PDA

View Full Version : I want them to raise the debt ceiling.




TheBlackPeterSchiff
04-18-2011, 11:06 AM
1st of all, let me say there is no chance that they dont raised the debt ceiling.

2nd, I agree, in principle, they should not raise it, and ceiling should be a ceiling, better yet we should not be allowed to go into to debt to pay for govt.

With that said, I still think they should raise it. Why? Because if for some crazy reason, Republicans come down with a case of Ron Paul-itis and decide not to raise the debt ceiling, what would happen? It would send an earthquake through financial markets possibly causing nations to dump the dollar and hasten the move towards a NWO currency. It would cause MASSIVE cuts to entitlement and war spending (which is a good thing) but the repercussions on that would be terrible. People addicted to govt handouts for generations will have their umbilical cord cut, people would riot and go nuts, many would starve and blame the govt and greedy capitalism for their hunger. Troops would come home and you would see great geo-political shifts abroad. Tea Party politicians will be blamed. Our currency would collapse as the dollar is only backed by nothing but faith, diminishes. Blame free markets and austerity measures.

All these things are inevitable, either on our terms or on theirs. But if we are the ones to kick it off, it will be capitalism and liberty lovers....Ron Paul politicians will be blamed. Not all the socialism and govt bureaucracy that has gotten us to this point. People will beg far a large global government to protect them from greed capitalists!!

I would rather us let them destroy themselves, meanwhile educating the public and warning them about what it truly coming. That way when it does happen, it will be the socialist that look like fools.

IDefendThePlatform
04-18-2011, 11:31 AM
I actually think something similar to this scenario could happen the first year or two after RP gets elected and makes massive cuts to the size of government. At first it would look bad, but by the time he's up for reelection in 2016 things will be back and going so well that it will be extremely obvious he did the right thing.

If it happened before the election or with someone else as Pres, then i agree that everyone will think the solution is more government and that capitalism failed.

You're a Peter Schiff fan? I think he says something similar about the "need for a major recession" to get rid of malinvestment and whatnot, doesn't he?

justinc.1089
04-18-2011, 11:39 AM
You're wrong.

Its the opposite way. If the debt ceiling is raised, then that will send an earthquake through financial markets, as our massive debt and inflation is already doing.

Raising the debt ceiling is merely a continuation of what is already underway, which is an economic catastrophe, a collapse of the dollar, and so on, things like you mentioned. Its already happening, so it can't be started like you said. If its already happening, then raising the debt ceiling can't start it.

Not raising the debt ceiling would strengthen the dollar long term because it would help to begin the process of dealing with our debt.

No offense, but you've been watching far too much fear mongering from the one-eyed monster television box I think, because some good reading about economics would not have lead you to the conclusion that not raising the debt ceiling will hurt the economy. I would put money on nothing happening, except that the government would be forced to budget or find some other way to finance deficit spending. I'm not sure if there would be a way without raising the debt ceiling or not, but even if the government couldn't spend into debt we would be perfectly fine balancing our budget.

fisharmor
04-18-2011, 11:46 AM
The sooner we can't borrow any more money, the sooner we default.
The sooner we default, the sooner cheap shit from Asia stops getting subsidized with our grandchildrens' earnings.
The sooner we can't get cheap shit from Asia, the sooner we're going to have to start making cheap shit in the US.

The only problem with this scenario is that the federal govt will use its brand new police state to crack down on free marketers trying to produce cheap goods domestically.
Fortunately, we have learned recently that in that situation, we are exactly one self-immolated fruit seller away from doing something about the police state.

IDefendThePlatform
04-18-2011, 11:46 AM
I don't know if we're all talking about exactly the same thing here, but I found that Peter Schiff clip I was talking about:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DteBlI2eihA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DteBlI2eihA

TheNcredibleEgg
04-18-2011, 11:55 AM
Not raising the debt ceiling would strengthen the dollar long term because it would help to begin the process of dealing with our debt.



Exactly right.

The dollar would soar in value if the debt ceiling was not raised because there would be no reason to print anymore - if the debt truly stopped. There conceivably could be an initial spike down as people just think "oh - no - default" but it would quickly reverse and the strong dollar policy would be real, for once.

tangent4ronpaul
04-18-2011, 11:57 AM
There is no way the gvmt would be stupid enough to cut off welfare, unemployment and social security.

One blogger really hit the nail on the head when talking about the government shutdown. He stated that politicians would be stupid to let it happen, as if it went on for a while, people would not notice it's absence that much, if at all and would quickly realize that they would be happy with a lot less government.

MEGA WIN FOR OUR SIDE!

I hope it happens. The government needs to live within it's means.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
04-18-2011, 12:16 PM
You're wrong.

Its the opposite way. If the debt ceiling is raised, then that will send an earthquake through financial markets, as our massive debt and inflation is already doing.

Raising the debt ceiling is merely a continuation of what is already underway, which is an economic catastrophe, a collapse of the dollar, and so on, things like you mentioned. Its already happening, so it can't be started like you said. If its already happening, then raising the debt ceiling can't start it.

Not raising the debt ceiling would strengthen the dollar long term because it would help to begin the process of dealing with our debt.

No offense, but you've been watching far too much fear mongering from the one-eyed monster television box I think, because some good reading about economics would not have lead you to the conclusion that not raising the debt ceiling will hurt the economy. I would put money on nothing happening, except that the government would be forced to budget or find some other way to finance deficit spending. I'm not sure if there would be a way without raising the debt ceiling or not, but even if the government couldn't spend into debt we would be perfectly fine balancing our budget.

A. I dont watch anything from the media.

B. You say not raising the debt ceiling will cause our currency to rise. I dont agree. I do feel it will eventually cause our currency to gain in value as we negotiate with our creditors and work on a payment plan. But I think the immediate reaction would be the the U.S. is tanking, dump the dollar, and all assets denominated in it. Eventually, sanity will come back, and if we move back to a more sound currency, our economy will begin to thrive again, especially if we cut taxes and regulation. But what I am saying is the IMMEDIATE pain that will follow the cuts will be massive. I know the pain is going to come regardless, no matter what. But the people of America will view Capitialism and Austerity as the cause of their pain, not the fact that the govt has drove us into debt for generations.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
04-18-2011, 12:18 PM
Exactly right.

The dollar would soar in value if the debt ceiling was not raised because there would be no reason to print anymore - if the debt truly stopped. There conceivably could be an initial spike down as people just think "oh - no - default" but it would quickly reverse and the strong dollar policy would be real, for once.

I just dont think it will be as quick as u all think. In this hyper-media environment? People would be calling for Ron Pauls head on a platter.

AuH20
04-18-2011, 12:20 PM
This is extortion by the Pigmen. Plain and simple. Keep the FRNs flowing or ELSE! The pigmen are going to crash the whole economy in the end anyway. May as well stop it on our terms, as opposed to theirs.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
04-18-2011, 12:23 PM
[QUOTE=justinc.1089;3213900]
because some good reading about economics would not have lead you to the conclusion that not raising the debt ceiling will hurt the economy./QUOTE]

In the long run, of course not going into debt will significantly help the economy. I dont disagree with you there. I am totally on board with that. But do you honestly think things will just get brighter immediately from that day? This whole phony economy will have to collapse for the real one to emerge from the ashes. And in that scenario, I think people will beg for the phony one back. It's fully understood by Austrian economists that a great correction has to happen to get rid of all that ills our economy. That correction I think will last a year or 2. Not long in the grand scheme of things, but very long when your talking about 24-7/365 media cycle.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
04-18-2011, 12:26 PM
Look at the Argentina economic collapse, and how its now a mainstream belief that "laissez-faire" economics is the cause of their collapse.

AuH20
04-18-2011, 12:28 PM
Look at the Argentina economic collapse, and how its now a mainstream belief that "laissez-faire" economics is the cause of their collapse.

They also confiscated 401ks. I'm begging for the government to grab 401ks in America. Yes, we've been zombified and domesticated, but there still is alot of fire under the surface. A 401k confiscation would really wake people up to the ultimate motives of Big Daddy.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
04-18-2011, 12:36 PM
They also confiscated 401ks. I'm begging for the government to grab 401ks in America. Yes, we've been zombified and domesticated, but there still is alot of fire under the surface. A 401k confiscation would really wake people up to the ultimate motives of Big Daddy.

People will figure out a way to justify it. "We owe it to our country to give up our retirement!!"

nobody's_hero
04-18-2011, 12:39 PM
You're wrong.

Its the opposite way. If the debt ceiling is raised, then that will send an earthquake through financial markets, as our massive debt and inflation is already doing.

Raising the debt ceiling is merely a continuation of what is already underway, which is an economic catastrophe, a collapse of the dollar, and so on, things like you mentioned. Its already happening, so it can't be started like you said. If its already happening, then raising the debt ceiling can't start it.

Not raising the debt ceiling would strengthen the dollar long term because it would help to begin the process of dealing with our debt.

No offense, but you've been watching far too much fear mongering from the one-eyed monster television box I think, because some good reading about economics would not have lead you to the conclusion that not raising the debt ceiling will hurt the economy. I would put money on nothing happening, except that the government would be forced to budget or find some other way to finance deficit spending. I'm not sure if there would be a way without raising the debt ceiling or not, but even if the government couldn't spend into debt we would be perfectly fine balancing our budget.

I think blackpeter has a good point about there being a plan to blame everything on the TeaParty/Ron Paul/Constitutionalists. I don't know that his post is about 'fearmongering' as much as it is a warning of what to expect if the debt ceiling is capped. It sounds like he's spot-on as to what the establishments tactics will be.

We still have to cap the debt, though.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
04-18-2011, 12:47 PM
I think blackpeter has a good point about there being a plan to blame everything on the TeaParty/Ron Paul/Constitutionalists. I don't know that his post is about 'fearmongering' as much as it is a warning of what to expect if the debt ceiling is capped. It sounds like he's spot-on as to what the establishments tactics will be.

We still have to cap the debt, though.

Thanks.

It's just something I battle with Day to day. Sometimes I feel like "Yes, lets cap this debt and get our house in order!" then other days Im like "Lets have bailouts everyday, so this thing can go ahead and collapse, so we can get back to a small govt"

The reason I say that, because has a govt ever shrunk? In history? Has a government every imposed on itself to have less power and be smaller? I dont think so, If so show me one. It will have to be forced and the only thing that would do that is a total collapse.

Acala
04-18-2011, 12:53 PM
The sooner we can't borrow any more money, the sooner we default.
The sooner we default, the sooner cheap shit from Asia stops getting subsidized with our grandchildrens' earnings.
The sooner we can't get cheap shit from Asia, the sooner we're going to have to start making cheap shit in the US.

The only problem with this scenario is that the federal govt will use its brand new police state to crack down on free marketers trying to produce cheap goods domestically.
Fortunately, we have learned recently that in that situation, we are exactly one self-immolated fruit seller away from doing something about the police state.

Pretty much this^. But remember, a police state costs money and the US government won't have any. That is the silver lining.

low preference guy
04-18-2011, 12:56 PM
All those bad consequences the OP mentioned are outweighed by the fact that the U.S. won't be able to borrow any money for the next 50 years if there is a default. The debt ceiling should not be raised.

nobody's_hero
04-18-2011, 01:04 PM
Thanks.

It's just something I battle with Day to day. Sometimes I feel like "Yes, lets cap this debt and get our house in order!" then other days Im like "Lets have bailouts everyday, so this thing can go ahead and collapse, so we can get back to a small govt"

The reason I say that, because has a govt ever shrunk? In history? Has a government every imposed on itself to have less power and be smaller? I dont think so, If so show me one. It will have to be forced and the only thing that would do that is a total collapse.

No, government has never shrunk. I just don't know what a total collapse would mean for the people. There's still too many people out there who would be clueless as to what happened if a collapse took place. Odds are that they will believe the first thing the government tells them.

You know, though, as I was typing that, I've realized that they're going to try to paint constitutionalists/limited-government folks in a negative light no matter what happens, so maybe it really doesn't matter whether we cap the debt or not.

AZKing
04-18-2011, 01:08 PM
Sounds to me like PMs are going up either way... good deal ;)

Really though, I can see your concern. I'm not sure which one would be worse. Doesn't matter though; they'll vote to raise it ofc.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
04-18-2011, 01:50 PM
Sounds to me like PMs are going up either way... good deal ;)

Really though, I can see your concern. I'm not sure which one would be worse. Doesn't matter though; they'll vote to raise it ofc.

True indeed.

fisharmor
04-18-2011, 02:09 PM
All those bad consequences the OP mentioned are outweighed by the fact that the U.S. won't be able to borrow any money for the next 50 years if there is a default. The debt ceiling should not be raised.

Yeah, this is where I am.
The #1 economy in the world needs to borrow money why, exactly?
We can bellyache all we want about sound money and savings and living within your means, but until we're willing to put a stop to the most monstrous example of living outside your means on the face of the earth, it comes across as sheer nonsense.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
04-18-2011, 02:35 PM
Yeah, this is where I am.
The #1 economy in the world needs to borrow money why, exactly?
We can bellyache all we want about sound money and savings and living within your means, but until we're willing to put a stop to the most monstrous example of living outside your means on the face of the earth, it comes across as sheer nonsense.


Good point.......taken.

Teaser Rate
04-18-2011, 02:58 PM
All those bad consequences the OP mentioned are outweighed by the fact that the U.S. won't be able to borrow any money for the next 50 years if there is a default. The debt ceiling should not be raised.

Why do you say that as if it was a good thing?

low preference guy
04-18-2011, 03:01 PM
Why do you say that as if it was a good thing?

What kind of stupid question is that? It IS a good thing, because the government receives less money and has less power to abuse people's rights. 90% of what the government does is unconstitutional and very destructive. It'll be nice if they have less means to oppress the people.

AuH20
04-18-2011, 03:06 PM
Pull the plug on the matrix. That's what I say.

LibertyEagle
04-18-2011, 03:44 PM
Thanks.

It's just something I battle with Day to day. Sometimes I feel like "Yes, lets cap this debt and get our house in order!" then other days Im like "Lets have bailouts everyday, so this thing can go ahead and collapse, so we can get back to a small govt"

The reason I say that, because has a govt ever shrunk? In history? Has a government every imposed on itself to have less power and be smaller? I dont think so, If so show me one. It will have to be forced and the only thing that would do that is a total collapse.

I understand your point, but I think you have things backwards. The problem is that what is happening to the U.S. is all by design. The goal has been world government and they have been working towards it for many, many years. If we have a total collapse, a global currency will be introduced and the American people will RUN towards it. Just like they embraced The New Deal. Keep in mind what scared people do. They do not think about their liberty; they do not think about next year; they think only of surviving today. I do not believe we will be able to talk them out of it, if a collapse happens. There are not enough of us in positions where we have a podium (ie. where people might listen to us). I would agree with you if this wasn't all planned, because we could rebuild. Hopefully with the principles Americans once held dear, remembered by all. But, that just isn't reality.

The only chance we have, in my opinion, is to stop increasing the debt ceiling and drastically cut the spending. Getting liberty-minded folks, with good foundational principles, in office around the country, would be extremely helpful here.

AGRP
04-18-2011, 03:49 PM
They stole TRILLIONS of our $$$ without our consent and we're debating if they should or should not raise the debt ceiling? They recklessly go to war with every nation they dont agree with without congressional approval and we think we have a say about the debt ceiling?

LOL

wizardwatson
04-18-2011, 03:51 PM
Pull the plug on the matrix. That's what I say.

The roof...the roof...the roof is on fire.

We don't need no water let the motherfucker burn...burn motherfucker...burn.

jmdrake
04-18-2011, 03:52 PM
I don't know if we're all talking about exactly the same thing here, but I found that Peter Schiff clip I was talking about:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DteBlI2eihA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DteBlI2eihA

My respect for Peter Schiff just went down a notch. We don't "need" a recession. We do need a correction to the toxic assets, that's for sure. But there are not "too many people" working in the health sector or education or anything else he mentioned. Well...maybe there are too many people working in the finance sector. So is he retiring?

jmdrake
04-18-2011, 03:53 PM
The sooner we can't borrow any more money, the sooner we default.
The sooner we default, the sooner cheap shit from Asia stops getting subsidized with our grandchildrens' earnings.
The sooner we can't get cheap shit from Asia, the sooner we're going to have to start making cheap shit in the US.

The only problem with this scenario is that the federal govt will use its brand new police state to crack down on free marketers trying to produce cheap goods domestically.
Fortunately, we have learned recently that in that situation, we are exactly one self-immolated fruit seller away from doing something about the police state.

Yeah. The other problem with that scenario is that we've sold off most of our manufacturing capacity, so we'll have to build it up for scratch. And most Americans no longer know how to make anything.

low preference guy
04-18-2011, 03:54 PM
My respect for Peter Schiff just went down a notch. We don't "need" a recession. We do need a correction to the toxic assets, that's for sure. But there are not "too many people" working in the health sector or education or anything else he mentioned.

Of course there are too many people working in education. What the heck do you think are the consequences of subsidies for education?


Well...maybe there are too many people working in the finance sector. So is he retiring?

Schiff is the first to say that there are too many people in finance. But what you're asking Schiff to do is to ignore the market. Schiff doesn't ask people in finance or in education to voluntarily retire. He wants the government to remove the barriers to entry and regulations to let the market determine who stays and who retires.

wizardwatson
04-18-2011, 03:57 PM
My respect for Peter Schiff just went down a notch. We don't "need" a recession. We do need a correction to the toxic assets, that's for sure. But there are not "too many people" working in the health sector or education or anything else he mentioned. Well...maybe there are too many people working in the finance sector. So is he retiring?

I checked a while back and I think banks are second most profitable business after big pharma.

Think about it, there are as many banks and credit unions as there are restaurants or churches. Maybe more churches not sure. But a lot of banks. And that too, all new and shiny with lots of windows and glass and hot tellers.

Anyway, I agree that financial services is probably #1 over-saturated with employees.

jmdrake
04-18-2011, 04:01 PM
Of course there are too many people working in education. What the heck do you think are the consequences of subsidies for education?

In part people deciding to spend money that they would have spent on their child's education on other junk. My kids education isn't subsidized. And we aren't rich. Food is subsidized. That doesn't mean there are too many farmers.




Schiff is the first to say that there are too many people in finance. But what you're asking Schiff to do is to ignore the market. Schiff doesn't ask people in finance or in education to voluntarily retire. He wants the government to remove the barriers to entry and regulations to let the market determine who stays and who retires.

I'm not asking Schiff to ignore jack. I'm saying a blanket statement like "there are too many people in X" is just silly. That's not free market. That's the old "zero sum game" fiasco disguised as free market. Get the government out of giving subsidies? Sure. But that doesn't mean there is too much of X,Y or Z. It means people have to think of different ways to fund X, Y or Z.

low preference guy
04-18-2011, 04:01 PM
We don't "need" a recession.

A recession is a transition period in which resources of the economy are moved so that they can be used more productively. It's interesting to know that you want the government to keep bailing out the losers so that status quo can continue, because that's the only thing that prevents the necessary recession.

low preference guy
04-18-2011, 04:03 PM
I'm saying a blanket statement like "there are too many people in X" is just silly.

It's very silly, almost idiotic, to believe that the existence of young people getting in debt for $200,000 to get a sociology degree doesn't prove that there are too many people working in education.

South Park Fan
04-18-2011, 04:06 PM
So when the State blackmails us by threatening economic ruin, we are supposed to just take it?

jmdrake
04-18-2011, 04:07 PM
A recession is a transition period in which resources of the economy are moved so that they can be used more productively. It's interesting to know that you want the government to keep bailing out the losers so that status quo can continue, because that's the only thing that prevents the necessary recession.

Don't lie. I never said jack about wanting the government to keep bailing out losers. Nor did I say that a recession was avoidable. (Though if we could give the Pentagon and the financial sector that Peter Schiff works in to give back the trillions stolen that would help). I'm saying that his assertion that there are "too many" teachers or "too many" doctors etc. is bogus. Maybe you believe that the only way people will pay for healthcare and education is if the money is stolen from them at the barrel of a gun in the name of taxes. I simply happen to disagree. I believe people can and will pay for things in the private sector, and enough of us with some extra cash can and will voluntarily make up the difference through private charitable donations. I have faith in the American people to thrive without government interference. Perhaps you and Schiff do not.

low preference guy
04-18-2011, 04:09 PM
Food is subsidized. That doesn't mean there are too many farmers.

Food is different from education in that it is essential for every human being. People immediately spend money on food as they earn money, because it is a first necessity. Higher education is not so and government subsidies in education alter the demand for education much more significantly than they alter the demand of food. There are way too many studying and working in universities today compared to what would be in a free market.

jmdrake
04-18-2011, 04:09 PM
It's very silly, almost idiotic, to believe that the existence of young people getting in debt for $200,000 to get a sociology degree doesn't prove that there are too many people working in education.

It's funny, but when I graduated with a masters in computer science I had ZERO debt. Just because somebody chooses to go to an exclusive private school and pay for their education through loans instead of working their way through doesn't mean they have to. It's silly, almost idiotic, to believe your anecdote actually means anything.

low preference guy
04-18-2011, 04:12 PM
I have faith in the American people to thrive without government interference. Perhaps you and Schiff do not.

No. Many people don't need a higher education or graduate degrees (also subsidized) to thrive. The loans encourage a lot of people who would be better off getting a job to waste four years of their lives drinking beers and partying with subsidized money that could've been put to a better use.

LibertyEagle
04-18-2011, 04:13 PM
Well, jmdrake, I don't really know about the number of teachers. Do you? Would we have too many if we stopped educating half of Mexico, for free, in our country?

jmdrake
04-18-2011, 04:17 PM
Food is different from education in that it is essential for every human being. People immediately spend money on food as they earn money, because it is a first necessity. Higher education is not so and government subsidies in education alter the demand for education much more significantly than they alter the demand of food. There are way too many studying and working in universities compared today compared to what would be in a free market.

1) The vast majority of people working in education work in K-12. So if your going to have major cuts in the number of people working in that industry, you have to go there.

2) The existence of the H1B Visa program undercuts your argument. If we have to "import" workers with certain skills, there can't be too many of them. Now maybe the way this is all funded needs to change. Maybe more companies need to send people to get degrees after hiring them.

3) Your education level affects your ability to buy everything including food. We have almost no manufacturing base. So these unskilled kids who graduate HS barely literate and without any marketable skills will simply be that much worse off. Education doesn't have to continue to be the same model that it is now, but as many teachers are needed (if not more) for people to transition to something where they can actually make a productive living. If you think life will magically be "fixed" because the middle class become poor and the poor become desperately poor then you are kidding yourself.

jmdrake
04-18-2011, 04:17 PM
No. Many people don't need a higher education or graduate degrees (also subsidized) to thrive. The loans encourage a lot of people who would be better off getting a job to waste four years of their lives drinking beers and partying with subsidized money that could've been put to a better use.

Maybe that's what you did in college. That's not what I did.

low preference guy
04-18-2011, 04:18 PM
2) The existence of the H1B Visa program undercuts your argument. If we have to "import" workers with certain skills, there can't be too many of them. Now maybe the way this is all funded needs to change. Maybe more companies need to send people to get degrees after hiring them.


It doesn't undercut the argument. It just shows that government funding of education encourages the production of more worthless degrees than would be produced in a free market.

jmdrake
04-18-2011, 04:20 PM
Well, jmdrake, I don't really know about the number of teachers. Do you? Would we have too many if we stopped educating half of Mexico, for free, in our country?

That's a good question. I don't know. I think we should charge Mexico for that somehow. Maybe we could start by slashing their foreign aid?

anaconda
04-18-2011, 04:21 PM
I actually think something similar to this scenario could happen the first year or two after RP gets elected and makes massive cuts to the size of government. At first it would look bad, but by the time he's up for reelection in 2016 things will be back and going so well that it will be extremely obvious he did the right thing.

If it happened before the election or with someone else as Pres, then i agree that everyone will think the solution is more government and that capitalism failed.

You're a Peter Schiff fan? I think he says something similar about the "need for a major recession" to get rid of malinvestment and whatnot, doesn't he?

I believe Congress would rebel against President Paul and override his budget vetoes. He would have to resort to other tactics.

LibertyEagle
04-18-2011, 04:22 PM
3) Your education level affects your ability to buy everything including food. We have almost no manufacturing base. So these unskilled kids who graduate HS barely literate and without any marketable skills will simply be that much worse off. Education doesn't have to continue to be the same model that it is now, but as many teachers are needed (if not more) for people to transition to something where they can actually make a productive living. If you think life will magically be "fixed" because the middle class become poor and the poor become desperately poor then you are kidding yourself.

I'm sorry, but NO. The problem is the fact that children are graduating from High School, illiterate. We do not need more teachers like that!! College today is not much more than a glorified High School.

We do not need MORE teachers; nor do we need to send these illiterate kids to college so that they can learn what they should have learned in Grade School.

No, we need to have GOOD teachers. The rest need to be kicked to the curb.

jmdrake
04-18-2011, 04:24 PM
It doesn't undercut the argument. It just shows that government funding of education encourages the production of more worthless degrees than would be produced in a free market.

You said there were too many people in education. If there are not enough computer science students and too many sociology students so that sociology students shift to computer science, that undercuts the argument that there are too many. In other words if there are X computer science students and Y sociology students and we really need X + A computer science students and Y - B sociology students, if A > B then the excess sociology students can be absorbed by the computer science department, provided they can handle the work.

jmdrake
04-18-2011, 04:28 PM
I'm sorry, but NO. The problem is the fact that children are graduating from High School, illiterate. We do not need more teachers like that!! College today is not much more than a glorified High School.

We do not need MORE teachers; nor do we need to send these illiterate kids to college so that they can learn what they should have learned in Grade School.

No, we need to have GOOD teachers. The rest need to be kicked to the curb.

You missed part of what I was saying. One problem is that (some) students are graduating barely literate. These kids are NOT going to college. They are ending up on welfare, working odd jobs, or going to trade schools. I agree that we need better K-12 teachers. That said, if more of these kids graduate with a good education but without any marketable skills then you still have a massive unemployment problem unless they learn post HS. Now you could teach them something marketable in HS like welding or auto mechanics or computer repair, but that requires hiring more K-12 teachers with those skills. That or moving to a more apprenticeship type system. I actually applaud such a system. But someone who takes on an apprentice is still a teacher, even if he isn't recognized as such.

By the way, I noticed Peter Schiff didn't say we have too many soldiers or police.

South Park Fan
04-18-2011, 04:37 PM
It's funny, but when I graduated with a masters in computer science I had ZERO debt. Just because somebody chooses to go to an exclusive private school and pay for their education through loans instead of working their way through doesn't mean they have to. It's silly, almost idiotic, to believe your anecdote actually means anything.

The key to understanding economic phenomena is to understand events at the marginal level. While disciplines such as computer science, engineering, medicine, etc. are not going to be affected nearly as much due to bottlenecking effects and relatively high starting salaries, those who major in subjects like sociology, art history, liberal arts, etc. are more victimized by the education bubble since there's few barriers to entry in those subjects and little demand for such majors on the outside world. People who would major in such disciplines would be better off getting fours years of experience in the working world than getting a subsidized degree in a subject that won't help them in the working world.

South Park Fan
04-18-2011, 04:41 PM
You said there were too many people in education. If there are not enough computer science students and too many sociology students so that sociology students shift to computer science, that undercuts the argument that there are too many. In other words if there are X computer science students and Y sociology students and we really need X + A computer science students and Y - B sociology students, if A > B then the excess sociology students can be absorbed by the computer science department, provided they can handle the work.

That would work if people were of equal abilities. You probably know this better than me, but I would think that computer science would require more intelligence than sociology, in which case switching to computer science would not be a viable option for most.

Nic
04-18-2011, 04:44 PM
I get what the OP is saying and agree fully. If we rip the band-aid off quickly, fiscal conservatives get blamed and there goes our chances of spreading the idea of liberty into something that sticks with mainstream America. The gov't will swoop in and "rescue" everybody with the 1 world currency and all will be "well" again for another few decades while the police state is enhanced and the middle class becomes more and more poor.

If we let the ship sink on it's own while pounding the pavement, educating the public, and sounding the alarms, when the crisis hits we can be standing on the street corners saying, "I told you so!" and that gives us enhanced credibility and a better chance at rallying the public around the idea that liberty is the solution to our problems.

This is what tears me on the idea of Ron/Rand being elected in 2012. IF we make it to 2012 before the crisis hits, how many of you really think we'll make it to 2016 WITHOUT the collapse of the dollar? It's too late to turn the ship around, the dollar collapse is inevitable. Whoever is in office when it happens is going to get blamed regardless of where the blame truly lies. We need to be on the right side of public opinion when this happens.

low preference guy
04-18-2011, 06:50 PM
I get what the OP is saying and agree fully. If we rip the band-aid off quickly, fiscal conservatives get blamed

Ok, so this is what we lose: we get blamed.

What do we gain? The U.S. government is not going to be able to borrow any money for the next 50 years.

I think the positives outweigh the negatives.

fisharmor
04-18-2011, 09:04 PM
Yeah. The other problem with that scenario is that we've sold off most of our manufacturing capacity, so we'll have to build it up for scratch. And most Americans no longer know how to make anything.

