Pliny Posted March 20, 2010 Report Posted March 20, 2010 It's not just Paxton. But these historians were ignoring the book, not bothering to comment...until they realized that the flawed thesis has gained some real traction, and is being disseminated among the general population through such sober scholarly geniuses as Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. Hell, the tea-party protests are chock full of people equating liberals with fascists. (And these are the self-same deep thinkers who decried the earlier, equally false equations of Bush-with-fascism.) Right. Because the book is gaining some notoriety they feel it necessary to comment. Can liberals be fascists? They certainly can be. They just need to use the powers of government to invoke their demands. They are respected scholars who examine fascism. And in fact, they are the oens who have been consitently railing against the conflation of conservatism and fascism, explaining that in fact fascism is neither left nor right, but takes elements of both. They are "mobilizing agaisnt Goldberg" because his ideas are bad, his scholarship doesn't rise to even basic standards, and because his entire thesis is about attacking the left...period. The left is socialist. It is liberal, it is progressive. They do not deny this. The right is for preservation of the status quo. If the status quo is fascist the right will attempt to preserve it. I think that is where the confusion enters in. Big government, once it comes into being, is protected by conservatism. He evn sits there in interviews with Beck and O'Reilly and nods wisely along with their "fascism-equals-liberalism" tripe. Big government is not an American ideal, it is a socialist ideal. Big government is a trait of the extreme left and the extreme right. The extremes are both socialist Liberalism is progressivism and is a movement toward big government. Once established it becomes fascistic, meaning it attempts to "conserve" the level of socialism that has been reached. So...first you tell me that Goldberg's thesis is solid, and now you explicitly disagree with his thesis entire. No. He is correct in his analysis. How do I disagree with his thesis? Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Bonam Posted March 20, 2010 Report Posted March 20, 2010 (edited) Sorry, Government need make no regulation regarding money and therefore the idea is not socialist in any respect. That money retain it's purchasing power or value over time is a natural occurrence not requiring any government legislation. It is only governments desire to control prices that they continually inflate the money supply which continually inflates prices. So you believe that if there were no government and no economic interference from governments, then the prices of goods and services would all remain perpetually fixed and constant? That the prices would neither deflate nor inflate? My opinion is that prices for certain goods and services would tend to change quite substantially, and that if one measures the worth of their money by purchasing certain combinations of goods and services, it would still vary in its value from one year to the next. Ensuring people's savings retain value is perhaps one thing that government should be doing. While I understand the sentiment associated with this statement, I don't see how it logically follows that government should take it upon itself to ensure that the price of goods and services remains constant in terms of the currency issued by that government. Why is the goal of maintaining fixed prices for goods worthy, while other goals that a government might want to pursue not worthy? Oh and we need to move away from the term "printing money" as it confuses the issue. Most money is not literally printed: the amount of paper money in existence is far far smaller than the amount of electronic money that circulates throughout the economy. Such money is created and destroyed constantly, and not only by governments. Additionally, you must realize that whether electronic or not, new money must be created and put into circulation. For one, physical money wears out and needs to be replaced; this is done by the government printing money. Secondly, as the economy grows, more money needs to be put into circulation, otherwise you would get strong deflation. A zero inflation rate would indeed be a significant paradigm shift but inflation is a tool of government to control prices. I think you are somewhat overstating the role of inflation overall. Inflation rates in Canada have been on the order of 2-4% per year in recent times. This hardly "controls" prices as changes in market conditions can affect prices far more significantly on far shorter timescales. Additionally it hardly devalues people's savings, especially since until the recent financial crisis, completely safe, insured, savings accounts offering up to ~3% annual returns have been easily available from several institutions in Canada. Edited March 20, 2010 by Bonam Quote
bloodyminded Posted March 20, 2010 Report Posted March 20, 2010 Right. Because the book is gaining some notoriety they feel it necessary to comment. No, because some peope are taken in by his faulty thesis and his dreadful scholarship, they thought it good to correct the factual record about fascism. Can liberals be fascists? They certainly can be. They just need to use the powers of government to invoke their demands. Of course liberals can be fascists. Anybody can. Goldberg's thesis isn't that liberals can be fascists--it's the profoundly oversimplified, partisan left-hating thesis that fascism IS progressivism. As such, he entirely elides the conservative elements that were part of fascism, the right-wing collusion in the nightmare. That's why Beck and O'Reilly admire him. They're cut from the same simplified cloth of "conservative-equals-good...therefore fascism is liberal." The left is socialist. It is liberal, it is progressive. They do not deny this. The right is for preservation of the status quo. If the status quo is fascist the right will attempt to preserve it. I think that is where the confusion enters in. Big government, once it comes into being, is protected by conservatism. I consider this, too, a massive oversimplification; but even if I agreed with it, any confusion is the fault of Goldberg, who leaves the conservative part of the equation conveniently out. No. He is correct in his analysis. How do I disagree with his thesis? His analysis is that fascism is a direct result of progressives, and that conservatives have not played any part inthe movement. I assume you disagree with it because you're intelligent. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Pliny Posted March 20, 2010 Report Posted March 20, 2010 (edited) So you believe that if there were no government and no economic interference from governments, then the prices of goods and services would all remain perpetually fixed and constant? That the prices would neither deflate nor inflate? My opinion is that prices for certain goods and services would tend to change quite substantially, and that if one measures the worth of their money by purchasing certain combinations of goods and services, it would still vary in its value from one year to the next. You are correct. But you are mistaken in assuming my goal in eliminating government intervention and monetary regulation is "price stability". That is the government's goal in it's regulatory interference. The elimination of government price controls and government intervention does not eliminate the natural factors that create the ebb and flow of prices such as supply and demand. While I understand the sentiment associated with this statement, I don't see how it logically follows that government should take it upon itself to ensure that the price of goods and services remains constant in terms of the currency issued by that government. Why is the goal of maintaining fixed prices for goods worthy, while other goals that a government might want to pursue not worthy? Government meddling in the economy is to prevent economic depressions, essentially to eliminate the boom and bust cycle of an economy. Their solution is monetary control of the economy. They however never fixed the reasons for a boom and bust economy. So they, and we, will still be subject to them. The government sees, in the action of maintaining fixed prices and wages, economic stability. It also sees benefits for itself, like monetary elasticity, control and economic power. Oh and we need to move away from the term "printing money" as it confuses the issue. Most money is not literally printed: the amount of paper money in existence is far far smaller than the amount of electronic money that circulates throughout the economy. Such money is created and destroyed constantly, and not only by governments. Correct. Credit creation is all electronic. Some money is coined and printed but the government would prefer that be eliminated as well. When it is in people's pockets it can't be accounted for as easily. It needs to account for it to determine it's share of your wealth. Once money is created, even electronically, it is hard to destroy it. If they destroy it they create deflation, something they wish to avoid. Additionally, you must realize that whether electronic or not, new money must be created and put into circulation. For one, physical money wears out and needs to be replaced; this is done by the government printing money. Secondly, as the economy grows, more money needs to be put into circulation, otherwise you would get strong deflation. What's wrong with deflation? I know governments don't like deflation and why, but doesn't deflation increase the purchasing power of your currency. Wouldn't that be a personal benefit? It would certainly encourage saving over consumption. Couldn't we use a little deflation? It would mean your wages would probably drop so it would eventually all equal out. At least your savings wouldn't be losing value every year. I think you are somewhat overstating the role of inflation overall. Inflation rates in Canada have been on the order of 2-4% per year in recent times. This hardly "controls" prices as changes in market conditions can affect prices far more significantly on far shorter timescales. Additionally it hardly devalues people's savings, especially since until the recent financial crisis, completely safe, insured, savings accounts offering up to ~3% annual returns have been easily available from several institutions in Canada. Changes in market conditions is natural and does not affect the macro-economy as does inflating the money supply. 3% returns and inflation is 2-4%? Sounds like even money to me. You aren't getting ahead. You have to take bigger risks to get ahead. Governments have the capacity to create money. The temptation is to use that capacity. Get ready for some run away inflation in the States as Obama creates money and increases government spending. Government tries to control the inflation rate, it won't be able to when it eventually and inevitably over-extends it's financial obligations above what the economy can produce. Democracies drive politicians to buy votes through spending. We inevitably see inflation. Edited March 20, 2010 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
