What is Digg?Sponsored by Honda
A new way to look at failure. view!
dreams.honda.com - Danica Patrick talks about her worst moment being on the brink of crashing in this film from Honda
171 Comments
- RonPauls, on 03/05/2009, -24/+103"F. A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize in 1974 for showing how central bank manipulation of interest rates gives rise to the kind of boom-bust cycle we are experiencing now, and that such phenomena are not caused by the unhampered market. If by some miracle you manage to hear this point of view on television, it will be sandwiched between hours and hours of Keynesian droning."
I get enough of the Keynesian droning on digg... - MooseOfReason, on 03/06/2009, -8/+44FTA:
"We are being told that we must at least partially nationalize our banks, prop up zombie companies, lower interest rates to zero, and pass stimulus packages in order to escape the fate of Japan—which, um, partially nationalized its banks, propped up zombie companies, lowered interest rates to zero, and passed eight stimulus packages. We have a president who tells us we cannot rely on the free market to get us out of this mess because the free market is what got us here, as if the Federal Reserve and its bubble-inducing monetary policy never existed."
Why is it that progressives/liberals leave the Federal Reserve out of their observations on the economy?
Is it because President Obama recites no soundbites that mention the Federal Reserve? - emazur, on 03/06/2009, -19/+50Here's a clip of Tom Woods on Fox explaining the financial crisis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXxNRNOjCM8
The stimulus (which nobody read and was passed illegitimately) will drive us much deeper into debt, and we're already in way over our heads:
http://blip.tv/file/1802594/ - CasaWood, on 03/05/2009, -24/+53GREAT article!! Read and spread to all your friends!
- h8f8kes, on 03/06/2009, -4/+30Funny how partisan hacks from both major parties ignore the facts in favor of thier benafactors while the rest of us get hosed for being useful idiots. They all need to be thrown out!
- bobt39, on 03/06/2009, -9/+35tom woods is NOT a republican you moron. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a republican. He is a libertarian and an Austrian economist - 2 groups that had absolutely no involvement in the causes of the financial crisis, and in fact warned about it before anyone else knew it was coming.
well, at least your name fits. DURR THEY DONT PRAISE OBAMA DUM REPUBLICANS DID THE CRISIS.
Learn something before you speak. - foxtrot3, on 03/06/2009, -21/+43Congrats Digg. A conservative article on the front page. Digg, there's hope for you yet.
- mbookmeyer, on 03/06/2009, -15/+35The Truth, spoken clearly.
- inactive, on 03/06/2009, -19/+38America, listen to Tom Woods before it's too late.
- WhiteHatTrick, on 03/06/2009, -6/+24You don't get it. Those supercharged conglomerates are so rich that they've bought your politicians. Thus regulating the economy is equivalent to letting the criminals make the laws. They then just make regulations to force their smaller competitors out of the market. It just gives them more power to screw us over even more. If it were a totally free market a corporation couldn't grow unless it creates value and consumers vote confidence into the firm (in other words sell something that is mutually beneficial). Don't think our politicians have been bought out? In just a few short weeks our government has managed to give away more of our money to the banks and corporations that control them than all American wars combined cost.
- emazur, on 03/06/2009, -31/+48We do not want another New Dealer - read "Great Myths of the Great Depression", 16 page PDF:
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=4013
-in the '32 election, FDR criticized Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" spending and said it was "the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history" (FDR wound up having about as much credibility as Bush Jr. in the 2000 election when he said America should not be involved in foreign nation building)
- FDR's running mate, John Nance Garner, charged that Hoover was "leading the country down the path to socialism" (again, very hypocritical)
- FDR's campaign message: "We believe that a party platform is a covenant with the people to be faithfully kept by the party entrusted with power". It called for a 25 percent reduction in federal spending, a balanced federal budget, a sound gold currency "to be preserved at all hazards", the removal of government from areas that belonged more appropriately to private enterprise, and an end to the "extravagance" of Hoover's farm programs (complete *****, all of it)
- Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the architects of FDR's policies of the 1930's, explained, "We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started
- Economic historian Burton Folsom notes that in '41 Roosevelt even proposed a whopping 99.5% marginal rate on all incomes over $100,000. "Why not?" he said when an advisor questioned the idea
- FDR's Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau stated: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.. We have never made good on our promises... I say after 8 years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... and an enormous debt to boot!" - Moonkeeper, on 03/06/2009, -2/+16Suicidal position numbers one and two come from the fact that people are more concerned with their "team" winning then with their ideology actually being followed. Since 1980, all major legislation has moved in the same direction, regardless of the political party. All the while, minor issues are kept in the public spotlight to distract us.
