NationStates Jolt Archive


Your best and worst US Presidents?

Venndee
29-04-2008, 04:40
I don't think there's been a thread on people's preferences for presidents for a while, so here is the question; who do you consider to be the best and worst US presidents?
Skalvia
29-04-2008, 04:44
The best President IMO is Theodore Roosevelt, he forced the large Corp. to relinquish their grip, he knew how to engage in War AND Diplomacy, and protected the rights of Americans, without abusing the power of the Executive branch...

Whereas Andrew Jackson i think is the Worst American President, I mean, he told the Supreme Court to fuck off, destroyed the Bank of America, and committed Genocide against an entire group of people....I dont think it gets much worse than that...
greed and death
29-04-2008, 04:47
Best presidents of all time.

Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson and Reagan

worst presidents of all time.

Carter, Ford, and Andrew Johnson

I see more positive then negative


Bush I am withholding comment on until he is out of office.
Venndee
29-04-2008, 04:55
Bush I am withholding comment on until he is out of office.

He's got about seven and a half months to do something absolutely stunning, I think.
Miami Jai-Alai
29-04-2008, 04:56
We have gone through this a million times already, that said, best president, President Ronald Reagan.

Worst president, President Jimmy Carter.
Ecosoc
29-04-2008, 04:58
I think for fairness there should be a historic (pre-1900) and modern (after1900) split.

Historic

Best: Jefferson. Invented the idea of a wall of seperation between church and state, which set a very good direction for America.

Worst: Andrew Jackson. Genocide isn't very.... nice.


Modern

Best: FDR. Though I do disagree strongly with his treatment of Japanese Americans during WW2, he was a good leader overall for such a difficult time. Proved that liberalism can create a thriving economy.

Worst: George W. Bush. Redid war in Vietnam. I think once was enough, thank you very much. Exploited the tragedies of 9/11 for greed and power. Generally stupid.
Skalvia
29-04-2008, 05:06
I think for fairness there should be a historic (pre-1900) and modern (after1900) split.


In that case, Historic, same as before...

But, Modern...

Im gonna say Bill Clinton was best, we had a great Economy, and was able to deal with the Middle East better than all others...his only mistake was Hillary's fault, she shoulda had her ass down there before Monica even had the chance...Hillary put the Country's National Security in DANGER!!! lol...

Worst, Nixon of course, Watergate, Vietnam, Cambodia, Drug Policy...need i say more?
Venndee
29-04-2008, 05:24
In response to my own OP, I decided that the decent presidents (the best I can say of any president, seeing as how they seem to always screw up something badly, like Jackson with the Indians, Pullman strike, having Hoover as their Secretary of the Treasury), are;

1. Martin Van Buren
2. Grover Cleveland
3. Calvin Coolidge
4. Warren Harding
5. Andrew Jackson
6. James Monroe
7. Andrew Johnson

And my terrible presidents are;

37. Theodore Roosevelt
38. Woodrow Wilson
39. FDR
40. Lincoln

I actually made a full list, in which I excluded Harrison (he died too soon, but should receive an honorable mention for being completely unable to do anything awful), and James Garfield (probably would have been another awful Gilded Age Republican,) but I doubt anyone is particularly interested to see where James K. Polk is ranked (28th, BTW.)
Blouman Empire
29-04-2008, 05:30
In response to my own OP, I decided that the decent presidents (the best I can say of any president, seeing as how they seem to always screw up something badly, like Jackson with the Indians, Pullman strike, having Hoover as their Secretary of the Treasury), are;

1. Martin Van Buren
2. Grover Cleveland
3. Calvin Coolidge
4. Warren Harding
5. Andrew Jackson
6. James Monroe
7. Andrew Johnson

And my terrible presidents are;

37. Theodore Roosevelt
38. Woodrow Wilson
39. FDR
40. Lincoln

I actually made a full list, in which I excluded Harrison (he died too soon, but should receive an honorable mention for being completely unable to do anything awful), and James Garfield (probably would have been another awful Gilded Age Republican,) but I doubt anyone is particularly interested to see where James K. Polk is ranked (28th, BTW.)

Interesting choices can I hear your reasons for them
Skalvia
29-04-2008, 05:34
And my terrible presidents are;

37. Theodore Roosevelt
38. Woodrow Wilson
39. FDR
40. Lincoln


Those are Exactly my Four Best!!! crazy, lol
Lunatic Goofballs
29-04-2008, 05:48
Best President: William Henry Harrison. He went his entire presidency without a major policy blunder. In fact, he left the office almost exactly like he found it. No better for certain, but no worse either. *nod*
Layarteb
29-04-2008, 06:34
Top 3
Reagan, Teddy, Washington

Worst 3
Carter, Bush Jr., LBJ
Khermi
29-04-2008, 06:41
BEST -
Thomas Jefferson

WORST -
Toss up between 3:
Abraham Lincoln
Woodrow Willson
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Copiosa Scotia
29-04-2008, 06:44
Best President: William Henry Harrison. He went his entire presidency without a major policy blunder. In fact, he left the office almost exactly like he found it. No better for certain, but no worse either. *nod*

Ack, beaten to it again. But yeah, William Henry Harrison, for all the obvious reasons.
The South Islands
29-04-2008, 06:52
Everyone seems to forget Eisenhower. IMHO, the best modern president by a long shot.
Thumbless Pete Crabbe
29-04-2008, 06:54
Best: Millard Filmore

Worst: James Madison

For obvious reasons.
Honsria
29-04-2008, 08:35
Hey look! Another one of these!!
Honsria
29-04-2008, 08:37
Oh, and just for the record, Van Buren was the best. 8 forever!
Delator
29-04-2008, 08:45
Best...Harry Truman

Worst...Woodrow Wilson.
Skyland Mt
29-04-2008, 08:52
Best:

Jimmy Carter, for being a well-intentioned diplomat who helped reduce arms:)

Kennedy: for avoiding world war 3 and being the only president to give a damn about space exploration:)

FDR: for leading America from the Depression and the world against Facism:sniper::)

Lincon: for uniting America and abolishing the stain of slavery:)



Worst:

Andrew Jackson: for all the reasons previously stated:D

Buchanon(?): for presiding over the start of the civil war:mad:

Wilson: for trampling civil liberties to a degree Bush could only dream of, and being an unashamed white supremacist:mad:

Harding(?): for being a f**cking KKK member :upyours:

Bush Jr.: So many reasons, oh God, so many reasons:headbang:
Ferrous Oxide
29-04-2008, 08:55
Best: George W Bush. He's hilarious!

Worst: Woodrow Wilson. Won WWI for the Allies; the world would have been a better place if the CPs had won.
Pacific2
29-04-2008, 09:54
Best: F.D Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, Theodore Roosevelt, J.F Kennedy, Clinton

Worst: Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, McKinley, Nixon, Wilson.
The Lone Alliance
29-04-2008, 10:16
Best?

FDR, despite his authorian tactics, most of them worked, managed to keep the country from going any farther down the hole it was in and managed to keep the country strong in the face of war.

Also the first president to speak directly to the people regularly. (Radio)

Worst?

Toss up between George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
(I so am going to get flamed to death from this by the Reagan fanboys)

Why Ronald Reagan?

Started the 'borrow and spend' policy, founded 'Reganomics' which is about the worst economic strategy I've ever seen. (It works wonders right now doesn't it, huge debt and the rich getting richer. Genius isn't it!!!)

Ended up setting up the situations that would lead to Afghanistan, Iraq, and South America all hating us through propping up dictators, supporting terrorists, and openly ignoring any horrors commited by their 'allies'.

Oh and he did everything he could to try to undo every single thing that FDR did.

Why was he so good again?

Because he made the soviets fall? They were already on the way out.
Andaras
29-04-2008, 10:23
How exactly was Reagan a good President in any definition of the word? America is still paying for his economic mismanagement to this day, as well as his exorbitant military spending and illegal deals regarding Iran/Contra etc.

And that doesn't even go into his complete refusal to enforce and prosecute labor laws, which in itself was a green light to widespread underpaying of workers and horrible working conditions which many firms got away with under Reagan because it was apparently 'big government' for a government to tell a firm not to exploit their workers.
Risottia
29-04-2008, 10:30
I don't think there's been a thread on people's preferences for presidents for a while, so here is the question; who do you consider to be the best and worst US presidents?

I'll go with post-WW2 only.
Worst: a close match between Reagan and Johnson.
Best: Eisenhower.
South Lorenya
29-04-2008, 11:04
Best: FDR
Best post-WWII: Kennedy
Worst: Dubya

Some of you should explain how Reagen could be the best president even though he created a huge debt that will most likely last for decades.
Laerod
29-04-2008, 11:16
Everyone seems to forget Eisenhower. IMHO, the best modern president by a long shot.Eisenhower hated democracy a bit too much for my taste, and we're still dealing with the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution.

Though I am wondering why Nixon hasn't been mentioned yet.
Andaras
29-04-2008, 11:22
Eisenhower hated democracy a bit too much for my taste, and we're still dealing with the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution.

Though I am wondering why Nixon hasn't been mentioned yet.

Iranian Revolution wasn't any one thing, sure the coup of Mossedegh contributed but Mossedegh was a leftist and the current Iranian regime refused to recognize him and actually suppressed his work from the public eye. The great betrayal of the Iranian Revolution was that it overthrow that corrupt European-yacht loving cretin the Shah - but it unleashed the most reactionary and violent religious segments of Iranian society until they actually got into power. The Communists, the People's Mudjahadeen and other leftists etc all helped to topple the US puppet regime, but it was a great betrayal.
South Lorenya
29-04-2008, 11:28
Nixon wasn't that bad, aside from the who watergate fiasco.
Laerod
29-04-2008, 11:33
Iranian Revolution wasn't any one thing, sure the coup of Mossedegh contributed but Mossedegh was a leftist and the current Iranian regime refused to recognize him and actually suppressed his work from the public eye. The great betrayal of the Iranian Revolution was that it overthrow that corrupt European-yacht loving cretin the Shah - but it unleashed the most reactionary and violent religious segments of Iranian society until they actually got into power. The Communists, the People's Mudjahadeen and other leftists etc all helped to topple the US puppet regime, but it was a great betrayal.Which all wouldn't have happened had there been no CIA/MI6 backed coup against the democratic government of Iran.
Nixon wasn't that bad, aside from the who watergate fiasco.The only good thing Nixon ever managed was the Clean Air Act, which is extremely ironic considering he was a staunch anti-environmentalist.
Conserative Morality
29-04-2008, 11:49
Best:
Thomas Jefferson: Speration of church and state, favored small government.

Worst:
FDR: Enacted "New Deal" Which in reality just dug us deeper into the depression.
Lyerngess
29-04-2008, 12:24
The best presidents by far were Thomas Jefferson and, oddly enough, Taft. Jefferson for obvious, dull, and repetitive reasons, and Taft because he was, as far as I can tell, the president who most closely followed the Constitution and knew it well enough to continue his career as a Supreme Court Justice after he left the presidency.

The worst president ever was Woodrow Wilson. He was, as others have pointed out, racist and against civil liberties of all kinds. He also allowed the Federal Reserve to be created, which has been responsible for all sorts of economic problems, although not all of them. He also indirectly killed every man, woman, and child that died as a result of WWII for being nasty towards the Senate and giving in to the demands of Britain and France. I doubt any of you can come up with something worse than indirectly killing millions of people for any one president.
Zer0-0ne
29-04-2008, 12:36
Though I am wondering why Nixon hasn't been mentioned yet.
Um, Vietnam maybe?
Rambhutan
29-04-2008, 13:49
Um, Vietnam maybe?

..and that makes him neither good nor bad? Surely he has to be one of the worst ever - unless more of them were criminals than I am aware of?

Surprised people think of Reagan as a good president. He turned America from being massively in credit to massively in debt, his legal reforms lead to poor people being hit by savings and loans crisis while the rich are enabled to get massively richer through share scams etc. Enron comes as a result of Reagan. His major achievement in of ending the cold war could just as well be coincidence rather than as a result of anything he did.
Ferrous Oxide
29-04-2008, 13:56
America is still paying for his economic mismanagement to this day

This is coming from the guy that thinks that "selling" is economic mismanagement.
Cybach
29-04-2008, 14:31
I think for fairness there should be a historic

Best: FDR. Though I do disagree strongly with his treatment of Japanese Americans during WW2, he was a good leader overall for such a difficult time. Proved that liberalism can create a thriving economy.



So the 11,000 German-Americans who suffered the same incarceration, confiscation and indignity as the Japanese-Americans are not worth the mention? Or the forced assimilation of the Texas-Germans, ban on German cultural clubs/meetings [No more than 10 Germans were allowed to hold assembly in the same room unless they represented less than half the crowd in said room], etc..? But yes, lets obviously only concentrate on the Japanese, since all other victims, such as the aforementioned German-americans who suffered the same fate are irrelevant and deserved it.
Mead Chuggin Granny
29-04-2008, 16:31
William H. Harrison is obviously the best president ever. During his term in office he made the fewest number of mistakes and political SNFAUs of any US president by quite a margin. Truly a great inspiration for any US president that people tend to forget about instead.
Rambhutan
29-04-2008, 16:42
Warren Harding seems to have the worst one as far as I can find out from a bit of internet research.
Llewdor
29-04-2008, 17:28
Worst? Buchanan, and it's not close.

Best? I'm going with Coolidge.
Omigodtheykilledkenny
29-04-2008, 18:10
Buchanan was pretty awful, I'll give you that.

The best ones are Washington and Lincoln: the one who defined the presidency, and the one who strengthened it during the Civil War so it wasn't just an arm of Congress. Adams I is the most underrated; forging peace with France when we barely had a leg to stand on was no small achievement. Truman and Reagan rank among the best modern presidents.

The most overrated is FDR. He did little more than make it seem like the government was doing something to battle the Depression until WWII finally pulled us out of it; he was responsible for a recession that stunted our recovery; he tried to pack the Supreme Court when he couldn't get his way; and there are serious questions about his competency leading up to Pearl Harbor.

The absolute worst, however, is Bill Clinton. Having no accomplishments of his own to crow over, he just took credit for other people's successes. His entire legislative agenda was co-opted Republican ideas; his extracurriculars certainly don't need replaying; and he was so desperate to secure a legacy for himself in 2000 that he twisted Israel's arm into accepting a flawed peace accord, the failure of which resulted in the Second Intifada.
Laerod
29-04-2008, 18:26
So the 11,000 German-Americans who suffered the same incarceration, confiscation and indignity as the Japanese-Americans are not worth the mention? Or the forced assimilation of the Texas-Germans, ban on German cultural clubs/meetings [No more than 10 Germans were allowed to hold assembly in the same room unless they represented less than half the crowd in said room], etc..? But yes, lets obviously only concentrate on the Japanese, since all other victims, such as the aforementioned German-americans who suffered the same fate are irrelevant and deserved it.Lots more exceptions for the German-Americans, though. The Japanese and other Asian-Americans suffered a tad more, particularly on the West Coast.
Skalvia
29-04-2008, 18:41
Lincoln: the one who defined the presidency, and the one who strengthened it during the Civil War so it wasn't just an arm of Congress.

I had always believed he would have give up the 'emergency powers' so to speak, but he was assassinated...

I think that was one of the worst things to happen to the presidency, the loose interpretation it was one of the root causes of the shit we've had to deal with since WWII...
Skalvia
29-04-2008, 18:42
Lots more exceptions for the German-Americans, though. The Japanese and other Asian-Americans suffered a tad more, particularly on the West Coast.

Yeah, but you cant blame FDR for that kind of stuff, it was mostly Local Fucktards thinking they caught "spies"...Ignorance was what it was...
CthulhuFhtagn
29-04-2008, 19:14
Worst would be Jackson, what with the whole genocide thing.

Best? No idea.
Zarbli
29-04-2008, 19:33
Best: George W Bush. He's hilarious!

Brilliant point


As a South American, I have to say Teddy Roosevelt and his Big Stick policy kinda suck...
Skalvia
29-04-2008, 19:38
As a South American, I have to say Teddy Roosevelt and his Big Stick policy kinda suck...

I thought he only messed with Panama....and that was simply giving them the means to Free themselves from Columbia...


The Canal was just a side benefit, lol :p...


The template wouldnt have been a bad move to copy in Iraq, i think there's a strong possibility that it would have turned out better...
Zarbli
29-04-2008, 19:46
I thought he only messed with Panama....and that was simply giving them the means to Free themselves from Columbia...

Well, he put the Roosevelt corollary on the Monroe Doctrine... and we have strong evidence that US supported the military dictatorshops around here out of fear that socialist parties could win the elections, all because Teddy man said US could intervein if he felt threatened... even if the socialist won free democrtic elections...
Bibliotecia
29-04-2008, 19:51
I didn't read every post in the thread, but I'm surprised nobody listed Franklin Pierce. (Probably becuase nobody knows anything about him.)

He served briefly in Congress but turned into a drunk and was sent home to New Hampshire. When the Democrats couldn't agree to a nominee in 1852, they turned to him, since nobody could remember anything about him.

On the way to Washington, his family is involved in a trainwreck at a station, and he probably witnessed his only surviving child get beheaded. Pierce was emotionally paralized by the loss, and became an ineffective president, allowing the power Southerners in his Cabinet (including Sec. of War Jefferson Davis) have their way with pro-Southern policies. So passive was Pierce that he remains the only President who never replaced a Cabinet member in a four-year term.

When the Civil War erupted four years after his presidency, he solidly backed the successionists and called Lincoln's actions illegal. Not that anyone was listening to him.

Other crappy presidents: Buchanan and Harding, though at least Harding realized just how much his cronies were abusing their power just before he died.
Conservatives states
29-04-2008, 19:53
This is not a debate thread :headbang: just state the president (s) you think were good and bad, no points just names.


Best: George washington, Reagan, and Thomas Jefferson (Although I like Alexander Hamilton alot), John adams.


Worst:Bill clinton, FDR, JFK, Andrew Jackson.
Skalvia
29-04-2008, 19:53
Well, he put the Roosevelt corollary on the Monroe Doctrine... and we have strong evidence that US supported the military dictatorshops around here out of fear that socialist parties could win the elections, all because Teddy man said US could intervein if he felt threatened... even if the socialist won free democrtic elections...

That is pretty fucked that we would support those Regimes, although it doesnt surprise me...

However, thats not TR's fault, its the successors that interpreted it that way...

Same reason we dont blame Lincoln for fucktards like Bush and Nixon abusing the power of "Commander in Chief'..
Laerod
29-04-2008, 19:55
Yeah, but you cant blame FDR for that kind of stuff, it was mostly Local Fucktards thinking they caught "spies"...Ignorance was what it was...It was pretty organized. Plenty of people saw a business opportunity in the making and joined in on the disowning, freezing bank accounts, and evictions for profit.
Intangelon
29-04-2008, 19:55
Worst: Buchanan, Harding, A. Johnson, Grant, Nixon

Best: Lincoln, FDR, Jefferson, T. Roosevelt, Polk
Skalvia
29-04-2008, 19:57
It was pretty organized. Plenty of people saw a business opportunity in the making and joined in on the disowning, freezing bank accounts, and evictions for profit.

Yeah, but, as previously stated, thats not FDR's fault...Its local bastards capitalizing on fear and ignorance...
Laerod
29-04-2008, 19:58
Yeah, but, as previously stated, thats not FDR's fault...Its local bastards capitalizing on fear and ignorance...I agree, I was just a bit miffed by your wording ;)
JJRBSMS
29-04-2008, 19:59
HELLO,Lincoln was the best

u could debate that hoover,Bush 1,Bush 2 the worst!
Knights of Liberty
29-04-2008, 20:41
Anyone who says Reagan honostly has no knowledge of American history. You dont have to think he was the worst, but there are seriously several better presidents.


