What is the Objectivist alternative to the Federal Reserve?


Derek McGowan

Recommended Posts

Whether the central bank "works" is determined by the definition or description of that idea. Replacing our central banking with free, private banking may not be practical or desirable in a world of central banking. By its own metrics the Federal Reserve system "works" for if it didn't it would be changed until it does. Supposedly this bank has two purposes, price stability and maintaining employment--something like that--but the real, underlying purpose is to easily fund Federal deficit spending, no matter how much. That "works," that's for sure.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 295
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Whether the central bank "works" is determined by the definition or description of that idea. Replacing our central banking with free, private banking may not be practical or desirable in a world of central banking. By its own metrics the Federal Reserve system "works" for if it didn't it would be changed until it does. Supposedly this bank has two purposes, price stability and maintaining employment--something like that--but the real, underlying purpose is to easily fund Federal deficit spending, no matter how much. That "works," that's for sure.

--Brant

For sure.

What I meant by 'works' was, without perverting the value-for-value economies, as in, what happens when a counterfeiter shows up and spends funny money.

Think about that; if 'spending' in and of itself is 'stimulative' then why do we object so strongly to what counterfeiters do? Aren't they by definition -- by 'Keynseian Logic' -- stimulating something called 'The Economy' by 'spending?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether the central bank "works" is determined by the definition or description of that idea. Replacing our central banking with free, private banking may not be practical or desirable in a world of central banking. By its own metrics the Federal Reserve system "works" for if it didn't it would be changed until it does. Supposedly this bank has two purposes, price stability and maintaining employment--something like that--but the real, underlying purpose is to easily fund Federal deficit spending, no matter how much. That "works," that's for sure.

--Brant

For sure.

What I meant by 'works' was, without perverting the value-for-value economies, as in, what happens when a counterfeiter shows up and spends funny money.

Think about that; if 'spending' in and of itself is 'stimulative' then why do we object so strongly to what counterfeiters do? Aren't they by definition -- by 'Keynseian Logic' -- stimulating something called 'The Economy' by 'spending?'

Since the government is the number one counterfeiter the disapprobation needs to be extended to the government. That's going to take a while to be effective for so far it lacks any critical mass. The government, of course, doesn't call its counterfeiting counterfeiting, making it of a lower moral order than a private party counterfeiter who acknowledges his sinful behavior in the doing. There are two government levels of counterfeiting. The first and most basic, is the production of monetary notes, paper, electronic or ledger through the central bank. On top of that was a veneer of respectability of a gold backed currency (plus some silver notes). This was ironically re-enforced by Roosevelt's gold confiscation. Nixon tore the scab off that in 1971. Now the US dollar is more like the emperor who has no clothes. When your wealth is in dollars a little boy may come along and say, "But the Buck is naked!" (or has a limp dick). That wealth is a matter of faith, not reason. Reason can say it's a calculated risk, so go buy some assets to diversify.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether the central bank "works" is determined by the definition or description of that idea. Replacing our central banking with free, private banking may not be practical or desirable in a world of central banking. By its own metrics the Federal Reserve system "works" for if it didn't it would be changed until it does. Supposedly this bank has two purposes, price stability and maintaining employment--something like that--but the real, underlying purpose is to easily fund Federal deficit spending, no matter how much. That "works," that's for sure.

--Brant

The Federal Reserve actually isn't any more irresponsible than how most people live in debt by spending money they don't have on things they can't rightfully afford to own. The economic consequences of both demonstrate what happens when the law of solvency is violated.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether the central bank "works" is determined by the definition or description of that idea. Replacing our central banking with free, private banking may not be practical or desirable in a world of central banking. By its own metrics the Federal Reserve system "works" for if it didn't it would be changed until it does. Supposedly this bank has two purposes, price stability and maintaining employment--something like that--but the real, underlying purpose is to easily fund Federal deficit spending, no matter how much. That "works," that's for sure.

--Brant

The Federal Reserve actually isn't any more irresponsible than how most people live in debt by spending money they don't have on things they can't rightfully afford to own. The economic consequences of both demonstrate what happens when the law of solvency is violated.

Greg

For private parties. With a central bank and debt in its own currency, the Federal Government will never be insolvent. As for private debt that can be discharged in bankruptcy, there's much more friction but it has its own way--that way--out of the situation. The faster debt can be done away with the faster former debtors can get back to work creating and maintaining their wealth and the country's. The student debt fiasco and the harder to file for bankruptcy law work against that.

If you have rightful credit everything you buy is rightfully yours until it is rightfully taken away by whom you owe--your credit-worthiness is your property and you risk it when you use it just as the lender makes his best calculation on the other end. (What he has is the money and if he's a fool with it he's your fool just as you might be a fool with your credit.)

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether the central bank "works" is determined by the definition or description of that idea. Replacing our central banking with free, private banking may not be practical or desirable in a world of central banking. By its own metrics the Federal Reserve system "works" for if it didn't it would be changed until it does. Supposedly this bank has two purposes, price stability and maintaining employment--something like that--but the real, underlying purpose is to easily fund Federal deficit spending, no matter how much. That "works," that's for sure.

--Brant

The Federal Reserve actually isn't any more irresponsible than how most people live in debt by spending money they don't have on things they can't rightfully afford to own. The economic consequences of both demonstrate what happens when the law of solvency is violated.

Greg

For private parties. With a central bank and debt in its own currency, the Federal Government will never be insolvent.

It already is.

As for private debt that can be discharged in bankruptcy, there's much more friction but it has its own way--that way--out of the situation.

That's the new American dream: Rack up big piles of debt and then run whining like a weak little baby to "Mommie" liberal government for her to "make the boo boo all better".

It's shamefully unAmerican.

The faster debt can be done away with the faster former debtors can get back to...

...racking up big piles of debt all over again.

The student debt fiasco and the harder to file for bankruptcy law work against that.

The stupid liberal government educated idiots are just beginning to discover

that what they went into debt to get isn't worth a crap in the real world! :laugh:

The government encourages that fiscally irresponsible behavior because fools who are in debt are easy marks to control. The government loves debt suckers... because they grant it their sanction to make them into its slaves.

If you have rightful credit everything you buy is rightfully yours until it is rightfully taken away by whom you owe

In reality that's not owning. That's just renting.

What you just stated is a fundamental belief in the secular religion of Creditism.

It is the belief in the fantasy that credit is capital... when credit is only a lack of capital. It is that religion which caused the debt collapse of 2008...

...and that same religion will cause the next collapse in 2015.

That's why I keep saying, Build an ark. We made it through the last economic collapse totally unscathed. :smile: And our ark will get us through the next one too... because it's just the same pattern of Creditist stupidity being repeated all over again.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a debtaholic may be a lousy life plan, but there are no third parties involved when the FED 'buys' US Treasury Debt. There is no 'debt' behavior by the population required for the FED to accept US Treasury Bond (paper bond with zeros printed on it) as debt. The other kind of debt that the FED could hold would be, repackaged bank debt, from private banks, that package that debt and sell it to the FED. That would be, GSE's repackaging debt as MBS and selling repackaged debt to the FED. But that is minority debt on the FED balance sheet, not majority debt. Majority debt is US Treasury debt bought directly from Treasury. There is also a trace amount of Gold held as 'assets'. (0.011 T of that 4.5T in listed FED balance sheet assets is Gold. That's it.) Some amount of it is bank debt backed by repackaged debt owed by third parties. (And some of that might actually be real debt, though much of it was not, which was the basis of 'the crisis' in 2008.)

But that isn't the majority of the $4.5T in 'debt' held by the FED. The majority of that debt today is funny money US Treasury debt sold directly from the Treasury to the FED. The only drunken sailor in any of that is the insatiable gaping maw of the US Treasury. This has skyrocketed since 2008. (Treasury indirectly backed all the 'E-Coli' infected not really debt that the GSEs were holding from that experiment in keeping the real estate bubble inflated beyond the Boomer Pig in the Python demographic bubble. A confluence of interests, but they shepherded precisely that segment of our population least able to bear the title 'last investor into the bubble' into -exactly- that role. None of that was possible without the direct participation of the government in the real estate/ mortgage market. The perps who created the crisis blamed 'the market' and got even greater power to Screw The Pooch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The smoking "they told us so" gun from 1999.

http://fic.wharton.upenn.edu/fic/Policy%20page/fer1999.pdf

"There should be no government guarantee of either hedge fund investors or creditors. They, of all people, are able to bear their own losses. Indeed, given the extraordinary events surrounding the LTCM episode, it is important that government regulators, and especially the Federal Reserve, make it crystal clear that hedge fund investors and creditors will have to bear the full costs of their mistakes or misjudgments. Hedge fund losses should be borne by hedge fund investors and creditors, and not by other market participants or taxpayers, either directly or indirectly."

