I don’t believe I could ask for a better illustration of the point I was making the other day.
As for the “libertarian myths”… http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Qe5Enm96MFQ#t=0
Show this to anyone, who thinks, that he “knows better” and therefore he has
“right” to impose his will over others - for their supposed “good” of course…
It can easily humble every intelligent person.
As for others… Let them believe in their “gods” and their supposed “omniscience”.
You know…
There are still many people, who believe that the universe was created in 7 earthly days,
completely ignoring the fact, that the universe is still expanding i.e. continuously changing.
Still in the process of supposed “creation”…
What can you do about their belief?
Just do not let them burn you at the stake…
Remember Galileo Galilei and others…
Some things have changed over centuries not so much, as we would like to think…
I’d be less worried about your ‘friend’ and more worried about his economics professor. What’s more, tell either or both to come here and try spewing their over wraught nonsense with a crowd that actually has a clue instead of newbie students who will simply accept what is told to them.
I reiterate: he has not given an argument. He didn’t counter your point there. He just said you could get the money because the Fed insures it (it does?) Well that’s lovely. Perhaps if banks so utterly mismanaged money as in the recent crisis they deserve no trust and should fail. Same with the Fed. Has it crossed his mind? Does he understand that the Fed exists to coordinate monetary expansion by credit expansion and that it has absolutely no interest in limiting the actions of banks (aside from some flimsy reserve requirements)? Is he one of those people who thinks credit expansion must go on unhindered?
BTW if he talks to you this way regularly I wonder how much of a friend he is.
I’ve known him for years, hes like 27 and I’m 18. I don’t know if he really thinks I"m unintelligent then knowing me for years must mean hes right 
I was talking about going to Wesleyan the other day, and he went on about how I wouldn’t fit in with intellectuals.
While I was different 3-4 years ago, and do admit I was a lot less mature and stupider but what 14/15 year old isn’t?
He treats you with contempt. Doesn’t sound like much of a friend to me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/books/bestseller/besthardnonfiction.html?ref=bestseller
Make sure you let him know…
I lost him when he said, “the fed needs better leadership and oversight”. A stupid statement, of course if we leaders that knew what we wanted or rationally calculate what we wanted and were honest than a central bank would work but atleast I reside in the domain of humans, not sure where he is lol. Btw you should read some of the articles that some of the other posters put out, it will help you assert yourself better. If you want to be a libertarian who is vocal you have to be well read, a democrat or a republican in our society can be either or without having to back up his views, while a libertarian especially an an cap, always has to justify their views, which is fine, but I wouldn’t be vocal about it until you have a full understanding of it, I hope that helps.
When dealing with people like this, you can’t rely on blanket statements like “in truth [blah blah blah]”. Establish a set of factual records by which you can both verify or deny the veracity of each others’ statements.
Statements like “no one trusted the banks without regulation” are incredibly stupid. First off, American banks have always been both regulated AND protected, if not at the national level, then the state level. American banking history is rife with laws allowing banks to suspend redemption of notes, as well as creating central banks and national banking cartels. Secondly, there has never been a period in history when the banks were blatantly not trusted and subject to constant bank runs.
Larry White and George Selgin have posted some very powerful information about why thousands of American banks failed in 1930-33 vs. 0 in Canada. For one, states were granting banking holidays, which basically froze the banks. Depositors could not withdraw their money, nor could they claim a share of the bank’s assets through bankruptcy proceedings. There was rumors FDR would do this nationally. Also, there were rumors that FDR would debase the dollar. This prompted depositors to run on the banks. The rumors proved true, and FDR debased the dollar 44%, a quite substantial amount. And finally, branch banking was outlawed in America. Canada did not make these mistakes and no banks failed, despite a massive deflation of their money supply, a greater drop than in America.
Here’s a better explanation:
http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/region_focus/2009/winter/full_interview.cfm
So to suggest that a lack of regulation caused the bank runs is false. If anything the opposite is true. The federal reserve DID have regulatory authority over its member banks at the time. It regulated them (and itself) poorly.
And to suggest deposit insurance is both limited to bank profit and effective in creating bank stability is not backed by any evidence. The S&L crisis is the primary example. Depositors put their money in whatever S&L offered the highest rate, independent of risk. At the same time, they were regulated to only hold 30 year mortgages as assets. So when interest rates spiked, they had to pay more to depositors to receive deposits that regulations forced them to hold than their borrowers owed them on outstanding loans.
So just call him a cheerleader for a lie that the government and public schools want him to believe. If he wants to discover the truth, tell him he better look at facts.
Guys check out this link.
http://www.house.gov/jec/fed/fed/fed-impt.htm
My friend responded: “FDIC is funded by the federal bank, the fed regulates the money supply & the fed gave money to priv instituitions because of Congress, getting rid of the fed is a ridiculous idea that no one takes seriously. without the fed inflation would run rampart not to mention 80% of all US dollars are digital, moved from credit account to bank account to credit account & is never a real dollar in hand. Also the fed bank manages monetary policy which often supersedes fiscal policy (i doubt you know the difference between the two or even why either is important). Lastly I live in the Midwest the people here are conservative, I got in trouble for having a purple Mohawk while promoting the school. So don’t say the people are liberal when you don’t know, you’re just ignorant & blindly following the politician you want to have your baby. Lastly professors have a doctorate degree that means they’ve spent at least 15-20 years in their field of interest so I think they’d know a hell of a lot more than Ron Paul. Lastly if you want to prevent another bailout, vote out all the Rep. & Senators (will never happen since they can have unlimited number terms) and secondly make them dress like NASCAR drivers & wear all their sponsorships on their clothes because that’s who they support they don’t give a damn about people who elect them, only the people who give them money. That’s why Obama is trying to crack down on lobbying & lobbyists becoming elected officials or vice versa.”