maple_leafs182 Posted March 26, 2010 Report Posted March 26, 2010 I know how I'm planning for the upcoming inflation, I'm buying silver now. Quote │ _______ [███STOP███]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ :::::::--------------Conservatives beleive ▄▅█FUNDING THIS█▅▄▃▂- - - - - --- -- -- -- -------- Liberals lie I██████████████████] ...◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙'(='.'=)' ⊙
Pliny Posted March 27, 2010 Report Posted March 27, 2010 I know how I'm planning for the upcoming inflation, I'm buying silver now. Good move. Don't put all your eggs in one basket though. Always keep an eye out for good investments - recession and depression doesn't mean there are no opportunities. It means the government will be omnipresent. We know what they will try and do - extract revenues wherever they can and that means they will attempt to create areas where they can extract revenues. In doing so one can capitalize on their promotion. A lot of research is necessary for this as governments can be quite whimsical. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted March 29, 2010 Report Posted March 29, 2010 The velocity of money? I fully expect you will define that as circulation MSJ. The concept is valid, in order for money to do its job it must circulate. Every hand that it touches is enriched, or so the convention goes. There is a slight problem with this and it is in fact problematic. Nations buy and sell currencies, just as people do. However once a nation buys "dollars", they disappear from circulation and are keep as foreign reserve accounts. China has a few trillion in US dollars just sitting there. Russia has begun to buy Canadian loonies as well. This isn't news, its all happened before and it will all happen again because we have failed to learn the lessons of our mistakes. Freaking fiat currencies! Quote
Pliny Posted March 29, 2010 Report Posted March 29, 2010 Of course liberals can be fascists. Anybody can. Goldberg's thesis isn't that liberals can be fascists--it's the profoundly oversimplified, partisan left-hating thesis that fascism IS progressivism. As such, he entirely elides the conservative elements that were part of fascism, the right-wing collusion in the nightmare. Fascism is the end, progressivism the means of achieving the end. It isn't the right wing collusion. It is the inability of government to eliminate entitlement that progresses it toward the socialist state. It is piling entitlement upon entitlement that grows government. That's why Beck and O'Reilly admire him. They're cut from the same simplified cloth of "conservative-equals-good...therefore fascism is liberal." Beck to me is more of a Constitutionalist and O'Reilly a conservative. They, themselves don't promote the concept of big government and fit in with conservatism. They, of course have their own ideas of what government should be doing and that compounded with what the entitlements the left wants is what constitutes the progressive march. Eventually someone gains control of the centralized power and starts being a dictator. I consider this, too, a massive oversimplification; but even if I agreed with it, any confusion is the fault of Goldberg, who leaves the conservative part of the equation conveniently out. He doesn't deny Fascism is an extremist right wing movement. He only suggests it is has it's origins on the left. His analysis is that fascism is a direct result of progressives, and that conservatives have not played any part inthe movement. Conservatives at the time of Fascism were being infiltrated with Libertarians fleeing the big government socialist hordes of the left. Meanwhile socialists themselves were split on the ideals to follow. Conservatives in Canada were more Monarchists at that time - a form of dictatorship, I suppose. In the States conservatives were attempting to stem the rising tide of socialism. I assume you disagree with it because you're intelligent. Hoover was a Republican but a big government proponent he instituted such things as agricultutral marketing boards and other socialist policies without doubt. Socialism was popular then and until 1939. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Oleg Bach Posted March 31, 2010 Report Posted March 31, 2010 The overly powerful corporate banking sector is now going to make it nearly impossible to get a loan to buy a house..which will drive young couples into rental dwellings that are owned for the most part by very large and sometimes international companies..very clever- turn us all into surfs and have total control and power. NOT TO MENTION doubling their profits...welcome to corporate socialism. Quote
Pliny Posted April 1, 2010 Report Posted April 1, 2010 The overly powerful corporate banking sector is now going to make it nearly impossible to get a loan to buy a house..which will drive young couples into rental dwellings that are owned for the most part by very large and sometimes international companies..very clever- turn us all into surfs and have total control and power. NOT TO MENTION doubling their profits...welcome to corporate socialism. How do we get from politically correct lib-left caring-sharing do good ideology with social justice and equality for all to corporate socialism? Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Machjo Posted April 3, 2010 Author Report Posted April 3, 2010 Now that we've been in inflation for awhile, what's the plan for the upcoming recession, or are we going to wait at the last minute to plan for that too? And so the cycle goes round and round. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
Bonam Posted April 3, 2010 Report Posted April 3, 2010 Now that we've been in inflation for awhile, what's the plan for the upcoming recession, or are we going to wait at the last minute to plan for that too? And so the cycle goes round and round. The solution is to plan for yourself. Don't rely on some government to handle all the planning for you. In good times, save up for a rainy day. Quote
Pliny Posted April 4, 2010 Report Posted April 4, 2010 (edited) Now that we've been in inflation for awhile, what's the plan for the upcoming recession, or are we going to wait at the last minute to plan for that too? And so the cycle goes round and round. Have we been in inflation for awhile? I believe that is still coming. The cycle is created by government monetary and fiscal policy in their attempt to "stabilize" prices. Edited April 4, 2010 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Pliny Posted April 4, 2010 Report Posted April 4, 2010 The solution is to plan for yourself. Don't rely on some government to handle all the planning for you. In good times, save up for a rainy day. It is hard to plan when government is so whimsical. In 1933, FDR make it illegal for Americans to own gold. Can you believe that? It is fine to say don't rely on government to handle all your planning for you but they actually make it very difficult for individuals to plan for themselves. Save what for a rainy day? A fiat paper currency that may become worthless overnight? If you are suggesting government downsize and get out of the planning of individual lives I'm all for that. The system is designed for you to be in debt. It is difficult to remain above that. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Bonam Posted April 4, 2010 Report Posted April 4, 2010 (edited) It is hard to plan when government is so whimsical. In 1933, FDR make it illegal for Americans to own gold. Can you believe that? Did he. I didn't know that. Anyway, it's not illegal to own gold today, nor many other commodities which have a high value density. It is fine to say don't rely on government to handle all your planning for you but they actually make it very difficult for individuals to plan for themselves. Something being difficult isn't really an excuse not to do it, if you think that it's something worth doing. It is not impossible to plan ahead. Save what for a rainy day? A fiat paper currency that may become worthless overnight? Saying that the Canadian or American dollar could become "worthless" overnight is a huge exaggeration, and you know it. The value of these currencies changes by a few percent per year, and if in some extraordinary event one of them really was heading on a course to become massively devalued, there would be at least months to do something about it. Secondly, if one really is uneasy about currency, they can purchase commodities, real estate, stocks and bonds, alternate currencies, or whatever else they want. I'm sure you've heard the standard advice for diversifying your portfolio, and it certainly holds true in this case. If you are suggesting government downsize and get out of the planning of individual lives I'm all for that. I would of course also be fully supportive of that. However, what I was saying is that even with the present level of government power and interference, it is still very much possible for people to effectively plan for themselves. The system is designed for you to be in debt. It is difficult to remain above that. The only time where most people really have to take on debt "by design" is when buying a house, and perhaps student loans for people in college/university (which can be paid off very quickly after graduating). Maybe also when buying a car but there are a lot of options there besides taking on large debt. There is no other reason for the typical person to ever be in debt, in my opinion. Frankly, the only real major debt a person should have in their life is their first mortgage, and they shouldn't be taking that on unless they are reasonably sure they will be able to pay it off. Maybe I just expect too much of people? I dunno. Edited April 4, 2010 by Bonam Quote
msj Posted April 4, 2010 Report Posted April 4, 2010 It is hard to plan when government is so whimsical. In 1933, FDR make it illegal for Americans to own gold. Can you believe that? Sure, FDR made it illegal to hoard gold (which is a distinct difference from preventing them from owing gold). Bush/Obama have made it illegal (at times) to short stocks, have artificially kept mortgage rates low through MBS purchases by the fed, and have helped Ford sell Volvo at a loss by selling it to a foreign based company that then profits Goldman Sachs which, itself, was bailed out by taxpayer funds. Governments do whatever is necessary to backstop their economy or their cronies. Sometimes governments do both at the same time. Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