Best: Teddy Roosevelt, Jefferson, Lincoln

Worst: Polk, Wilson, Hoover, Nixon, Reagan, Bush II
Skalvia
29-04-2008, 20:42
Reagan, lol
Heinleinites
29-04-2008, 20:51
This has shook out about like I thought it would. Although I was surprised to see Andrew Jackson and Ronald Reagan share space on a 'Best' list, you don't often see that.

Best: Ronald Reagan. Why Ronald Reagan is the greatest is either completely obvious to you, or no amount of argument will change your mind, so I'm not going to bother.
Honorable Mentions: Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson.

Worst: Teddy's cousin, Franklin. Apparently the fruit fell way the hell far from that tree. Shame.
Honorable Mentions: Harding, Wilson, Grant, Carter, Clinton.
Knights of Liberty
29-04-2008, 20:54
This has shook out about like I thought it would. Although I was surprised to see Andrew Jackson and Ronald Reagan share space on a 'Best' list, you don't often see that.

Best: Ronald Reagan. Why Ronald Reagan is the greatest is either completely obvious to you, or no amount of argument will change your mind, so I'm not going to bother.


Im going with you just dont know shit.
Soldnerism
29-04-2008, 20:57
It is hard to say who is the best, especially with the first three being founding fathers. I would have to say the best would be John Adams, George Washington then Thomas Jefferson.

I can say with all certainty that the two worst were Woodrow Wilson and FDR. The more I read about them the more I realize how much they hurt the US and allowed BIG government to take over, something the founding fathers did not want was big government.
Soldnerism
29-04-2008, 20:58
Also, I am curious as to why Lincoln is on the worst list for so many people.
Knights of Liberty
29-04-2008, 21:00
Also, I am curious as to why Lincoln is on the worst list for so many people.

They are either Southerners or dislike Machiavellian presidents.
Soldnerism
29-04-2008, 21:02
They are either Southerners or dislike Machiavellian presidents.

I agree with the Southerners point. I live in Va and they still talk about it. I don know if I would call him a Machiavellian president. He did what he had to to preserve the union.
Yootopia
29-04-2008, 21:06
Best : FDR was pretty good, all things considered. The economy did pretty well under him despite the terrible condition it was in when he got into power, and his regulation of agriculture and so on and so forth laid down some pretty good guides as to How To Do That Kind Of Thing.

Worst : Reagan was a pretty rubbish. Hoover was also a pretty poor president.

Side-note : Quite why do you chaps idealise Lincoln so much? He didn't act on Slavery until it became a popular issue to do so, interned 18,000 people on vague suspicions of being Confederate supporters and made it so that he could spend money without congressional approval, in addition to suspending Habeas Corpus.

These are exactly the kind of thing which a lot of people complain about nowadays regarding Bush.
Zarbli
29-04-2008, 21:10
Yeah, but, as previously stated, thats not FDR's fault...Its local bastards capitalizing on fear and ignorance...

For the record, it's not Franklin D, but Teddy :cool:
Talrania
29-04-2008, 21:14
We have gone through this a million times already, that said, best president, President Ronald Reagan.

Worst president, President Jimmy Carter.

Amen.
Shofercia
29-04-2008, 21:16
I'm probably going to get grilled for saying this, but best:

Top 3 historic (pre-20th century):

Best:
Washington, Jefferson, Polk (only president to keep all of his promises)

Worst:
Buchanan, Grant, Arthur (sorry, but you need more then Muttonchops to impress me buddy)

Top 3 modern:

Best:
FDR - created the Coalition that defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, reduced Allied troop losses through food programs, created the United Nations, died way too early. Oh yeah, also programs helped end the Great Depression. (Here come the Libertarian responses to this...they no likey Keynesian Economics.)

Ike - Warned against the Military-Industrial Complex that's currently destroying the US, fought the Cold War brilliantly, yet cleanly, had to clean up Truman's mess.

JFK - First major victory in Cold War, gave the nation hope, was about to get the economy to superb levels, got assasinated because he was too good.

Worst:
Truman - Started the whole Cold War thingy, left mess for Ike to deal with, refused to provide food to Eastern Europe, reduced the effectiveness of the US Army and then sent them to Korea.

Nixon - do I need to comment?

Reagan - that whole Star Wars thingy, umm, didn't he get the memo that it was a MOVIE?! Enabled massive government pork, and destroyed FDR's economic progressivism with his Reaganomics plans. He gets a red lightsaber.

Up and coming:
Bush - in seven months, unless he pulls out of Iraq, overhauls American edukashun system, builds up New Orleans, normalizes relations with at least Europe, fixes illegal immigration, catches bin Laden, Bush will join Truman/Nixon/Reagan. Nixon's got competition now.

"Seven minutes left to play in the 4th quarter. The anti-Bush team is up by 49 points. I think it's over."
Soldnerism
29-04-2008, 21:17
Best : FDR was pretty good, all things considered. The economy did pretty well under him despite the terrible condition it was in when he got into power, and his regulation of agriculture and so on and so forth laid down some pretty good guides as to How To Do That Kind Of Thing.

Worst : Reagan was a pretty rubbish. Hoover was also a pretty poor president.

Side-note : Quite why do you chaps idealise Lincoln so much? He didn't act on Slavery until it became a popular issue to do so, interned 18,000 people on vague suspicions of being Confederate supporters and made it so that he could spend money without congressional approval, in addition to suspending Habeas Corpus.

These are exactly the kind of thing which a lot of people complain about nowadays regarding Bush.

Too much wrong with this post.

How can you say the economy did well under FDR? I will give you the fact that it was going under before FDR took office. Everything he did was unconstitutional, not until he was allowed to pack the supreme court with his judges did his ideas stand. Why also was there another recession during the depression? Why was it that farmers were not farming land and people were killing themselves due to starvation? Why was FDR setting the price of gold on a daily practice to a number he liked? Why was there stagflation with his policies? Why did the TVA not work? There are many other questions that are nrought up about him and I could go on and on.

Now for Licoln. You would have to know something about the founding fathers to under stand Lincoln. That is a book in and of itself. It starts with the question as to why were slaves only considered 3/5ths of a person? If you can answer that question then I will go on.
Soldnerism
29-04-2008, 21:20
I'm probably going to get grilled for saying this, but best:



Top 3 modern:

Best:
FDR - created the Coalition that defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, reduced Allied troop losses through food programs, created the United Nations, died way too early. Oh yeah, also programs helped end the Great Depression. (Here come the Libertarian responses to this...they no likey Keynesian Economics.)

"

Wake up!!! Keynesian Economics does not work!!! It has been proven, why do you think England got off it so quick?
Talrania
29-04-2008, 21:21
Just so you know, I'm never coming back to this thread again, so don't try to argue.

Ronald Reagan is the best president ever, because of his obsession with Jelly Bellies. The blueberry flavor was made in his honor.

Ronald Reagan is the worst president ever. He once fell asleep during a one on one conversation with the pope.

'Nuff said.
Knights of Liberty
29-04-2008, 21:23
Side-note : Quite why do you chaps idealise Lincoln so much? He didn't act on Slavery until it became a popular issue to do so, interned 18,000 people on vague suspicions of being Confederate supporters and made it so that he could spend money without congressional approval, in addition to suspending Habeas Corpus.

These are exactly the kind of thing which a lot of people complain about nowadays regarding Bush.

My love for Lincoln comes from him being a political genius.
Knights of Liberty
29-04-2008, 21:25
I agree with the Southerners point. I live in Va and they still talk about it. I don know if I would call him a Machiavellian president. He did what he had to to preserve the union.

He did what he had to do to increase his power and make a name for himself. Including allowing the Union to break a part, and subtly encouraging it.


He was a master.
Soldnerism
29-04-2008, 21:26
My love for Lincoln comes from him being a political genius.

Amen!

Also, for knowing what the founding fathers wanted for this country.
Atruria
29-04-2008, 21:30
Worst: Woodrow Wilson. Won WWI for the Allies; the world would have been a better place if the CPs had won.

Also was a racist dick
Soldnerism
29-04-2008, 21:33
He did what he had to do to increase his power and make a name for himself. Including allowing the Union to break a part, and subtly encouraging it.


He was a master.

He used the techiques but it was for the purpose of moving forward with the founding fathers ideas. Once again I ask, "Why did the founding fathers put in that slaves are considered only 3/5ths a person?"
West Corinthia
29-04-2008, 21:46
Here's my list and reasons why:

Best presidents:
-Thomas Jefferson (Louisiana Purchase MIRITE?)
-Abraham Lincoln (saved the Union, emancipation proclamation, etc.)
-Theodore Roosevelt (square deal, modernized the navy, interventionalist foreign policy)
-Woodrow Wilson (14 points, antitrust legislation, etc.)
-Franklin D Roosevelt (New Deal, handling of WWII, etc.)
-John F Kennedy (handling of Cuban missile crisis, launch of US space program)

Worst presidents:
-Andrew Jackson (nullification crisis, trail of tears, national bank closing)
-Rutherford B. Hayes (compromise of 1877, ended reconstruction post-Civil war)
-Warren G. Harding (isolationist policies, refusal to join league of nations, teapot dome scandal)
-Richard Nixon (Vietnam, Watergate)
-GW Bush (no need to explain/*facepalm*)
Lyerngess
29-04-2008, 22:51
For those of you who keep placing Lincoln as one of your favorite Presidents, a little rant...

Any Republican President in Lincoln's position would have eliminated slavery, it had very little to do with the man or his beliefs. When you look at what he did not have to do, or how he achieved that which he did, you see how bad of a President he really was.

The most important of his flaws was the virtual elimination of something called State's Rights, one of the most fundamental and important principles of our nation. The Civil War was partly about slavery and mostly about the Rights of States to decide issues for themselves in which the federal government had no right to interfere with.

Beyond that, it has been previously mentioned that he jailed many people for being supporters of the Confederacy on little or no evidence. He manipulated people and the political machine to his own benefit with no greater goals in mind. He was a great speaker and politician, but hardly a good President.

On to the greatness of Taft, which has yet to be properly explicated...

Taft was the greatest President because he stayed with the ideas of the founding fathers in a time when Presidents did not have to. He championed small government and the weakening of federal control on the Rights of the States and the People. He was so knowledgeable about the Constitution that he went on to become a Supreme Court Justice after his term as President. Not only does this show intelligence and good politics, it also shows that he was not as pompous and self-centered as the other Presidents, who nearly universally refused to become involved in the political process at a lower level after their last terms.

Thomas Jefferson is great for a lot of reasons, although hardly as good as Taft, mostly because of how it was nearly impossible not to follow the Constitution in those days. And, of course the Jeffersonian Bible, quite possibly the greatest version ever conceived. And the idea of the Enlightened Farmer. Among other things.

For those of you who seem to like Wilson, learn history! If it was not for Wilson's blatant refusal to deal with his own Senate, he would have had the full support of the American federal government at the Treaty of Versailles. Because he did not, and because of his inexperience, he gave to Britain and France concessions that were the leading cause of WWII and Hitler's rise to power in Germany. He is, therefore, single-handedly responsible for some percentage of all the deaths caused by WWII and Hitler, which even at the smallest percentages still amount to some thousands, much greater than even the worst serial killer in the history of the world.

Beyond this, he allowed the creation of the Federal Reserve and so-called progressive taxation during his Presidency, both of which were horrendously stupid mistakes, economically speaking.

FDR is yet another well-rated but horrible President. People attribute victory in WWII and the ending of the Great Depression with him. The fact is, his policies prolonged the Great Depression and unconstitutionally expanded the powers of the federal government. It was only victory in WWII, for which he was not responsible, and the subsequent shift in industrial power toward the United States that lifted us out of the Great Depression, with several smaller factors as well.

Reagan? He's just FDR in a Republican costume. Increasing spending while cutting taxes is even duller than increasing spending while increasing taxes, and here he had no reason and expanded the federal government nearly as much as FDR did. He did not even solve the Cold War; the Soviet Union did that on its own.

Finally, we come to Bill Clinton. I would argue that Bill Clinton was a good President, mostly because of the stellar economy he ran during his Presidency. While his ideas may have been very much on the fiscal conservative side for a Democrat, they worked very well, and we experienced one of the greatest periods of economic growth in our history under his guidance. While certainly not wholly responsible for the economy's power during that time, he still cannot be counted as a bad President, even with the scandal; not as good as Taft, but certainly better than many, and not bad overall.

And that was a lot of writing. Forgive me if some of it is illegible.
Venndee
29-04-2008, 22:52
Those are Exactly my Four Best!!! crazy, lol

Yes, my list tends to be the inverse of other people's. :D

Interesting choices can I hear your reasons for them

In the list I made, Presidents who started major wars ended up in the third tier (labelled Bad), at the very least, as I oppose war in its entirety. Hence, my four worst presidents being involved in warfare of some kind (Latin America, World War I, World War II, Civil War), they ended up there. On the domestic policy front, the more socialistic, mercantilistic, or a spendthrift a President was the lower he went (All of the presidents I listed engaged in serious regulation, taxation, spending, and inflationism.) Lincoln I put as my worst, as he was the one who truly re-organized the United States from a system that approximated vicarious authority to a centralized, nationalistic system of corporate welfare, central banking, and tariffs, as well as being responsible for a war that killed more Americans than any other.

The good presidents, of course, would be ones that focused on rolling back interference in the affairs of Americans and foreigners, without making some significant error that increased intrusion. However, since all of the presidents failed to do this in a significant way at one point or another (for instance, the suppression of the Pullman Strike or treatment of the Indians), I only have seven presidents who I label "decent." (The next tier being "flawed," which has those who might have had some good ideology but largely failed to live up to it.)

Here we have the best Democrats of the Jeffersonian/Jacksonian model who opposed the Hamiltonian/American system, Andrew Johnson for opposing the Radical Republicans' schemes at centralization and control, Grover Cleveland for being a breath of fresh air in the corrupt, mercantilistic, proto-welfare state Gilded Age, and the only two Republicans I can consider anything more than bad, Calvin Coolidge and Warren Harding (who believed in peace and largely refrained from interference in the economy except for the desires of Herbert Hoover.)
Llewdor
29-04-2008, 23:09
What's with all the love for Lincoln? Lincoln destroyed the federation and created a strong central government.

Lincoln's on my short list of worst Presidents.
Venndee
29-04-2008, 23:14
On to the greatness of Taft, which has yet to be properly explicated...

Taft was the greatest President because he stayed with the ideas of the founding fathers in a time when Presidents did not have to. He championed small government and the weakening of federal control on the Rights of the States and the People. He was so knowledgeable about the Constitution that he went on to become a Supreme Court Justice after his term as President. Not only does this show intelligence and good politics, it also shows that he was not as pompous and self-centered as the other Presidents, who nearly universally refused to become involved in the political process at a lower level after their last terms.

While I like a lot of what you said, I vehemently disagree about Taft. The Payne-Aldrich Tarriff was utterly screwed up, he was an ally of Rockefeller and thus obediently attacked US Steel which was a Morgan interest, supported the 16th amendment (income tax) and 17th amendment (direct election of senators, very bad for devolution and state's rights), and gave the ICC more power, including over communications. And let's not forget his imperialistic "dollar diplomacy," which included dominating Nicaragua. He was not a friend to individual liberty.
Vetalia
29-04-2008, 23:23
I'm a fan of Calvin Coolidge, personally. Mainly because he not only embodied the concept of non-interventionist foreign policy but also cut taxes, vetoed foolish and shortsighted tariff legislation and pursued a lassiez-faire economic policy that allowed the 1920's to be one of the most widely prosperous periods in American history.

There are plenty of others, who have been mentioned many times before, but he's definitely one of the best. For worst president, I'd have to say LBJ is pretty close to the bottom; while the Great Society programs were a good idea, they were poorly implemented, and he also was a warmonger that committed the US to one of its most destructive and costly military defeats in history. In terms of absolute ineptitude, Nixon more than surpasses LBJ.
Knights of Liberty
29-04-2008, 23:28
He used the techiques but it was for the purpose of moving forward with the founding fathers ideas. Once again I ask, "Why did the founding fathers put in that slaves are considered only 3/5ths a person?"

If you read Lincoln's writings, slavery was not his #1 concern.
Vetalia
29-04-2008, 23:31
Now for Licoln. You would have to know something about the founding fathers to under stand Lincoln. That is a book in and of itself. It starts with the question as to why were slaves only considered 3/5ths of a person? If you can answer that question then I will go on.

To prevent the Southern states from being able to use their slaves to gain undue influence over Congress. Considering slaves had absolutely no rights or legal privileges whatsoever, I personally feel that 3/5 was too much and still over-represented the Southern states in the legislature. The 3/5 clause still effectively rewarded them for preserving an archaic and inefficient means of agricultural production.
Conserative Morality
29-04-2008, 23:35
I have figured out my complete list (With reasons given)

Best:
Calvin Coolidge: Reduced our debt, curbed inflation, none interventionist, and had a good sense of humor. I think I like this guy :D

Thomas Jefferson: Lazziez-faire politics, writer of the constitution, made sure we didn't get into anything TOO deep over our heads. A true genius.

Ronald Reagan: You either hate him or love him, and you know why you do either.

Worst:

FDR: He dug us deeper into the depression, was influential in the huge increase in government spending, price controls, and of course, the relocation of Japanesse Americans :mad:


He truly has no equal.
Arkach
29-04-2008, 23:38
best
Ronald Reagan, Taft,

worst

Jimmy Carter, FDR
Knights of Liberty
29-04-2008, 23:39
Worst:

Ronal Reagan: He dug us deeper into the possibility of nuclear war, was influential in the huge increase in the middle east's hatred of us,attempted to regulate religion and morality, and of course, his hatred of African Americans :mad:


He truly has no equal.



Fixed.




I love fucking with you CM;)
Conserative Morality
29-04-2008, 23:44
*Cries* You're so mean to me KOL *Goes to cry in corner*
Heinleinites
30-04-2008, 00:23
Im going with you just dont know shit.

It's possible. As Plato said 'the beginning of wisdom lies in realising how little you truly do know'

Either way, I'm unlikely to lose sleep worrying about your opinion of my views.
New Manvir
30-04-2008, 00:33
Best:

Franklin D. Roosevelt - Helped the US get out of the Depression. Led the US during WWII.
Dwight D. Eisenhower - Brought Alaska and Hawaii into the Union. Supported the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision. Tried to limit post-war defence spending and warned against the Military-Industrial Complex.
John F. Kennedy - his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Space Program, and he's made of win (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=cCrovnNGdSg) ;)
Bill Clinton - See Skalvia (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13652552&postcount=7)

Worst:

George W. Bush - Just plain incompetent
Ronald Reagan - See The Lone Aliance (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13653139&postcount=23), "Star Wars"
Richard M. Nixon - Vietnam, Cambodia, Watergate and the War on Drugs.
Lame Bums
30-04-2008, 01:50
Best: Eisenhower, Reagan or Teddy Roosevelt.
Worst: FDR by a long shot, with Carter and Wilson tied for a distant second.
Lyerngess
30-04-2008, 01:53
While I like a lot of what you said, I vehemently disagree about Taft. The Payne-Aldrich Tarriff was utterly screwed up, he was an ally of Rockefeller and thus obediently attacked US Steel which was a Morgan interest, supported the 16th amendment (income tax) and 17th amendment (direct election of senators, very bad for devolution and state's rights), and gave the ICC more power, including over communications. And let's not forget his imperialistic "dollar diplomacy," which included dominating Nicaragua. He was not a friend to individual liberty.

All true. There are plenty of others I could offer up as best President, but I personally enjoy Taft because others can attack him. If you would like, I could replace him with Jefferson, Cleveland, or Coolidge. Anyways, on to countering your arguments...

The 16th and 17th amendments are two of the worst amendments to the Constitution. Taft's support was a poor choice on his part. His association with Rockefeller was not one of choice, but one of necessity; unfortunately, Taft was a politician, and had to win through his party, which involved allying with the more conservative portions of the Republican Party to oust Roosevelt from his position. It can certainly be understood, if not supported.

Dollar diplomacy was hardly the worst form of interventionist foreign policy and was, again, an action of political necessity rather than one of choice. The strengthening of the ICC was a similar choice, as were many of his more regrettable decisions.

Let us not forget all the assistance Taft gave to the ailing federal court system, without which our nation would no longer be guided by the Constitution at all, even the regrettably small amount by which it is today.
[NS]Click Stand
30-04-2008, 01:53
There so far have only been about three types of posts in this thread:

1. Reagan was awesome, FDR sucked.

2. Vice-versa

3. Other unkown presidents that no one has heard of.

I also find an unjust amount of Carter bashing without any backing.

Reagan is teh sux btw :)
Lame Bums
30-04-2008, 01:55
Click Stand;13654959']There so far have only been about three types of posts in this thread:

1. Reagan was awesome, FDR sucked.

2. Vice-versa

3. Other unkown presidents that no one has heard of.

I also find an unjust amount of Carter bashing without any backing.

Reagan is teh sux btw :)

Carter - Gas prices, inflation, high interest rates, a crappy economy, Iran revolution and hostage crisis...
Fourteen Eighty Eight
30-04-2008, 02:00
I think Jefferson was historically one of the best along with Teddy Roosevelt. I didn't much care for the socialist propaganda of FDR. He created jobs in a bad time, but at what cost? Not to mention he was a big supporter of Stalin. In more modern times I would have to go with Reagan and Kennedy.

As far as worst presidents go, Ulysses S. Grant had one of the most corrupt administrations in the history of the U.S. I don't much like Andrew Jackson either as his was a very pointed demonstration in the abuse of Presidential power. In modern times, I would have to go with Jimmy Carter and George "Dubya" Bush. Both are idiots with no understanding what-so-ever of foreign policy.

That's my honest opinion.
[NS]Click Stand
30-04-2008, 02:01
Carter - Gas prices, inflation, high interest rates, a crappy economy, Iran revolution and hostage crisis...

I was never saying he was a great president, but to put him in the leagues of the worst just seems misinformed.

First of all, blaming him for Iran is ludicrous, since it was the actions of former presidents that set up the revolution. Gas prices are another thing that was directly out of his control.

The high interest rates however can be linked to him and as a result the economy, as with his, *ahem*, mismanagement of the hostage crisis.

Still not the worst though.
Lyerngess
30-04-2008, 02:02
I also find an unjust amount of Carter bashing without any backing.

I will bask Carter with all the backing I need. First and foremost, he created not one but two cabinet-level departments within the Executive Branch. The Department of Energy was an uncalled for and, frankly, stupid attempt by the federal government to regulate the use of energy in America when it was best left to the corporations, as they have the profit motive.

The Department of Education is one of only two cabinet-level department to require immediate and total dissolution, as it infringes so completely and unconstitutionally upon the rights of the states. The other, obviously, is the Department of Homeland Security, which is a dangerous merger of FBI and CIA functions that should not have been allowed under any circumstances.

Carter was an environmentalist. While this is fine by itself, it is wrong for the federal government to pursue active restrictions on the economy to promote so-called environmental health when it is within the corporations best interests to do so in ways that won't damage the economy and, through doing so, lower the standard of living of every person living with the United States.

Carter had an interventionist foreign policy that focused on human rights. Again, human rights are not a bad thing to promote by themselves. However, it is the job of the American government to help American citizens, not the citizens of other nations. That is the job of charities and individuals, not something that tax dollars should be spent upon.

Is that enough Carter bashing with backing for you? ;)
Fourteen Eighty Eight
30-04-2008, 02:05
Click Stand;13654959']There so far have only been about three types of posts in this thread:

1. Reagan was awesome, FDR sucked.

2. Vice-versa

3. Other unkown presidents that no one has heard of.

I also find an unjust amount of Carter bashing without any backing.

Reagan is teh sux btw :)

It's not our fault you don't know history or much about previous presidents. All the Carter bashing on here is very justified. He did some good, don't get me wrong, but he had far more bad that greatly outweighed any good that he did. Reagan was great in the fact that he was president in a time when we had a strong economy, job growth was pretty good, and he urged Mr. Gorachev to "tear down that wall." While his military spending was very high, it had a purpose. It put us in an arms race with the Soviet Union that caused the Soviet economy to collapse. Not a very nice thing to do, but we could be calling each other comrade down at the collective factory if it wasn't for that.
Alacea
30-04-2008, 02:11
Top Three

Reagan
Lincoln
Jefferson


Bottom Three
Bush Jr.
Clinton [And to think he's essentially running for a third term... *shudder*]
Jimmy Carter


Am I alone in thinking Roosevelt (Junior) was icky too, but not quite bad enought to be in the bottom three of phail?


It seems a lot easier to pick my least favorite... I think Barry Goldwater and Mitt Romney were probably my favorite candidates of all time...
[NS]Click Stand
30-04-2008, 02:15
It's not our fault you don't know history or much about previous presidents. All the Carter bashing on here is very justified. He did some good, don't get me wrong, but he had far more bad that greatly outweighed any good that he did.

As I said up there, I never said he was good, all I was saying was people were making posts such as "Reagan was good, Carter was the worst" but I had yet to see one person actually explain why he was the worst. i noticed this because he is most certainly not near the top of the "worst presidents" list. If you stand for states rights, then he have FDR beating him. If you stand for a good economy, well then you have Hoover of FDR again. But no matter how you look at it, he was better than the worst in any category.

Reagan was great in the fact that he was president in a time when we had a strong economy, job growth was pretty good, and he urged Mr. Gorbachev to "tear down that wall." While his military spending was very high, it had a purpose. It put us in an arms race with the Soviet Union that caused the Soviet economy to collapse. Not a very nice thing to do, but we could be calling each other comrade down at the collective factory if it wasn't for that.

As was Clinton, but you can't say they were good presidents because they hopped on the economy as it was going up wards. The difference is Clinton didn't stop it on his own.

The Soviet Union also didn't need an arms race or any urging, since it was crumbling apart regardless, since Gorbachev was at the helm.
Lyerngess
30-04-2008, 02:15
It's not our fault you don't know history or much about previous presidents. All the Carter bashing on here is very justified. He did some good, don't get me wrong, but he had far more bad that greatly outweighed any good that he did. Reagan was great in the fact that he was president in a time when we had a strong economy, job growth was pretty good, and he urged Mr. Gorachev to "tear down that wall." While his military spending was very high, it had a purpose. It put us in an arms race with the Soviet Union that caused the Soviet economy to collapse. Not a very nice thing to do, but we could be calling each other comrade down at the collective factory if it wasn't for that.

I'll cite your first statement about Carter, in that he did much more bad than good, and apply it to Reagan. The Soviet Union's collapse was inevitable long before Reagan came into office. The only thing Reagan did was increase our military spending to a ridiculously large amount, a trend that continues to this day with George Bush. He also expanded government's role in our lives, among other things.

By far the worst sin created by Ronald Reagan, however, was the combination of various forms of conservative into the 'modern' conservative as it is viewed in America. He took fiscal, religious, and social conservatives and melded them into one within the social eye, making it impossible for me to call myself a conservative without feeling ashamed and immediately being criticized for authoritarian social viewpoints which I do not share. It used to be that the Republican party had various camps, but now it is all one camp: that of Ronald Reagan and the neo-conservatives.

Not that he only did bad. His economic policy was fair, although certainly not the best or even close to the best. The most important thing he did, in my book, was cut taxes.
Knights of Liberty
30-04-2008, 02:33
Carter was an environmentalist. While this is fine by itself, it is wrong for the federal government to pursue active restrictions on the economy to promote so-called environmental health when it is within the corporations best interests to do so in ways that won't damage the economy and, through doing so, lower the standard of living of every person living with the United States.




Your whole rant is idiotic, but Im picking on this because this is just the most fucking stupid. Seriously, what world do you live in where corperations on their own will persue evironmentally friendly policies? History shows that corperations rape everything they touch, including and especially the environment in the name of profit.
Lyerngess
30-04-2008, 02:50
Your whole rant is idiotic, but Im picking on this because this is just the most fucking stupid. Seriously, what world do you live in where corperations on their own will persue evironmentally friendly policies? History shows that corperations rape everything they touch, including and especially the environment in the name of profit.

You my friend, are obviously a big government fiscal liberal, which most likely makes you a lost cause who should move to Canada as quickly as possible so as to stop plaguing the United States with your inane arguments.

Now, I will use your own positions to eliminate your argument, hopefully in a way you can understand.

It is, as I see, the belief of environmentalists that it is to the benefit of all people that the environment be protected and cared for. Corporations are owned and run by people. Therefore, it is logically in the best interests of corporations to protect and care for the environment. If it is not, than the premises of environmentalism are flawed and need to be thrown out. Regardless, it is not the job of the government to interfere with what any individual does with their own private property if it does not infringe upon the rights of others, which this certainly does not.

Now, if you would please bring forth the rest of your incorrectness perhaps we can cure you of your disease before the requisite banishment to Canada. Or maybe Europe. Would you prefer Europe?
Lyerngess
30-04-2008, 02:53
Your whole rant is idiotic, but Im picking on this because this is just the most fucking stupid. Seriously, what world do you live in where corperations on their own will persue evironmentally friendly policies? History shows that corperations rape everything they touch, including and especially the environment in the name of profit.

You my friend, are obviously a big government fiscal liberal, which most likely makes you a lost cause who should move to Canada as quickly as possible so as to stop plaguing the United States with your inane arguments.

Now, I will use your own positions to eliminate your argument, hopefully in a way you can understand.

It is, as I see, the belief of environmentalists that it is to the benefit of all people that the environment be protected and cared for. Corporations are owned and run by people. Therefore, it is logically in the best interests of corporations to protect and care for the environment. If it is not, than the premises of environmentalism are flawed and need to be recreated in a more logical manner. Regardless, it is not the job of the government to interfere with what any individual does with their own private property if it does not infringe upon the rights of others, which this certainly does not.

Secondly, environmentally friendly policies restrict the economic and growth potential of corporations, damaging the economy. This indirectly causes the living standard of all those within America not to increase as much as it would. This is a rather large price to pay for such an unimportant problem.

Now, if you would please bring forth the rest of your incorrectness perhaps we can cure you of your disease before the requisite banishment to Canada. Or maybe Europe. Would you prefer Europe?
Soheran
30-04-2008, 03:09
It is, as I see, the belief of environmentalists that it is to the benefit of all people that the environment be protected and cared for. Corporations are owned and run by people. Therefore, it is logically in the best interests of corporations to protect and care for the environment.

What was that about "inane arguments"?

This is really just a converse fallacy of composition--just because something is true of the whole ("It is good for the public that the environment be protected") doesn't mean it's true of the parts ("It is good for a particular individual that the environment be protected in a particular instance.")

More specifically, you're completely ignoring the problem of free riding, which, in the end, harms everyone... even if everyone acts according to their self-interest. That's because my self-interested actions might harm you more than they help me... and the opposite might be true of yours.
Knights of Liberty
30-04-2008, 03:11
You my friend, are obviously a big government fiscal liberal, which most likely makes you a lost cause who should move to Canada as quickly as possible so as to stop plaguing the United States with your inane arguments.

Now, I will use your own positions to eliminate your argument, hopefully in a way you can understand.

It is, as I see, the belief of environmentalists that it is to the benefit of all people that the environment be protected and cared for. Corporations are owned and run by people. Therefore, it is logically in the best interests of corporations to protect and care for the environment. If it is not, than the premises of environmentalism are flawed and need to be thrown out. Regardless, it is not the job of the government to interfere with what any individual does with their own private property if it does not infringe upon the rights of others, which this certainly does not.

Now, if you would please bring forth the rest of your incorrectness perhaps we can cure you of your disease before the requisite banishment to Canada. Or maybe Europe. Would you prefer Europe?

Nope, the premise of environmentalism isnt flawed, your logic is.

The problem with your conclusion is two-fold

A) Long term effects are of no concerns to corperations. They are willing to destroy the evironment and ignore long term consequences. Why? Because they get their money now, and wont see the consequences in their lifetime.

B) Often times, the evironmental distruction doesnt effect the person heading said corperations. They may poison a water supply, but it wont be the one they use, so they wont care.
Aceopolis
30-04-2008, 03:15
Best: FDR

Worst: Reagan

Anyone who thinks the opposite, I challenge you to explain how FDR worsened the depression, preferably with economic data from the time (which, when I look at it, the economy boomed starting in 1933 or 34, shortly after FDR took office), and how Reagan is so worthy of worship

Runners up

Best: Eisenhower, Washington

worst: Harding, Jackson
Conserative Morality
30-04-2008, 03:17
Your whole rant is idiotic, but Im picking on this because this is just the most fucking stupid. Seriously, what world do you live in where corperations on their own will persue evironmentally friendly policies? History shows that corperations rape everything they touch, including and especially the environment in the name of profit.
Rape everything they touch in the name of profit?

So you're saying all companies care about is money. I'll concede that. But who exactly is supposed to step in? The government? They're no better then the raping companies you rant about. The only difference is that they get to use force.

If you hate companies so much, move to NK. No evil raping companies there. :p
With all seriousness though, what's the alternative? The government lets destructive wildfires run, not just the normal ones. Private companies have to watch out because if they don't, they'll have the enviromentalists and the federal government will be on them.

If the federal government dosen't, watch out, they just yell about how they need more money to properly protect it. And people fall for it again and again.

Good night, I'm wayyyy off topic. Sorry 'bout that.
Conserative Morality
30-04-2008, 03:23
Anyone who thinks the opposite, I challenge you to explain how FDR worsened the depression, preferably with economic data from the time (which, when I look at it, the economy boomed starting in 1933 or 34, shortly after FDR took office), and how Reagan is so worthy of worship

Give us hard data showing why Reagan is so bad.

And the US's economy didn't boom again until WW2. FDR is not some God who can magicly fix the economy after taking office, heck, Calvin Coolidge couldn't have fixed the economy that quickly if he got another term in 1933/34! If no one else was, Calvin was good with our government's money.
Knights of Liberty
30-04-2008, 03:24
Give us hard data showing why Reagan is so bad.

Well, a little research into our South American and Middle Eastern "affairs" will give you that.
Soheran
30-04-2008, 03:25
Give us hard data showing why Reagan is so bad.

How many murdered Central Americans do you want?
Knights of Liberty
30-04-2008, 03:26
How many murdered Central Americans do you want?

Exactly. I mean, if your into crazy, genocidal old men who get their rocks off to the prospect of nuclear winter and exploiting the poor and black people, I can see why hed be your favorite president.


For those of us who dont like bat shit crazy old fundimentalist Christian white guys however....
Aceopolis
30-04-2008, 03:27
Rape everything they touch in the name of profit?

So you're saying all companies care about is money. I'll concede that. But who exactly is supposed to step in? The government? They're no better then the raping companies you rant about. The only difference is that they get to use force.

except for the fact that government is actually accountable to the people, and corporations are accountable to their stockholders. As suchgovernment has an actual incentive to preserve the environment.

Oh and good luck trying to convince anyone of your point by using North Korea as your point of comparison.:rolleyes:
Conserative Morality
30-04-2008, 03:30
except for the fact that government is actually accountable to the people, and corporations are accountable to their stockholders. As suchgovernment has an actual incentive to preserve the environment.

Oh and good luck trying to convince anyone of your point by using North Korea as your point of comparison.
So corporations don't get their money from the people anymore? Where, pray tell, do they get it from? Corporations are every bit as accountable to the people as government, maybe more so because we can't put the government out legally.
Soheran
30-04-2008, 03:31
And the US's economy didn't boom again until WW2.

Well, it didn't recover until then, anyway. Which suggests, in a way, that FDR wasn't big government enough.
Knights of Liberty
30-04-2008, 03:31
So corporations don't get their money from the people anymore? Where, pray tell, do they get it from? Corporations are every bit as accountable to the people as government, maybe more so because we can't put the government out legally.

Oh please. You think corperations lose business for doing things people think are unethical? As long as people can get their products, they dont care whats going on.


WALMART is a perfect example. Their practices constantly infuriate the American people, but they still buy from them.
Venndee
30-04-2008, 03:33
All true. There are plenty of others I could offer up as best President, but I personally enjoy Taft because others can attack him. If you would like, I could replace him with Jefferson, Cleveland, or Coolidge. Anyways, on to countering your arguments...

Probably not Jefferson, as I'm not a fan of the embargo, warring with the pirates or the Louisiana Purchase. Cleveland and Coolidge are good, though.

The 16th and 17th amendments are two of the worst amendments to the Constitution. Taft's support was a poor choice on his part. His association with Rockefeller was not one of choice, but one of necessity; unfortunately, Taft was a politician, and had to win through his party, which involved allying with the more conservative portions of the Republican Party to oust Roosevelt from his position. It can certainly be understood, if not supported.

Dollar diplomacy was hardly the worst form of interventionist foreign policy and was, again, an action of political necessity rather than one of choice. The strengthening of the ICC was a similar choice, as were many of his more regrettable decisions.

Still, that doesn't excuse his support for them. I do not think that Taft did anything that was really good, like getting rid of a central bank or the like. I think he could have been far more pro-liberty; even Coolidge and Harding were connected to Rockefeller and Morgan, respectively, but they were better than Taft or Teddy Roosevelt.

Let us not forget all the assistance Taft gave to the ailing federal court system, without which our nation would no longer be guided by the Constitution at all, even the regrettably small amount by which it is today.

But that was after he was President. And still, I don't think it is a good thing that Supreme Court had more power in what cases they got to hear, since they would be able to choose those cases that they could enact their political agenda on. And I think that the Judicial Conference stifles potential competitive advantage, as some people may prefer to have their trials televised or the like but cannot since the Judicial Conference does not approve of it for some courts, and it has influence over Congress through its recommendations.
Soheran
30-04-2008, 03:33
So corporations don't get their money from the people anymore?

They get their money from particular consumers--consumers who don't have to worry about the costs the corporation has imposed upon third parties.
New Limacon
30-04-2008, 03:34
Well, it didn't recover until then, anyway. Which suggests, in a way, that FDR wasn't big government enough.

Indeed. World War II was, economically, an über-New Deal. The fact that it made the economy recover, and the fact that the New Deal saw improvement, suggests that FDR had the right idea.
Conserative Morality
30-04-2008, 03:39
Oh please. You think corperations lose business for doing things people think are unethical? As long as people can get their products, they dont care whats going on.


WALMART is a perfect example. Their practices constantly infuriate the American people, but they still buy from them.
Show me an example of one of these "infuriating acts."
Well, it didn't recover until then, anyway. Which suggests, in a way, that FDR wasn't big government enough.
Rather, it showed that he was too big government. Without his new deal, we would've went back to normal as we do after every depression. The government takes control, the worse and longer a depression gets.
Knights of Liberty
30-04-2008, 03:42
Show me an example of one of these "infuriating acts."

Do you not remember the outrage over their employement of a large number of illegal aliens?



