PDA

View Full Version : Economics The lessons of history in a simple graph and quote...


Taco John
06-25-2010, 04:54 PM
The US isn't the first Republic that progressivism, militarism and their combined poor economics has threatened to destroy...

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4c24fdc77f8b9aa831170300/chart-of-the-day-roman-denarius.gif

Taco John
06-25-2010, 04:55 PM
CHART OF THE DAY: We're Not The First Empire To Have A Serious Currency Problem

Gregory White and Kamelia Angelova | Jun. 25, 2010, 3:16 PM


The U.S. government's current debt problem is perceived to be a once in a life time event by some, but governments have long been suffering from debt worries.

Take the Roman Empire which, in 55 BC, was already concerned about its public debt and the devaluing of its currency against silver. Note complaints about "public assistance" even back then.

It had a great many more years of decline before its demise, but the devaluation of the Roman currency seems to have played some part in the collapse of the period's largest empire.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-roman-denarius-2010-6?utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CS_COTD_062510#ixzz0ru8Ucuvt

orange
06-25-2010, 05:05 PM
I'll start worrying when the Visigoths sack Washington.

BucEyedPea
06-25-2010, 05:09 PM
I'll start worrying when the Visigoths sack Washington.

They're here now....their leader,Calderón, spoke in Washington recently.
The sacking just takes a modern form today. Still it's the same thing. You need to use some critical thinking to connect the dots.

Brock
06-25-2010, 05:12 PM
I'll start worrying when the Visigoths sack Washington.

They're here now....their leader,Calderón, spoke in Washington recently.
The sacking just takes a modern form today. Still it's the same thing. You need a giant bong hit to connect the dots.

banyon
06-25-2010, 07:54 PM
There is no tenet of progressivism that advocates structural deficits. Most of the debt hasn't in fact been piled up by progressives of any stripe.

Jenson71
06-25-2010, 07:57 PM
LMAO

Taco John
06-26-2010, 01:06 AM
There is no tenet of progressivism that advocates structural deficits.


This is true.

Likewise, alcoholics don't advocate for liver failure. It just comes as part of the course of being an alchoholic.

talastan
06-26-2010, 10:31 AM
There is no tenet of progressivism that advocates structural deficits. Most of the debt hasn't in fact been piled up by progressives of any stripe.

No but the Keynesian economic policy that progressivism has adopted does advocate structural deficits through increased spending and stimulus.

BucEyedPea
06-26-2010, 11:26 AM
No but the Keynesian economic policy that progressivism has adopted does advocate structural deficits through increased spending and stimulus.

And they KNOW that too! Some lefties right here on this board have opening advocated deficit spending is vitally necessary in an economic downturn to prevent a depression whereby we get a recession instead. That simply creates deficits. Just because the debt gets paid back with cheaper dollars doesn't change that.

This is nothing but a form of psychological denial for any of them to claim otherwise.

Jenson71
06-26-2010, 12:24 PM
Great quote by Cicero, Taco. What work of his is it from?

Taco John
06-26-2010, 12:47 PM
Beats me. I've never read Cicero, and doubtfully ever will. The quote makes a nice garnish, but isn't as important as the graph itself and what it represents.

Jenson71
06-26-2010, 04:35 PM
Beats me. I've never read Cicero, and doubtfully ever will. The quote makes a nice garnish, but isn't as important as the graph itself and what it represents.

Here's a lesson: if you're lazy and ignorant, history can just be made up before your eyes without you knowing better.

stevieray
06-26-2010, 05:08 PM
Beats me. I've never read Cicero, and doubtfully ever will. The quote makes a nice garnish, but isn't as important as the graph itself and what it represents.
do yourself a favor.take a peek, the Founding Fathers read him and his take on Natural law.

Taco John
06-26-2010, 07:25 PM
Here's a lesson: if you're lazy and ignorant, history can just be made up before your eyes without you knowing better.


Yes, indeed. They call it "public schooling."

Taco John
06-26-2010, 08:05 PM
do yourself a favor.take a peek, the Founding Fathers read him and his take on Natural law.

It's not that I don't want to. It's that my bucket list right now is so hopelessly long that I've stopped bothering to put anything new on it for the time being.

The quote is nice, but whether or not it's real isn't really a concern of mine. The economic data presented in this graph is what I find most compelling.

Jenson71
06-26-2010, 09:23 PM
It's not that I don't want to. It's that my bucket list right now is so hopelessly long that I've stopped bothering to put anything new on it for the time being.

The quote is nice, but whether or not it's real isn't really a concern of mine. The economic data presented in this graph is what I find most compelling.

Why? What does it tell you?

BucEyedPea
06-27-2010, 08:50 AM
Yes, indeed. They call it "public schooling."

...and post secondary education!

banyon
06-27-2010, 02:48 PM
No but the Keynesian economic policy that progressivism has adopted does advocate structural deficits through increased spending and stimulus.

No, it doesn't. It advocates smoothing the business cycle by paying down deficits in times of expansion.

banyon
06-27-2010, 03:26 PM
This is true.

Likewise, alcoholics don't advocate for liver failure. It just comes as part of the course of being an alchoholic.

I love how you ignored and cut off the second part of my post. Classic Taco.

Good thing you could cut off my comment with a quickie one-liner, huh?

teedubya
06-27-2010, 04:09 PM
Out of control ego... and feelings of superiority by the leaders in both cases.

They don't respect the plebes or their wishes... they line their pockets and make laws to continue to tax and prohibit us from doing things... and if we do them, we pay more fines and taxes... which fund more laws and taxes.

Taco John
06-27-2010, 06:00 PM
I love how you ignored and cut off the second part of my post. Classic Taco.

Good thing you could cut off my comment with a quickie one-liner, huh?



I didn't see the point of your second line once my "one liner" was out there. It pretty much cut your thought off at its knees.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2010, 07:31 PM
No, it doesn't. It advocates smoothing the business cycle by paying down deficits in times of expansion.

Wishful thinking when politicians like to spend. That's why it doesn't work and it doesn't smooth the business cycle either it creates the boom and bust. FACT!

Brainiac
06-27-2010, 08:30 PM
No, it doesn't. It advocates smoothing the business cycle by paying down deficits in times of expansion.
You're exactly right. What we've been doing ever since Bill Clinton left office is anything BUT Keynesian economics.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2010, 09:12 PM
You're exactly right. What we've been doing ever since Bill Clinton left office is anything BUT Keynesian economics.

I have to disagree with that Brainiac. It's just been a massive amount of it. What do you think caused the dotcom boom/bust? What did Bush Jr do to deal with the recession he inherited from Clinton? They both inflated. Clinton lunched with the Fed to influence them. It's a much larger degree....and fall of 2008 was to the 10 power. The idea of a stimulus is Keynesian to the core.

banyon
06-28-2010, 10:54 AM
I have to disagree with that Brainiac. It's just been a massive amount of it. What do you think caused the dotcom boom/bust?

:spock: Uh, a speculative bubble in tech prices? I mean that's a pretty wild guess, right?

No, wait, it was the Neocons and the secret Jew banking conspiracy! Do I win?[/QUOTE]

banyon
06-28-2010, 10:56 AM
I didn't see the point of your second line once my "one liner" was out there. It pretty much cut your thought off at its knees.

It ignored the practical reality of how the debt was accumulated, so yeah, you "cut it off" ... somehow. Bumper sticker forensic debating! Don't have an argument? No problem, just slap a bumper sticker on your opponent's head!

Taco John
06-28-2010, 11:17 AM
No it didn't. It didn't ignore it at all.

It's awful early in the day to be smoking weed Banyon.

banyon
06-28-2010, 11:29 AM
No it didn't. It didn't ignore it at all.

It's awful early in the day to be smoking weed Banyon.

Ok, so what post did you address the accumulation of debt historically by progressive leaders?

Is this going to go like the other thread where you pretend like you said something, and then can't identify it. You are getting awfully sloppy on this stuff lately. It's pretty much like you're just mailing in the crazy these days.

Taco John
06-28-2010, 12:41 PM
Ok, so what post did you address the accumulation of debt historically by progressive leaders?


I didn't. That's not what this thread is about. It's about the tendancy of progressive economics to devalue the currency into nothing.

I never said anything about progressive leaders or even talked about who accumulated the debt. Not that progressives don't have a lot of responsibility there, but that's not what the thread was about. The thread is about the destruction of the currency.

banyon
06-28-2010, 01:13 PM
I didn't. That's not what this thread is about. It's about the tendancy of progressive economics to devalue the currency into nothing.

If it were a tendency, wouldn't it be borne out through actual historical data? Why not? How useful is your theory if it can't explain or predict actual governmental practices with respect to budgets and debts?

I never said anything about progressive leaders or even talked about who accumulated the debt. Not that progressives don't have a lot of responsibility there, but that's not what the thread was about. The thread is about the destruction of the currency.

This is you, in the opening post, right?:

The US isn't the first Republic that progressivism, militarism and their combined poor economics has threatened to destroy...

Did you forget you included that?

Amnorix
06-28-2010, 01:27 PM
TJ: There are so many issues with your simple chart it's not even worth discussing, not least is that it hardly establishes cause/effect.

Suffice to say that endlessly debasing currency isn't good monetary policy. I don't think that is a tremendously controversial statement. But the entire world isn't on the gold standard anymore, and parts of the world (China) are doing very well, while others aren't. Linking currency to hard metals isn't exactly the sole path to anything, except making fringe Austrian school economists happy.

Dave Lane
06-28-2010, 01:31 PM
The US isn't the first Republic that progressivism, militarism and their combined poor economics has threatened to destroy...

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4c24fdc77f8b9aa831170300/chart-of-the-day-roman-denarius.gif

So based on the quote I see the same crap you all post day in and day out 150 years before Rome really reached it's zenith. Even then the conservatives were attempting to hold back the progress of the empire.

Point well taken.

Taco John
06-28-2010, 01:48 PM
If it were a tendency, wouldn't it be borne out through actual historical data?