msj Posted April 4, 2010 Report Posted April 4, 2010 The only time where most people really have to take on debt "by design" is when buying a house, and perhaps student loans for people in college/university (which can be paid off very quickly after graduating). Maybe also when buying a car but there are a lot of options there besides taking on large debt. There is no other reason for the typical person to ever be in debt, in my opinion. Frankly, the only real major debt a person should have in their life is their first mortgage, and they shouldn't be taking that on unless they are reasonably sure they will be able to pay it off. You don't know much about business. If people didn't take on debt to operate their businesses, or to buy out other people from businesses, we would all be poorer. Of course, only those who know how to operate a business in the first place are able to use leverage successfully (with the exception of luck and/or being surrounded by good people). The largest debt I have ever taken on in my life was to buy a stake in a business and it has been the best decision I have ever made. Far better than buying a house and made possible thanks to student loans which got me the education to figure it out in the first place. Too bad, for the banks, that it's all owed in fiat currency that's going to be hyperinflated away any day now. Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Bonam Posted April 4, 2010 Report Posted April 4, 2010 If people didn't take on debt to operate their businesses, or to buy out other people from businesses, we would all be poorer. True of course, but an individual does not have to buy a business. It a choice, and hopefully someone borrowing money to buy a stake in a business is making an informed choice. Congratulations on your successful business acquisition. The "system" does not force individuals to take on debt they do not want in this regard. And that is what my statement was about, I was replying to Pliny who stated that the system is designed to make people be in debt. Quote
msj Posted April 4, 2010 Report Posted April 4, 2010 True of course, but an individual does not have to buy a business. It a choice, and hopefully someone borrowing money to buy a stake in a business is making an informed choice. Congratulations on your successful business acquisition. The "system" does not force individuals to take on debt they do not want in this regard. And that is what my statement was about, I was replying to Pliny who stated that the system is designed to make people be in debt. The system also doesn't force people to buy a house - that's a choice too. A house is just a commodity and many people would be just as well off to rent as to buy (and the economy would also be better off too). Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Bonam Posted April 4, 2010 Report Posted April 4, 2010 The system also doesn't force people to buy a house - that's a choice too. A house is just a commodity and many people would be just as well off to rent as to buy (and the economy would also be better off too). Agreed. That's why I said people buying a house really should know what they are doing and be reasonably sure they can pay off the mortgage. If not, renting is a good option. You seem to be in agreement with my point that the system does not really force people to go into debt. It is entirely people's choice to do so. Quote
msj Posted April 4, 2010 Report Posted April 4, 2010 Agreed... Well, you're no fun. Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Bonam Posted April 4, 2010 Report Posted April 4, 2010 Well, you're no fun. Haha yeah.. sometimes arguing for argument's sake can be fun I suppose, but this time I think we were just pretty much in agreement ;p Quote
Machjo Posted April 4, 2010 Author Report Posted April 4, 2010 Actually, I think this was a brilliant idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_gold_dinar It's not an official currency and has no legal sanction either for or against it. But once you know it's gold content, will you really argue about its value as a currency? No, because the value of the coin is inherent in its material composition. Genius. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
Pliny Posted April 5, 2010 Report Posted April 5, 2010 You seem to be in agreement with my point that the system does not really force people to go into debt. It is entirely people's choice to do so. Yes. No one is forced into debt. It's a natural occurrence. We just assume it is how life is supposed to be. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Bonam Posted April 5, 2010 Report Posted April 5, 2010 (edited) Yes. No one is forced into debt. It's a natural occurrence. We just assume it is how life is supposed to be. Who assumes this and why do they do so? I certainly don't view this as the way life is supposed to be. The only debts I ever took on were my student loans and I repaid them within a month of finishing my undergrad. The only people who just "naturally" go into debt are people who do not think for themselves. One should only go into debt after making a rational decision that it is worthwhile to do so, such as for example to make a profit (like msj says he did). Edited April 5, 2010 by Bonam Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.