement in the present day, but it's also stupid. It'd be terribly impractical, it'd limit and constrain your economy and its potential and it'd leave your country powerless towards its own monetary policy, because it'd be subject to an exogenous and very erratic factor like the the price of gold is.


What makes you say the price of gold is erratic? Gold is one of the most stable commodities in the whole world. There's a finite amount of it and everyone accepts it as money. As a stock, it doesn't seem at all erratic to me. It's rising steadily as we steadily decrease the value of the dollar..

As for the rest of your feelings about my feelings on the gold standard.. I need to do more research on the gold standard before I get into any long winded discussions about it, admittedly. However from what I know of it, I don't believe it'd be very hard to implement or as restraining as you and others suggest. And besides, it's not like we're tossing out the Mona Lisa to adopt some crappy fingerpaint a 3rd grader did. Our current system is in shambles. What "potential" does our current economy have that a gold standard would restrain? The potential to rob people of their wealth by over inflating? The potential to allow politicians to continuously create new federal programs that the people would never pay for via taxes?

boozehound 03-08-2011 02:22 PM

Re: What America was built on, Vs what it's been replaced with.
 
just wanted to point out that the OP is, like most things like this, a whitewash/retelling of history. Someone needs to study up on the whiskey rebellion, the creation of the national bank and a myriad of other facts of american history rather than rely on the myths of the "american dream" and "manifest destiny" in decrying the downfall of the american way.

RidonKs 03-08-2011 02:30 PM

Re: What America was built on, Vs what it's been replaced with.
 
Quote:

What would you say is the main economic problem of the United States?
if you want a one word answer? a bloated financial sector.

Lebowsky 03-08-2011 02:33 PM

Re: What America was built on, Vs what it's been replaced with.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by joe
What makes you say the price of gold is erratic? Gold is one of the most stable commodities in the whole world. There's a finite amount of it and everyone accepts it as money. As a stock, it doesn't seem at all erratic to me. It's rising steadily as we steadily decrease the value of the dollar..

As for the rest of your feelings about my feelings on the gold standard.. I need to do more research on the gold standard before I get into any long winded discussions about it, admittedly. However from what I know of it, I don't believe it'd be very hard to implement or as restraining as you and others suggest. And besides, it's not like we're tossing out the Mona Lisa to adopt some crappy fingerpaint a 3rd grader did. Our current system is in shambles. What "potential" does our current economy have that a gold standard would restrain? The potential to rob people of their wealth by over inflating? The potential to allow politicians to continuously create new federal programs that the people would never pay for via taxes?


The price of gold can be as erratic any good subject to international speculation. It is indeed rising steadily, but most economists agree that it is due to a growing bubble that's likely to burst in the short/middle term. Imagine the consequences that would have in your economy if the gold standard were active. There are lots of other strong reasons against the gold standard, while the handfun of arguments in its favour were probably valid in the past, when national economies were small compared to the present ones, the financial system wasn't the huge, multi-headed beast it is nowadays, capitals weren't as mobile as they are today and the world wasn't as gobalized.

We could argue who and how robs people of their wealth, but I won't get into that.

bdreason 03-08-2011 02:40 PM

Re: What America was built on, Vs what it's been replaced with.
 
America was built on greed by power hungry men. It's still the same today.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy