BO: "indeed, and the obvious solution would be to require more transparency in the government to stop all the crony capitalism as dead said."

Once again; stop putting words in my mouth. Why do you keep saying that I said things that I clearly have not. I'm all for government transparency; but I never made a statement that linked it to crony capitalism.

I'm starting to see what your issue is BO; you only hear what you want to hear.

BO: "What about the mail system, firedepartments, dmv, etc? What about the institutions that build and maintain our roads? Which public goods are you willing to forsake and which are you arbitrarily sanctioning (besides security, defense and public arbitration)? "

BO you are welcome to read the platform of libertarians; it is pretty clear on all these points. I'm a bit surprised at your lack of knowledge of other political view points other then your own. I know the differences between Republicans, Democrates, Libertarians, and several other third parties. I suggest you do some reading on the topic; you might want to start on the Libertarian home page.

Btw; you ignorance of other countries is also shameful. There are modern first world countries with no DMVs; no nationalized mail systems, private roads, etc. Do your due diligence; you look rather stupid saying someone is crazy; when countries you praise in Europe (and elsewhere) have some of these exact policies.

BO: "Furthermore, what about regulatory agency like the FDA? There was a time when there was no FDA, you know what happened back then? People were getting fingers in their meatballs and had no fucking idea. As far as the state and the economy are concerned guess what we tried that too. We ended up with increasingly severe recessions that ultimately culminated in the Great Depression. "

I disagree with your "facts". Show your source here.

BO: "Here's a quick summary of the position it seems you're taking "hey I don't like this one cop because he's corrupt. I don't think there should be any policemen." Except the cop is all government institutions besides the police, military and judiciary. Let me know if that's an incorrect interpretation."

Incorrect interpretation... duh.

BO: "would you prefer to get less bang for your buck or pay more and get more bang for your buck (like costco)? What's embarrassing is how inefficient our government is and how clear it is that it is being manipulated by individuals for their own profit. Transparency is the answer, not firing all the metaphorical policemen. "

I prefer to get my products and services from the private sector. Not have my products and services chosen for me by someone in Washington. I think this is fairly obvious by reading my previous posts. Are you feigning stupidity today or is this condition permanent?

BO: "You say that they should be tried to the fullest extent of the law, but didn't you just finish saying you don't even want congress to exist?"

Congress, Supreme Court, President still exist. Sorry for the confusion. I figured (incorrectly) that you understood the basics of the Libertarian platform. Please read the basics so we can get past these elementary questions.

BO: "but dead cutting revenue and then running up the deficit is outlined as an american conservative fiscal policy so it's not like anybody didn't expect them [conservatives] to do exactly that. what you're suggesting is dramatically shrinking the government as you decrease taxes and no politician can spin that into a reelection. "

I still disagree with the assertion that it is anymore then a policy of a few advisors; but I see and accept your change in language; although much apprehension.

BO: "i'm sure you could look hard enough and find a conservative that wasn't okay with "starving the beast" but the last 3 conservative presidents we've had have been so I feel like there's more evidence to suggest this is a standard conservative policy than there is against this being the case."

I disagree with it being the policy of 3 presidents; at least not an official policy; but who can assert what their private thoughts are. I cannot; neither can you.

I believe you would be hard pressed to find a conservative that agrees with "Starve the Beast". And I run in conservative, liberal, and other circles.

Call me crazy; but I sense you don't talk (listen) to many conservatives.

"Once again; stop putting words in my mouth. Why do you keep saying that I said things that I clearly have not. I'm all for government transparency; but I never made a statement that linked it to crony capitalism.

I'm starting to see what your issue is BO; you only hear what you want to hear."

No I just do that to mess with you.

"BO you are welcome to read the platform of libertarians; it is pretty clear on all these points. I'm a bit surprised at your lack of knowledge of other political view points other then your own. I know the differences between Republicans, Democrates, Libertarians, and several other third parties. I suggest you do some reading on the topic; you might want to start on the Libertarian home page. "

Don't feed me a bullshit answer like that, I am not going to do your research for you. If you have a viewpoint you should at least be able to defend it before you present it. I'm all ears.

"I disagree with your "facts". Show your source here. "

Your ignorance of history is disheartening, you've never heard of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle? That's the reason we even have an FDA today. As far as what I said concerning the late 19th and earlier 20th centuries economics of the US I could just look up wikipedia for you but it would fall on deaf ears.

Read about (skim through) the Panics and Recessions since the Civil War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

Notice how they become more frequent during the industrialization of our country... up until we begin regulating the industry with progressive administrations like TR, Taft, Wilson and FDR? And wasn't magic that made recessions less frequent - it was responsible monetary policy.

"Incorrect interpretation... duh. "

Tell me how your position on federal regulation is any different than what I said: Here's a quick summary of the position it seems you're taking "hey I don't like this one cop because he's corrupt. I don't think there should be any policemen." Except the cop is all government institutions besides the police, military and judiciary.

"I prefer to get my products and services from the private sector. Not have my products and services chosen for me by someone in Washington. I think this is fairly obvious by reading my previous posts. Are you feigning stupidity today or is this condition permanent? "

So you only want to pay for the military, police and judiciary. Okay let's try a different approach here, why should you have to pay for the military of the whole world. Essentially the rest of the world is getting free defense from you! Are you okay with that? If you are not does that mean you would like our nation to return to its isolationist roots? What happens if an American corporation is nationalized abroad by saying a communist regime, we wouldn't be able to secure American investments abroad if we were to become isolationist. How do you reconcile this? I can't see you answering this without coming off as completely regressive.

"Congress, Supreme Court, President still exist. Sorry for the confusion. I figured (incorrectly) that you understood the basics of the Libertarian platform. Please read the basics so we can get past these elementary questions. "

Please enlighten me/anyone reading our conversation. I do you the service of citing what I am talking about I have yet to see you cite anything aside from a political chart a 5th grader could've made.

