What Republicans do

[Galen]

(06-03-2017, 08:37 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-03-2017, 12:40 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-02-2017, 10:38 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-02-2017, 05:56 PM)Odin Wrote:

(06-01-2017, 03:52 AM)Galen Wrote: As usual your knowledge of history is as faulty as your understanding of economics.  One of the biggest signs that your empire is going down is ever increasing debt and monetary debasement.  The US has been doing this since at least 1971 but some would argue since 1913.   Another good sign that your empire is going down is a never ending string of wars. 

Now for the dollar.

You will no doubt entirely miss the point as usual.

That you think precious metals are still somehow relevant to the monetary system you are both showing your ignorance AND that one-track mind of yours.

Gold is simply scarce and desirable.

This is one of the reasons it is a good medium of exchange.  Gold does have many industrial uses but not as many as silver does.  Both have been used as money for thousands of years and without legal tender laws and government force they probably will be again.

As usual the two of you completely miss the point.  Empires that are on the decline tend to have huge debt loads and they deliberately debase their currency in order to help cover the bills.  It looks like the US is going the way of every other empire and you, like most of the citizens of those prior empires, are completely clueless about what his happening around you.

A gold standard would require a hyper-deflation that would result in a depression as severe as that of the Great Depression. But gold is so expensive ($1276 per ounce) that it would be unsuitable for many transactions. Gold has been as expensive as $1889 an ounce in 2011 and as inexpensive as $252 in 2000.

You are missing the point as usual.  I was using the price of gold as a way to show that the purchasing power of currencies issued by declining empires tend to go down.  Apparently you can not grasp the possibility that you are living in such an empire.  That is what I have come to expect from Boomers, an unfailing ability to ignore the obvious.

The fact that gold prices only tend to increase in terms of dollars over the long term should be a huge clue that the dollar is intentionally being debased which is what declining empires do without fail.

[pbrower2a]

(06-03-2017, 10:08 PM)Galen Wrote:

(06-03-2017, 08:37 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-03-2017, 12:40 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-02-2017, 10:38 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-02-2017, 05:56 PM)Odin Wrote: That you think precious metals are still somehow relevant to the monetary system you are both showing your ignorance AND that one-track mind of yours.

Gold is simply scarce and desirable.

This is one of the reasons it is a good medium of exchange.  Gold does have many industrial uses but not as many as silver does.  Both have been used as money for thousands of years and without legal tender laws and government force they probably will be again.

As usual the two of you completely miss the point.  Empires that are on the decline tend to have huge debt loads and they deliberately debase their currency in order to help cover the bills.  It looks like the US is going the way of every other empire and you, like most of the citizens of those prior empires, are completely clueless about what his happening around you.

A gold standard would require a hyper-deflation that would result in a depression as severe as that of the Great Depression. But gold is so expensive ($1276 per ounce) that it would be unsuitable for many transactions. Gold has been as expensive as $1889 an ounce in 2011 and as inexpensive as $252 in 2000.

You are missing the point as usual.  I was using the price of gold as a way to show that the purchasing power of currencies issued by declining empires tend to go down.  Apparently you can not grasp the possibility that you are living in such an empire.  That is what I have come to expect from Boomers, an unfailing ability to ignore the obvious.

The fact that gold prices only tend to increase in terms of dollars over the long term should be a huge clue that the dollar is intentionally being debased which is what declining empires do without fail.

Did commodity prices increase in price as severely as the nearly 7.5% increase in the value of gold between 2000 and 2011? I didn't think so. Besides, the Roman economy was greatly different from ours in level of technological development and social realities.

If America is an 'empire in decline', then such is due to the increasing concentration of wealth and political power in fewer hands and the deterioration of democracy (as in lobbyists wielding the real power in Congress and most state legislatures. The solution will be more equality and more democracy, and not greater reliance upon some economic elites to make everything right. Yes, I prefer small business (limitations as they are) to bureaucratic behemoths with rigid ceilings for opportunity for anyone not born into the Right Family.  The demise of such an entity as Sears implies that there will be plenty of opportunities for small businesses to find niches.

[Eric the Green]

It's plausible that the decline in the purchasing power of the currency of an empire is a sign of its decline, but citing Rome is a poor example because there were many causes for and signs of its decline. I don't know what other examples he could cite. Gold is irrelevant; it's just a symbol just like any currency. Those of us on the liberal side cite "the increasing concentration of wealth and political power in fewer hands and the deterioration of democracy" as brower did. We have the facts about which policies of which Party have actually helped the most people; it's clear that, as Bill Clinton said, "our way works better."

[pbrower2a]

(06-04-2017, 08:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's plausible that the decline in the purchasing power of the currency of an empire is a sign of its decline, but citing Rome is a poor example because there were many causes for and signs of its decline. I don't know what other examples he could cite. Gold is irrelevant; it's just a symbol just like any currency. Those of us on the liberal side cite "the increasing concentration of wealth and political power in fewer hands and the deterioration of democracy" as brower did. We have the facts about which policies of which Party have actually helped the most people; it's clear that, as Bill Clinton said, "our way works better."

The debasement of the coin of the Roman Empire was a symptom, and not a cause. Governments can get away with expanding the money supply so long as the overall society is producing enough stuff that precious metals do not matter. The Romans mined much of their own silver and gold.  Precious metals can themselves lose value rapidly in the wake of their discovery (the California and South African gold rushes) or mass theft (as with the Spanish looting of the gold of the Aztec and Inca empires).

Wikipedia has a collection of explanations of the decay of the Roman Empire. One is mine (even if it has been amended some):

Quote:In contrast with the declining empire theories, historians such as Arnold J. Toynbee and James Burke argue that the Roman Empire itself was a rotten system from its inception, and that the entire Imperial era was one of steady decay of institutions founded in Republican times. In their view, the Empire could never have lasted longer than it did without radical reforms that no Emperor could implement. The Romans had no budgetary system and thus wasted whatever resources they had available. The economy of the Empire was a Raubwirtschaft or plunder economy based on looting existing resources rather than producing anything new. The Empire relied on riches from conquered territories (this source of revenue ending, of course, with the end of Roman territorial expansion) or on a pattern of tax collection that drove small-scale farmers into destitution (and onto a dole that required even more exactions upon those who could not escape taxation), or into dependency upon a landed élite exempt from taxation. With the cessation of tribute from conquered territories, the full cost of their military machine had to be borne by the citizenry.

An economy based upon slave labor precluded a middle class with buying power. The Roman Empire produced few exportable goods. Material innovation, whether through entrepreneurialism or technological advancement, all but ended long before the final dissolution of the Empire. Meanwhile, the costs of military defense and the pomp of Emperors continued. Financial needs continued to increase, but the means of meeting them steadily eroded. In the end, due to economic failure, even the armor and weaponry of soldiers became so obsolete that the enemies of the Empire had better armor and weapons as well as larger forces. The decrepit social order offered so little to its subjects that many saw the barbarian invasion as liberation from onerous obligations to the ruling class.

By the late 5th century the barbarian conqueror Odoacer had no use for the formality of an Empire upon deposing Romulus Augustus and chose neither to assume the title of Emperor himself nor to select a puppet, although legally he kept the lands as a commander of the Eastern Empire and maintained the Roman institutions such as the consulship. The formal end of the Roman Empire on the West in AD 476 thus corresponds with the time in which the Empire and the title Emperor no longer had value.

In essence, needs surpass means and the system demands far more than it can offer, the usual signals of final collapse. That is how Byzantine Empire, the Confederacy, the Romanov dynasty in Russia, and Nazi Germany came to their ends -- and how the United States of America will come to an end, but we are obviously far away from the level of decrepitude even of the latter years of the Roman Republic.


Here is the whole article.

I had also suggested the poor educational system, one unable to maintain the Roman system of command as the Latin language deteriorated enough to create confusion between word forms. Such was not a problem in areas in which the Greek, Aramaic, or Coptic languages prevailed. The case system of classical Latin decayed as certain vowels became  confused; the verbal conjugations became a mess as the Latin sounds of b and v  (which were like English b and w in the time of Julius Caesar) both merged as a sound like English v , which allowed the confusion of past and future tenses. Wikipedia editors rejected that one for lack of evidence.  

This ought to make Galen happy:

Quote:Historian Michael Rostovtzeff and economist Ludwig von Mises both argued that unsound economic policies played a key role in the impoverishment and decay of the Roman Empire. According to them, by the 2nd century AD, the Roman Empire had developed a complex market economy in which trade was relatively free. Tariffs were low and laws controlling the prices of foodstuffs and other commodities had little impact because they did not fix the prices significantly below their market levels. After the 3rd century, however, debasement of the currency (i.e., the minting of coins with diminishing content of gold, silver, and bronze) led to inflation. The price control laws then resulted in prices that were significantly below their free-market equilibrium levels. It should, however, be noted that Constantine initiated a successful reform of the currency which was completed before the barbarian invasions of the 4th century, and that thereafter the currency remained sound everywhere that remained within the empire until at least the 11th century - at any rate for gold coins.

According to Rostovtzeff and Mises, artificially low prices led to the scarcity of foodstuffs, particularly in cities, whose inhabitants depended on trade to obtain them. Despite laws passed to prevent migration from the cities to the countryside, urban areas gradually became depopulated and many Roman citizens abandoned their specialized trades to practice subsistence agriculture. This, coupled with increasingly oppressive and arbitrary taxation, led to a severe net decrease in trade, technical innovation, and the overall wealth of the Empire.[9]

Bruce Bartlett traces the beginning of debasement to the reign of Nero. He claims that the emperors increasingly relied on the army as the sole source of their power, and therefore their economic policy was driven more and more by a desire to increase military funding in order to buy the army's loyalty. By the 3rd century, according to Bartlett, the monetary economy had collapsed. But the imperial government was now in a position where it had to satisfy the demands of the army at all costs. Failure to do so would result in the army forcibly deposing the emperor and installing a new one. Therefore, being unable to increase monetary taxes, the Roman Empire had to resort to direct requisitioning of physical goods anywhere it could find them - for example taking food and cattle from farmers. The result, in Bartlett's view, was social chaos, and this led to different responses from the authorities and from the common people. The authorities tried to restore order by requiring free people (i.e. non-slaves) to remain in the same occupation or even at the same place of employment. Eventually, this practice was extended to force children to follow the same occupation as their parents. So, for instance, farmers were tied to the land, and the sons of soldiers had to become soldiers themselves. Many common people reacted by moving to the countryside, sometimes joining the estates of the wealthy, and in general trying to be self-sufficient and interact as little as possible with the imperial authorities. Thus, according to Bartlett, Roman society began to dissolve into a number of separate estates that operated as closed systems, provided for all their own needs and did not engage in trade at all. These were the beginnings of feudalism.[10]

But note that debasement of the currency was a symptom of a failing economy and a failing political system.

[Eric the Green]

Interesting to trace the decline of Rome to Nero, since in fact Trump may BE Nero



Nero, Nero, and Trump
Donald Trump’s inauguration is tomorrow, and there is a persistent question that has been popping up around here the past few weeks. “Would you rather live in the rise of an empire or the fall of an empire?” It’s a fundamental question about personal preferences and ideals. Would you rather live at a time when your deeds and thinking might matter, a time where your actions might shape the very fabric of your world? OR would you rather live at the height of luxury, enjoying the fruits of all the laborers that have come before you? Your civilization might be on the decline, but at least you will be personally comfortable… well unless you’re living at the very end of the decline than things might get a little, “barbarian-y.”

When Rome Burns
We would be lying if we pretended this question was not related to the upcoming inauguration of Donald Trump. However, we are also not implying that Trump himself is solely responsible for the decline of what was once called the American Century. There have been indications all along that America’s place as the world’s last superpower has been coming to an end. The election of Trump is just a prominent signpost on that road. We also don’t want to indicate that we think the United States will be any less powerful militarily, politically, or otherwise in the world, but we need to acknowledge that we’ve lost a step or two in our old age.

After all, Nero fiddled while Rome burned, or so the story goes -the fiddle would actually not be invented for another 1000 years. Yet, Nero stand as a good example of Trump. The Roman Emperor was the last of the Julian-Claudian line, last blood Emperor of Augustus. He was very popular among the common people and he was a noted land developer… We’re talking yuuuge gymnasiums and theaters. He was also a performer and grew up in the lap of luxury. His reign was fraught with scandal and frivolity. And eventually Rome and the Senate turned on him, declared him a public enemy, and impeached him… from life. Now, we are not saying anything like that is going to happen again, but the parallels are worth thinking about. Nero ruled during a very troubled and polarized time in Rome, and that rule did not end well. However, Nero was not the end of the Empire. In fact, Rome lasted another 400 years, but Nero certainly showed the cracks in the system.

We have to wonder if that is what Trump’s inauguration is doing, showing us the cracks in our system. He will not be our end, but he certainly is an indication that things are changing. The United States has enjoyed nearly a century of dominance on the global stage, but the election of Trump and his isolationist policies show that we may be heading toward a world where America does not stand up as a global leader, not on terrorism, not against Russia, not on human rights, and certainly not on climate change. Maybe in 2000 years people will remember how Trump fiddled as the world warmed, but this editorial is not on Trump so much as is it on America and how we deal with these tests to our national identity and our most sacred ideals.

http://thenyrd.com/tag/politics/

[pbrower2a]

If I am not the Emperor and not part of his coterie, then the decline is distressing*. Seeing things decay because nobody invests the effort and slight cost in maintenance grates on me. The hardships get harder -- and what do we get in return for the hardships? I as a farmer face ruinous taxes. I as a tradesman find that the best-paid work for me is indulging the architectural tastes of the elites. I as a teacher find that I am compelled to teach kids that a dissolute tyrant is a god. I as an owner of a small business find that my taxes keep rising and my revenue shrinks.

The Founding Fathers of America admired the Roman Republic and its heroes, like Cincinnatus, and not the dissolute Emperors. As Christians they could not stomach the idea of religious pariahs being cast into an enclosure with bears or big cats. Many knew their antiquity.

*But as an Insider within such a sick order, maybe I would be blinded to the nastiness outside the Court -- the wine is excellent, the ice cream (the Romans actually had that!) is incredibly tasty, the food is rich and tasty... and getting a massage from a nubile young slave girl (and the usual indulgences associated with some massage parlors of our time). It's "Toga party" every day... never mind that people outside the Court are hungry, exhausted, and ill-clad...

The people who would make genuine change in the order of a dying Empire could never get a chance to effect change. The System wastes them, kills them, or co-opts them.

[Eric the Green]

Trump - Nero

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-06-2017, 02:57 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trump - Nero

One has to admire Nero's curlier hair.  Other than that, not much to admire there.

[pbrower2a]

(06-03-2017, 11:42 PM)Note the correction: Wrote:

(06-03-2017, 10:08 PM)Galen Wrote:

(06-03-2017, 08:37 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-03-2017, 12:40 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-02-2017, 10:38 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Gold is simply scarce and desirable.

This is one of the reasons it is a good medium of exchange.  Gold does have many industrial uses but not as many as silver does.  Both have been used as money for thousands of years and without legal tender laws and government force they probably will be again.

As usual the two of you completely miss the point.  Empires that are on the decline tend to have huge debt loads and they deliberately debase their currency in order to help cover the bills.  It looks like the US is going the way of every other empire and you, like most of the citizens of those prior empires, are completely clueless about what his happening around you.

A gold standard would require a hyper-deflation that would result in a depression as severe as that of the Great Depression. But gold is so expensive ($1276 per ounce) that it would be unsuitable for many transactions. Gold has been as expensive as $1889 an ounce in 2011 and as inexpensive as $252 in 2000.

You are missing the point as usual.  I was using the price of gold as a way to show that the purchasing power of currencies issued by declining empires tend to go down.  Apparently you can not grasp the possibility that you are living in such an empire.  That is what I have come to expect from Boomers, an unfailing ability to ignore the obvious.

The fact that gold prices only tend to increase in terms of dollars over the long term should be a huge clue that the dollar is intentionally being debased which is what declining empires do without fail.

Did commodity prices increase in price as severely as the nearly 7.5-fold increase in the value of gold between 2000 and 2011? I didn't think so. Besides, the Roman economy was greatly different from ours in level of technological development and social realities.