Some examples? NAFTA was given to us by democrats and the biggest socializing of medicine sine LBJ was given to us by republicans. The Patriot Act was originally proposed by dems in the late 90s. The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill was a democrat issue that a republican congress and republican president passed and signed. Setting aside which side of the aisle you fall on with these issues, the fact is in each of these cases the supposed ideology of the party was not followed, and the side that added more regulation and government control won. - WhiteHatTrick, on 03/06/2009, -3/+17Yes
- smartguy911, on 03/06/2009, -2/+15so if you fail, its my fault?
- inactive, on 03/06/2009, -4/+17gnocchi1442, I don't think you have a full understanding of the philosophy of liberty. Libertarians don't want to "get ***** for free" or "get everything they want without ever having to share."
Maybe this will help:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Philosophy_of_Li ... - bobt39, on 03/06/2009, -6/+18i guess ill post this again....
tom woods is NOT a republican you moron. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a republican. He is a libertarian and an Austrian economist - 2 groups that had absolutely no involvement in the causes of the financial crisis, and in fact warned about it before anyone else knew it was coming.
It specifically says he is a senior fellow at the von mises institute, not that I would expect you to know who von mises is, let alone read the article before bashing it. - nOcoNtrol926, on 03/06/2009, -10/+22republican != fiscal conservative.
- kemp34, on 03/06/2009, -3/+14They call what we had the "free market" LMAO.
People, we have been under CRONY CASINO CORPORATISM with soft socialism to placate the left liberals.
Our economy has NOT been a free market economy. - kemp34, on 03/06/2009, -0/+11gnocchi, straw men are fun to create aren't they!
With blatant idiots like this running around throughout America, it is no wonder we are headed in the toilet.
If someone doesn't support the body of force redistributing wealth in whatever form that is deemed expedient on a whim, that makes them not want to share, right? I mean, people never decide to give of their own volition to causes of their own choice, right? You are either for force-based redistribution, or you are a selfish toddler.
LMAO, you plunderers are a joke, you call limited government supporters selfish, but YOU WANT GOVERNMENT TO FORCE PEOPLE TO DO WHAT YOU WANT. Do you not see how blatantly ridiculous this premise is on its face? Someone is "selfish" for wanting freedom to disperse of his/her efforts how he/she sees fit, but those who want to seize others wealth by force for their own social desires are somehow virtuous and good? LOL at blatant stupidity and evil. - WhiteHatTrick, on 03/06/2009, -3/+14"There are few things more dangerous than a Right Wing Authoritarian"
Yeah, a useful idiot. - emazur, on 03/06/2009, -2/+13And I think you'll find that some of the big players WANT regulation - the little guys can't afford to conform to the regulations. Henry P. Davison, who was a J.P. Morgan partner, put it bluntly when he told a Congressional committee in 1912 (the year before the Federal Reserve was created) : "I would rather have regulation and control than free competition". The Rockefellers, who to the best of my knowledge obtained dominance in the oil industry within the bounds of the free market, turned into collectivist bullies as bankers when the government got in bed with the banking industry, and remarked: "Competition is a sin". Davison and Rockefeller were key figures in the creation of the Federal Reserve, which is actually a banking cartel (which caused the financial crisis) created by Congress:
http://blip.tv/file/1801125/
your bio says you're progressive, well Libertarians aren't the only ones who want to end the Fed. Dennis Kucinich, a progressive democrat, also wants to end the Fed (he's in the video)
There's a book I'm looking forward to reading that deals with how the big time players use government regulation to their advantage:
http://www.amazon.com/Big-Ripoff-Business-Governme ... - inactive, on 03/06/2009, -0/+11gnocchi1442, I don't think you have a full understanding of the philosophy of liberty. Libertarians don't want to "get ***** for free" or "get everything they want without ever having to share."