I beg to differ.
I'm a computer programmer by day, and at night I figure out how to make things.
I don't have as many tools in my shop as I'd like, because when cool old lathes and mills from the 1930s show up for sale, I have to match the price that every other garage hobbyist is willing to pay. There are a lot of them.
They do stuff like cast brass in their backyards for fun.
Personally, I'm learning about thermoforming plastic this week.
Check out instructables.com sometime, and see the kind of crazy things people figure out.
$50 gets you a series from Lindsay Books by a guy named Dave Gingery, on how to make an entire machine shop out of busted old crap.

America is still America. She has shackles on her wrists and ankles, and she's been blackjacked repeatedly for the last 100 years, and she's getting a little nervous at the way the powers-that-be are pulling down their pants and leering at her... but she still has it where it counts.
If we needed to manufacture things again, it would happen inside of 5 years. There are simply too many people eking out an existence in a cube farm who would be perfectly happy to actually have an option of spending 8 hours a day actually doing something.

Teaser Rate
04-18-2011, 09:56 PM
What kind of stupid question is that? It IS a good thing, because the government receives less money and has less power to abuse people's rights. 90% of what the government does is unconstitutional and very destructive. It'll be nice if they have less means to oppress the people.

In what fantasy world is making the government default going to create a more libertarian society? Do you think that Obama is going a speech about the elegance of free markets, disband most federal agencies and propose a restoration of the gold standard if that happens? Of course not, what would happen is a quest to seek emergency powers and he'll get it from an opportunistic congress with the support of a frightened population.

A government default would mean another Patriot Act or TARP, not another 1776.


I know my ideas can sound a little strange, but hear me out on this, I think it would be more beneficial to work towards re-tooling the current government in an sustainable way while everyone is calm and rational rather than blow it up and hope that whatever emerges from its ruins through panic and chaos will be more friendly towards liberty.

AuH20
04-18-2011, 09:58 PM
In what fantasy world is making the government default going to create a more libertarian society? Do you think that Obama is going a speech about the elegance of free markets, disband most federal agencies and propose a restoration of the gold standard if that happens? Of course not, what would happen is a quest to seek emergency powers and he'll get it from an opportunistic congress with the support of a frightened population.

A government default would mean another Patriot Act or TARP, not another 1776.


I know my ideas can sound a little strange, but hear me out on this, I think it would be more beneficial to work towards re-tooling the current government in an sustainable way while everyone is calm and rational rather than blow it up and hope that whatever emerges from its ruins through panic and chaos will be more friendly towards liberty.

I prefer system shock as opposed to a slow crawl to tyranny. Our odds are better with an immediate crackdown.

low preference guy
04-18-2011, 10:00 PM
In what fantasy world is making the government default going to create a more libertarian society?

If the government has less money, it'll make it more difficult to carry out its objectives. Now that the Tea Party has emerged, libertarian ideas are on the rise, and defaulting will only make people more skeptical of the Federal Government and encourage small government movements. I don't say it will create a libertarian society instantaneously. I just recognize the absolutely obvious fact that if the government can't borrow any money for the next 50 years, that will be extremely positive.

low preference guy
04-18-2011, 10:01 PM
A government default would mean another Patriot Act or TARP, not another 1776.

You sound like Henry Paulson: If you don't give me $700 billion now with no strings attached, the sky will fall!

Even if you were right and it would result in another Patriot Act (which won't happen, but let's just assume), I would take that because it will still destroy the borrowing capability of the U.S. government. The positives outweigh the negatives.

Teaser Rate
04-18-2011, 10:03 PM
I prefer system shock as opposed to a slow crawl to tyranny. Our odds are better with an immediate crackdown.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather continue to live my life while working towards beneficial, albeit slow changes rather than put myself and the rest of the country through years of hell on the off chance that we'll end up with something better in the end.

Teaser Rate
04-18-2011, 10:09 PM
If the government has less money, it'll make it more difficult to carry out its objectives. Now that the Tea Party has emerged, libertarian ideas are on the rise, and defaulting will only make people more skeptical of the Federal Government and encourage small government movements. I don't say it will create a libertarian society instantaneously. I just recognize the absolutely obvious fact that if the government can't borrow any money for the next 50 years, that will be extremely positive.


You sound like Henry Paulson: If you don't give me $700 billion now with no strings attached, the sky will fall!

Even if you were right and it would result in another Patriot Act (which won't happen, but let's just assume), I would take that because it will still destroy the borrowing capability of the U.S. government. The positives outweigh the negatives.

The government can raise revenues by other means than selling bonds on the open market, like higher taxes, fees, wealth confiscation, etc. The worse the economy gets due to the default, the more people will be dependent on the government and the more they'll accept drastic measures to make sure they get their government checks.

Also, don't forget that Paulson got exactly what he wanted with that tactic. Principles can't argue with results.

AuH20
04-18-2011, 10:11 PM
I don't know about you, but I'd rather continue to live my life while working towards beneficial, albeit slow changes rather than put myself and the rest of the country through years of hell on the off chance that we'll end up with something better in the end.

But will they really leave you alone? Let's be honest. There is no sanctuary. Secondly, they need us (the public) to support their production pyramid.

low preference guy
04-18-2011, 10:12 PM
The government can raise revenues by other means than selling bonds on the open market, like higher taxes, fees, wealth confiscation, etc. The worse the economy gets due to the default, the more people will be dependent on the government and the more they'll accept drastic measures to make sure they get their government checks.

The government can already take money through all those means. If it cannot borrow, it has one fewer means than it has now.

Plus, the other means are much more difficult to use than borrowing. That's why they borrow. So they won't replace it the lost revenue through other means. It won't be even close.

low preference guy
04-18-2011, 10:12 PM
Also, don't forget that Paulson got exactly what he wanted with that tactic. Principles can't argue with results.

Nice to see you admit that like Paulson, you're just scaremongering to convince people to do something that doesn't favor them.