There are several worse things, but this is the one most likely to be in your memory.
Soheran
30-04-2008, 03:42
Rather, it showed that he was too big government.

Then why did the massive military spending and government employment of World War II--Keynesianism to an extreme--solve the problem?

During wartime, countries are always much less laissez-faire than otherwise. If the problem were FDR's big government policies, recovery should have accompanied deregulation and spending cuts... but instead it accompanied the opposite.
Venndee
30-04-2008, 03:45
Well, it didn't recover until then, anyway. Which suggests, in a way, that FDR wasn't big government enough.

Actually, I wouldn't even say that the economy recovered during World War II. People's consumption stagnated, consumer durables fell, the population had to deal with the burdens of rationing, there was an increase in prices despite price controls, and though a great deal of money was saved since there was little to spend it on or because people wanted to buy government bonds, a lot of these savings were wasted on war materials that could only kill other humans. And then, there was a recession after the war ended due to the fiscal and monetary excess needed to support the war. Only after it was over and the burden of waging war was alleviated did life get better.
Soheran
30-04-2008, 03:51
People's consumption stagnated, consumer durables fell, the population had to deal with the burdens of rationing, there was an increase in prices despite price controls,

Yes, that's what happens during wartime, because such a massive amount of resources are allocated to purposes unrelated to living standards. It has no bearing on the question, because it's quite easy to spend government money on public services that directly benefit people rather than on war.
DrunkenDove
30-04-2008, 03:51
Best: Taft. Cool name.
Conserative Morality
30-04-2008, 03:55
Do you not remember the outrage over their employement of a large number of illegal aliens?



There are several worse things, but this is the one most likely to be in your memory.
...

I don't see how that's widely disagreeable. Hiring illegal aliens =/= burning down the forest or even unethical.
Venndee
30-04-2008, 03:56
Yes, that's what happens during wartime, because such a massive amount of resources are allocated to purposes unrelated to living standards. It has no bearing on the question, because it's quite easy to spend government money on public services that directly benefit people rather than on war.

Actually, it does bear on the question. There was either a stagnation or reduction in the production of consumer goods, because people had to sacrifice their livelihood and even their lives for the sake of the aggrandizement of the powerful and their pet orgy of the Id. World War II was not a recovery for the economy, but just an expansion of the state's predations.
Knights of Liberty
30-04-2008, 03:59
...

I don't see how that's widely disagreeable. Hiring illegal aliens =/= burning down the forest or even unethical.

Youre missing the point. I didnt give two shits. I dont shop there for other reasons.


But there was a month long moral outrage in the states. Did it hurt their sales? Not evena bit.
Tech-gnosis
30-04-2008, 06:33
Actually, it does bear on the question. There was either a stagnation or reduction in the production of consumer goods, because people had to sacrifice their livelihood and even their lives for the sake of the aggrandizement of the powerful and their pet orgy of the Id. World War II was not a recovery for the economy, but just an expansion of the state's predations.

The massive fiscal stimulus of WWII changed expectations. Businesses were profitable with the demand the war created and unemployment almost disappeared completely. After the war ended rationing and price controls were lifted as the state no longer needed so many resources and the massive inflation that war tends to bring.
Delator
30-04-2008, 07:02
Ike - Warned against the Military-Industrial Complex that's currently destroying the US

People are always bringing this up as a reason why Eisenhower was a good president...

...sure, he "warned" us about the MIC, but did he actually DO anything about the issue during his eight years in office? Hardly.

fought the Cold War brilliantly, yet cleanly

By increasing our presence in Vietnam?

had to clean up Truman's mess.

Truman's mess...you mean keeping West Berlin and not losing in Korea, or not getting us involved in Iran at the whim of British oil interests?

Truman - Started the whole Cold War thingy, left mess for Ike to deal with,

LOL

refused to provide food to Eastern Europe

Marshall Plan aid was offered to the Eastern Bloc...it was refused, at the instruction Stalin.

reduced the effectiveness of the US Army and then sent them to Korea

So what was he to do? Ignore the overwhelming public opinion and retain a large standing peacetime army? Ignore the communists in Korea and allow vital US interests in Japan to come under direct threat?

I mean seriously...Truman was no saint, but if these things made him SO bad, what would you have done?
Xocotl Constellation
30-04-2008, 07:28
Nixon wasn't that bad, aside from the who watergate fiasco.

Are you F###ing kidding me! He was crook, planed to nuke our own soldiers, and sold our bodies to insurace companies! I'm sure he did alot more but my mind forgets.
Zilam
30-04-2008, 07:37
From an IR viewpoint, Teddy Roosevelt was among the best presidents, along with Eisenhower. As for worst, why not for giggles, say LBJ and Millard Filmore...Why Millard Filmore? Because his name was Millard. Plus, can you name anything he really did that was of long lasting benefits to the US?
Hoyteca
30-04-2008, 07:42
Are you F###ing kidding me! He was crook, planed to nuke our own soldiers, and sold our bodies to insurace companies! I'm sure he did alot more but my mind forgets.

source?

As for best and worst:

worst:
Buchanan: Let the Union slowly disolve. You have to remember that war broke out during Lincoln's first 10 days in office. Either Lincoln is the biggest screw up in American history, which I highly doubt, or Mr. Buchanan, aka the guy right before Lincoln, really let the country down in terms of leadership.

Andrew Jackson: Completely ignored the Supreme Court. What kind of president completely ignores another branch? Not just disagrees with, but ignores. And for what? Genocide? Was this guy racist enough to break the Constitution so that he could wipe out an entire group of people? That's the kind of president that is among the worst dangerous. It's one thing to do what the Bush admin. did and bend the rules a bit. It's another to completely and willingly break them.

not as bad as people say:

Nixon: Yeah, there was Watergate, but this guy is hardly the Anti-Christ that people make him out to be. He did greatly improve relations with China. Who knows what potential war and/or crisis that prevented.
greed and death
30-04-2008, 08:17
Which all wouldn't have happened had there been no CIA/MI6 backed coup against the democratic government of Iran.
The only good thing Nixon ever managed was the Clean Air Act, which is extremely ironic considering he was a staunch anti-environmentalist.

the clean air act, opening relations up with china, getting us out of the Vietnam war, getting rid of the gold standard, stopping the Soviet Union from nuking China with out resorting to nuking the soviet union.
Honsria
30-04-2008, 08:20
I don't know, I mostly give Jackson a pass because he was such a badass. And in the end he proved that the system would work (he acted up, justifiably, and he got his reward of impeachment). Now, you can bring up his undying hatred of Native Americans, and it is obviously a black mark. That doesn't mean that he shouldn't be respected for what he was and what he did for the country. You just have to separate the man from the job he did as president, and the fact that he was a badass.
greed and death
30-04-2008, 08:44
Best: FDR

Worst: Reagan

Anyone who thinks the opposite, I challenge you to explain how FDR worsened the depression, preferably with economic data from the time (which, when I look at it, the economy boomed starting in 1933 or 34, shortly after FDR took office), and how Reagan is so worthy of worship

Runners up

Best: Eisenhower, Washington

worst: Harding, Jackson

FDR wasn't bad. I would have done things different such as actually fixing the problem that caused the great depression the break down of world trade(which since the Us had 80% at the time of the worlds gold reserves it was the only one able to do such.)

Reagan however was pretty good.
lets see prior to Reagan inflation was at 10% a year the dollar had dropped in value by 80%. and growth was around 1.8%.
Reagan applies supply side economics (Kennedy was the First President to use supply side economics) with the addition of raising the interest rates.
After Reagan's economic plan was put in place inflation fell to between 2 and 6%, growth went up to an average of roughly 3.3% (yes double) and the dollar gained most of its value back. You can also compare this to western europe which did not implement Supply side economics and continued averaged only 1.8% growth rate.
Also the soviet union would not have fallen if Reagan's policies had not implemented. during the 70's the Soviet union had found a source of Revenue in that western investors fleeing western currency for commodities, namely gold, oil and other minerals, which western investors/companies paid the Soviet Union large sums of money to extract these deposits for them.
not to mention Refusing to allow the Soviet Union to black mail the wester with intermediate ranged nuclear missiles.
greed and death
30-04-2008, 08:48
Then why did the massive military spending and government employment of World War II--Keynesianism to an extreme--solve the problem?

During wartime, countries are always much less laissez-faire than otherwise. If the problem were FDR's big government policies, recovery should have accompanied deregulation and spending cuts... but instead it accompanied the opposite.

WWII didn't solve the depression, The Breton Woods system solved the depression. The depression was caused by a break down of world trade. No policy solely domestic could have solved the depression.
Rambhutan
30-04-2008, 09:50
Reagan however was pretty good.
lets see prior to Reagan inflation was at 10% a year the dollar had dropped in value by 80%. and growth was around 1.8%.
Reagan applies supply side economics (Kennedy was the First President to use supply side economics) with the addition of raising the interest rates.
After Reagan's economic plan was put in place inflation fell to between 2 and 6%, growth went up to an average of roughly 3.3% (yes double) and the dollar gained most of its value back. You can also compare this to western europe which did not implement Supply side economics and continued averaged only 1.8% growth rate.
Also the soviet union would not have fallen if Reagan's policies had not implemented. during the 70's the Soviet union had found a source of Revenue in that western investors fleeing western currency for commodities, namely gold, oil and other minerals, which western investors/companies paid the Soviet Union large sums of money to extract these deposits for them.
not to mention Refusing to allow the Soviet Union to black mail the wester with intermediate ranged nuclear missiles.

Before Reagan became president America was the biggest creditor nation in the world, he turned that credit into debt. Was that worth the drop in the inflation rate?

So many people on here are just saying "Reagan is the greatest and I don't need to tell you why" - well yes you do because it really is not obvious at all.
Tech-gnosis
30-04-2008, 11:15
Reagan however was pretty good.
lets see prior to Reagan inflation was at 10% a year the dollar had dropped in value by 80%. and growth was around 1.8%.
Reagan applies supply side economics (Kennedy was the First President to use supply side economics) with the addition of raising the interest rates.
After Reagan's economic plan was put in place inflation fell to between 2 and 6%, growth went up to an average of roughly 3.3% (yes double) and the dollar gained most of its value back. You can also compare this to western europe which did not implement Supply side economics and continued averaged only 1.8% growth rate.

Kennedy's tax cuts were Keynesian in nature. Counting the recession Reagan's policies created his average growth rate was still 1.8%.

Also the soviet union would not have fallen if Reagan's policies had not implemented. during the 70's the Soviet union had found a source of Revenue in that western investors fleeing western currency for commodities, namely gold, oil and other minerals, which western investors/companies paid the Soviet Union large sums of money to extract these deposits for them.
not to mention Refusing to allow the Soviet Union to black mail the wester with intermediate ranged nuclear missiles.

Please. The Soviet Union was doomed from the start. Any economist would tell you so.
Tech-gnosis
30-04-2008, 11:17
WWII didn't solve the depression, The Breton Woods system solved the depression. The depression was caused by a break down of world trade. No policy solely domestic could have solved the depression.

The Bretton Woods system was created to avert another Great Depression and World War.
greed and death
30-04-2008, 16:22
Please. The Soviet Union was doomed from the start. Any economist would tell you so.

Yes. the soviet union first by spending the Czar's gold supply
Then selling the art work of Russia to American collectors for gold
then melting down the gold from Russian churches
then conning the Spanish goverment to give them their gold supply for token soviet support.
then looting all of eastern europe and any part of Asia they occupied after WWII.
which lead us the the 1970's they were about to collapse then, however they found a source of income in that investors fleeing the US dollar bought commodities, which the soviet union had a lot of in Siberia. this ability to float the soviet economy ended With Reagan restoring the dollar to sanity.
Next the soviets deployed intermediate ranged missiles in europe and demanded aid to remove them, to which Reagan and thatcher replied you will remove them and you will not get a cent of money from us.

1st off Reagan's growth rate was 3.3% including the recession.
2nd he didn't cause the recession it started in 1981 his first year in office before his policies were implemented.
Kwangistar
30-04-2008, 16:36
Before Reagan became president America was the biggest creditor nation in the world, he turned that credit into debt. Was that worth the drop in the inflation rate?


It depends on who the debt is owed to. If rich Americans are buying the bonds, it's basically the rich, who pay most of the taxes, paying themselves. If it's foreign governments, then it's a different problem...
greed and death
30-04-2008, 16:39
It depends on who the debt is owed to. If rich Americans are buying the bonds, it's basically the rich, who pay most of the taxes, paying themselves. If it's foreign governments, then it's a different problem...

the debt wasn't tied with the economy. It was needed to boost military spending to counter soviet aggression in places like Afghanistan.
Rambhutan
30-04-2008, 16:44
the debt wasn't tied with the economy.

What does that mean?
Venndee
30-04-2008, 17:12
The massive fiscal stimulus of WWII changed expectations. Businesses were profitable with the demand the war created and unemployment almost disappeared completely. After the war ended rationing and price controls were lifted as the state no longer needed so many resources and the massive inflation that war tends to bring.

It doesn't matter if a business is profitable if its profit-seeking is based upon appealing to the state. Rather than producing useful goods like consumer non-durables and durables, people were instead deprived in order to make tools of death and destruction. The only growth that occurred was thanks to private savings (largely because of a lack of goods to buy and consume) that allowed capital accumulation and mitigated massive government capital consumption, not to government monetary and fiscal stimulus which led to malinvestment and a post-war recession. Only thanks to the removal of the total warfare state did Americans become better off. Had Hoover not twisted the arm of industry to maintain price levels, the Great Depression would have been little more than a panic like that which had passed quickly after World War I.
The Lone Alliance
30-04-2008, 17:40
I've noticed two sides here.

The Anti-Regan are anti-corpration because they cannot trust a group that only cares about profits.

Yet the other end seem to think that Corporations and only corporations have the best interests at heart.

Okay what is wrong with this picture?

Of course these days it doesn't matter anymore because they are so blended by corruption you can't tell who's running the country anymore.
(Hence my location tag)

Do you not remember the outrage over their employement of a large number of illegal aliens?
There are several worse things, but this is the one most likely to be in your memory.
Worse things like the fact that they never have any healthcare policy so the city ends up having to pay out of pocket for the Employees health.

the debt wasn't tied with the economy. It was needed to boost military spending to counter soviet aggression in places like Afghanistan.
And to cheer up the military industrial complex which had been ignored since Vietnam.
(Just like how GWB is doing in the "War on Terror"

Seriously why the hell was Afghanistan so important?
It was going to be the Soviet's vietnam with or without the US aiding the likes of Osama.
Tech-gnosis
30-04-2008, 18:57
It doesn't matter if a business is profitable if its profit-seeking is based upon appealing to the state. Rather than producing useful goods like consumer non-durables and durables, people were instead deprived in order to make tools of death and destruction. The only growth that occurred was thanks to private savings (largely because of a lack of goods to buy and consume) that allowed capital accumulation and mitigated massive government capital consumption, not to government monetary and fiscal stimulus which led to malinvestment and a post-war recession. Only thanks to the removal of the total warfare state did Americans become better off. Had Hoover not twisted the arm of industry to maintain price levels, the Great Depression would have been little more than a panic like that which had passed quickly after World War I.

The profits and reduced unemployment created by WWII changed expectations. Businesses saw that investment would pay off and expected that it would continue to do so in the future. Workers weren't worried about Depression unemployment rates so they started spending their savings accumulated during the war.
Llewdor
30-04-2008, 19:09
Please. The Soviet Union was doomed from the start. Any economist would tell you so.
Not in 1982 they wouldn't have. Even the Soviet government had no idea what bad shape their economy was in (because Soviet economists were afraid to tell the politburo their ideology was wrong about economics).

By spending huge amounts of money on weapons, Reagan did accelerate the end of the cold war by forcing the Soviet Union to become insolvent sooner.
Vetalia
30-04-2008, 19:14
Not in 1982 they wouldn't have. Even the Soviet government had no idea what bad shape their economy was in (because Soviet economists were afraid to tell the politburo their ideology was wrong about economics).

Actually, the KGB in particular was well aware of the situation regarding the Soviet economy; in the late 1970's, they flat out said that without continued profits from oil revenue or some kind of significant economic reform, the Soviet Union would be insolvent in a very rapid period of time.

That being said, the Soviet economy also decelerated pretty rapidly; at the start of the decade, it was far healthier than it was by the time it ended, although this is almost certainly due to the combination of corruption and windfall oil profits that allowed the stagnating government to avoid any real change and waste billions of all kinds of perks and privileges for its top leaders.
Vetalia
30-04-2008, 19:21
Kennedy's tax cuts were Keynesian in nature. Counting the recession Reagan's policies created his average growth rate was still 1.8%.

The primary reason for the 1981 recession was an intentional effort by Paul Volcker and other central bankers to crush 1970's stagflation once and for all by raising interest rates to very high levels. It was one of the smartest tactical moves in monetary policy for its entire history and is greatly responsible for the low inflation and high growth seen in the next two decades.

Considering Paul Volcker started raising interest rates in 1979, the 1981 recession has literally nothing to do with Reagan whatsoever. In fact, Reagan's policies likely played some role in the rapid recovery of the economy after 1982.
Venndee
30-04-2008, 19:24
The profits and reduced unemployment created by WWII changed expectations. Businesses saw that investment would pay off and expected that it would continue to do so in the future. Workers weren't worried about Depression unemployment rates so they started spending their savings accumulated during the war.

The expectations generated by fiscal and monetary excess resulted in the recession that took place after World War II, since they distorted information and caused malinvestments that had to be liquidated. Only with the dismantling of the warfare state were people free to put their wealth into useful, productive activities, instead of being wasted on implements of killing. Had the state apparatus been discarded earlier and prices allowed to adjust fully, or not implemented at all by Hoover, there would have been a possibility for profit and the Depression would have been no worse than any of the short panics that had occurred occassionally. It was only thanks to private saving that the war was sustained despite its capital consumption and that Americans were able to form new capital without the drain of the state.
Tech-gnosis
30-04-2008, 19:47
The expectations generated by fiscal and monetary excess resulted in the recession that took place after World War II, since they distorted information and caused malinvestments that had to be liquidated. Only with the dismantling of the warfare state were people free to put their wealth into useful, productive activities, instead of being wasted on implements of killing. Had the state apparatus been discarded earlier and prices allowed to adjust fully, or not implemented at all by Hoover, there would have been a possibility for profit and the Depression would have been no worse than any of the short panics that had occurred occassionally. It was only thanks to private saving that the war was sustained despite its capital consumption and that Americans were able to form new capital without the drain of the state.

The expectations created by WWII resulted in the Post WWII boom. People did not expect things to be the same after WWII like they were pre-WWII, ie like the Great Depression. The recession did occur as the economy readjusted. That is to be expected, but people did not expect that it would last. Given how damaging deflation is too the economy I don't think allowing the market to adjust would have solved Hoover's problems.

Not in 1982 they wouldn't have. Even the Soviet government had no idea what bad shape their economy was in (because Soviet economists were afraid to tell the politburo their ideology was wrong about economics).

By spending huge amounts of money on weapons, Reagan did accelerate the end of the cold war by forcing the Soviet Union to become insolvent sooner.

Even so it would have fallen. Greed and death said it would not have fallen if not for Regan. That is untrue.

The primary reason for the 1981 recession was an intentional effort by Paul Volcker and other central bankers to crush 1970's stagflation once and for all by raising interest rates to very high levels. It was one of the smartest tactical moves in monetary policy for its entire history and is greatly responsible for the low inflation and high growth seen in the next two decades.

True


Considering Paul Volcker started raising interest rates in 1979, the 1981 recession has literally nothing to do with Reagan whatsoever. In fact, Reagan's policies likely played some role in the rapid recovery of the economy after 1982.

Reagan's policies seem to have suceeded more on their demand side effects rather than supply side effects. The savings rate contined to slowly drop. Productivity growth stayed fairly miserly. Investment, I have no idea.
greed and death
30-04-2008, 20:34
The expectations created by WWII resulted in the Post WWII boom. People did not expect things to be the same after WWII like they were pre-WWII, ie like the Great Depression. The recession did occur as the economy readjusted. That is to be expected, but people did not expect that it would last. Given how damaging deflation is too the economy I don't think allowing the market to adjust would have solved Hoover's problems.


wrong it was the reestablishment of World trade under the Bretton woods that allowed the post War economic boom


Even so it would have fallen. Greed and death said it would not have fallen if not for Regan. That is untrue.

It would have fallen later possible much later. by which time how many million more people would have died.



Reagan's policies seem to have suceeded more on their demand side effects rather than supply side effects. The savings rate contined to slowly drop. Productivity growth stayed fairly miserly. Investment, I have no idea.

under Reagan investment increased by 51%, Industrial production by 30%, Manufacturing productivity by 26%, 15 million new jobs and an 18% increase in Real per capita income.
source
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v40/ai_6542220

If the situation had continued from the 70's the US would not be the global leader it is today the world would be a multi polar world (focused on the western bloc) but with out the sole US dominance today.

Since Reagan assumed office, the U.S. has been the only major industrial nation to increase investment as a share of GNP or to reduce unemployment.


don't get me wrong Reagan had his faults as well namely the Debt, but that isn't even all his fault He had made a deal with the Democrats that controlled congress that for ever dollar in revenue he cut there was supposed to be a 3 dollar cut in spending. this was never able to materialize in part because the two sides couldn't agree on what should be cut.
Venndee
30-04-2008, 20:46
The expectations created by WWII resulted in the Post WWII boom. People did not expect things to be the same after WWII like they were pre-WWII, ie like the Great Depression. The recession did occur as the economy readjusted. That is to be expected, but people did not expect that it would last. Given how damaging deflation is too the economy I don't think allowing the market to adjust would have solved Hoover's problems.

You assume that all expectations are valid, which they are not (obviously.) The recession was caused by false expectations created by the calculatory chaos of unsustainable monetary and fiscal irresponsibility that follows war, with a liquidation of malinvestment when the market was allowed to reassert itself with the end of the warfare state. However, with the end of the bureaucratic apparatus and controls on the economy people there was a greater potential for profits which allowed them to put their wealth into productive activities. Also, deflation is not a problem at all, since before the Federal Reserve prices usually declined since productive capacity expanded. Goods and services were bid up too high and needed to come down in order to allow a more rational allocation of goods.
Tech-gnosis
30-04-2008, 20:57
You assume that all expectations are valid, which they are not (obviously.) The recession was caused by false expectations created by the calculatory chaos of unsustainable monetary and fiscal irresponsibility that follows war, with a liquidation of malinvestment when the market was allowed to reassert itself with the end of the warfare state. However, with the end of the bureaucratic apparatus and controls on the economy people there was a greater potential for profits which allowed them to put their wealth into productive activities. Also, deflation is not a problem at all, since before the Federal Reserve prices usually declined since productive capacity expanded. Goods and services were bid up too high and needed to come down in order to allow a more rational allocation of goods.

I assume that expectations are self-reinforcing.The ending of the wartime controls of the economy meant nothing is bussinesses didn't think they would be have profitable. Why invest if no one is buying and many people are unemployed? After the war businesses and workers baiscally expected times to be good in the future.

Deflation is bad for a number of reasons. For one markets take time to adjust, especially when firms and workers aren't full price takers. Two, with deflation one doesnt have to do anything with one's money to get some return, governemnt bonds do well even if their interest is nominal. Three, expectations turn gloomy, little investment
Tech-gnosis
30-04-2008, 21:10
wrong it was the reestablishment of World trade under the Bretton woods that allowed the post War economic boom

It was both.



It would have fallen later possible much later. by which time how many million more people would have died.

Elaborate. After Communism fell war emerged in some states when they could no longer unite various ethnic groups. In Russia the average age of death decreased especially for men. What deaths did he avert?


source
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v40/ai_6542220

If the situation had continued from the 70's the US would not be the global leader it is today the world would be a multi polar world (focused on the western bloc) but with out the sole US dominance today.

The real earnings of many people declined slowly during his administration. As for the manufacturing productivity that meant less and less as it became a shrinking fraction of the American economy. What was the productivity increase for the economy as a whole?

don't get me wrong Reagan had his faults as well namely the Debt, but that isn't even all his fault He had made a deal with the Democrats that controlled congress that for ever dollar in revenue he cut there was supposed to be a 3 dollar cut in spending. this was never able to materialize in part because the two sides couldn't agree on what should be cut.

Reagan called for increased military spending. If he couldn't cut other programs sufficiently then how is it not his fault?
greed and death
30-04-2008, 22:41
It was both.




Elaborate. After Communism fell war emerged in some states when they could no longer unite various ethnic groups. In Russia the average age of death decreased especially for men. What deaths did he avert?

Afghanistan unless you think the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and the fall of soviet communism are not intertwined.
Not to mentions the various means the Soviet union had of dispatching with Jews, political dissenters, or anyone else the leadership did not like.
Since this is hypothetical I can only give a likely estimate, but I would say between 500,000 and 1 million lives.


The real earnings of many people declined slowly during his administration. As for the manufacturing productivity that meant less and less as it became a shrinking fraction of the American economy. What was the productivity increase for the economy as a whole?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GDP.txt
Since(fiscal year) 1982 quarterly growth from last quarter as a % in ( ) year's growth in { }
1981-10-01 3196.4
1982-01-01 3186.8(-.3%)
1982-04-01 3242.7(+1.7%)
1982-07-01 3276.2 (+1.03%)
1982-10-01 3314.4 (+1.17%) {+3.6%}
1983-01-01 3382.9(+2.08%)
1983-04-01 3484.1(+2.99%)
1983-07-01 3589.3(+3.02%)
1983-10-01 3690.4(+2.81%) {+10.9%} yes 83 was that good of a year
1984-01-01 3809.6 (+3.23%)
1984-04-01 3908.6(+2.6%)
1984-07-01 3978.2 (+1.78%)
1984-10-01 4036.3 (+1.46%) {+9.07%}
1985-01-01 4119.5(+2.1%)
1985-04-01 4178.4 (+1.4%)
1985-07-01 4261.3(+1.98%)
1985-10-01 4321.8(1.42%){+6.9%}
1986-01-01 4385.6(+1.48%)
1986-04-01 4425.7(+.91%)
1986-07-01 4493.9(+1.54%)
1986-10-01 4546.1(+1.16%){+5.09}
1987-01-01 4613.8(+1.49%)
1987-04-01 4690.09(+1.65%)
1987-07-01 4767.8 (+1.66%)
1987-10-01 4886.3(+2.49%){+7.29%}
1988-01-01 4951.9(+1.34%)
1988-04-01 5062.8(+2.24%)
1988-07-01 5146.6(+1.66%)
1988-10-01 5253.7(+2.08%) {+7.32%}
1989-01-01 5367.1(+2.16%)
1989-04-01 5454.1(1.62%)
1989-07-01 5531.9(1.43%)
1989-10-01 5584.3(.95%) {6.16%}
Average growth rate during Regan 7.0% (other rates take in account year before I started which is not Reagan's Responsibility since his economics policies had not gone into effect yet.
The numbers show The majority of people made more money. Yes some people made less but that is normal in a changing job market and is caused by scientific advancement and a ever changing job market.

Reagan called for increased military spending. If he couldn't cut other programs sufficiently then how is it not his fault?

As I said before Congressional democrats blocked most of his attempts to cut other programs from the budget. In the US Congress has the power of the purse, no budget goes into effect with out the approval and editing of congress.
The numbers support my claims you are just like the republican detractors of Clinton who also ran a great economy. In my opinion we need to switch between the Clinton and Reagen models of economics to ensure good continued economic growth.
Pacific2
30-04-2008, 23:02
I've noticed two sides here.

The Anti-Regan are anti-corpration because they cannot trust a group that only cares about profits.

Yet the other end seem to think that Corporations and only corporations have the best interests at heart.

Okay what is wrong with this picture?

Of course these days it doesn't matter anymore because they are so blended by corruption you can't tell who's running the country anymore.


It's not all about companies. It is essentially about supporting private initiative, and entrepreneurial freedom, without a government imposing outrageous taxes, and with that curtailing the economy.
Of course, not all companies have the best intentions, and CEOs are not saints. Although it had one flaw ( the gvt. military spending, which was contrary to the Reaganomics ideology ), Reaganomics was the key to more business initiative and economic growth.
The Lone Alliance
30-04-2008, 23:56
It's not all about companies. It is essentially about supporting private initiative, entrepreneurial freedom, without a government imposing outrageous taxes, and with that curtailing the economy. Hard to do that these days when the only business in the world are super corporations which need NO help whatsoever. (Well... Maybe the airlines, they do suck)

Of course, not all companies have the best intentions, and CEOs are not saints. The only thing a company is really required to do is deliver profits to the shareholders.

Although it had one flaw ( the gvt. military spending, which was contrary to the Reaganomics ideology ), He sure had no problem using it however. And now that has become a key thing for all those saying they are "copying Reaganomics".

Reaganomics was the key to more business initiative and economic growth. The past few years have proved that the idea has become a failure. If there were some good things about it, there aren't any now.

------ On another Note:

From what I'm hearing from these "State Rights" people is that you're basicily telling me that you want a 50 nation alliance...

I have one answer to that,
Get out of the 1800s.

Our nation would be hell if every single state was allowed to do whatever the current local 'majority' wanted. We'd have massive legal fights constantly breaking out between states.

"You Jailed the Gay parent from my state"
"Gays raising children are a crime here"

"Sorry we cannot accept this license, as they don't follow our driving test."

"Since our state is anti-death penalty we cannot allow you to have this mass murderer handed over to your state because there is a chance that said person could get the death penalty."

"But pot is legal in my state!"
"But not in ours, get in the cell freak!"

The above are some examples I could think of at the top of my head.
Aceopolis
01-05-2008, 00:02
It's not all about companies. It is essentially about supporting private initiative, and entrepreneurial freedom, without a government imposing outrageous taxes, and with that curtailing the economy.until the companies that take advantage of this private initiative end up witha monopoly. thus the idea that a totally deregulated market is not free, as long as companies can gain monopolies or collude, and charge whatever they want. Read up on Standard Oil if you think this won't happen
Of course, not all companies have the best intentions, and CEOs are not saints. Although it had one flaw ( the gvt. military spending, which was contrary to the Reaganomics ideology ), Reaganomics was the key to more business initiative and economic growth.minus the fact that the wealth tends to concentrate in the hands of the few under Reaganomics (AKA tinkle down economics)

And for you "State Rights" you're basicily telling me that you want a 50 nation alliance...

I have one answer to that,

Get out of the 1800s.QFT though I would have said the 1700s (articles of confederation
Venndee
01-05-2008, 00:10
I assume that expectations are self-reinforcing.The ending of the wartime controls of the economy meant nothing is bussinesses didn't think they would be have profitable. Why invest if no one is buying and many people are unemployed? After the war businesses and workers baiscally expected times to be good in the future.

If that was true, all we would have to do is think positively all day and our wealth would magically surge. Hoover tried this, in a way, by twisting the arm of industry to keep spending and maintain the level of their wages and employment, and it utterly failed. What needed to happen was, instead of barring business from making profits, prices had to adjust to liquidate the malinvestments of the preceding loose monetary policy and allow the market to re-coordinate consumption and saving through interest rates, instead of barring recovery through price controls. That way, we would have only had a brief panic that would be allowed to pass with relatively little intervention instead of a full-blown recession.

Deflation is bad for a number of reasons. For one markets take time to adjust, especially when firms and workers aren't full price takers. Two, with deflation one doesnt have to do anything with one's money to get some return, governemnt bonds do well even if their interest is nominal. Three, expectations turn gloomy, little investment

Deflation is positive; the electronics industry has declining prices, and they do fine. In fact, prior to the Federal Reserve it was the tendency of prices to decline to reflect expansions of output. Deflation helps to preserve the quality of money as a store of value, instead of eroding it through inflation, and thus encourages saving and investment that allow for capital formation. Deflation-phobia is simply a result of the schemes of government, bankers, and industrialists who wish to enrich themselves at the expense of others in a less visible way (i.e. by debasing money.)
Trade Orginizations
01-05-2008, 00:11
Best:
Abraham Lincolin
Harry S. Truman
Richard Millhouse Nixon(prior to watergate he was arguably the second or third best ever)
John Adams

Worst:
Jimmy Carter
James Buchanon
U.S. Grant
John Fitzgerald Kennedy(contrary to popular opinon, he was mediocre at best. He literaly stole the 1960 election, the bay of pigs was a mistake, he proposed the doomsday ship that would be filled with nukes and detonate if either side launched nukes thus destroying the world quickly, he was the first to actually send American advisors to Vietnam, he did nothing for civil rights. Basically all flash. No substance. Cuban Missle crises is the only good thing he ever did.)
West Corinthia
01-05-2008, 01:31
Best:Cuban Missle crises is the only good thing he ever did.)

I would say that point (along with his space initiatives and a few other things) outweigh your other points to the contrary.
The Lone Alliance
01-05-2008, 02:55
QFT though I would have said the 1700s (articles of confederation

The reasoning is is that it was already becoming obsolete due to the advancement of communication. And they are acting just like those people of that time who refused to believe it was stupid.

It wasn't done because "It was the best system." It was done because otherwise it would take forever for ANYTHING to get done because the government would have to spend weeks sending letter after letter for every little decision.
Conserative Morality
01-05-2008, 02:59
Best:
Abraham Lincolin
Harry S. Truman
Richard Millhouse Nixon(prior to watergate he was arguably the second or third best ever)
John Adams

Worst:
Jimmy Carter
James Buchanon
U.S. Grant
John Fitzgerald Kennedy(contrary to popular opinon, he was mediocre at best. He literaly stole the 1960 election, the bay of pigs was a mistake, he proposed the doomsday ship that would be filled with nukes and detonate if either side launched nukes thus destroying the world quickly, he was the first to actually send American advisors to Vietnam, he did nothing for civil rights. Basically all flash. No substance. Cuban Missle crises is the only good thing he ever did.)
I disagree with two of those. U.S. Grant was a well-meaning and even competent (Gasp!) president, but he was far too trusting of the people around him, and they screwed his entire presidency for him :(.
John Adams only increased the military and created a horrible bill to ban civil rights. Thomas Jefferson solved that so, 's all good now. :D
New Limacon
01-05-2008, 03:00
If that was true, all we would have to do is think positively all day and our wealth would magically surge. Hoover tried this, in a way, by twisting the arm of industry to keep spending and maintain the level of their wages and employment, and it utterly failed. What needed to happen was, instead of barring business from making profits, prices had to adjust to liquidate the malinvestments of the preceding loose monetary policy and allow the market to re-coordinate consumption and saving through interest rates, instead of barring recovery through price controls. That way, we would have only had a brief panic that would be allowed to pass with relatively little intervention instead of a full-blown recession.



Deflation is positive; the electronics industry has declining prices, and they do fine. In fact, prior to the Federal Reserve it was the tendency of prices to decline to reflect expansions of output. Deflation helps to preserve the quality of money as a store of value, instead of eroding it through inflation, and thus encourages saving and investment that allow for capital formation. Deflation-phobia is simply a result of the schemes of government, bankers, and industrialists who wish to enrich themselves at the expense of others in a less visible way (i.e. by debasing money.)

That really doesn't make any sense. If you make money by giving out loans, as banks do, deflation is your friend. That's why all those farmers in the 1890s wanted to get rid of the gold standard, because it would encourage inflation and help them (the debtors).
greed and death
01-05-2008, 03:28
He sure had no problem using it however. And now that has become a key thing for all those saying they are "copying Reaganomics".

The past few years have proved that the idea has become a failure. If there were some good things about it, there aren't any now.



today Supply economics attempt is being applied improperly Interest rates need to be raised to stabilize the currency.

two cycles we shall name after the last two presidents that applied them correctly.
Reagan cycle Low Taxes high Interest rate. The low taxes keeps money in the economy, while the interest rate stabilizes the currency.
Clinton cycle High taxes Low interest rate. the low interest rate keeps money in the economy even if the dollar slides in value.

to be honest to get out of the current situation we need a Reagan cycle where we control spending. That failing we will need a Clinton then a Reagan cycle before the economy improves.
Tech-gnosis
01-05-2008, 09:11
If that was true, all we would have to do is think positively all day and our wealth would magically surge. Hoover tried this, in a way, by twisting the arm of industry to keep spending and maintain the level of their wages and employment, and it utterly failed. What needed to happen was, instead of barring business from making profits, prices had to adjust to liquidate the malinvestments of the preceding loose monetary policy and allow the market to re-coordinate consumption and saving through interest rates, instead of barring recovery through price controls. That way, we would have only had a brief panic that would be allowed to pass with relatively little intervention instead of a full-blown recession.

The Federal Reserve kept relatively high interest rates early into the impression based on the thought of liquidating malinvestment. Milton Friedman himself believed that this constraint on the money supply worsened the depression. Today austerity to restrain inflation in politically unpopular. The austerity needed to bring on Gold Standard type price level changes would probably cause the ousting of whatever government was in power.

Also, by self-reinforcing I only meant to a degree and I didn't mean it was rational. During boom times people make bad investments because they think the boom will last longer and be higher. When things crash people are afraid so they take out more money than in prudent. Perhaps on an individual level they are acting rationally but all in all it often

Deflation is positive; the electronics industry has declining prices, and they do fine. In fact, prior to the Federal Reserve it was the tendency of prices to decline to reflect expansions of output. Deflation helps to preserve the quality of money as a store of value, instead of eroding it through inflation, and thus encourages saving and investment that allow for capital formation. Deflation-phobia is simply a result of the schemes of government, bankers, and industrialists who wish to enrich themselves at the expense of others in a less visible way (i.e. by debasing money.)

The world was a different place prior to the Federal Reserve. In many ways it approached the perfect competition model of neoclassical economics. Pretty much all major economists from across the political spectrum believe that deflation is bad for the economy. Generally one looks at Japan in the 90s fo low inflation to low deflation growth rates in modern times. Deflation does not preserve the value of money. It increases it. One could hide money in their mattress and earn interest. Also, what schemes are you talking about? How did so many libertarians, ie people like Vittos, Vetalia, and Neu Leonstein, get bamboozled by these schemes? For another thing the electronics industry is one industry. Real estate and healthcare industries seem to be profitable over the business cycle with there generally above average rise in price. You dont consider that an argument that inflation is ok.
The Lone Alliance
01-05-2008, 09:34
today Supply economics attempt is being applied improperly Interest rates need to be raised to stabilize the currency. Yes this 'low low' doesn't work at all.

two cycles we shall name after the last two presidents that applied them correctly.
Reagan cycle Low Taxes high Interest rate. The low taxes keeps money in the economy, while the interest rate stabilizes the currency.
Which can Promote growth.

Clinton cycle High taxes Low interest rate. the low interest rate keeps money in the economy even if the dollar slides in value.
It also helps the Government recoup some of it's money losses as well.


to be honest to get out of the current situation we need a Reagan cycle where we control spending. That failing we will need a Clinton then a Reagan cycle before the economy improves. I'd have to agree, while I do think we will have a higher tax period sooner or later, a cut in spending on stupid things, (Canceling the several dozen useless corporate contracts IE: Blackwater, would be a good start) could shorten that period greatly.
Xocotl Constellation
01-05-2008, 09:50
source?