...

"The Federal Reserve's actions clearly raise a question about what its "lender-of-last-resort" policy is, and about whether in the future it intends to extend the Federal safety net that underpins financial markets to all finaincial institutions deemed "too large to fail." The prospect of receiving federal assistance in times of market stress has the potential to affect private incentives in undesirable ways and to create additional moral hazard risk in the financial system."

LTCM, we were told, was a 'once in a hundred year event. Not ten years later, the potential of a $3.5B bailout became the reality of a $Trillion+ bailout.

This was Alan Greenspan among those pushing this NYFed action back in 1998. Senility?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say you wake up some day and find yourself in a successful, affluent nation. It got that way under one model of risk/reward discipline. Grandpa must have really been something, but you've got time to kill now.

So you and a tiny cadre of Ivy League Prospect Street bretheren, largely bored, start a little private club. You take bets on the weather in the future, and among yourselves and those you can convince to join willingly, you largely pony up the wins and losses among yourselves.

In grandpas day, there was the stock market, and the risk/reward based activity nominally had something to do with the value producing economies, but over time, the spinal rot of noticing that value-proxies was not exactly value crept in, and like a weasel magnet, well, the weasels showed up in droves. The game became all about staring at the scoreboard of a game played by others and taking bets, and to Hell with the game being played, it barely mattered to anyone in the least.

At first, in roaring economies based on actual value production, a little of this effete Ivy League clubdom was just anecdotal harmless fun for a few bored generations well removed from grandpas original ways and means and impetus. But then, over the course of decades, the club expanded. Turns out, when you focus on games and gaming of the value-proxy machinery in raging real economies, money for nothing can be made to rain from the sky. And as long as a few misguided schmucks on Main Street are still slugging along running uphill in the value-producing economies, why, its was still possible to actually buy 'stuff' with all those gamed value-proxies. Things like LTCM, which were basically some MIT nerds not counting cards in Las Vegas, but rather, putting on a pony economic model show to dupe folks with money to risk based on the assumption that the weather tomorrow in San Diego is going to be warm and pleasant, held out the alluring promise of ridiculous 'guaranteed' returns on 'investments' in the bets,

Hey, don't get me wrong. It's hard to count cards. It's hard to write almost good enough models(and just throw away the un-modelable terms)and snow boobs with cash in the toney CT burbs. It's just like real work, and those wingtips pinch. And, well, for as long as the gig lasts, it can be made to rain value-proxies, if not actual value.

And soon enough, even virtuous managers of State Teachers Pension Funds are placing bets on this gig, which, due to its nature, requires access to large piles of leveraged OPM in order to collect up enough margins on the bets to realize the ridiculous 'guaranteed returns.' That is, until the weather is one day not sunny and warm in San Diego, and all that leverage weighs in exactly the wrong direction, and the local little club and those who place bets and those who lent money to the bet takers are all in deep shit on the downside of risk/reward.

This is where free market discipline steps in and cleans up the mess, right? Those who took the stupid bets chasing reward, those who lent money for that exact purpose expecting ridiculously unsustainable returns, and those who placed faith in those banks for such practices-- that no longer little club was going to take its own haircut, right? There was going to be an outbreak of free-market discipline, right? Even, the fund managers of State Teachers Pension Funds -- there were going to be calls for heads on pikes, so to speak? Or at the very least, firings and a financial education in 'what not to do in the future.' Right? Some sheriff sales in the toney CT burbs? A few grandsons of grandpas who once must have been something putting away the wingtips, polishing the resumes, hiding the fact that they'd just been knee deep in a Cluster Fuck and looking for new jobs?

But, what if these weasels could convince their fraternity brother friends in DC, working on their soft landings, that this was a 'financial crisis' and 'might possibly result in a threat to the system as a whole...er... 'systemic risk' ... if a handful of wealthy grandsons and those snookered by them took a haircut and had to find new jobs outside of the bet taking gig?

The US Treasury needs to print zeros on bonds. The FED needs to take on some toxic 'debt' via some shell game few on Main Street can comprehend. The 'free market' needs to be blamed, and sure, we will rush in and command Main Street to eat your little club losses here, but the price for that is the sellout of the 'free market' -- even though it is precisely the 'free market' that is nowhere to be seen in this action of government being used as a fraternal slush fund. And, thank you, weasels, for selling out freedom.

