What we need is more of it, and better informed citizens, with politics decentralized down to the local level and strong grassroots activism. Without that, this is what happens. But that’s for another thread.
Sorry, Peter Theil. I think.
Okay, he’s careful not to explicitly support any tariffs. But he does seem to hail China despite it being far more protectionist than we are.
Someone’s jimmies are ruffled. I was just curious if you could find any.
Clayton:
He’s pissed that the businessmen own, as he says, everything- which means he might just think workers should take back ownership rather than “respect” these businesses’ private property. And you seem to be willing to consider that, too.
Whenit’s fallen as low as it is, that may be untrue.
Doesn’t mean we can’t do as much as we can to muck up the system in a way that hurts the elites. Taxing them is one way. But priority number one is seizing the elite’s property and wealth, and ultimately replacing the state in a way that prevents the elite from accumulating wealth again.
We can, and it has to do with wage competition. When companies can relocate anywhere, Americans have to accept lower wages to compete with the rest of the world.
No comment on libertarian Clint Eastwood, troll19? What’s that, your theory is stupid? Hey, I actually agree with you on that! Maybe you’re finally making some progress.
That’s it? That’s your proof that “On trade and manufacturing Peter Schiff is further left than any officeholding Democrat”? “He doesn’t explicitly support any tarriffs” and he “does seem to hail China” [whatever that means].
Well I must say, I’m convinced. How about the rest of you guys?
I don’t know what “jimmies” are. And why do you care if I could find any? I thought you were concerned about trolling. Oh wait…I get it.
He’s a cool dude. A lot of them are. But there aren’t any women in there- that’s racist.
Hey, I make stuff up a lot.
Seriously, though, I should have contemplated for two seconds and not have said that. I had assumed his vehement hatred of the US trade deficit would actually involve him suggesting restricting imports.
Again, I’m confused. You’re saying Vince Vaughn is a leftist? Could you please tell us how you define “leftist”? Maybe that would help clear things up.
So good job. There are cool libertarians out there. Just no women. And you’re not going to bring up Rand again. Are there even five women registered on this entire website? What’s the deal with that?
You literally said “all the cool people in the world are leftists”, I provide you some examples that refute that, and you come back and say that multiple people whom virtually no one would characterize as “leftist” are cool, and I simply admit that I’m confused by this and ask you to clarify how you define that term…and I’m sneaky?
Do you honestly not know why you’re banned from forums? Or is that your goal when you participate in them?
Huh? Where did I do that? The only time I ever mentioned her to you was when I was calling out your apparent obsession…Which, evidently is rearing its ugly head again, as now you’re not just mischaracterizing a philosophy to project her into the discussion, you’re actually pretending someone else brought her up.
Which I guess is fitting, as in your post just before this one,
Are you serious? Did you even watch the interview? Or did you just look at the title and assume you found a gold nugget?
I had seen that interview back when it aired but I would never have recognized the name “Lauren Lyster”, so I’m not arguing either way if she’s a good example or not, but there’s a good possiblity she is if she was the guest on The Lew Rockwell Show this week…
Schiff’s response to the possibility that the poor harvests the past few years have something to do with food prices is “oh, droughts happen all the time”. Great job.
And with dead people, we also get the threefer of Rand, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson. And there’s the very strong argument for Voltairine de Cleyre.
Are you saying they don’t? Obviously they affect supply which would usually affect prices…his point is there isn’t any reason it should affect them now any more than any other random 5 or 10 year period in modern history. So obviously there are other factors involved.
Do you really deny this? I’m having a harder and harder time giving you the benefit of the doubt. I mean, you say you’re trolling, but I’m starting to wonder if that’s not just a cover to save face for your obtuseness.
Please point to the part in that article that shows where there has been any more droughts in the last 5 or 10 years than any other such period.
You claim that interest rates “have become a lot less important” (whatever that means), and your support for that is a link to a 33 page paper that uses econometrics to assess the link between commodity prices and the CPI?
Please quote the portion that supports your statement.
What does that paper have to do with your allegation that I would say such a thing?
Not just droughts, but various adverse weather conditions associated with global warming.
East Africa.
ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2011) — The increased frequency of drought observed in eastern Africa over the last 20 years is likely to continue as long as global temperatures continue to rise, according to new research published in Climate Dynamics.
New evidences on recent trends, particularly on the increasing tendency in the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events in Asia over the last century and into the 21st century, are briefly discussed below and summarised in Table 10.3. In South-East Asia, extreme weather events associated with El-Niño were reported to be more frequent and intense in the past 20 years (Trenberth and Hoar, 1997; Aldhous, 2004).
Latin America.
Though most of the forecasts are in conditional tense, many of the problems announced -or at least similar forms of them- are already going on: in the past years the continent has already experimented massive rains in Venezuela, flooding in Argentina, droughts in the Amazon, hail storms in Bolivia and a record season of cyclones in the Caribbean, a Nicaraguan website informs. A Peruvian one quotes the United Nations Program for Environment (PNUMA) and states that Chacaltaya glacier in Bolivia has split and scientists confirm it will disappear in seven or eight years, and that glaciers such as Yanamarey in Peru, Cordillera Blanca and Santa Rosa, and the snowed-volcano in Santa Isabel, Colombia, are disappearing too.
The paper finds virtually no relation between inflation and commodities in the latest data sets. If that doesn’t convince you that monetary policy has weak effects on commodities, well, we can disagree.
a) All those links were included in the SeekingAlpha article? I asked for the part of the article that actually supported your point. (You know, considering you allegedly linked to it to support your statement.)
b) Global warming? So now that you need “warming” to make your case, we’re switching back from “climate change”?
…because massive rains, flooding, droughts, hail storm, cyclones, and climate changes never occured in the past.
What does that have to do with money supply? I thought you and these authors defined “inflation” as a general rise in prices?
What evidence? You’ve presented links to random papers that have almost no relevance to your claims, and articles that are either from discredited sources or don’t support your statements at all.
Once again I can’t be sure if this is just your way of trolling, like you think it’s a way to waste my time, or if it’s another tactic to mask your ignorance by just doing a Gish gallop of random sources to make it look like you actually know something and have a ton of documented support. Kind of like this idiot.
Then why did you hyperlink to it while making your allegation?
The part where it went into how weather was a “huge” factor, in its own words, and listed the various climate events.
Hey, ignore empirical evidence. If you want to know whether climate events are increasing, there’s the sources I gave. If you think the IPCC is a conspiracy full of Jew lies, well, great.
The point is the increase.
Yes, which tends to happen when you print money.
At all? Sure. Okay. Moving on.
Because it was a convenient way to show that commodity prices fell after positive (inflationary) monetary shock announcements like QE.
