View Single Post
Old 03-08-2011, 03:15 PM   #10
College superstar
joe's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,411
Default Re: What America was built on, Vs what it's been replaced with.

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 you specifically mention that certain folks believe the constitution is 'outdated'.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 To think that just because something is old means it's outdated is silly.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?
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.
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 is offline   Reply With Quote