Now these same weasels are free to go make bets on defense plays, and gee, let's hope these conflicts don't end too soon, there are alot of plays to be made while Main Street sends its sons and daughters to go bleed in limited confilcts designed only to run as long as possible to support these plays, made risk free in the safety of those Georgetown Bistros by Ivy League weasels far from not only the hurt at the bloody end of the pointy stick, but also, far from the discipline of grandpa's risk/reward days.

Be sure to tell me where I've mischaracterized modern political reality.

America has been weaseled to death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greenspan as head of the Federal Reserve was a combination of Keynesian economics and politician. Keynesian economics went big starting in the 1930s for it provided political cover for politicians spending all they wanted to to maintain and expand their power. In these things Greenspan did not accept Rand's Austrian orientation.

When Greenspan took hold of the Chairmanship in the summer of 1987, one of the first things he did was raise interest rates by 1%, for no good discernable reason except maybe things had gotten too ripe in US equity markets. To make a long story short, come the collapse of equity prices that fall he probably did the right thing in telling the banks to lend money to support Wall Street. Credit had completely dried up. That, combined with the bail out of LTCM and his actions generally as Chairman created what became known as "The Greenspan put." Every crisis he confronted he dealt with by increasing liquidity. In 1999, afraid of year 2000 computer breakdown from the turn of the century date change (the century actually changed a year later), he proactively put in so much liquidity that in six months the NASDAQ doubled in collective price from roughly 2500 to 5000. Then, after nothing significant happened, he had no more reason to worry about what some alarmists were thinking was going to be the end of the world as we know it. However, concomitant with collapse of equity prices and the 2 1/2 bear market in equities, the Fed's liquidity found a new home in real estate, which in turn went "poof" with much more devastating results. These equity prices and real estate prices were made at the margin. A certain level of liquidity injection was needed to support momentum in those markets and the momentum had a lot to do with the psychology of investors and home owners. Most equity prices recovered as viewed in the aggregate. Even the NASDAQ is finally getting back to that 5000 level from March 2000. But the housing bull market started after WWII and few thought it would ever end. It ended in late 2005. Unlike equity prices it will take housing decades, if ever, to reacquire anything like its previous momentum, never mind 30 year mortgage rates of only 3%. Unlike "liar loans" of the former real estate bull market, today the banks stick a scope up your rear to see what's really there. They aren't likely to like what they see.

Greenspan's two successors and other central bankers have continued with the equivalent of his "put." Eventually the put collapses regardless of all attempts to force liquidity into the system and it's the fear of the collapse of the put that has everybody trapped and terrified, as well they might be. (Think Europe, Japan, China, India, The US.) Paul Volker, Greenspan's predecessor, was the last head of the Fed. to take away the punchbowl and it cost him his job. Greenspan held on for over 18 years.

--Brant

Rand deserved Greenspan, but that's another story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a debtaholic may be a lousy life plan...

May be? You can't be serious.

The very same irresponsible Creditist debt binge stupidity that brought you 2008... is going to bring you "2008 reloaded" in 2015.

...but there are no third parties involved when the FED 'buys' US Treasury Debt...

What you do matters far more than what the Fed could ever do. Becoming fixated on what others are doing can become a comforting distraction from the painful failure to take prudent personal action on your own behalf.

Don't say I didn't warn you...

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keynesian economics went big starting in the 1930s for it provided political cover for politicians spending all they wanted to to maintain and expand their power.

Exactly what it remains today; the Magic Keys to the Boundless Public OPM Spending Kingdom.

Have to really dig deep to imagine any government ever in history taking on both halves of Keyne's Theory; only the borrow and spend half is ever embraced by the parasitic weasels. Never the cut spending and payback half. Never. And yet, lying through their teeth being their primary skill, referring to themselves as 'Keynsians' all the while.

Nixon in the 70s. Economies stalling because they couldn't grow fast enough in response to the underlying demographic demand. Government needs to spend more.

Clinton in 1992: the government needs to spend more. (Stimulus Plan, Nationalize Health Scare. Those and must have BTU tax never passed.) "The Erah of Big Guvmint is Ovah.'

Ha! The Erah of Really f'n Huge Government was right around the corner.

Government meddling caused financial crisis in 2008: the government needs to get bigger ans spend more.

Economies on their ass: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

In the last 50 yrs, who grew the federal pig more than Nixon, Reagan and Bush 41? Not to be outdone, LBJ, Clinton and Obama giving those pikers a run for our money.

And here comes another national election; as if it matters in the least.