If America is an 'empire in decline', then such is due to the increasing concentration of wealth and political power in fewer hands and the deterioration of democracy (as in lobbyists wielding the real power in Congress and most state legislatures. The solution will be more equality and more democracy, and not greater reliance upon some economic elites to make everything right. Yes, I prefer small business (limitations as they are) to bureaucratic behemoths with rigid ceilings for opportunity for anyone not born into the Right Family.  The demise of such an entity as Sears implies that there will be plenty of opportunities for small businesses to find niches.

[Odin]

Anytime someone tries to say Democrats and Republicans are the same, show them this:

[Eric the Green]

From that one piece of evidence, it appears that the difference is that Republicans are syncophants who follow their leader, and Democrats are not. Dogs are Republicans and Cats are Democrats.

[Odin]

(06-16-2017, 03:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: From that one piece of evidence, it appears that the difference is that Republicans are syncophants who follow their leader, and Democrats are not. Dogs are Republicans and Cats are Democrats.

Like I keep saying, the typical modern Republican is a cult member who blindly rationalizes the inconsistent rhetoric and actions of the cult leader. Look at all the Trump supporters who insist all his deranged idiocy is "4D chess". Look at how they suddenly started having favorable views of Russia and Putin.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-19-2017, 11:11 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: The real conservatives of the 1T and 2T would look at today's "conservatives" and label many of them dirty rotten Commies.

The classic use of the 'red' label was 'communist.' With the fall of the Soviet Union, 'red' came to mean 'Republican'. Eric is currently trying to associate 'red' with the planet Mars and aggressive militaristic behavior.

The three aren't totally unrelated...

But have we had another political position swap? Not so long ago, it was the usual game to call Republicans fascists and Democrats communist. Has the polarity changed somewhere along the line?

Labels, their meaning, and who assigns said meaning are often not worth bothering with.

But, no, I don't think the old classic 50s and 60s conservatives would appreciate the current generation in many respects.

[Eric the Green]

[Eric the Green]

I haven't scored the horoscopes of too many Republican potential candidates, I guess because they were all used up in 2016, and Trump/Pence have it for themselves for a while. Few other candidates have been talked about. But there may be some buzz soon. So far, I have scored two of Trump's other lackeys, and one senator, since the election.

Steve Bannon 10-5
Jared Kushner 10-4
Jeff Flake 12-12

I think former filmmaker Steve Bannon can get his pulse on the moods and trends of the country. He seems too unattractive now that he's older and severely Trumpified. But he's capable of getting a following. Jared Kushner is probably, besides his wife, the most attractive syncophant in the Trump orbit. But they both have a lot of corruption in their affairs. Jeff Flake is a latter-day Goldwater, and even-more conservative. But he is principled and sensible about proper comportment and basic standards of fairness and decency, to some extent anyway. He probably is too much of a stiff and also carelessly-courageous to win a national election, according to his score. He may be defeated for re-election in 2018, if there's a strong Demo wave. He is concerned about that too.

[pbrower2a]

"Red" has gone from signifying revolution to Marxism-Leninism (flags of the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam) to totalitarianism (fascists such as the Nazis, British Union of Fascists, and some Klan groups). The Republican Party would have never associated itself with the color of Marxism until Marxism was dead as an ideology.

The tendency that X AD 84 so excoriates, National Bolshevism, loves to use the red flag.

[Eric the Green]

Tom Cotton has made some noise and buzz about running, and his score in 13-9. He is the new senator from Arkansas.

[pbrower2a]

(08-08-2017, 11:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Tom Cotton has made some noise and buzz about running, and his score in 13-9. He is the new senator from Arkansas.

If you are going to be elected from a state with six electoral votes, then you had better be Bill Clinton.

[Eric the Green]

(08-10-2017, 12:50 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-08-2017, 11:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Tom Cotton has made some noise and buzz about running, and his score in 13-9. He is the new senator from Arkansas.

If you are going to be elected from a state with six electoral votes, then you had better be Bill Clinton.

I would think that would be a good rule of thumb.

Mayor Landrieu is like Bill Clinton. His score is 15-2. A possibility, from LA (9 electoral votes).

[Eric the Green]

Who are the extreme partisans in this country? Who creates the divide?