....snip...

Nixon: Yeah, there was Watergate, but this guy is hardly the Anti-Christ that people make him out to be. He did greatly improve relations with China. Who knows what potential war and/or crisis that prevented.

Everyone knows about Nixon and the Watergater (hopefully). Which proves my point about him being a crook.

As for my other claims; sources:
>Nuke http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/28/politics/main502490.shtml
>Insurance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGKkPEvD2OM
greed and death
01-05-2008, 09:53
Yes this 'low low' doesn't work at all.

Which can Promote growth.

It also helps the Government recoup some of it's money losses as well.

I'd have to agree, while I do think we will have a higher tax period sooner or later, a cut in spending on stupid things, (Canceling the several dozen useless corporate contracts IE: Blackwater, would be a good start) could shorten that period greatly.
Low Low makes the currency worthless and discourages investment.

From Reagan to Clinton the US has one of the fastest growth rates of industrialized nations because of the proper application of both cycles.

well the ideal in my opinion is that we raise interest rates and keep taxes low, just cut spending to where the low tax rate allows us to still pay off some of the debt. but reality wise that will never happen republicans wont let the military be cut enough, and democrats wont allow social programs to be cut enough.
so that failing we should do a Clinton cycle which will likely cause which ever president and his party to lose power after four years followed by a Reagan cycle.
Pacific2
01-05-2008, 10:14
Hard to do that these days when the only business in the world are super corporations which need NO help whatsoever. (Well... Maybe the airlines, they do suck).

1. These companies provide hundreds of thousands of jobs
2. There are so many people running a one-man business, or a small family corp. Just think about plumbers, butchers, storekeepers, etc etc.

The only thing a company is really required to do is deliver profits to the shareholders.

Yep, and everyone can become a shareholder, as long as they have some money to invest in order to profit.

He sure had no problem using it however. And now that has become a key thing for all those saying they are "copying Reaganomics".

Ending the cold war was worth the spending.

The past few years have proved that the idea has become a failure. If there were some good things about it, there aren't any now.

It doesn't have to be a failure, as long as the gvt. does not excessively spend. The past few years have only proved how a prodigal gvt. messed up the economy. Reaganomics can only work good when the budget's balanced. Clinton did a good job with that, and Bush plundered Treasury, which is why it couldn't work last couple of years. If the next president fixes the finances ( which will be a helluva job ), Reaganomics is possible again.
Rambhutan
01-05-2008, 10:28
Low Low makes the currency worthless and discourages investment.

From Reagan to Clinton the US has one of the fastest growth rates of industrialized nations because of the proper application of both cycles.

well the ideal in my opinion is that we raise interest rates and keep taxes low, just cut spending to where the low tax rate allows us to still pay off some of the debt. but reality wise that will never happen republicans wont let the military be cut enough, and democrats wont allow social programs to be cut enough.
so that failing we should do a Clinton cycle which will likely cause which ever president and his party to lose power after four years followed by a Reagan cycle.

This is a really interesting take on things - not sure I fully understand it but interesting idea of two types of approaches.
Pacific2
01-05-2008, 10:31
until the companies that take advantage of this private initiative end up witha monopoly. thus the idea that a totally deregulated market is not free, as long as companies can gain monopolies or collude, and charge whatever they want. Read up on Standard Oil if you think this won't happen

Monopolies are, today, quite rare, though. Unless companies form a cartel, they tend to charge lower fees than their competitors. Also, there are laws against (illegal) collusion.

Also, how can only large companies benefit ? All people with a company, whether it's small, or larger can profit, which benefits the economy as a whole.

minus the fact that the wealth tends to concentrate in the hands of the few under Reaganomics (AKA tinkle down economics)

Then how would you explain the fact that the average family income grew with almost $5000, during the Reagan presidency ?
Pacific2
01-05-2008, 11:35
Deflation is positive; the electronics industry has declining prices, and they do fine. In fact, prior to the Federal Reserve it was the tendency of prices to decline to reflect expansions of output. Deflation helps to preserve the quality of money as a store of value, instead of eroding it through inflation, and thus encourages saving and investment that allow for capital formation. Deflation-phobia is simply a result of the schemes of government, bankers, and industrialists who wish to enrich themselves at the expense of others in a less visible way (i.e. by debasing money.)

Deflation brings the economy to a halt, because products get cheaper by the day, which means people will always postpone consumption, which means recession, because companies have to produce less, and thus might fire employees.
Tech-gnosis
01-05-2008, 12:58
Deflation brings the economy to a halt, because products get cheaper by the day, which means people will always postpone consumption, which means recession, because companies have to produce less, and thus might fire employees.

Yes, and said recession brings more deflation which means consumers are less less likely to buy and entrepeneurs are less likely invest. This of course worsens the recession bringing more deflation. Deflation spirals aren't healthy for modern economies.
Cosmopoles
01-05-2008, 13:15
I'd also like to add that the electronics example is a load of rubbish. A fall in the price of one item or set of items is not deflation, you need a fall in the consumer price index. Inflation is not good for an economy, but deflation is just as bad.
Venndee
01-05-2008, 18:55
That really doesn't make any sense. If you make money by giving out loans, as banks do, deflation is your friend. That's why all those farmers in the 1890s wanted to get rid of the gold standard, because it would encourage inflation and help them (the debtors).

Actually, inflation is good for a banker because the ability to expand the credit supply means that banks do not have to keep as much in reserves and can engage in more fractional-reserve banking. The Morgan-Rockefellers supported inflation, actually, through the Indianapolis Monetary Convention, but their brand of inflationism through the gold standard was more to their benefit than the silverites'.

The Federal Reserve kept relatively high interest rates early into the impression based on the thought of liquidating malinvestment. Milton Friedman himself believed that this constraint on the money supply worsened the depression. Today austerity to restrain inflation in politically unpopular. The austerity needed to bring on Gold Standard type price level changes would probably cause the ousting of whatever government was in power.

I was referring to the irresponsible loose monetary policy leading up to the Depression, but regardless, without allowing prices to adjust Hoover doomed the economy since prices could not be bid down and allow for profits to resurge (and also, since the government does not act upon the supply and demand of capital for profit but on arbitrary political whim, their monetary policy would be hard-pressed to actually fix anything.) Also, I do not care what Friedman says, since his supposed free-market credentials are desperately overrated, nor do I care that politicians are too cowardly to abandon inflationism.

Also, by self-reinforcing I only meant to a degree and I didn't mean it was rational. During boom times people make bad investments because they think the boom will last longer and be higher. When things crash people are afraid so they take out more money than in prudent. Perhaps on an individual level they are acting rationally but all in all it often

They make bad investments because economic data is distorted by monetary (and often fiscal) irresponsibility, just like the Fed's ridiculous 1% interest rates and pumping money into housing through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the current recession. Cutting back on spending on the individual's part is actually necessary, since it creates the savings needed for capital formation and the restoration of sustainable investment.

The world was a different place prior to the Federal Reserve. In many ways it approached the perfect competition model of neoclassical economics. Pretty much all major economists from across the political spectrum believe that deflation is bad for the economy. Generally one looks at Japan in the 90s fo low inflation to low deflation growth rates in modern times. Deflation does not preserve the value of money. It increases it. One could hide money in their mattress and earn interest. Also, what schemes are you talking about? How did so many libertarians, ie people like Vittos, Vetalia, and Neu Leonstein, get bamboozled by these schemes? For another thing the electronics industry is one industry. Real estate and healthcare industries seem to be profitable over the business cycle with there generally above average rise in price. You dont consider that an argument that inflation is ok.

The notion of perfect competition a la neoclassical economics is absurd, since it holds a world without entrepeneurship as an ideal (through ruling out product differentiation and establishing perfect information.) Competition is better thought of as an ongoing process of entrepeneurship, in which firms use various methods, such as product differentiation, to maintain their market share and gain greater profits. Most economists across the political spectrum are merely mouthpieces of the state, and as such I take anything they say with a grain of salt.

The difference between our world and then is that we lack this entrepeneurship because of cartelization through regulation, taxes, etc. that place legal barriers to entry and thus encourage lobbying and influencing government over making better products. Japan's problem is not deflation so much as it is, again, fiscal and monetary irresponsibility, such as through bailing out the financial system and providing large amounts of credit. And there is nothing wrong with money gaining value even if it is merely put under one's mattress, since one could desire a large cash balance for safety and that money would promise future goods in case of an emergency.

There are too many schemes of inflationists to count in one post, but I mentioned the Indianapolis Monetary Convention by which the Rockefeller-Morgans helped build momentum for central banking to their benefit. Also, Vittos most likely does not support central banking, being an agorist, but whatever problem there may be is in the erroneous belief in the necessity of a state, which I ardently oppose. And the healthcare and housing industry receives a great deal of support from the government, which accounts for their profits and high prices since they are insulated by the state. As for considering an argument that inflation is 'good', I would not consider any argument that advocates theft by forcing me to use useless little slips of green paper while the government produces more for itself and thus steals their value to be at all valid.
Venndee
01-05-2008, 18:57
Deflation brings the economy to a halt, because products get cheaper by the day, which means people will always postpone consumption, which means recession, because companies have to produce less, and thus might fire employees.

By that reasoning, the electronics industry would have collapsed long, long ago. One must remember that savings are future consumption over present consumptions, and being that people prefer present consumption over future the deflation would have to be enough that people would prefer denying themselves a present good enough to get a more beneficial future good. What would happen is not a collapse of the economy but a different time-horizon of production focused upon more future goods rather than more present goods.
Llewdor
01-05-2008, 19:28
That being said, the Soviet economy also decelerated pretty rapidly; at the start of the decade, it was far healthier than it was by the time it ended, although this is almost certainly due to the combination of corruption and windfall oil profits that allowed the stagnating government to avoid any real change and waste billions of all kinds of perks and privileges for its top leaders.
But the politburo members NEEDED those regular shopping trips to Budapest.
Caer Rialis
01-05-2008, 19:48
Not to derail the debate, however, I'd like to go back to the original question.

The trouble with best and worst polls is that often, as seen in the early pages of this thread, peole simply list without explaining their choices. When I saw Dwight Eisenhower and Millard Fillmore listed as among the best presidents, while Lincoln and FDR were listed among the worst, I quailed, having seen just how poorly people have been prepared in the stud of U.S. history. Later, when people qualified their rationale, the thread was much improved in quality.

The best U.S. presidents (in chronological order):

1. George Washington: The first president, Washington set the tone which all subsequent presidents followed. He created the first government, put in place the economic policies designed by Alexander Hamilton which lifted the nation from a poor investment to a highly valued one, and set a tone in foreign relations which saw the U.S. focus on neutrality in the face of European affairs. For more on Washington, read Joseph Ellis American Creation.

2. Abraham Lincoln: The 16th president, Lincoln preserved the Union in face of the threat of secession. His leadership shifted the U.S. toward adopting ideals more closely akin to those espoused in the Declaration of Independence, while solidifying the ideal of national sovereignty in the face of a small, yet vocal, regional minority.

3. Franklin D. Roosevelt: The 32nd President, FDR took office at a time when the thrat of revolution was very real. In 1933 the unemployment rate was at 25%, 6000 banks had closed, and tens of thousands were left homeless and starving because of the Depression. His New Deal policies and programs, although they did not bring about an end to the Depression, not only restored hope to the American people but also established a safety net to prevent future economic calamities such as the Depression from occurring again.

Additionally, as president, FDR led the nation in the largest war in its history, focusing energies not only on defeating Nazi Germany, but also the militaristic Japanese Empire His leadership, and his goals of esablishing a "just and lasting peace" through international organizations such as the UN mark him as one of the finest diplomatic presidents in U.S. history.



The worst presidents (in chronological order):

James Buchanan: The 15th president, Buchanan, a northerner elected through support from the slave-holding south, did little to address the burning issues of the day on slavery, preferring to allow himself to be dominated by the Southern planter class. When, after the election of Lincoln, Buchanan refused to order that U.S. army commanders in the southern states to maintain control of their facilities and materiel, rather than, as most did, hand their guns, ammunition, and faciltiies over to the secessionists, he truly showed what a poor quality leader he was.

Calvin Coolige: The 30th president, Coolige presided over one of the largest, yet more fragile, periods of economic growth in the history of the U.S. Immensely popular, Coolige refused to do anything to shore up the strength of the economy. Rather, he trusted the "trickle-down" idealism of his Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon, an idealism which would help plunge the nation into the greatest financial crisis of its history.

Dwight D. Eisenhower: The 34th president, Eisenhower is included on this list bcause of his signature lack of leadership when faced with the greatest domestaic challenge of the U.S. during the later half of the 20th century, race relations. Though he did send the 101st Airborn to protect the Little Rock 9 in 1957, his public snubbing of Chief Justice Earl Warren was enough to embolden segregationist politicians throughout the southern states. Had Eisenhower, who, like Coolige, was immensely popular, used the "bully pulpit" to push for greater integration and improved civil rights for all citizens, the racial violence the nation faced in the 1960s and 1970s would have been far less severe.
Tech-gnosis
01-05-2008, 22:40
Bah! The forum was affected by a database error when I clicked the post button and I unintentionally deleted it. I will post when my head stops hurting.
Kirav
01-05-2008, 22:59
Ideology

Best: Washington(Nonpartisanist), Jackson(Egalitarian)
Worst: Bush(Neoconservative Extremist)

Accomplishments
Best: Jefferson(Westward Expansion), Lincoln(Emancipation), Kennedy(Space Program), FDR (Saved the U.S. economy...for awhile)
Worst: Bush (Accomplished a mission...not.)

Ethics

Best:
Worst: Harding(Corruption), Bush(Torture, Patriot Act), Jackson(Removed Indians)
Shofercia
01-05-2008, 23:51
Truman's mess...you mean keeping West Berlin and not losing in Korea, or not getting us involved in Iran at the whim of British oil interests?

Marshall Plan aid was offered to the Eastern Bloc...it was refused, at the instruction Stalin.

So what was he to do? Ignore the overwhelming public opinion and retain a large standing peacetime army? Ignore the communists in Korea and allow vital US interests in Japan to come under direct threat?

I mean seriously...Truman was no saint, but if these things made him SO bad, what would you have done?

Only a dolt would not have kept West Berlin. I mean seriously, was air-lifting that brilliant? Marshall Plan was written and enforced by Marshall, not Truman; all Truman did was to sign it into law, the guy was clueless!!!

What would I do? Umm, uhhh, geez, train troops better BEFORE sending them into the Korean War. And you could have a large standing peacetime army. We have one now, anyone complaining about that? The Soviets had one. The problem wasn't the number of enlisted men, but the quality of training these men had. And Truman as commander in chief could have improved it. And there were no US threats in Japan from Korea? USSR Navy vs. US Navy? Come on, US had the World's best navy since the Battle of Midway, and USSR knew that! Truman sucked, he wasn't ready for the job, he failed. That's just my opinion.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
02-05-2008, 00:56
Best: JFK

Worst: A tie between Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.

Why?
Because I´m arbitrary like that.
Whatwhatia
02-05-2008, 04:14
The best President IMO is Theodore Roosevelt, he forced the large Corp. to relinquish their grip, he knew how to engage in War AND Diplomacy, and protected the rights of Americans, without abusing the power of the Executive branch...
I agree with the first part.
Fortuna_Fortes_Juvat
02-05-2008, 05:17
Best: Ike. Saved Europe in the 40s and America in the 50s.

Worst: A. Johnson, Jackson and Wilson
greed and death
02-05-2008, 05:40
This is a really interesting take on things - not sure I fully understand it but interesting idea of two types of approaches.

it is most history major's take on the matter because historically it is what worked.

to understand you got understand what the effects of taxes are on the economy.
Low interest.
Pros: National debt grows slower; more money in the system as it is easy to borrow money (fed reserve prints more money to loan to banks)
Cons: Value of the dollar decreases; Investment is discouraged as decreasing value of dollar makes investment returns worth less in purchasing power; inflation.
High interest:
Pros: encourages investment; stabilizes the value of the dollar.
Cons: Debt grows quickly; less money in the economy can stop growth.

Low Taxes:
Pros: money in the economy spurs growth. Less goverment interference encourages business.
Cons: national Debt tends to rise. Harder for goverment to provide funding for goverment services.

High Taxes:
Pros: Debt tends to decrease; easier for goverment to afford paying for services.
Cons: less money in the economy, more goverment interference.
Boonytopia
02-05-2008, 13:35
Best: don't know enough about them.

Worst: GW Bush is definitely the worst I've known about.
Pacific2
02-05-2008, 17:06
By that reasoning, the electronics industry would have collapsed long, long ago. One must remember that savings are future consumption over present consumptions, and being that people prefer present consumption over future the deflation would have to be enough that people would prefer denying themselves a present good enough to get a more beneficial future good. What would happen is not a collapse of the economy but a different time-horizon of production focused upon more future goods rather than more present goods.

Companies and industries broadcast commercials because they want consumers to buy as soon as possible. Their marketing is not aimed at their sales in, say, 2014, but focussed on tomorrow's sales. If people don't buy stuff soon enough, they'll have huge stockpiles of unsold stuff which often causes recession. Of course, companies have long-term strategies, but if they don't sell products in the near future, they won't have money for innovations and development of new far-future products. Thus, that doesn't ensure future economic growth.

Also, savings are not necessarily future consumptions, because, often, especially during recession, people use the money to pay off debts.
Venndee
03-05-2008, 03:59
Companies and industries broadcast commercials because they want consumers to buy as soon as possible. Their marketing is not aimed at their sales in, say, 2014, but focussed on tomorrow's sales. If people don't buy stuff soon enough, they'll have huge stockpiles of unsold stuff which often causes recession. Of course, companies have long-term strategies, but if they don't sell products in the near future, they won't have money for innovations and development of new far-future products. Thus, that doesn't ensure future economic growth.

Also, savings are not necessarily future consumptions, because, often, especially during recession, people use the money to pay off debts.

Of course; present goods are inherently more valuable than future goods, and as such a company would rather have a good now than that same good later. But nonetheless, companies are dependent upon the capital formation that occurs with saving, without which they obviously could not exist. If people began to save heavily, it would simply mean a transfer of goods from consumer goods to capital, which effectively means foregoing present goods for more future goods. Yes, some companies would go out of business, but that is because this facilitates such a transfer and it should not be regretted. And actually, the instance you cite is an occurrence of future consumption, as effectively what occurs is people not consuming their money right when they get it but consuming their claims on goods and services in exchange for an elimination of debt.
Tech-gnosis
03-05-2008, 05:44
I was referring to the irresponsible loose monetary policy leading up to the Depression, but regardless, without allowing prices to adjust Hoover doomed the economy since prices could not be bid down and allow for profits to resurge (and also, since the government does not act upon the supply and demand of capital for profit but on arbitrary political whim, their monetary policy would be hard-pressed to actually fix anything.) Also, I do not care what Friedman says, since his supposed free-market credentials are desperately overrated, nor do I care that politicians are too cowardly to abandon inflationism.

Wages are sticky downward. This causes unemployment since not all those looking for jobs find them. Those lose their jobs lose their income and those who stay employed save more in case they become unemployed. Of course they tend to save in ways that are individually rational but collectively irrational. Why but your money in banks or stock, where the money could be invested in productive activities, when banks are failing and stock prices are falling? Putting money under one's money under the mattress Entrepeneurs tend not to appear because they don't expect people will buy their products.