Private Economies heating up too much; government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Private Economies on their ass; government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Government caused economic crisis in 1929: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

War in Europe: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

No War in Europe: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Ebola in Africa: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

A washing machine shuts off a rinse cycle shy of perfection: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Global Cooling: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Global Warming: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Weather we don't like: government needs to get bgger and spend more.

Bad Hair Day: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Hey look! A Squirrel!: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keynesian economics went big starting in the 1930s for it provided political cover for politicians spending all they wanted to to maintain and expand their power.

Exactly what it remains today; the Magic Keys to the Boundless Public OPM Spending Kingdom.

Have to really dig deep to imagine any government ever in history taking on both halves of Keyne's Theory; only the borrow and spend half is ever embraced by the parasitic weasels. Never the cut spending and payback half. Never. And yet, lying through their teeth being their primary skill, referring to themselves as 'Keynsians' all the while.

Nixon in the 70s. Economies stalling because they couldn't grow fast enough in response to the underlying demographic demand. Government needs to spend more.

Clinton in 1992: the government needs to spend more. (Stimulus Plan, Nationalize Health Scare. Those and must have BTU tax never passed.) "The Erah of Big Guvmint is Ovah.'

Ha! The Erah of Really f'n Huge Government was right around the corner.

Government meddling caused financial crisis in 2008: the government needs to get bigger ans spend more.

Economies on their ass: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

In the last 50 yrs, who grew the federal pig more than Nixon, Reagan and Bush 41? Not to be outdone, LBJ, Clinton and Obama giving those pikers a run for our money.

And here comes another national election; as if it matters in the least.

Private Economies heating up too much; government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Private Economies on their ass; government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Government caused economic crisis in 1929: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

War in Europe: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

No War in Europe: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Ebola in Africa: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

A washing machine shuts off a rinse cycle shy of perfection: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Global Cooling: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Global Warming: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Weather we don't like: government needs to get bgger and spend more.

Bad Hair Day: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Hey look! A Squirrel!: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

That is what happens when we have governments. They just get bigger and spend more of our hard earned substance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keynesian economics went big starting in the 1930s for it provided political cover for politicians spending all they wanted to to maintain and expand their power.

Exactly what it remains today; the Magic Keys to the Boundless Public OPM Spending Kingdom.

Have to really dig deep to imagine any government ever in history taking on both halves of Keyne's Theory; only the borrow and spend half is ever embraced by the parasitic weasels. Never the cut spending and payback half. Never. And yet, lying through their teeth being their primary skill, referring to themselves as 'Keynsians' all the while.

Nixon in the 70s. Economies stalling because they couldn't grow fast enough in response to the underlying demographic demand. Government needs to spend more.

Clinton in 1992: the government needs to spend more. (Stimulus Plan, Nationalize Health Scare. Those and must have BTU tax never passed.) "The Erah of Big Guvmint is Ovah.'

Ha! The Erah of Really f'n Huge Government was right around the corner.

Government meddling caused financial crisis in 2008: the government needs to get bigger ans spend more.

Economies on their ass: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

In the last 50 yrs, who grew the federal pig more than Nixon, Reagan and Bush 41? Not to be outdone, LBJ, Clinton and Obama giving those pikers a run for our money.

And here comes another national election; as if it matters in the least.

Private Economies heating up too much; government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Private Economies on their ass; government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Government caused economic crisis in 1929: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

War in Europe: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

No War in Europe: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Ebola in Africa: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

A washing machine shuts off a rinse cycle shy of perfection: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Global Cooling: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Global Warming: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Weather we don't like: government needs to get bgger and spend more.

Bad Hair Day: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Hey look! A Squirrel!: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

That is what happens when we have governments. They just get bigger and spend more of our hard earned substance.

...but that doesn't happen all by itself, Bob.

It takes millions of parasites to create a big government that will educate them, give them loans, employ them, insure them, pay for their healthcare, and give them money when they're disabled.

What the hell else would you expect other than a big government?

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How to curb big government.

People looking to collect welfare.

Must do government jobcorp jobs. Clean ditches, pick up garbage etc.

if you are on food stamps you may only get basic necessities. Rice,powdered milk, staple foods etc. if you want potato chips or pizza pops get a job.

You must live in military style barracks and you will keep them clean, subject to inspections. If you don't you will be removed. It is a voluntary free housing so if you don't like the rules. Get a job and your own place.

If you have an xbox 360 and a wide screen tv? Those will be auctioned off for the "public good".

Again if you want "free money " nothing is free".

