Post: #1

David Simon, the man who created "The Wire" and "Treme", gave a talk about socialism, capitalism's successes and failures, and the divide between classes in the US. The Guardian published a version of his remarks.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/de...ricas-wire

The whole thing's worth a read, but here's the part the really caught my attention:

Quote:Societies are exactly what they sound like. If everybody is invested and if everyone just believes that they have "some", it doesn't mean that everybody's going to get the same amount. It doesn't mean there aren't going to be people who are the venture capitalists who stand to make the most. It's not each according to their needs or anything that is purely Marxist, but it is that everybody feels as if, if the society succeeds, I succeed, I don't get left behind. And there isn't a society in the west now, right now, that is able to sustain that for all of its population.

And so in my country you're seeing a horror show. You're seeing a retrenchment in terms of family income, you're seeing the abandonment of basic services, such as public education, functional public education. You're seeing the underclass hunted through an alleged war on dangerous drugs that is in fact merely a war on the poor and has turned us into the most incarcerative state in the history of mankind, in terms of the sheer numbers of people we've put in American prisons and the percentage of Americans we put into prisons. No other country on the face of the Earth jails people at the number and rate that we are.

Post: #2

Yes, we are becoming a socialist country.

Oh wait, he thinks the answer is more socialism. Hello Venezuela!

I will say this for socialism - once it destroys a country's currency, it makes it a good place (factoring in safety concerns) to roll into and bang chicks on the cheap. Of course, this doesn't work out so well for the locals who aren't in the elite inner circles because they will get hit with bank holidays, capital controls, price fixing, bans on precious metals, etc., effectively trapping them into a currency that is about to being rapidly devalued; the oligarchs, of course, are tipped off, and get their cash out and converted into more stable stores of value. But I suppose if most of your fellow countrymen are also getting fucked with no vaseline, while only a relatively tiny minority emerge unscathed, it's 'fair'?

Post: #3

Quote:but it is that everybody feels as if, if the society succeeds, I succeed, I don't get left behind. And there isn't a society in the west now, right now, that is able to sustain that for all of its population.

Why should you succeed when society succeeds? You should succeed when YOU succeed.

And why should any society "sustain" such nonsense? I am so tired of this mindless pabulum. If you want something, stop whining and work for it.

A recent column by African-American economist Thomas Sowell highlights the self-induced victimology of whining low-class whites in the U.K. and whining ghetto blacks in the U.S.

Quote:These data might seem to be some kind of fluke, but they confirm the observations in a book titled "Life at the Bottom" by British physician Theodore Dalrymple. He said that, among the patients he treated in a hospital near a low-income housing project, he could not recall any white 16-year-old who could multiply nine by seven. Some could not even do three times seven.

What do low-income whites in England and ghetto blacks in the United States have in common? It cannot be simply low incomes, because children from other groups in the same low-income brackets outperform whites in England and outperform blacks in America.

What low-income whites in England and ghetto blacks in the United States have in common is a generations-long indoctrination in victimhood. The political left in both countries has, for more than half a century, maintained a steady and loud drumbeat of claims that the deck is stacked against those at the bottom.

The American left uses race and the British left uses class, but the British left has been at it longer. In both countries, immigrants who have not been in the country as long have not been so distracted by such ideology into a blind resentment and lashing out at other people.

In both countries, immigrants enter a supposedly closed society that refuses to let anyone rise -- and they nevertheless rise, while the native-born at the bottom remain at the bottom.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...20838.html

Post: #4

Nice one Tail Gunner.

Another important aspect is welfare. When people talk about the common good, having a stake in society, etc., they often neglect this part of things. Of course in communities, there will be people who fall on hard times. Other members, be they relatives, neighbours, etc. will step in to help them back on their feet. They do this because they realise that such people have reciprocated in times past and will do so again. They realise that such other people have contributed to their communities economically and in other ways. The underclass want everything given to them but have not given anything in return. It's all rights and no responsibilities.

The middle class is getting shafted from both above and below. The social compact has indeed broken down, but not just at the top of society. Indeed, I would say that the lower class has been used by the upper class as a blunt object with which to beat the middle class. As has already been pointed out, many of the prescriptions for solving this problem are simply to double down on what has already failed. The trouble with this is that, in theory, it could work. However, there are no limits to it, it's unable to be falsified a la Karl Popper. If $1 does not work, then $2 is required, but if $2 doesn't work, then $3 is required, and so on. There's no end to it other than the physical laws of the universe (i.e. collapse). Even then those pushing the line refuse to admit that it would ever be so. They always want to blame external actors. What can you say to these people? All you can do is try to build a robust community despite them or hedge your bets by moving your money off-shore, emigrating, etc.

Another person to look at on this topic is Charles Murray and his analysis of the decline amongst the white working class.





By the way, since we're talking about David Simon and the Wire, this scene with the character Frank Sobotka is probably my favourite in the entire show:

Post: #5

(12-08-2013 10:20 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  The trouble with this is that, in theory, it could work.

Right, but only in a fantasy universe in which human nature is different than it is. That's the problem with socialism and also communism. It requires human nature to be different than it is for it to work.

And since human nature doesn't comply, people have to be forced into these authoritarian frameworks by threat of force. E.g., I think many young American liberals are going to be surprised by how steeply the Obamacare penalties are going to rise to force people into the system. And when the penalty by itself doesn't result in compliance, they will greatly increase the size of the IRS and enforce those penalties much more vigorously.

Post: #6

(12-08-2013 10:32 PM)assman Wrote:  

(12-08-2013 10:20 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  The trouble with this is that, in theory, it could work.

Right, but only in a fantasy universe in which human nature is different than it is. That's the problem with socialism and also communism. It requires human nature to be different than it is for it to work.

And since human nature doesn't comply, people have to be forced into these authoritarian frameworks by threat of force. E.g., I think many young American liberals are going to be surprised by how steeply the Obamacare penalties are going to rise to force people into the system. And when the penalty by itself doesn't result in compliance, they will greatly increase the size of the IRS and enforce those penalties much more vigorously.

Definitely. It's always the allure of what could theoretically work that trips people up in these situations. Those of a sceptical bent can see the train wreck as the caboose is being added at the rail yard at the point of origin. Everyone else has to wait until the fire crew and paramedics have arrived. Some still stand around scratching their heads saying, "Maybe we should have added another carriage?" What can you say to such people?

Post: #7

Fifty years ago, a man in the West could support a family as a construction worker, retail clerk, factory worker, or even a janitor.

Now:

1. Globalization and robotization of labor take away high wages for all but a small elite of high intelligence, high influence (nepotism) people. High wages for industrial workers are a thing of the past. Ditto for many services due to business process and services outsourcing. There are very few good jobs if you're not high-IQ. Only refuges for the average and below-average person are services with union protection, construction and government.

2. Industrial and service wages do not keep pace with increased productivity - owners of capital keep the gains.

3. The small professional/managerial elite and owners of capital will want to keep as much as they can. Corporations (as legal "persons") have only one end: shareholder return. As such, corporations are basically sociopaths with no inherent regard for morality, national survival or social good. Management - as long as it consists of natural persons and not computers with AI - may have some morality, but ideology of Ayn Rand has been internalized by western elites, so less concern than in the past.

4. Lack of good jobs at good wages for most people creates problem: how will surplus population be subsidized or reduced? Elite do not want to pay to subsidize, underclass unsatisfied with amount and conditions of subsidy. Media will be instrument of mass distraction and entertainment.

5. National governments captured by elites will use policy and armed forces more and more for benefit of elites. Privatize profits and socialize losses. Use armed forces to secure resources and markets.

6. Tension between wealthy elite and the rest will require more and more authoritarian measures and surveillance. This is obvious in the Snowden revelations. World is moving towards Chinese-style authoritarian capitalism.

7. System and species can be shattered by coming advances, especially in genetic optimization of homo sapiens and machine artificial intelligence.

Post: #8

(12-09-2013 01:45 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  Fifty years ago, a man in the West could support a family as a construction worker, retail clerk, factory worker, or even a janitor.

You are spot on about the fifty years. So what happened fifty years ago? In 1971, President Nixon took the USD off the gold standard. When a currency is not backed by anything of value and easy credit also floods the economy (few people had credit cards or student loans before 1970), what happens? Inflation. After Nixon took the USD off the gold standard, the U.S. economy experienced something even worse: stagflation (high unemployment plus inflation).

So what caused Nixon to take the USD off the gold standard? An explosion of costs stemming from the giant burgeoning welfare state created by President Johnson's Great Society programs, Nixon's expansion of those social welfare programs, and the Vietnam War. In other words: expanding domestic socialism and fighting international communism. A pox upon the both of them (socialism and communism). There was not enough gold to back all the dollars needed to pay that tremendous debt. France forced Nixon's hand when it redeemed a huge amount of dollars for gold.

Any true red pill thinker must understand not only women, but also politics, economics, business, and history -- and know how they all interrelate. If you cannot understand the macro world, you cannot manage your own micro world. You will just shuffle through life like a zombie. Just because nations mindlessly repeat history with the same long-term results does not mean that you must suffer the same consequences on the micro level.

Post: #9

(12-09-2013 02:04 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  In other words: expanding domestic socialism and fighting international communism.

I think you are correct in your assessment, but I want to ask you to elaborate on something to do with the second part of the above statement. Firstly, do you think the US was right to fight international communism? If so, do you think that would have been possible without the effects you otherwise described, and ultimately going off the gold standard? If not, what effect do you think that (the expansion of international communism) would have had? Could it ultimately have been resisted before it imploded of its own accord? What would the cost have been to other regions of the world, or maybe even the US?

I certainly think the first part (expanding domestic socialism) was an own goal, though perhaps in some way it was a way of heading off communism? That may be a bit of an overreach, but not entirely. Much of Europe was pretty sympathetic to communism post-WW2 and I wonder if socialism there dampened that and if there were any real analogies in America. Perhaps not. I'm interested in your thoughts on this too, though more on the above.

Post: #10

snip

Post: #11

Expanding domestic socialism was a part of fighting international communism.

This is the concept of the "social safety net" - enough of state welfare to prevent people from starving or dying from easily cured medical conditions like appendicitis, and turning to revolutionary communism as a response to these intolerable conditions.

People forget how there were substantial communist movements in the west, including the USA, during the Great Depression. FDR is credited with saving capitalism in the USA by instituting some social safety net and jobs programs like the WPA and CCC. The story of Germany, with battles between Nazis and Communists, is also an example.

After WW II, the west enlisted social democrats and liberals in the fight against communism. Groups like the Congress of Cultural Freedom and the social democratic parties of Europe were assisted by the CIA.

I think international communism as represented in the USSR and the PRC circa 1960-1980 was a serious threat not only to western business interests, but to individual human freedom worldwide.

Francis Fukuyama wrote a book, The End of History. The book posited that with the end of communism as a serious ideological competitor, humanity had reached the end stage of political development, which was free market capitalism coupled with electoral democracy.

After the financial crisis of 2008, he has written that he has had to revise his opinion to say that the optimum end state of human political development is not represented in the USA, but more likely is in the social democratic states like Germany, Canada, France, etc.

Post: #12

There is a lot more of this nonsense floating around out there. Look at the popularity of Russel Brand's rant. Essentially they want to replace Socialism with more Socialism. I like to refer to guys like Thomas Sowell to rebut their collectivist nonsense.

   

   

   

Post: #13

EnemyCombatant: The gap between rich and poor in America declined markedly during the period you are talking about, so I don't buy your theory that foreign policy solely benefited, or was done for, the rich. Of course, it may have been a case of a rising tide lifting all ships. Regardless, your assertion that world communism did not threaten the average American would seem to be false. I should imagine that fruit or oil would have been more expensive for the average American consumer if American foreign policy had not been like that.

Sp5: I think it is somewhat more complicated than that though. Many liberals were/are former communists or at least highly sympathetic to communism. I think there are many good arguments to be made that there has actually been a Gramscian march through the institutions.

As for Francis Fukuyama, I am more inclined to believe Samuel Huntington on the post-Cold War era.

Post: #14

(12-09-2013 02:35 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(12-09-2013 02:04 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  In other words: expanding domestic socialism and fighting international communism.

I think you are correct in your assessment, but I want to ask you to elaborate on something to do with the second part of the above statement. Firstly, do you think the US was right to fight international communism? If so, do you think that would have been possible without the effects you otherwise described, and ultimately going off the gold standard? If not, what effect do you think that (the expansion of international communism) would have had? Could it ultimately have been resisted before it imploded of its own accord? What would the cost have been to other regions of the world, or maybe even the US?

I certainly think the first part (expanding domestic socialism) was an own goal, though perhaps in some way it was a way of heading off communism? That may be a bit of an overreach, but not entirely. Much of Europe was pretty sympathetic to communism post-WW2 and I wonder if socialism there dampened that and if there were any real analogies in America. Perhaps not. I'm interested in your thoughts on this too, though more on the above.

Yes, I do think the U.S. was right to fight international communism, which was one of the most evil and malevolent forces in world history. So, the Cold War was certainly a fight worth waging. My father's own family fled from their homeland when Soviet tanks rolled across the border and I had relatives perish in the Siberian gulags.

In 1970, the U.S. had the economic ability to fund a giant burgeoning welfare state (in the short-term but not in the long-term, as we now discovering) or to fund the Vietnam War and the Cold War, but not both.

I do not believe that expanding domestic socialism was a way of heading off communism in the U.S. I believe that the welfare state was the result of the incursion of communist influences into the U.S. To this day, Joe McCarthy is badly maligned but almost everything that he claimed regarding communist influences in the U.S. government proved true. It also proved embarrassingly true in the British Government.

In the case of LBJ, the increase in welfare programs was a pure political power play to enslave a political base of voters, based on a declining morality amongst U.S. leaders that continues to this day. Vinman's third quotation by Thomas Sowell is very apt in that regard.

Post: #15

Tail Gunner: Do you read the reactosphere?

Post: #16

(12-09-2013 08:28 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  Tail Gunner: Do you read the reactosphere?

No. Do you have a web link?

Post: #17

(12-09-2013 12:44 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(12-08-2013 10:32 PM)assman Wrote:  

(12-08-2013 10:20 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  The trouble with this is that, in theory, it could work.

Right, but only in a fantasy universe in which human nature is different than it is. That's the problem with socialism and also communism. It requires human nature to be different than it is for it to work.

And since human nature doesn't comply, people have to be forced into these authoritarian frameworks by threat of force. E.g., I think many young American liberals are going to be surprised by how steeply the Obamacare penalties are going to rise to force people into the system. And when the penalty by itself doesn't result in compliance, they will greatly increase the size of the IRS and enforce those penalties much more vigorously.

Definitely. It's always the allure of what could theoretically work that trips people up in these situations. Those of a sceptical bent can see the train wreck as the caboose is being added at the rail yard at the point of origin. Everyone else has to wait until the fire crew and paramedics have arrived. Some still stand around scratching their heads saying, "Maybe we should have added another carriage?" What can you say to such people?

Not much you can say. Unfortunately, this country will succumb to the cancer of socialism. All we can do as individuals is prepare to leave (but where?), prepare to fight or prepare to live on your knees. Arm yourself - it will give you options down the road.

Post: #18

(12-09-2013 08:31 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(12-09-2013 08:28 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  Tail Gunner: Do you read the reactosphere?

No. Do you have a web link?

I was wondering because some of your ideas seem in alignment with it.

There are a huge number of blogs in the reactosphere (also known as the dark enlightenment, or DR, and neoreaction NR). They vary immensely in quality and focus. There is also a huge overlap between the reactosphere and the manosphere, with the manosphere perhaps representing a subset of the reactosphere (though not always).

Three of the bloggers who are considered to be doing a lot of the "heavy lifting" in terms of theory and terminology in the reactosphere are:

Mencius Moldbug

Nick Land

Bryce Laliberte

Their stuff is really intense and the comments threads to their posts are also pretty interesting. Perhaps start with something like this or this. Or you could go old school and read Thomas Carlyle.

There's tons of lower end stuff (i.e less philosophical, more focused on current affairs) like Captain Capitalism.

I came to NR via a person who actually posts here, Aurini, though I read Zero Hedge before him. Another member of this site within the reactosphere is Matt Forney.

Other interesting people include Theodore Beale, the iconic Fred Reed (who has been NR since way before NR even existed) and Roissy who mostly writes about game, but also other things. Spandrell is interesting too.

Another big strand of NR that I'm not really into at all is the Christian traditionalist strand, perhaps best exemplified by Dalrock.

Yet another big strand of NR is the whole HBD (Human Biodiversity) crowd such as Steve Sailer and hbd chick.

Finally, there is stuff that defies classification, but is just really, really interesting such as The Last Psychiatrist.

Post: #19

(12-10-2013 12:28 AM)assman Wrote:  

(12-09-2013 12:44 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(12-08-2013 10:32 PM)assman Wrote:  

(12-08-2013 10:20 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  The trouble with this is that, in theory, it could work.

Right, but only in a fantasy universe in which human nature is different than it is. That's the problem with socialism and also communism. It requires human nature to be different than it is for it to work.

And since human nature doesn't comply, people have to be forced into these authoritarian frameworks by threat of force. E.g., I think many young American liberals are going to be surprised by how steeply the Obamacare penalties are going to rise to force people into the system. And when the penalty by itself doesn't result in compliance, they will greatly increase the size of the IRS and enforce those penalties much more vigorously.

Definitely. It's always the allure of what could theoretically work that trips people up in these situations. Those of a sceptical bent can see the train wreck as the caboose is being added at the rail yard at the point of origin. Everyone else has to wait until the fire crew and paramedics have arrived. Some still stand around scratching their heads saying, "Maybe we should have added another carriage?" What can you say to such people?

Not much you can say. Unfortunately, this country will succumb to the cancer of socialism. All we can do as individuals is prepare to leave (but where?), prepare to fight or prepare to live on your knees. Arm yourself - it will give you options down the road.

I disagree that the future is necessarily lost. I think that in the short to medium term, socialism will continue to march onwards. Many places may indeed be lost. In the long term, socialism has no future. That does not mean that the future will be rosy, merely that something will replace it. That might be a kind of American/Western renaissance, Islam, China, or something else. One way or another though, the left wing as it exists now simply won't exist in 100 years. It will be extinct.

Where to leave to? It may be a case of moving to the least bad places and letting the really bad places self-destruct first. Those that weren't totally gone would witness all of that and still have enough time to react to change course. Australia? Chile? Singapore? The Rocky Mountains states of the US? I'm personally trying to hedge my bets via Five Flag Theory. My residency and nationality are different, and I have my money in a third place, so I have three flags already. All three are on different continents. Ultimately, I want to have my money spread between countries, and also pick up another passport, as well as some arable land.

If I ever have kids I plan to home school them also. Basically, you just have to starve the beast of money and fresh minds (i.e. your children) to perpetuate itself and then wait for it to self-destruct. Starve the beast and live between the cracks. Avoid debt, take advantage of geo-arbitrage, etc. Then it's just a matter of patience.

Post: #20

(12-10-2013 12:45 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 12:28 AM)assman Wrote:  Not much you can say. Unfortunately, this country will succumb to the cancer of socialism. All we can do as individuals is prepare to leave (but where?), prepare to fight or prepare to live on your knees. Arm yourself - it will give you options down the road.

I disagree that the future is necessarily lost. I think that in the short to medium term, socialism will continue to march onwards. Many places may indeed be lost. In the long term, socialism has no future. That does not mean that the future will be rosy, merely that something will replace it. That might be a kind of American/Western renaissance, Islam, China, or something else. One way or another though, the left wing as it exists now simply won't exist in 100 years. It will be extinct.

Where to leave to? It may be a case of moving to the least bad places and letting the really bad places self-destruct first. Those that weren't totally gone would witness all of that and still have enough time to react to change course. Australia? Chile? Singapore? The Rocky Mountains states of the US? I'm personally trying to hedge my bets via Five Flag Theory. My residency and nationality are different, and I have my money in a third place, so I have three flags already. All three are on different continents. Ultimately, I want to have my money spread between countries, and also pick up another passport, as well as some arable land.

If I ever have kids I plan to home school them also. Basically, you just have to starve the beast of money and fresh minds (i.e. your children) to perpetuate itself and then wait for it to self-destruct. Starve the beast and live between the cracks. Avoid debt, take advantage of geo-arbitrage, etc. Then it's just a matter of patience.

Oh, I don't disagree. Because socialism (as well as communism) contravenes human nature, it is inherently unstable. I just meant that the US will become far more socialist than it is today. And of course, that will lead to some sort of collapse and societal conflict.

As far as money overseas, we are already seeing the US adopt that favorite device of socialist and communist countries - capital controls. Americans with foreign assets have to file multiple forms with their tax returns. And the penalties for not filing are downright draconian. They are already turning the screws and making sure they can confiscate your wealth when necessary to support the parasitic state.

Post: #21

(12-10-2013 12:45 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  I'm personally trying to hedge my bets via Five Flag Theory. My residency and nationality are different, and I have my money in a third place, so I have three flags already. All three are on different continents. Ultimately, I want to have my money spread between countries, and also pick up another passport, as well as some arable land.

Great minds think alike. That is how I found this forum.

Post: #22

A lot of these "dark enlightenment" or neo-reactionaries are straight-out white nationalists, Nazis, anti-Semites and nutballs.

The only reason people would advocate for absolute monarchy or fascism is that they've forgotten how bad absolute monarchy or fascism is.

Even if the USA is moving towards something like semi-authoritarian France or Singapore, it would still be a hell of a lot better than living in a Christian version of Saudi Arabia or in Franco Spain.

Post: #23

(12-10-2013 07:59 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  A lot of these "dark enlightenment" or neo-reactionaries are straight-out white nationalists, Nazis, anti-Semites and nutballs.

The only reason people would advocate for absolute monarchy or fascism is that they've forgotten how bad absolute monarchy or fascism is.

Even if the USA is moving towards something like semi-authoritarian France or Singapore, it would still be a hell of a lot better than living in a Christian version of Saudi Arabia or in Franco Spain.

I agree. A lot of these guys support reactionary government, because they feel alienated by what exists now and assume that they will naturally be part of the new aristocracy.

Some of what these guys write is interesting, but they are like Simon. They have a sense that something is wrong, but they can't quite comprehend the whole story so they end up with the wrong prescription.

Post: #24

(12-09-2013 02:04 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(12-09-2013 01:45 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  Fifty years ago, a man in the West could support a family as a construction worker, retail clerk, factory worker, or even a janitor.

You are spot on about the fifty years. So what happened fifty years ago? In 1971, President Nixon took the USD off the gold standard. When a currency is not backed by anything of value and easy credit also floods the economy (few people had credit cards or student loans before 1970), what happens? Inflation. After Nixon took the USD off the gold standard, the U.S. economy experienced something even worse: stagflation (high unemployment plus inflation).

So what caused Nixon to take the USD off the gold standard? An explosion of costs stemming from the giant burgeoning welfare state created by President Johnson's Great Society programs, Nixon's expansion of those social welfare programs, and the Vietnam War. In other words: expanding domestic socialism and fighting international communism. A pox upon the both of them (socialism and communism). There was not enough gold to back all the dollars needed to pay that tremendous debt. France forced Nixon's hand when it redeemed a huge amount of dollars for gold.

This is partly true, but you're leaving out a whole lot of details about the U.S. going off the gold standard. The increase in government spending is part of the story, but only part. That increase contributed to an overvalued dollar and that helped speed up the process, but even without all that spending the post-war gold standard was an unsustainable monetary arrangement.

Also, Nixon chose to go off the gold standard and pressured the Fed to pursue an inflationary monetary policy (which he then tried to counter with wage and price controls), in part, because he blamed tight monetary policy for his 1960 loss to Kennedy. Nixon even threatened Fed Chair Arthur Burns with a plan to increase the size of the Fed board and pack it with people who would do what Nixon wanted.

The fundamental problem with the gold standard is this: the money supply ought to roughly match the amount of economic activity. Too much money chasing too few goods and services leads to a bidding up of prices and inflation. Too little money chasing too many goods and services leads to deflation and a decrease in economic activity (ie recession). Changes in the supply of gold are lumpy and erratic and don't match the business cycle. The Fed gets a lot of flack, but they are more right than the politicians who would otherwise be making monetary policy.

Post: #25

[quote='j r' pid='600012' dateline='1386685252']That increase contributed to an overvalued dollar and that helped speed up the process, but even without all that spending the post-war gold standard was an unsustainable monetary arrangement.[quote]

That claim really needs support. If not for social welfare programs and the Vietnam War, there would have been no need to go off the gold standard because there would have been plenty of money to pay government's debt. For thousands of years, governments went bankrupt when they ran out of gold, usually because of the ruinous cost of wars. A government should function just like a household. Spend only what you have and borrow only what is absolutely necessary.

[quote='j r' pid='600012' dateline='1386685252']The fundamental problem with the gold standard is this: the money supply ought to roughly match the amount of economic activity. Too much money chasing too few goods and services leads to a bidding up of prices and inflation. Too little money chasing too many goods and services leads to deflation and a decrease in economic activity (ie recession). Changes in the supply of gold are lumpy and erratic and don't match the business cycle. The Fed gets a lot of flack, but they are more right than the politicians who would otherwise be making monetary policy.[/quote]

Not so. The gold standard was self-balancing among nations. Gold flowed to those nations whose citizens were more competitive and stayed out of costly wars. It is funny how the liberal peaceniks are always Keynesians. They are too stupid to realize that a nation cannot wage large-scale war without freely printing money and going into debt.

[quote]In theory, international settlement in gold meant that the international monetary system based on the gold standard was self correcting. Namely, a country running a balance of payments deficit would experience an outflow of gold, a reduction in money supply, a decline in the domestic price level, a rise in competitiveness and, therefore, a correction in the balance of payments deficit. The reverse would be true for countries with a balance of payments surplus. This was the so called “price-specie flow mechanism” set out by 18th century philosopher and economist David Hume.[/quote]

http://www.gold.org/government_affairs/g...rd_worked/