You should care more about what the populace as a whole cares about. Governments, and whatever institutions are used manage society in anarcho-societies, need legitimacy of the populace. Given the uproar that comes when fighting inflation a government that tried to cause the necessary deflation that occured under the Gold Standard would lose legitimacy if it kept it up.

They make bad investments because economic data is distorted by monetary (and often fiscal) irresponsibility, just like the Fed's ridiculous 1% interest rates and pumping money into housing through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the current recession. Cutting back on spending on the individual's part is actually necessary, since it creates the savings needed for capital formation and the restoration of sustainable investment.

The current situation is complex as Neu Leonstein's analysis in previous threads has shown. To raise rates sharply now could potentially cause another Great Depression.

[]QUOTE]The notion of perfect competition a la neoclassical economics is absurd, since it holds a world without entrepeneurship as an ideal (through ruling out product differentiation and establishing perfect information.) Competition is better thought of as an ongoing process of entrepeneurship, in which firms use various methods, such as product differentiation, to maintain their market share and gain greater profits. Most economists across the political spectrum are merely mouthpieces of the state, and as such I take anything they say with a grain of salt. [/QUOTE]

I agree with you about neoclassical economic models being a farce, though some of my reasons differ from yours. Anyway your comments about most economists is pretty paranoid.


The difference between our world and then is that we lack this entrepeneurship because of cartelization through regulation, taxes, etc. that place legal barriers to entry and thus encourage lobbying and influencing government over making better products. Japan's problem is not deflation so much as it is, again, fiscal and monetary irresponsibility, such as through bailing out the financial system and providing large amounts of credit. And there is nothing wrong with money gaining value even if it is merely put under one's mattress, since one could desire a large cash balance for safety and that money would promise future goods in case of an emergency.

Japan's problem is, or at least was if things have improved, a problem of the expectations deflation causes and because there was no way to absolve bad debts, ie bankruptcy. When there are so many bad debts around new investments are less likely to be made.

The problem of storing money under the matress what dealt above. Basically when many people do it causes/worsens slumps and the problem of deflation.


There are too many schemes of inflationists to count in one post, but I mentioned the Indianapolis Monetary Convention by which the Rockefeller-Morgans helped build momentum for central banking to their benefit. Also, Vittos most likely does not support central banking, being an agorist, but whatever problem there may be is in the erroneous belief in the necessity of a state, which I ardently oppose. And the healthcare and housing industry receives a great deal of support from the government, which accounts for their profits and high prices since they are insulated by the state. As for considering an argument that inflation is 'good', I would not consider any argument that advocates theft by forcing me to use useless little slips of green paper while the government produces more for itself and thus steals their value to be at all valid.

I never said Vittos supported central banking. I merely pointed out that he believes that deflation is worse than inflation on the economy. I do not see how the ICM hurts the case for central banking. The healthcare and the housing industries would still see above average inflation even without government subsidies. The argument for some inflation is not so much that it is good, only that the alternatives are worse.
Venndee
03-05-2008, 18:50
Wages are sticky downward. This causes unemployment since not all those looking for jobs find them. Those lose their jobs lose their income and those who stay employed save more in case they become unemployed. Of course they tend to save in ways that are individually rational but collectively irrational. Why but your money in banks or stock, where the money could be invested in productive activities, when banks are failing and stock prices are falling? Putting money under one's money under the mattress Entrepeneurs tend not to appear because they don't expect people will buy their products.

Wages stick downward because of regulations, such as minimum wage and government support for unions; they weren't like that in the earlier panics. It is actually a good thing that people would put their money under their mattress when banks are failing, because these banks have been engaging in fraudulent fractional reserve and richly deserve their destruction at the hands of the market. They most certainly do not deserve to be saved by government, since that would be saving them from their own irresponsibility at the expense of everyone else. Only when banks have made a commitment to full reserve banking or at the very least more cautious handling of their accounts should they be entrusted with people's money.

You should care more about what the populace as a whole cares about. Governments, and whatever institutions are used manage society in anarcho-societies, need legitimacy of the populace. Given the uproar that comes when fighting inflation a government that tried to cause the necessary deflation that occured under the Gold Standard would lose legitimacy if it kept it up.

I really don't care at all what the population cares at all, nor should I. If they want to perpetuate evil, then they deserve to be ignored. If they would not support a government that ends inflationism, then right-minded people should secede and do it themselves, even if the general population does not support the secession of those people. The population's opinions mean nothing.

The current situation is complex as Neu Leonstein's analysis in previous threads has shown. To raise rates sharply now could potentially cause another Great Depression.

Yes, if you do not get rid of all of the regulations, controls, and public spending on the economy that perpetuate malinvestment and do not raise interest rates based on the market but rather political whim.

I agree with you about neoclassical economic models being a farce, though some of my reasons differ from yours. Anyway your comments about most economists is pretty paranoid.

Nice ad-hominem. Anyway, I don't see how you can deny that so many of these economists are tied to the state in some way or another and thus may not be willing to see the evils of inflationism due to their ideological bent. (After all, so many of them plain refuse to think that anyone but the state can provide laws.)

Japan's problem is, or at least was if things have improved, a problem of the expectations deflation causes and because there was no way to absolve bad debts, ie bankruptcy. When there are so many bad debts around new investments are less likely to be made.

The problem has to do with political support through government-supplied credit (like the discount rate) and fiscal policy, that does not allow for malinvestments to be liquidated (such as in the construction industry.) Some liquidations did occur, but not in places like the financial industry (and others) where the government shielded them through nationalization and bail-outs. By allowing these inefficient groups to continue operation, they will of course interfere with the proper allocation of resources.

The problem of storing money under the matress what dealt above. Basically when many people do it causes/worsens slumps and the problem of deflation.

But this is necessary, as the banks deserve punishment for their fraudulent fractional reserve banking. It creates a strong incentive for full or fuller-reserve banks to appear that will not be in nearly as much risk from people withdrawing their deposits, and who will provide higher interest rates for depositors since loanable funds will be dearer, thus allowing for a true coordination of savings and lending as the marginal benefits of depositing at the bank versus keeping them under the mattress become relatively higher.

I never said Vittos supported central banking. I merely pointed out that he believes that deflation is worse than inflation on the economy. I do not see how the ICM hurts the case for central banking. The healthcare and the housing industries would still see above average inflation even without government subsidies. The argument for some inflation is not so much that it is good, only that the alternatives are worse.

Does he really? I have never seen him say anything like that, and would be very surprised if he did. The ICM hurts the case for central banking because it was a pet project of the Rockefeller-Morgans who wanted to institute central banking and inflationism for their own benefit, like all of the other supporters of central banking in American history (like Hamilton.) And I am not merely referring to actual fiscal subsidies, but all legal barriers to entry that benefit companies regardless of how well they serve consumers. (For instance, in the pharmaceutical industry, bans on re-importation of drugs, or for zoning laws for housing.) All of these lead to the relative increases in prices that, with increased supply that tends towards lowering of prices (like in the electronics industry), would not occur and did not occur prior to the advent of the Federal Reserve.
Steel Butterfly
03-05-2008, 18:59
Best
Eisenhower
Lincoln
Jefferson
Teddy Roosevelt
FDR

Worst
Carter
W
LBJ
FDR

Yes, FDR is both. He was exactly what the nation needed in the 1930's and early 1940's, and yet at the same time has fucked this country with his big government programs ever since.
Tech-gnosis
04-05-2008, 00:10
Wages stick downward because of regulations, such as minimum wage and government support for unions; they weren't like that in the earlier panics. It is actually a good thing that people would put their money under their mattress when banks are failing, because these banks have been engaging in fraudulent fractional reserve and richly deserve their destruction at the hands of the market. They most certainly do not deserve to be saved by government, since that would be saving them from their own irresponsibility at the expense of everyone else. Only when banks have made a commitment to full reserve banking or at the very least more cautious handling of their accounts should they be entrusted with people's money.

Wages are sticky partially because of the minimum wage and unions but more so because people dont like to take nominal wage cuts even when prices are falling. Also with the need to have skilled workers the market power for workers goes up. We aren't in the same time as pre

The banks self organization to reform well enough to win people's connfiedence would take some time as deflation occurs and people as consumers, workers, entrepeneurs, and investors worsen. The economy could be in ruins by then. Keeping money in matresses hurts those that keep it there it as it, Its a classic collective action problem.

I really don't care at all what the population cares at all, nor should I. If they want to perpetuate evil, then they deserve to be ignored. If they would not support a government that ends inflationism, then right-minded people should secede and do it themselves, even if the general population does not support the secession of those people. The population's opinions mean nothing.

You dont care that without the legitimacy of the population the secession of "right-minded" people is doomed? Do you want your plans to end the state to suceed? If you do you need to have the people's support.

Yes, if you do not get rid of all of the regulations, controls, and public spending on the economy that perpetuate malinvestment and do not raise interest rates based on the market but rather political whim.

Without government regulations, central banking, ect. malinvestments, financial panics, andthe business cycles would still occur. Often what the state does helps mitigate the effects of the economy.. Central banking smooths out the business cycle, generally.

Nice ad-hominem. Anyway, I don't see how you can deny that so many of these economists are tied to the state in some way or another and thus may not be willing to see the evils of inflationism due to their ideological bent. (After all, so many of them plain refuse to think that anyone but the state can provide laws.)

It is paranoid. Economists support the state because they believe that it is better than the alternative. They support "inflationism" because given the evidence some inflation is better than none. Their beliefs may be misplaced but they are "mouthpieces" for the state. Your ideology causes you to disregard the idea the state can be anything other than evil. Are you a mouthpiece

The problem has to do with political support through government-supplied credit (like the discount rate) and fiscal policy, that does not allow for malinvestments to be liquidated (such as in the construction industry.) Some liquidations did occur, but not in places like the financial industry (and others) where the government shielded them through nationalization and bail-outs. By allowing these inefficient groups to continue operation, they will of course interfere with the proper allocation of resources.

I could repeat myself but what purpose would it serve?

But this is necessary, as the banks deserve punishment for their fraudulent fractional reserve banking. It creates a strong incentive for full or fuller-reserve banks to appear that will not be in nearly as much risk from people withdrawing their deposits, and who will provide higher interest rates for depositors since loanable funds will be dearer, thus allowing for a true coordination of savings and lending as the marginal benefits of depositing at the bank versus keeping them under the mattress become relatively higher.

You do realize that the slump hurts people other than the banks and discourages entrenpenuership? That as banks fail people lose their savings and their homes? That businesses often fail as banks call in their debt or raise rates? That these things worsen expectations which causes the economy to further contract that worsens expectations still more?

Does he really? I have never seen him say anything like that, and would be very surprised if he did. The ICM hurts the case for central banking because it was a pet project of the Rockefeller-Morgans who wanted to institute central banking and inflationism for their own benefit, like all of the other supporters of central banking in American history (like Hamilton.) And I am not merely referring to actual fiscal subsidies, but all legal barriers to entry that benefit companies regardless of how well they serve consumers. (For instance, in the pharmaceutical industry, bans on re-importation of drugs, or for zoning laws for housing.) All of these lead to the relative increases in prices that, with increased supply that tends towards lowering of prices (like in the electronics industry), would not occur and did not occur prior to the advent of the Federal Reserve.

Vittos remarked how bad deflation was bad for the economy relative to inflation in a past thread. His views may have changed since then but I doubt it. You support ending central banking for your own benefit. Does that hurt your case? How does central banking hurt consumers?
Vetalia
04-05-2008, 00:33
But the politburo members NEEDED those regular shopping trips to Budapest.

While their people were forced to wait in lines for erratic supplies of everything but the very basics...

Of course, even that wasn't as bad as back during the Stalin era. Those times were basically 1984 in a nutshell, although Oceania still managed to be more successful at feeding its people than the Soviets.
Venndee
04-05-2008, 04:06
Wages are sticky partially because of the minimum wage and unions but more so because people dont like to take nominal wage cuts even when prices are falling. Also with the need to have skilled workers the market power for workers goes up. We aren't in the same time as pre

Even if they may not "like it", people still take paycuts all the time, and have in history; in 1921, wages fell and the economy got back on track. Without legal barriers to entry, people will be able to take jobs from those who refuse to take lower pay; it is only with cartelization with regulation and the like is this correction prevented.

The banks self organization to reform well enough to win people's connfiedence would take some time as deflation occurs and people as consumers, workers, entrepeneurs, and investors worsen. The economy could be in ruins by then. Keeping money in matresses hurts those that keep it there it as it, Its a classic collective action problem.

Though the adjustment would not be painless, it is necessary to end the fraudulent transactions of the banks. People should put their money under the mattress under these conditions to punish the banks for violating their trust through the use of fractional-reserve and force them to adopt fuller reserve policies. To try and save banks despite their fraud is to subsidize evil at the expense of savers.

You dont care that without the legitimacy of the population the secession of "right-minded" people is doomed? Do you want your plans to end the state to suceed? If you do you need to have the people's support.

Again, I really do not care what the population thinks, in fact I absolutely despise them, and given the chance would secede regardless of whether the mob wants it or not. Separation from the many-headed beast of democracy is a good in and of itself, and I will happily content to having only the support of a minority segregated from the majority.

Without government regulations, central banking, ect. malinvestments, financial panics, andthe business cycles would still occur. Often what the state does helps mitigate the effects of the economy.. Central banking smooths out the business cycle, generally.

Actually, without the central banking system that pumps credit into the system without actual saving occurring, and in fact discouraging savings due to lower interest rates, these unsustainable malinvestments would not occur in the first place. The state is, in fact, the progenitor of crisis in the financial world just the same as in all other fields.

It is paranoid. Economists support the state because they believe that it is better than the alternative. They support "inflationism" because given the evidence some inflation is better than none. Their beliefs may be misplaced but they are "mouthpieces" for the state. Your ideology causes you to disregard the idea the state can be anything other than evil. Are you a mouthpiece

And considering the amount of control the state exercises in the intellectual world, and that the state would want to support the pro-statist lines of thought that most economists have in order to gain legitimacy and expand its depredations, it is hardly paranoid to conclude that they are little more than their mouthpieces. That is why central banking, which was once rightly despised by so many brilliant minds, is now a given even to nominally "free" market intellectuals.

You do realize that the slump hurts people other than the banks and discourages entrenpenuership? That as banks fail people lose their savings and their homes? That businesses often fail as banks call in their debt or raise rates? That these things worsen expectations which causes the economy to further contract that worsens expectations still more?

Again, liquidation of malinvestment is not painless, but it is necessary. When people get consumer or capital goods at artificially low interest rates, it is necessary that these goods be returned in order to achieve an efficient allocation of resources. It is good that they act more conservatively, since this allows for a restoration of full(er) reserve and savings that can re-coordinate information concerning people's time preferences and allow for resumption of capital accumulation.

Vittos remarked how bad deflation was bad for the economy relative to inflation in a past thread. His views may have changed since then but I doubt it. You support ending central banking for your own benefit. Does that hurt your case? How does central banking hurt consumers?

I am still not sure about Vittos saying deflation is worse than inflation, since inflation is a creature of state credit expansion. And no, it does not hurt my case, because I am not advocating forcing anyone to use stupid little green pieces of paper that only I have a right to make whenever I want to, and thus give myself the opportunity to steal from them. I merely want to have the right to transfer property rights of whatever medium of exchange I want to and to maintain the right of medium of exchange that has been transferred to me without it being arbitrarily substituted for stupid slips of colored paper against my will.
Tech-gnosis
05-05-2008, 00:46
Even if they may not "like it", people still take paycuts all the time, and have in history; in 1921, wages fell and the economy got back on track. Without legal barriers to entry, people will be able to take jobs from those who refuse to take lower pay; it is only with cartelization with regulation and the like is this correction prevented.

I meant that usually pay cuts hurt moral and productivity more than lay-offs do so firms are reluctant to cut pay. even if all barriers to entry it would not fully diminish skiller workers market power. The economy is not the same.

Though the adjustment would not be painless, it is necessary to end the fraudulent transactions of the banks. People should put their money under the mattress under these conditions to punish the banks for violating their trust through the use of fractional-reserve and force them to adopt fuller reserve policies. To try and save banks despite their fraud is to subsidize evil at the expense of savers.

The same people hiding money under their mattresses are the same ones being hurt by the failure of the banks. Usually they're doing worse then the former bankers. When one has information that is not available to others may be able to beat the market for short periods of time. So basically when it looks bad for the bank but people aren't yet aware of it they get their money out their banks into Swiss ones or into government bonds. The pain can last a long time.

Again, I really do not care what the population thinks, in fact I absolutely despise them, and given the chance would secede regardless of whether the mob wants it or not. Separation from the many-headed beast of democracy is a good in and of itself, and I will happily content to having only the support of a minority segregated from the majority.

You despise the people whom you believe have rights and don't care whether your plan is acheivable or not? Few people get away without paying taxes, The first few who seccede would be crushed and others would be disuaded from joining them. Your movement would end.

Actually, without the central banking system that pumps credit into the system without actual saving occurring, and in fact discouraging savings due to lower interest rates, these unsustainable malinvestments would not occur in the first place. The state is, in fact, the progenitor of crisis in the financial world just the same as in all other fields.

The savings rate dropped during the eighties as interest rates were kept high to combat inflation. Since WWII the recessions of the US have been shorter and less painful than the ones before the Depression. Partly because central banks are better at monetary policy now.

And considering the amount of control the state exercises in the intellectual world, and that the state would want to support the pro-statist lines of thought that most economists have in order to gain legitimacy and expand its depredations, it is hardly paranoid to conclude that they are little more than their mouthpieces. That is why central banking, which was once rightly despised by so many brilliant minds, is now a given even to nominally "free" market intellectuals.

It is paranoid. Academia has been full self-avowed of marxists and socialists when any politician claiming to be one would be commitiing political suicide, in the US. Herman Hoppe works for the Univeristy of Nevada, Las Vegas, a public(ally subsidized) university. Many professors are against the Iraqi war. Central banking gained credence because when looking at empirical data and economic models free market economists believe its a good thing.

I am still not sure about Vittos saying deflation is worse than inflation, since inflation is a creature of state credit expansion. And no, it does not hurt my case, because I am not advocating forcing anyone to use stupid little green pieces of paper that only I have a right to make whenever I want to, and thus give myself the opportunity to steal from them. I merely want to have the right to transfer property rights of whatever medium of exchange I want to and to maintain the right of medium of exchange that has been transferred to me without it being arbitrarily substituted for stupid slips of colored paper against my will.

We'll have to ask Vittos sometime his thoughs on inflation, delfation, and whatnot.

I see no use in arguing with you further. I hope come to your senses some day.
Geoactive
05-05-2008, 01:01
Best: Margaret Thatcher, with her Vice President Ronald Reagan

Worst: LBJ, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today!
Vetalia
05-05-2008, 01:24
I am still not sure about Vittos saying deflation is worse than inflation, since inflation is a creature of state credit expansion. And no, it does not hurt my case, because I am not advocating forcing anyone to use stupid little green pieces of paper that only I have a right to make whenever I want to, and thus give myself the opportunity to steal from them. I merely want to have the right to transfer property rights of whatever medium of exchange I want to and to maintain the right of medium of exchange that has been transferred to me without it being arbitrarily substituted for stupid slips of colored paper against my will.

You can do that if you want; it's perfectly acceptable to transfer property rights without cash payment. Nobody does it because we prefer liquidity, and cash is the most liquid asset...that's the fundamental thing people forget. People use cash and central banks use fiat currency because it works. The world economy has never seen a period of prosperity and stable growth in recorded history comparable to the growth we've seen with fiat currency.