Maybe this will help:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Philosophy_of_Li ... - kemp34, on 03/06/2009, -1/+12Yes, seizing other people's wealth for your personal pet projects is so smart and charitable!
- Ineedanap, on 03/06/2009, -2/+12especially then.
- inactive, on 03/06/2009, -3/+13FTA: "Meanwhile, we still have some conservatives, frozen in the 1980s, calling for reductions in marginal income tax rates, among other feckless suggestions."
Tax cuts at this point are just scratching an itch.
If you want to clear up the rash, abolish the Income Tax immediately. - Ineedanap, on 03/06/2009, -0/+10This is more than just conservative vs liberal. Believe it or not, there are more than two ideologies in this country.
- bobt39, on 03/06/2009, -0/+10Why are you talking about republicans, the author is not a republican. We pointed that out to you in your previous post that you ignored...
- inactive, on 03/06/2009, -1/+11Perhaps libertarianism is a bit more complicated than you assume, given your demonstrated ignorance.
1) Please elaborate on the premises that are provably false... what are you referring to?
2) You state that "[libertarians want to] avoid all responsibility to their fellow citizens...", but this is a sweeping generalization that I can prove false by using myself as a case example. Libertarians such as myself advocate the use of voluntary charity and local/community/family interventions to assist with the poor and needy as opposed to forcible redistribution of wealth by bureaucrats and the central government. I'm well aware that many in society require assistance and I believe that the private sector provides services more quickly and efficiently than the government (to this end my wife and I support local charities and private organizations such as the Salvation Army). Here is a good example of what I'm talking about: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=6 ...
3) You then state that libertarians want to avoid responsibility "while, at the same time, sucking up all the benefits of a collective, cooperative society." What "benefits of a collective, cooperative society" do libertarians want to take advantage of without paying for? Again, this is a false and sweeping generalization. For example, if I could opt out of paying social security right now, I would do so in a heartbeat... but I wouldn't collect any money upon retirement. Unfortunately, I don't have that choice: money for social security is forcibly removed from every paycheck. Private schools regularly provide better results for lower costs, yet I am forced to pay for public schools... and I don't even have any kids! If I could opt out of that, you bet I would- not because I want to take advantage of public education without paying for it, but because the current system requires an overhaul and my money could be spent better elsewhere.
One of the main beliefs of libertarianism is that individuals should be able to spend their own earnings any way they see fit (so long as they are not infringing on the inalienable rights of others). Much of my income is taken every year to pay for government programs that I do not support, purportedly in the name of "a collective, cooperative society". My money has helped pay for wars in the Middle East that I do not support, to fund ineffective and inefficient public education that I do not support, to bail out private banks that I do not support, and much more. If I could "avoid" these "responsibilities" representative of a "collective, cooperative society", I would, because I strongly disagree with how my money is spent. Perhaps in your mind that makes me "selfish" and "simplistic", but hopefully with some exposure and education you can see the true logic and ethics of libertarianism. - emazur, on 03/06/2009, -2/+12There are men who dominate (but can't truly monopolize) a market by cut-throat Laissez-faire capitalism, but the real danger is when the government gets in bed with collectivist-capitalists to create true cartels and monopolies. And that's exactly what has happened - the government has gotten in bed with the bankers:
http://blip.tv/file/1802381/
(if you're short on time, skip to the beginning of the Bill Moyers interview - that part will take about 10 mins to watch)
And don't blame the free market for the crisis - we don't have a free market (which Greenspan will admit early in this video):
http://blip.tv/file/1803164
and if you watch it for a few more minutes you'll see examples of government financial regulators actually helping to commit fraud, and Paul Volcker admitting that supervision and regulation isn't going to solve anything. - anixmander, on 03/06/2009, -0/+10Honestly, does that surprise you? The major parties care about two things, the accumulation of financial and political control over the general populace, and promoting their own narrow social agendas. Nothing else matters.