And above all if you want to vote you must not be on welfare. People on welfare will of course vote for the thief in power that will steal the most.

So if you want to be counted as a citizen with full rights of voting you must have a job.(or be gainfully self employed)

Trying to pick your favourite politician is like trying to decide "What STD is just right for me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there does need to be a carrot on that stick too Brant. Getting the government "out of the economy". Removing red tape for people wanting to start up businesses. Dropping corporate tax rate so low that other countries won't be attractive "tax havens" and will help revitalize manufacturing locally.

Flat tax system to encourage people to work overtime if they wish to without penalizing them for being more productive.

Welfare should actually be completely removed but iffffffff people really "need" to live off of other people's money it should not be a way of life and it should not be an attractive alternative....you should NOT be rewarded for being an irresponsible fuck up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keynesian economics went big starting in the 1930s for it provided political cover for politicians spending all they wanted to to maintain and expand their power.

Exactly what it remains today; the Magic Keys to the Boundless Public OPM Spending Kingdom.

Have to really dig deep to imagine any government ever in history taking on both halves of Keyne's Theory; only the borrow and spend half is ever embraced by the parasitic weasels. Never the cut spending and payback half. Never. And yet, lying through their teeth being their primary skill, referring to themselves as 'Keynsians' all the while.

Nixon in the 70s. Economies stalling because they couldn't grow fast enough in response to the underlying demographic demand. Government needs to spend more.

Clinton in 1992: the government needs to spend more. (Stimulus Plan, Nationalize Health Scare. Those and must have BTU tax never passed.) "The Erah of Big Guvmint is Ovah.'

Ha! The Erah of Really f'n Huge Government was right around the corner.

Government meddling caused financial crisis in 2008: the government needs to get bigger ans spend more.

Economies on their ass: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

In the last 50 yrs, who grew the federal pig more than Nixon, Reagan and Bush 41? Not to be outdone, LBJ, Clinton and Obama giving those pikers a run for our money.

And here comes another national election; as if it matters in the least.

Private Economies heating up too much; government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Private Economies on their ass; government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Government caused economic crisis in 1929: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

War in Europe: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

No War in Europe: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Ebola in Africa: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

A washing machine shuts off a rinse cycle shy of perfection: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Global Cooling: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Global Warming: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Weather we don't like: government needs to get bgger and spend more.

Bad Hair Day: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Hey look! A Squirrel!: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

That is what happens when we have governments. They just get bigger and spend more of our hard earned substance.

...but that doesn't happen all by itself, Bob.

It takes millions of parasites to create a big government that will educate them, give them loans, employ them, insure them, pay for their healthcare, and give them money when they're disabled.

What the hell else would you expect other than a big government?

Greg

moldy-orange.jpg

If we found ourselves living on the surface of an orange, indeed, what else should we expect?,

On average, mankind has figured out ways to keep some oranges from rotting. But mankind, on average, has never figured out a way to keep all oranges from rotting.

An out of all control government is practically a physical certainty, a law of nature. Like rotted fruit.

Freedom just took a hit yesterday.

How? Because of the pervasive on average belief that anything of substance just changed. The bi-annual ritualistic blood letting occurred. The 'reset' button was just hit. This time its going to be a different outcome than the evidence of the last 50 yrs +. The Rove weasels will do a better job than the Carville weasels.

The gig renewed itself for another two years of gig holding.

Gig: government increasing ginormously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

moldy-orange.jpg

If we found ourselves living on the surface of an orange, indeed, what else should we expect?

Well, that's why my approach is to live a good life in this world just as it is. My happiness isn't dependent on the world being an ideologically pure Utopia. Rather it is regardless of the world not being ideologically pure.

Freedom just took a hit yesterday.

That's NOT freedom, Fred.

Freedom is living in the world without being of the world.

If you believe the lie that your freedom depends on the government... you're a sucker.

How? Because of the pervasive on average belief that anything of substance just changed. The bi-annual ritualistic blood letting occurred. The 'reset' button was just hit. This time its going to be a different outcome than the evidence of the last 50 yrs +. The Rove weasels will do a better job than the Carville weasels.

The gig renewed itself for another two years of gig holding.

Gig: government increasing ginormously.

Axiom: The growth of government is always directly proportional to the failure of people to govern themselves.

This is why I don't wait around for the world to change. Nothing can prevent me from living a meaningful productive prosperous happy life right here and now with the world exactly as it is...

...except me. :wink:

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now