Again, your friend hasn’t made an argument.
In what way is the notion of dissolving the Fed ridiculous? Oh, and argumentum ad populum.
This would effect a “rampart” rise in prices how? Ask him to make an argument and not just declarative statements.
Pure condescension.
Okay.
Argumentum ad verecundiam.
No argument here.
He uses a vague definition of inflation, and does not show how the removal of the Fed would cause inflation. There is no argument.
Monetary Policy and Fiscal Policy for dummies:
Fiscal Policy: Borrowing money from investors who would use it in otherwise profitable ventures, and using it unprofitably. The borrowing is done with the implicit guarentee of using coercion to pay it back. It does not boost the economy, but impairs it as government outbids others with the promise of stolen funds.
Monetary Policy: Subsidizes interest rates/creates temporary money with FRB. This causes people to borrow too much, investing in unprofitable ventures. However, it takes time for these flawed investments to be revealed. It creates boom and bust cycles. While the FED is not necessary for this to occur, it prevents the banks from collapsing in the bust phase.
Note that when he says inflation, he means increasing prices. The problem is that increasing prices is too difficult to measure, and there are several different causes for it.
Appeal to authority. While expertness may make one’s arguments more compelling, it has no bearing on its validity.
He won’t crack, because it would damage political support from lobbyists. Additionally, the presence of lobbying may or may not make government more repressive.
You should refer him to that chart of inflation since the inception of the Federal Reserve, because, frankly, he doesn’t have any idea about what he’s talking about. You should point to the fact that during the late 1870s and early 1880s there was actual mild deflation (as there should be), not inflation, and there was no central bank. The fact of the matter is that central banking has led to more widespread inflation, because it’s impossible to centrally calculate how money the economy really needs.
More:
“clearly your ignorant so let me explain how inflation works since instead of educating yourself you’re just making a fool of yourself. Inflation isn’t simply caused by printing more money & commodity money A money unit whose value is backed by the value of another physical good such as gold or silver would cause our country to revert to the times of colonialism in order to constantly expand our economy we would need to constantly acquire more worth (Gold Silver etc), this time was known as Merchantalism and was generally bad. However Adam Smith & every economist since him has argued the wealth of a nation comes from it’s output & therefore a Fiat money system would be more effective because a country could focus are more important things than continually searching for more gold/silver/etc. The most simple way to define inflation is more money pursuing the same amount of goods. If a jeweler sells his jewelery for $100 a piece & the government starts printing more money the jewelery will find there’s more people willing to buy his jewelery but he hasn’t (& in often cases) cannot increase his output. So he simply raises his prices so that now his jewelery is $125. That’s how inflation works when you increase the money supply if pushes the prices up. If we went back to a commodity standard we would still have inflation because the majority of our money is digital. Every time some bank issues a credit card, (or any other type of loan in which they’re not directly handing dollars to the borrower) the bank IS CREATING MONEY. If BofA issues 10,000 new credit cards with a credit limit of $1,000 each. Then BofA essentially just created $10,000,000 more USA $ which will lead to raises of prices of the items the customers buy & if they buy the items measured by economists to determine inflation than INFLATION WILL INCREASE WITHOUT THE FED HAVING DONE ANYTHING. Lastly I don’t care how many people oppose the fed my point is you didn’t give a damn until Ron Paul did.”
Some intellectual. He seems like a total idiot.
If it wasn’t sad it might be funny.
As much as this guy is being a prick, you are just feeding the flames by being argumentative, defensive, & taking his snide attitude personally. He is the one who should be on the defensive, not you.
Your are also both lucky this is online, as text can be far less emotional & personally offensive (yet lack the proper emotional tones one might want to give off, such as earnest questioning & not trolling), & unlucky because you’ve already
The average person in this society rewards anti-intellectualism, populist folk economics, & other misconceptions merely because the person who is utilizing such sounds more confident, or sound right*
*Despite secularism, people will often substitute Gods for people that they agree with or make them feel better.
This is a bad example (since I do not agree with the Presidency at all, obviously), but this extends as far back as the Kennedy vs. Nixon debates on television.
The moment that happened, a similar pattern of this superficial judgment on who sounds better & “smarter” can be seen throughout popular culture ever since.
Argument is one part intellectual, one part memetic, & one part psychological. I would advise watching Walter Block in some of his debates where he took on people of a mainstream opinion, because you’ll need all the patience you can muster.
If it helps, imply that you are both students in this debate, & that we must respect, to a certain extent possible, the possibility that we are both wrong on certain things.
Also, to prevent from a rational tone being mis-interpreted as “arrogant”, occasionally get on their “side” by asking them to explain it, why do they think it’s important, admit that you used to think that was correct but you’ve come across new information; this is where you can cite a source, book, or a person, & ask the person you are arguing with if they’ve heard of them, & and if they haven’t, that they should definitely check them out merely for an interesting read, not propaganda.
I like how ambiguously he phrases this statement.
So he could fall back this one, after your responded, to incriminate you as an ignoramus. Oh look, he’s also begging the question.
If we went to a fiat system in in the 70’s pray tell what did we use from 1933 to the 1970’s? Sexual solicitation?
After reading this whole thread, I have concluded that your “friend” is an idiot, and is probably not a good friend if he can’t respect you in political conversation.