Take your pick, Nanny State or Moral State. - Ryan1249, on 03/06/2009, -6/+16Well said!!!!!!
- JagPop, on 03/06/2009, -7/+16FTA:
the stimulus as “just the insiders raiding the till while there is still money in it.”
------------------------------------------
Did anyone see:
Biggest Swindle In History Uncovered By Union Leader
http://digg.com/world_news/Biggest_Swindle_In_Hist ... - aletoledo, on 03/06/2009, -0/+9You're going to have to learn the difference between Austrian and Keynesian economics before you realize that this isn't really even a Political party issue. If you want to argue political parties though, you're way off base to think that Republicans are currently supporting an Austrian economic approach.
- emazur, on 03/06/2009, -5/+14I see the Left Wing as far more dangerous - promise the people every social program under the sun, charge it to a credit card (China, Japan, Federal Reserve) and simultaneously pay down the interest with inflation (taxation w/o legislation), leave the rest of the bill to future voters and unborn generations (taxation w/o representation) until the interest is so overbearing that by 2040, as it stands, EVERY dollar of revenue the US takes in will go towards Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the national debt. The collectivists always want their "fair share" of the pie, but fail to realize that in the future, there will be no pie left, and even if there were, it would surely taste quite bitter. In the book "Gold: The Once and Future Money", it describes a historical situation of what desperate men (and men in high places) will do when crushing burdens are imposed upon them:
"Powerful landowners were able to avoid the crushing tax load through legal and illegal means, in effect making themselves independent of the Roman state. Lesser landowners, driven into bankruptcy, signed on as tenants to the large landowners. Some even signed on as slaves, since slaves paid no taxes. Indeed, so many farmers willingly signed themselves into slavery to avoid the tax collector that in AD 368, Emperor Valens declared it illegal to renounce one's liberty in order to seek protection with a great landlord"
History may well repeat itself. When New Deal II fails to correct the problem that the government and the Federal Reserve created in the first place, people will continue to lose their homes and beg the government for assistance. The government could nationalize the banking industry and the mortgage industry. People will no longer own their homes, they will be permitted to live in them at the government's pleasure, and when the government decides to move you somewhere else - a government owned commune perhaps, tough ***** - it's not your property and you have no right to complain. Everybody will be enslaved to everybody - creating a modern serfdom. Of course I hope it doesn't come to that, and people will come to their senses before any of this happens - inactive, on 03/06/2009, -1/+9Libertarianism is the only way to save the economy.
Go powder your own Whig. Your president stinks. - C0ntraRadical, on 03/06/2009, -4/+12Many other countries have higher debt-to-GDP ratios and not experienced anything near hyperinflation. Does anyone want to address this?
- MooseOfReason, on 03/06/2009, -6/+14Even if I'm a libertarian and my friends are liberals?
- casek, on 03/06/2009, -6/+14captobvious: you're another idiot who will never get it and probably die from starvation b/c your local grocery store closed down....due to the current DEPRESSION we're in...thanks federal reserve, IMF, and world bankers.
thanks for ***** us over and looting our country. - shig, on 03/06/2009, -2/+10A high debt-to-GDP ratio isn't required for hyperinflation to occur. If we all stopped using USDs and began using Euros, the USD would fall in value and the Euro would increase in value relative to USDs. Similar to China dumping a trillion dollars worth of US bonds on the open market in exchange for other currencies. Demand for other currencies would increase disproportionate to the USD, thus causing it to be devalued relative to those currencies. The drop in value creates a cycle of price increases on goods valued in USDs, causing more USDs to be created just to keep goods flowing.
Next thing you know, you're replacing you wallet with a wheelbarrow. - aletoledo, on 03/06/2009, -1/+9"There are few things more dangerous than a Right Wing Authoritarian. "
Left wing authoritarians? - kemp34, on 03/06/2009, -1/+9Hoover intervened in the market significantly.
- HippyInASuit, on 03/06/2009, -5/+13Yeah, nobody should want freedom! ***** morons!