It is. Just look at the value of the dollar since America started down the path to progressivism (not to mention militarism).


http://img815.imageshack.us/img815/4625/valueofusdollarsince191.jpg

FD
06-28-2010, 02:26 PM
It is. Just look at the value of the dollar since America started down the path to progressivism (not to mention militarism).


http://img815.imageshack.us/img815/4625/valueofusdollarsince191.jpg

People were so much richer back then! And we are so poor now! Damn you Bernanke!

Taco John
06-28-2010, 03:12 PM
It's easy to be rich when you devalue your currency, and get other nations to finance your debt. It's also easy to be poor once the piper starts calling and you've got to pay it all back with interest.

orange
06-28-2010, 03:17 PM
It is. Just look at the value of the dollar since America started down the path to progressivism (not to mention militarism).


http://img815.imageshack.us/img815/4625/valueofusdollarsince191.jpg

I have "just looked." And it's inarguably obvious- WE NEED ANOTHER NEW DEAL!!

FD
06-28-2010, 03:28 PM
It's easy to be rich when you devalue your currency, and get other nations to finance your debt. It's also easy to be poor once the piper starts calling and you've got to pay it all back with interest.

So under your theory we would expect low economic growth during periods where the debt burden is being reduced, when we are paying it back?

BucEyedPea
06-28-2010, 03:44 PM
I have "just looked." And it's inarguably obvious- WE NEED ANOTHER RAW DEAL!!

FYP Note the long term trend as you should....it's still down overall with each progressive step on the way.

BTW it was Bretton Woods in the 70's that has lead to our current problem on extreme dollar devaluation. That was Progressive too.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2010, 03:45 PM
People were so much richer back then! And we are so poor now! Damn you Bernanke!

How much debt did people carry back then? So I take it you believe that debt is wealth?

banyon
06-28-2010, 03:49 PM
It is. Just look at the value of the dollar since America started down the path to progressivism (not to mention militarism).


http://img815.imageshack.us/img815/4625/valueofusdollarsince191.jpg

Yeah, why did the value go up so much during the New Deal?

Taco John
06-28-2010, 04:00 PM
Yeah, why did the value go up so much during the New Deal?

Bretton Woods 1 limited government intervention. This eventually eroded.

banyon
06-28-2010, 04:11 PM
Bretton Woods 1 limited government intervention. This eventually eroded.

? Bretton Woods was a decade+ after the New Deal. WTF are you talking about ?

BucEyedPea
06-28-2010, 04:13 PM
Some people aren't noticing something.
Look at the date of that first free fall. 1913. What was passed then? What happened after.
Also, note that there was a war which was partly funded via inflation.( as usual)
Inflation wasn't as bad then because govt could only go so far as money had some backing then.

banyon
06-28-2010, 04:14 PM
Some people aren't noticing something. Look at the date of that first free fall. 1913. What was passed then? What happened after. Also, not that there was a war which was partly funded via inflation. Inflation wasn't as bad then because govt could only go so far.

Where did you come up with that idea? What was limiting their ability to inflate?

BucEyedPea
06-28-2010, 04:26 PM
The US left the $20/oz. gold standard in 1932 and changed the it to a $35/oz., significantly decreasing the value of the dollar, however in 1971 President Nixon officially ended the gold standard. Since the US left its original gold standard it has lost approximately 90% of its value.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_the_US_leave_the_gold_standard

"1934 Gold Reserve Act under FDR
All the gold held by the Federal Reserve banks was seized by the U.S. Treasury. In return, the banks received something called “gold certificates.” These could not be exchanged for actual gold, but functioned merely as receipts for the gold stolen. By executive decree, Roosevelt reduced the value of the gold dollar – for purposes of foreign exchange transactions – from $20 an ounce to $35, a devaluation of 40 percent."
Part 10: Roosevelt Seizes the Country’s Gold; the NRA and Fascism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/fdr-10.html)

[Before] 1933, there was an important shackle upon the Fed’s ability to inflate and expand the money supply: Federal Reserve Notes themselves were payable in the equivalent weight of gold. ...The government cannot create new gold at will. But Federal Reserve Notes can be issued at will, at virtually zero cost in resources. In 1933, the United States government removed the gold restraint on its inflationary potential by shifting to fiat money: to making the paper dollar itself the standard of money, with government the monopoly supplier of dollars. -Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty

After that plans and programs of “first New Deal” proliferated. The Fed allows for the spending. Gold was the obstacle in FDR's path.

banyon
06-28-2010, 04:44 PM
After that plans and programs of “first New Deal” proliferated. The Fed allows for the spending. Gold was the obstacle in FDR's path.

Focus.

That would pose a limit from 1932 to 1971 (where you would expect to see (and don't see) a dramatic change at 1970), but doesn't explain anything about the graph in the period from 1930-40, which is the deviation in the graph that we were talking about.

Taco John
06-28-2010, 04:48 PM
? Bretton Woods was a decade+ after the New Deal. WTF are you talking about ?


I was mistaken. It was the IMF that was created in 1944, not BW1. The IMF was created at Bretton Woods, but was not named Bretton Woods.

But it added stability that eventually eroded.