The only thing the government really doesn't let you do is produce your own currency, which is perfectly reasonable given the quite disastrous history of private currency; I distinctly recall the severe, frequent swings in the US economy prior to the establishment of the Federal Reserve system, many of which made the Great Depression look like a walk in the park.
New Limacon
05-05-2008, 04:04
Actually, inflation is good for a banker because the ability to expand the credit supply means that banks do not have to keep as much in reserves and can engage in more fractional-reserve banking. The Morgan-Rockefellers supported inflation, actually, through the Indianapolis Monetary Convention, but their brand of inflationism through the gold standard was more to their benefit than the silverites'.

Hmm. Maybe, but I think there are still more examples of banks not wanting inflation. Nearly every instance of ultra-pro-business governments in the U.S. have seen deflation, or at least inflation decrease, such as in the 1880s, 1920s, and 1980s.
I can't speak for the Indianapolis Monetary Convention. There is a surprising lack of free information about it on the Web, so I'll have to look at the library.
New Limacon
05-05-2008, 04:09
You can do that if you want; it's perfectly acceptable to transfer property rights without cash payment. Nobody does it because we prefer liquidity, and cash is the most liquid asset...that's the fundamental thing people forget. People use cash and central banks use fiat currency because it works. The world economy has never seen a period of prosperity and stable growth in recorded history comparable to the growth we've seen with fiat currency.


I've always had a fantasy where I go to the New York Stock Exchange, stand in the middle of the floor, and shout above the clamor, "IT'S NOT REAL! IT'S ALL SOME SICK ECONOMIST'S DREAM! AUGGHH!" (Yes, I'd say it all in all-caps.) After my screed, all of the stockbrokers would look at their certificates and say, "My God, he's right!" and then go out West and become spinach farmers or something.

That's my dream, anyway.
Venndee
05-05-2008, 04:41
I meant that usually pay cuts hurt moral and productivity more than lay-offs do so firms are reluctant to cut pay. even if all barriers to entry it would not fully diminish skiller workers market power. The economy is not the same.

But this assumes one of those godawful neoclassical models that entirely removes the concept of entrepeneurship. There are, after all, other ways than paycuts to cut back on labor costs, such as reducing hours or using relatively cheaper capital. Economic principles, as truths, are constant and if people in the 1920s were able to cut wages in order to create equilibrium despite the fact that it would obviously impair moral and productivity, it was still done. It is only because of the regulations started with Hoover that wages have become so inflexible when previously they had been allowed to adjust.

The same people hiding money under their mattresses are the same ones being hurt by the failure of the banks. Usually they're doing worse then the former bankers. When one has information that is not available to others may be able to beat the market for short periods of time. So basically when it looks bad for the bank but people aren't yet aware of it they get their money out their banks into Swiss ones or into government bonds. The pain can last a long time.

It is perfectly alright if they put their money into Swiss banks, since Swiss banks are the ones that would have a competitive advantage for their trustworthiness versus the irresponsible ones, and as such moving their money would expedite the restructuring of the economy as they gain greater profits. Putting money under the mattress is a necessary part of the restructuring in order to liquidate insolvent banks.

You despise the people whom you believe have rights and don't care whether your plan is acheivable or not? Few people get away without paying taxes, The first few who seccede would be crushed and others would be disuaded from joining them. Your movement would end.

One can despise people and still believe they have rights; I think that crack dealers have a legal right to push narcotics, and that Ku Klux Klansmen have a right to burn crosses on their own lawns, even if their acts are morally reprehensible. I qualified my earlier statement by saying that I would secede if given the opportunity, and seeing as how I have not attempted to secede right now I would not do it whenever but only when it would make the most impact. I simply realize that the masses are too attached to their bread and circuses to actually be capable of being convinced, and that the only way I can win would be through mobilizing a select group of people at the opportune time.

The savings rate dropped during the eighties as interest rates were kept high to combat inflation. Since WWII the recessions of the US have been shorter and less painful than the ones before the Depression. Partly because central banks are better at monetary policy now.

You neglect to note that the savings rate was still comparable to earlier decades, that interest rates began to decline once more during the mid-to-late 80's, and that the most pronounced drop in savings rate occurred during and after the 90's. Also, economic growth was higher during the pre-Fed era, and without a good deal of institutions that spread out risk, not to mention that there were still forms of central banking before the Fed, such as state-charted banks and reserve city and central reserve banks that led to catastrophe. We were also better off with the gold window open than with the disastrous, prolonged effects of closing the window.

It is paranoid. Academia has been full self-avowed of marxists and socialists when any politician claiming to be one would be commitiing political suicide, in the US. Herman Hoppe works for the Univeristy of Nevada, Las Vegas, a public(ally subsidized) university. Many professors are against the Iraqi war. Central banking gained credence because when looking at empirical data and economic models free market economists believe its a good thing.

Hoppe was almost crucified, so he's not exactly in the in-crowd. While they may not directly align themselves with the various leftists they have a hand in supporting these universities (such as the GI Bill and politically-correct accreditation), and since leftism is more favorable to expansion of state power at the expense of free markets it is supported. Even if many professors are against the Iraq War, so are many politicians, and both will simply support alternative forms of imperialism depending on their constituencies. Also, considering that these supposedly "free" market types are actually advocating public control of the money supply, they cannot even be considered free marketeers in the first place, not to mention that the Cato and Chicago types are quite connected to political power despite what they may claim.

I see no use in arguing with you further. I hope come to your senses some day.

You too.

You can do that if you want; it's perfectly acceptable to transfer property rights without cash payment. Nobody does it because we prefer liquidity, and cash is the most liquid asset...that's the fundamental thing people forget. People use cash and central banks use fiat currency because it works. The world economy has never seen a period of prosperity and stable growth in recorded history comparable to the growth we've seen with fiat currency.

Actually, it really doesn't work like that since one cannot sue successfully for non-payment if someone tries to pay a debt in legal tender. And people have quite ardently resisted fiat currency and central banking in the past, so the matter is not so much one of liquidity as of legitimacy. Even if the world has experienced a good deal of growth, it does not follow that this is because of fiat money, merely that they are correlated. (The more likely reason for the increase of prosperity are technological advances that allow for a broader division of labor, which is hindered by subsidizing inefficient firms through monetary and fiscal policy that fiat money enables and the prevention of capital formation through artificially low interest rates.)

The only thing the government really doesn't let you do is produce your own currency, which is perfectly reasonable given the quite disastrous history of private currency; I distinctly recall the severe, frequent swings in the US economy prior to the establishment of the Federal Reserve system, many of which made the Great Depression look like a walk in the park.

Actually, none of the panics were anywhere near the Great Depression; the worst, in 1893, had only a low-teens unemployment rate (This, of course, being under the more centralized system of reserve city and central reserve banks when previously there were just state-chartered banks.) Despite the fact that there was still a good deal of intervention in the banking system through state charted banks and the like, there was still higher growth rates despite the lack of risk-management that modern financial institutions have. In fact, there was a great deal of stability when the Suffolk system during the mid-century kept a check on fractional reserve through its efficiency at demanding redemption and the trustworthiness that member banks had under it. Without the government bailing out irresponsible banks to protect their fractional reserve banking, there could be even more stability.
Shayamalan
05-05-2008, 06:22
Best:

Lincoln - He had to deal with every President's worst nightmare and although he seemed like a tyrant, he did what he had to do to keep the country together. Oh yeah, and he passed emancipation, whether he wanted to or not.

FDR - Again, he did what he had to do to keep the country afloat in hard times. Some may argue that some of his policies are outdated today, but if it wasn't for the New Deal back then, the country would have been in a much tougher shape today, and we may not have had a good enough economy to mobilize for World War II.

Reagan - Took another floundering economy and turned it around, stood up vocally against Communism (even though the Soviet Union collapsed on itself - Reagan didn't beat Communism, Communism finally showed that it just isn't practical), dealt a heavy hand to tyrants of the world, and was the most honest president with the American people since the days of FDR.

Worst:

I won't list reasons why, but: Hoover, Carter, Andrew Johnson, Harding

Other presidents mentioned in both the Best and Worst columns, such as Nixon, LBJ, and Clinton have both very strong merits and drawbacks.

Nixon:
Merits: ended the Vietnam War, opened trade with China
Drawbacks: could have ended the war differently, and of course Watergate

LBJ:
Merits: Civil rights champion
Drawbacks: got the nation into the Vietnam War and mismanaged it

Clinton:
Merits: presided over the economic boom of the 90s, internationally loved
Drawbacks: high taxes, and, well... who could resist Big Billy's charms?
Llewdor
07-05-2008, 23:14
You can do that if you want; it's perfectly acceptable to transfer property rights without cash payment. Nobody does it because we prefer liquidity, and cash is the most liquid asset...that's the fundamental thing people forget. People use cash and central banks use fiat currency because it works. The world economy has never seen a period of prosperity and stable growth in recorded history comparable to the growth we've seen with fiat currency.
That still doesn't mean fiat currencies make any sense. There's no reason for them to have value. They only have value as long as the masses value them irrationally.
Markiria
07-05-2008, 23:40
BEST: Ronald Regan
WORST: Billary Clinton



mccain 08';)
New Malachite Square
08-05-2008, 00:15
Best: Adlai Stevenson. Wait, damn.
Tech-gnosis
08-05-2008, 01:13
That still doesn't mean fiat currencies make any sense. There's no reason for them to have value. They only have value as long as the masses value them irrationally.

I've often thought the same about gold, diamonds, art, and the like.
Andaras
08-05-2008, 01:40
Reagan is responsible for the arming of the Contras and other Latin American death squads yes, who were responsible for the murders of 400,000+ innocents. And who then with the profits of that criminal enterprise channeled heavy weapons to the Mullahs in Tehran.

How can Reagan be measured good in ANY objective way, his atrocious running up of debt and military recklessness is still being paid for by Americans today, and his debt legacy for military spending has been carried on by Bush to be paid by American generations into the future.
New Malachite Square
08-05-2008, 01:44
How can Reagan be measured good in ANY objective way…

He made a big show of fighting teh ebil communists, what more do you want in a president? :p
Andaras
08-05-2008, 02:19
He made a big show of fighting teh ebil communists, what more do you want in a president? :p

He made an art of fearmongering, such as putting the entire nation on alert when the Sandistas in Nicaragua took over and Reagan closed the border saying that the Nicaraguan army could march over land and invade America at any second... :rolleyes:
Venndee
08-05-2008, 02:53
I've often thought the same about gold, diamonds, art, and the like.

But gold is relatively scarce and difficult to dig up, along with various other factors such as portability, durability, high value to weight ratio, high value alternative uses, etc. gave it a competitive advantage against other goods as money. Whereas since paper is quite easy to produce, fragile, and its alternative uses are relatively low value, it wouldn't stand a chance of being selected as money by the free market but only by someone who could monopolize the money supply and abuse it for the extremely high seignorage at the expense of everyone else forced to bear the costs of its depreciation.
Tech-gnosis
08-05-2008, 03:54
But gold is relatively scarce and difficult to dig up, along with various other factors such as portability, durability, high value to weight ratio, high value alternative uses, etc. gave it a competitive advantage against other goods as money. Whereas since paper is quite easy to produce, fragile, and its alternative uses are relatively low value, it wouldn't stand a chance of being selected as money by the free market but only by someone who could monopolize the money supply and abuse it for the extremely high seignorage at the expense of everyone else forced to bear the costs of its depreciation.

You have offered nothing that contradicts what I have said.
Venndee
08-05-2008, 04:01
You have offered nothing that contradicts what I have said.

I just told you specifically that gold's physical qualities lend itself to the performance of its role as a store of value, medium of exchange and unit of account, which has led to its historic acceptance versus other commodities. It is valued as money for just the same reason as oil is valued for energy. There really is no mystery at all.
Tech-gnosis
08-05-2008, 04:10
I just told you specifically that gold's physical qualities lend itself to the performance of its role as a store of value, medium of exchange and unit of account, which has led to its historic acceptance versus other commodities. There really is no mystery at all as to why it is valued.

None of what you said tells me why the valuing of gold by the masses is rational. Gold is pretty, rare, and can be used to make jewelry. It has no innate value, only what people give it. If some other rare element was thought to be as valuable as we tend to treat gold and gold was thought to have almost no value there is nothing more or less rational with the decision of either choice.
Tech-gnosis
08-05-2008, 04:11
I just told you specifically that gold's physical qualities lend itself to the performance of its role as a store of value, medium of exchange and unit of account, which has led to its historic acceptance versus other commodities. It is valued as money for just the same reason as oil is valued for energy. There really is no mystery at all.

Oil is valued as a source of energy because it is relatively cheap and because of legacy costs of changing to another source of fuel.
Venndee
08-05-2008, 04:29
None of what you said tells me why the valuing of gold by the masses is rational. Gold is pretty, rare, and can be used to make jewelry. It has no innate value, only what people give it. If some other rare element was thought to be as valuable as we tend to treat gold and gold was thought to have almost no value there is nothing more or less rational with the decision of either choice.

It is quite obvious why it is rational when you compare gold with other media of exchange that have been tried. It fulfills the roles of medium of exchange (portability, fungibility, malleability, high value to weight ratio), store of value (durability, scarcity, high-value alternatives), and unit of account (divisibility, uniformity.) Other media of exchange, grain, cattle, etc., lacked all of these qualities, and as such were eventually displaced by gold because its physical qualities best suited these three roles and people realized this through their reason. Again, there really is no question as to why gold has had such success in the monetary field.
Tech-gnosis
08-05-2008, 05:43
It is quite obvious why it is rational when you compare gold with other media of exchange that have been tried. It fulfills the roles of medium of exchange (portability, fungibility, malleability, high value to weight ratio), store of value (durability, scarcity, high-value alternatives), and unit of account (divisibility, uniformity.) Other media of exchange, grain, cattle, etc., lacked all of these qualities, and as such were eventually displaced by gold because its physical qualities best suited these three roles and people realized this through their reason. Again, there really is no question as to why gold has had such success in the monetary field.

It all comes down to the fact that the masses value it. The masses could easily stop valuing it for any sort reason. Tastes change, people value silver more or copper, gold is considered low class, whatever. There's also the danger of supply skyrocketing once asteroid mining becomes feasible (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/401227.stm). So it basically comes down to gold being valuable because people give it value relative to its scarcity.
Venndee
08-05-2008, 18:52
It all comes down to the fact that the masses value it. The masses could easily stop valuing it for any sort reason. Tastes change, people value silver more or copper, gold is considered low class, whatever. There's also the danger of supply skyrocketing once asteroid mining becomes feasible (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/401227.stm). So it basically comes down to gold being valuable because people give it value relative to its scarcity.

Well, I wouldn't disagree with the idea that things have value because people value them; value doesn't exist outside of reason, hence why we cannot say that a cat or a flower "values" anything. But we value objects because they satisfy our wants and we realize this. Just the same as we value oil for its ability to satisfy our energy wants, so too do people value gold for its physical qualities that lend itself to the performance of money wants (it wouldn't be nearly as valuable if it weren't portable, had a high value to weight ratio, or was extremely brittle like paper.) Yes, it could be replaced, but that would be the result of the rational choices of people to choose an object that has better physical qualities concerning its performance as a money.
Nerotika
08-05-2008, 18:58
Best: FDR, Bill Clinton (Cause he's just a pimp and deserves it), Kennedy (If only that he was able to truely connect and unite the nation), Washington and Lincoln (Although that could be argued a little)...

Worst: BUSH, BUSH, BUSH, BUSH and more fucken BUSH...oh and Reagan cause that whore sucks balls....say what you will but under his administration alot of shit that should not have gone down, did go down.

I would have a longer list but im lazy
Tech-gnosis
08-05-2008, 22:23
Well, I wouldn't disagree with the idea that things have value because people value them; value doesn't exist outside of reason, hence why we cannot say that a cat or a flower "values" anything. But we value objects because they satisfy our wants and we realize this. Just the same as we value oil for its ability to satisfy our energy wants, so too do people value gold for its physical qualities that lend itself to the performance of money wants (it wouldn't be nearly as valuable if it weren't portable, had a high value to weight ratio, or was extremely brittle like paper.) Yes, it could be replaced, but that would be the result of the rational choices of people to choose an object that has better physical qualities concerning its performance as a money.

Currently I know of no currency backed by gold. Gold is/was used as a monetary unit because people knew others valued it. Grain, cattle, and other commodities that could be used to back currencies have value outside of their use as monetary units. Gold has value outside of being used as a monetary unit because its a pretty metal and because it is rare.
Venndee
09-05-2008, 01:38
Currently I know of no currency backed by gold. Gold is/was used as a monetary unit because people knew others valued it. Grain, cattle, and other commodities that could be used to back currencies have value outside of their use as monetary units. Gold has value outside of being used as a monetary unit because its a pretty metal and because it is rare.

The reason why no countries currently use gold is because of legal tender laws that basically destroy gold's capacity as a medium of exchange, not through free exchange but through legislative fiat. There are more reasons as to why gold was valued than just because people valued it; people also used grain and cattle as mediums of exchange, but these were replaced by gold because they were deficient in their role as money, such as lacking divisibility, low value to weight ratio, lack of uniformity, etc. Gold's physical qualities give it comparative advantages in performing its role of money versus other potential monies.

Edit: We can also look at diamonds for a reason why the issue is more complex than people simply valuing an object a lot. Diamonds have a great deal of value and are scarce, but they are largely not used because they are not divisible, not malleable, not fungible, etc., which makes them deficient as a unit of account and medium of exchange. Whereas, gold due to its physical qualities does fulfill these roles.
Tech-gnosis
09-05-2008, 14:06
The reason why no countries currently use gold is because of legal tender laws that basically destroy gold's capacity as a medium of exchange, not through free exchange but through legislative fiat. There are more reasons as to why gold was valued than just because people valued it; people also used grain and cattle as mediums of exchange, but these were replaced by gold because they were deficient in their role as money, such as lacking divisibility, low value to weight ratio, lack of uniformity, etc. Gold's physical qualities give it comparative advantages in performing its role of money versus other potential monies.

Edit: We can also look at diamonds for a reason why the issue is more complex than people simply valuing an object a lot. Diamonds have a great deal of value and are scarce, but they are largely not used because they are not divisible, not malleable, not fungible, etc., which makes them deficient as a unit of account and medium of exchange. Whereas, gold due to its physical qualities does fulfill these roles.

*sigh* If you look at my first post on this topic you'll notice that I didn't mention gold's use as a monetary unit. I pointed out that things have value because the masses value them. I do not value gold, diamonds, or expensive pieces of art at the market price. Gold and diamonds are pretty but not that pretty. My appreciation of art is generally even less. This doesn't mean I wouldn't buy gold, silver, or art if I thought I could make a decent return on them, or if I was given some as an inheritance I would be disappointed. I could sell said items, but in themselves they little worth.
Venndee
09-05-2008, 17:27
*sigh* If you look at my first post on this topic you'll notice that I didn't mention gold's use as a monetary unit. I pointed out that things have value because the masses value them. I do not value gold, diamonds, or expensive pieces of art at the market price. Gold and diamonds are pretty but not that pretty. My appreciation of art is generally even less. This doesn't mean I wouldn't buy gold, silver, or art if I thought I could make a decent return on them, or if I was given some as an inheritance I would be disappointed. I could sell said items, but in themselves they little worth.

But you wrote off gold's value as being irrational, as opposed to being the result of the competitive advantages its physical qualities endow it with to satisfy people's wants.
Tech-gnosis
09-05-2008, 21:35
But you wrote off gold's value as being irrational, as opposed to being the result of the competitive advantages its physical qualities endow it with to satisfy people's wants.

It is irrational