Teaser Rate
04-18-2011, 10:32 PM
The government can already take money through all those means. If it cannot borrow, it has one fewer means than it has now.

Plus, the other means are much more difficult to use than borrowing. That's why they borrow. So they won't replace it the lost revenue through other means. It won't be even close.

This assumes that a default can happen in a vacuum. The government not being able to meet its obligations will have long term consequences on the social and financial institutions of the country, and none of those changes will be towards more liberty.

It makes a lot more sense for conservatives to use the debt ceiling vote as leverage to force deep cuts to eventually balance the budget rather than let the government go bust and suffer the negative consequences.


But will they really live you alone? Let's be honest. There is no sanctuary. Secondly, they need us (the public) to support their production pyramid.

Aside from the taxes and occasional burdensome regulations, I'd say this is still a free country by almost any standard.

low preference guy
04-18-2011, 10:34 PM
This assumes that a default can happen in a vacuum. The government not being able to meet its obligations will have long term consequences on the social and financial institutions of the country, and none of those changes will be towards more liberty.

That's an arbitrary claim with zero evidence.

Moreover, it is easy to be proven false. I just need to show you one change that is positive for liberty: The government can't borrow money. Done.

low preference guy
04-18-2011, 10:35 PM
I'd say this is still a free country by almost any standard.

Nah. Just look at people in prison per capita and compare it to other countries. Having so many people with close to no liberty whatsoever is a pretty big deal.

Teaser Rate
04-18-2011, 10:37 PM
That's an arbitrary claim with zero evidence.

Moreover, it is easy to be proven false. I just need to show you one change that is positive for liberty: The government can't borrow money. Done.

But the government will be able to collect revenues through other means due to public's fear of the financial chaos caused by the default.

But at this point, I think we're just arguing in a circle, so let's just leave it at that.

low preference guy
04-18-2011, 10:40 PM
But the government will be able to collect revenues through other means due to public's fear of the financial chaos caused by the default.

But at this point, I think we're just arguing in a circle, so let's just leave it at that.

You're arguing in circles because you ignored my point.


The other means are much more difficult to use than borrowing. That's why they borrow. So they won't replace the lost revenue through other means. It won't be even close.

In the long term, there is absolutely ZERO chance that the government will collect through other means an additional amount that is even close to what it can't collect through borrowing. Here we are talking about a long term event. The government will have a reduced a limited ability to borrow for a really long time.

Teaser Rate
04-18-2011, 10:46 PM
Nah. Just look at people in prison per capita and compare it to other countries. Having so many people with close to no liberty whatsoever is a pretty big deal.

According to The state of the world liberty project (http://www.stateofworldliberty.org/report/rankings.html), we're 8th in the world. I'd say that can be considered free.


You're arguing in circles because you ignored my point.



In the long term, there is absolutely ZERO chance that the government will collect through other means an additional amount that is even close to what it can't collect through borrowing. Here we are talking about a long term event. The government will have a reduced a limited ability to borrow for a really long time.

Again, this assumes that our social institutions will remain unchanged through the collapse. For all we know, the insuring financial crisis could push the country into full-blown socialism.

low preference guy
04-18-2011, 10:51 PM
Again, this assumes that our social institutions will remain unchanged through the collapse. For all we know, the insuring financial crisis could push the country into full-blown socialism.

Zero chances of that happening. People will be willing to surrender to a state MORE when it gives them LESS? It is difficult to control such a country as big as the United States, especially when you're broke. If things get chaotic, it's much more likely that some states secede and we go back to something similar to having the Articles of Confederation than "push[ing] the country into full-blown socialism", which honestly is a laughable idea.

Indy Vidual
04-18-2011, 10:51 PM
Nah. Just look at people in prison per capita and compare it to other countries. Having so many people with close to no liberty whatsoever is a pretty big deal.

+1984


...Yes, we've been zombified and domesticated...

zombified and domesticated?
Meow...
http://thelemonspank.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/zombie-cat.jpg?w=476&h=629

AuH20
04-18-2011, 10:55 PM
Zero chances of that happening. People will be willing to surrender to a state MORE when it gives them LESS? It is difficult to control such a country as big as the United States, especially when you're broke. If things get chaotic, it's much more likely that some states secede and we go back to something similar to having the Articles of Confederation than "push the country into full-blown socialism", which honestly is a laughable idea.

It's very similar to how a feudal kingdom is maintained. The king keeps his nobles in check with tracts of bountiful land and access to the royal treasury if need be. However, once that capacity is nullified and diminished, that control fades. States will have less motivation to comply with the federal government's wishes, if they stop receiving grants and the like.

low preference guy
04-18-2011, 10:58 PM
According to The state of the world liberty project (http://www.stateofworldliberty.org/report/rankings.html), we're 8th in the world. I'd say that can be considered free.


I wonder if that is accurate. From the source of a wikipedia article:


The United States has the highest prison population
rate in the world, 756 per 100,000 of the national
population, followed by Russia (629), Rwanda (604),
St Kitts & Nevis (588), Cuba (c.531), U.S. Virgin Is.
(512), British Virgin Is. (488), Palau (478), Belarus (468),
Belize (455), Bahamas (422), Georgia (415), American
Samoa (410), Grenada (408) and Anguilla (401)

Link (http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/downloads/wppl-8th_41.pdf)

Link to wikipedia article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#cite_note-RoyWalmsley-1)

Teaser Rate
04-18-2011, 11:01 PM
Zero chances of that happening. People will be willing to surrender to a state MORE when it gives them LESS? It is difficult to control such a country as big as the United States, especially when you're broke. If things get chaotic, it's much more likely that some states secede and we go back to something similar to having the Articles of Confederation than "push[ing] the country into full-blown socialism", which honestly is a laughable idea.

Hard times do tend to bring on tyrannical regimes, look at the rise of Hitler in post-WWI Germany for example.

low preference guy
04-18-2011, 11:04 PM
Hard times do tend to bring on tyrannical regimes, look at the rise of Hitler in post-WWI Germany for example.