- kemp34, on 03/06/2009, -2/+10"It's not seizing your wealth, you whiney little moron."
Why yes it is, and you are so convincing with your screed at the end.
"You choose to live in this society and enjoy all of its benefits."
I enjoy the benefits of living in a modestly free society where I can trade with others freely and coopoerate outside of the scope of force. However, in spite of the roots of our country as a limited republic, growth in force has been major over time. Needless to say, freedom has been under assault and in great part to ninnies like you.
"Then, when you're asked to help pay for it, you cry like a two-year-old."
I would gladly pay for what I use. I fail to see how the immense increase in federal government expenditures in all sorts of long term boondoggles of the statist regime is somehow supported by people who assume themselves to be good. The Welfare-Warfare-Corporatist state offers me very little but expects quite much, far outside of any agreement I ever made.
"The normal, sane adults in this country accept the social contract that comes with being a citizen. We all agree to abide by the decisions of our duly-elected representative."
Ok, so being fine with unchecked government expansionary policy is what makes one a "normal, sane adult" in your world. Yummy totalitarian propaganda. You realize that Stalin and Hitler were "duly elected" correct?
"So now, our duly-elected representatives have decided to do some things you don't agree with. Welcome to life in a democratic republic."
Actually, they have strayed significantly from the rule of law, as laid down in the Constitution and are thereby in violation of legal standing and have little proper authority over anyone. It is essentially a confidence game and might=right situation at this point and authority lovers like yourself is what allows them to get away with figurative (and literal) murder.
"Either deal with it, or leave. No one is forcing you to stay."
You know what? To hell with you buddy. I'm an American through and through and if I we were debating in person, you sure as ***** would not have the gall to speak to me like that so you can take your anti-American screeds and KMA.
"In fact, if you can find another country that will support your parasitic ass."
LMAO at irony. YOU are the parasite buddy. YOU are the one who is supporting seizing wealth of the productive to pay for your personal pet projects. YOU are the looter and plunderer. You are also an idiot, but that goes without saying. - kemp34, on 03/06/2009, -4/+11Plunderers and tyrants are real smart though right?
- ZZeke, on 03/06/2009, -0/+7There's nothing "free" about a market which is essentially dominated by a small handful of players with their hands in the tills of every economic sector.
- aletoledo, on 03/06/2009, -1/+8His point was that people disparage the idea of Laissez faire capitalism , without ever really experiencing it. Most people think our current system of government granted monopolies is somehow "capitalism". Now that this "capitalism" has failed, they reason that we need to work towards a different system. If people would simply realize that the failed system of the Bush years (and before) was not capitalism, then they might actually call for a chance to give capitalism a try.
- kemp34, on 03/06/2009, -3/+10This is a strawman:
"avoid all responsibility to their fellow citizens while, at the same time, sucking up all of the benefits a collective, cooperative society."
That is a pure ***** statement. Seeing that the body of force in society is not the effective well being distributor does not = one who wants to "avoid all responsibility to their fellow citizens".
Also, how does believing in free mutual exchange with other free beings = "sucking up all of the benefits a collective, cooperative society"?
I'd say you are furiously creating straw men faux "libertarians" rather than debating the facts of the matter. - goes211, on 03/06/2009, -0/+7I don't think hyper-inflation will be something that happens in a day. It will be something that builds slowly and then explodes.
If the government had $1 trillion deficit, it can get that money, in three ways. It can borrow it by selling bonds. It can tax it from its citizens. It can print it. Those are the only ways. Politicians have decided they are not willing to take the heat raising taxes or cutting spending, so that leaves borrow or print.
I believe the fear with that large of deficit is, what happens if no one wants to buy our debt, at least at a rate we are willing to offer? The Fed has already said they will consider Quantitative easing to keep rates down which is a fancy way of saying we will print money to buy our own bonds. If they do this, and there is suddenly a lot of extra money floating around, prices will start to rise rapidly. Then if the current bond holders or holders of other dollar denominated assets decide they want out, the process will accelerate.
Once there is a run for the door, most of the middle/lower classes will be run over in the resulting stampede. -
Show 51 - 100 of 179 discussions