Look at the Soviet Union in 1989.

jmdrake
04-19-2011, 10:32 AM
The key to understanding economic phenomena is to understand events at the marginal level. While disciplines such as computer science, engineering, medicine, etc. are not going to be affected nearly as much due to bottlenecking effects and relatively high starting salaries, those who major in subjects like sociology, art history, liberal arts, etc. are more victimized by the education bubble since there's few barriers to entry in those subjects and little demand for such majors on the outside world. People who would major in such disciplines would be better off getting fours years of experience in the working world than getting a subsidized degree in a subject that won't help them in the working world.

True. But you are talking about financial potential after graduation. That has little to do with the up front cost of the education itself. I didn't get any loans in college because a) my parents were against the idea and b) my choice of college. I initially went to a small religious private college that cost 3 times what the state institution cost. There we didn't need loans because of my on campus job and my parents paying the rest from rental income. (Ironically because of the rental income I couldn't qualify for Pell grants. I did get the "Alabama grant" which was given to every student from Alabama attending any college or university in Alabama.) After two years I transferred to a state school. Then I was able to pay my full tuition, car note and buy gas from my new part time job. Admittedly my computer science background helped because I got a tech job that beat minimum wage, but that was by a measly $2.00 per hour. Had my background been in sociology, I could have worked fast food, got a moped instead of a car, and come out about the same.

Oh, and this brings up the question of what is meant by "subsidy"? Technically my education at the state school was subsidized because I had cheap in state tuition. But that didn't cause me to be in more debt! It REDUCED the cost of my education (for me at least) and squelched even the thought of any student loan.

Further not all "subsidies" are from the tax payers or tuition. Many schools have rather large endowments. A few years ago it was pointed out that Harvard wasn't doing much to help students with its huge endowments. So Harvard started giving out more scholarships. Many such endowments are created with private money. Or look at what's recently happened at the University of Texas where they bought 1 billion in gold. I ain't mad at them. That's a smart idea. But it shows these schools aren't as poor, or as needy of government help, as people have been led to believe.


That would work if people were of equal abilities. You probably know this better than me, but I would think that computer science would require more intelligence than sociology, in which case switching to computer science would not be a viable option for most.

You have a point. I would say that computer science takes a different skill set than other disciplines, but more intelligence? Peter Schiff said there are too many people in the medical field. Let's assume that's true. I've looked at the MCAT (the test you have to take to get into medical school) and I know for a fact that I couldn't pass it right now if my life depended on it. Oh sure I took physics and chemistry years ago, but that's all faded. On the other hand, programming is like breathing to me. Even though I haven't been actively in the field for a few years, I can still pick up a new programming language like Martha Stewart can pick up a new muffin recipe. On the flipside, I know brilliant doctors who can write and publish in high impact journals, but have no clue how to do simple things like spreadsheet formulas. How much work would it be for someone like that to switch to my field or me to switch to there's? I have no idea.

I will add this though. The truly worthless degrees are already going away. I know of an HBCU (historically black college or university) that just deep sixed its African American Studies program. Why? Because there were only 2 graduates per year. On the flip side they are expanding their nursing program because there is a shortage of nurses, despite what Schiff apparently thinks. And the medical field is like food in a way. If you have a toothache you are going to find a way to pay to get it fixed. You can grow your own food, hunt and fish and dumpster dive in an emergency. But it's hard to do your own root canal and impossible to do your own appendectomy.

jmdrake
04-19-2011, 10:38 AM
I beg to differ.
I'm a computer programmer by day, and at night I figure out how to make things.
I don't have as many tools in my shop as I'd like, because when cool old lathes and mills from the 1930s show up for sale, I have to match the price that every other garage hobbyist is willing to pay. There are a lot of them.
They do stuff like cast brass in their backyards for fun.
Personally, I'm learning about thermoforming plastic this week.
Check out instructables.com sometime, and see the kind of crazy things people figure out.
$50 gets you a series from Lindsay Books by a guy named Dave Gingery, on how to make an entire machine shop out of busted old crap.

America is still America. She has shackles on her wrists and ankles, and she's been blackjacked repeatedly for the last 100 years, and she's getting a little nervous at the way the powers-that-be are pulling down their pants and leering at her... but she still has it where it counts.
If we needed to manufacture things again, it would happen inside of 5 years. There are simply too many people eking out an existence in a cube farm who would be perfectly happy to actually have an option of spending 8 hours a day actually doing something.

Thank you for your point. Of course I should reiterate that I said most Americans. You are an American that can think for himself. (Or else you wouldn't be supporting Ron Paul ;) ). If we can help more Americans break out of that "cube farm" then we can get this country back on track. That reminds me of an idea I have for a new type of charter school. My concept is the M.A.K.E. academy. (Manufacturing And Knowledge Engineering). I'd like to see a school where kids went to sites like instructables or makezine and built at least one project per week. I'd want to see kids graduate and drive off in a car or motorbike they built. I want to see them built their own websites and computer games or animations covering topics like physics and Shakespeare and anything else that might be deemed worthy of study. (That's the "knowledge engineering" part). I also want to get one of those 3D "desktop manufacturing" robots and teach kids how to use it. I'd like to see young people start their own businesses while they are still in high school and have their parents for a safety net if the business goes bankrupt. This is a long term dream (like 5 years or so) but I think it can happen.

jmdrake
04-19-2011, 10:43 AM
Hard times do tend to bring on tyrannical regimes, look at the rise of Hitler in post-WWI Germany for example.


Look at the Soviet Union in 1989.

Look at the fall of the Tsar and the rise of the Soviet Union in 1917.

georgiaboy
04-19-2011, 12:28 PM
This kind of hand wringing is why so many "conservative" legislators have no backbone and keep appropriating, spending, and taxing us forever and ever.

I understand what stories will attempt to be spun. What's the saying? oh yeah, truth is treason in the empire of lies. Because all the doomsdaying will be just that, lies.

Government can't borrow any more, so that's a bad thing? HA! I'd like to try that out for a few decades to find out.