"I still disagree with the assertion that it is anymore then a policy of a few advisors; but I see and accept your change in language; although much apprehension. "

How the fuck does that make any sense. Even if it was the policy of a handful of advisors isn't it what ACTUALLY HAPPENED during the last 3 republican administrations. You realize that right? To say this is not their actual policy is to suggest that these republican presidents simply stumbled into their economic fiscal policy without deliberation. If you think this why the fuck would you ever vote for another republican president? If you're fine with being fiscally irresponsible to ultimately cut government spending (alla machiavelli) then I can understand. But call a duck a duck, the party of fiscal irresponsibility would be the republicans and so far it seems the fiscally responsible party has been the democrats (Carter, Clinton, and most likely Obama).

"I disagree with it being the policy of 3 presidents; at least not an official policy; but who can assert what their private thoughts are. I cannot; neither can you. "

It doesn't matter if on an internal level these presidents and party leaders didn't like the idea, starving the beast is actually what happened. You can't deny Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II didn't tremendously run up the deficit. See this chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

This is incontrovertible, regardless of whether Reagan or the Bushes liked the idea it's what actually passed under their administration and in fact their administrations admitted this is what they were doing.

"I believe you would be hard pressed to find a conservative that agrees with "Starve the Beast". And I run in conservative, liberal, and other circles. "

I go to Notre Dame. You're hard pressed to find anyone who isn't conservative and religious.

BO: "No I just do that to mess with you. "

Good I was starting to think you were nuts. :p

BO: "Don't feed me a bullshit answer like that, I am not going to do your research for you. If you have a viewpoint you should at least be able to defend it before you present it. I'm all ears. "

It isn't a bullshit answer. I'm just saying that I cannot list every single government program for you. We need to take a serious look at the government and reduce the waste. For example; the department of education; irs; fed; usps; npr; fda; fcc. I could go on and on and on; and you would try to explain to me till your blue in the face that all these government services are essential to our way of life. So let me pre-empt that and say "I disagree". The FDA doesn't protect us from dangerous food and drugs any more then the TSA protects us from terrorists. Or the FCC protects the airways. Or the FED protects our currency / unemployment rates. Or the NPR protects open and free dialog. Or the DMV protects us from bad drivers. Or the Department of Education produces good students. Or the SEC protects us from frauds and manipulation.

I could go on and on naming complete and utter failures that we spend countless billions on; but you think most of these things are all successes. Go figure. Maybe it's because you don't pay taxes yet. It's easy to look at everything and say wow it's worth it; when you aren't footing the bill.

BO: "Your ignorance of history is disheartening, you've never heard of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle? That's the reason we even have an FDA today. As far as what I said concerning the late 19th and earlier 20th centuries economics of the US I could just look up wikipedia for you but it would fall on deaf ears. "

Lol because I didn't read a book about the toughness of labor back in the 20th century; now I'm ignorant of history.

First of all; Sinclair's book wasn't even about food quality. It was about working conditions. Sinclair himself says that he believes that political forces used his book as a political football. Politicians used a book about poor labor quality to whip the country into a fear-inspired fury over food quality. Thus the creation of the FDA. And a finger was never found in food ever again and we all lived happily ever after. :sarcasm: (in case you were wondering).

BO: "Read about (skim through) the Panics and Recessions since the Civil War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

Notice how they become more frequent during the industrialization of our country... up until we begin regulating the industry with progressive administrations like TR, Taft, Wilson and FDR? And wasn't magic that made recessions less frequent - it was responsible monetary policy. "

Because they use inflation to create the perception that the boom continues when it doesn't. Cmon; BO you should know this. Once the Fed and the dollar was delinked from gold; they could print money to cause stocks to go up.

Surely you are versed in how inflation works. Only you would use data that shows recessions with inflation unadjusted figures. You are going to be coffee boy at Morgan Stanley in a matter of months with your overlooking of very important facts.

BO: "Tell me how your position on federal regulation is any different than what I said: Here's a quick summary of the position it seems you're taking "hey I don't like this one cop because he's corrupt. I don't think there should be any policemen." Except the cop is all government institutions besides the police, military and judiciary. "

Cmon BO; this is an obvious straw man. Just give it up.

BO: "So you only want to pay for the military, police and judiciary. Okay let's try a different approach here, why should you have to pay for the military of the whole world."

We shouldn't be policing the world; I whole heartedly agree. See now we are on the same page. In fact; if we threatened to pull our troops out of Europe; we would have a huge card in negotiations with european nations. It is ridiculous that many nations in Europe thumb their noses at us when they don't need to pay for a military because of our bases protecting them. Obviously Europe is a great ally; but I think we should use these types of things in negotiations etc.

I'd be all for pull the troops back from defensive positions in europe (other nations) where countries can and would be able to defend themselves. Plus we will always be there to help them under threat from an enemy as backup; not the main force.

BO: "What happens if an American corporation is nationalized abroad by saying a communist regime, we wouldn't be able to secure American investments abroad if we were to become isolationist."

We are very capable of protecting our citizens abroad without military bases. We have missiles that shoot across the earth; floating cities with thousands of troops and aircraft; nuclear submarines; stealth bombers; delta force; seal team 6. I think we can handle ourselves fine.

On that note; we have bases all over the world; and when the middle eastern nations nationalized our oil fields we did nothing. When venezuela nationalized our oil fields and other business we did nothing. So bases don't do anything if you dont have the political will power to lift a finger in defense.

Btw; one of the main reason we are in this whole mess today; is that we allowed all these middle eastern dictators to nationalize our oil fields. Now they are wealthy dictators; using the money to cling to power, threaten their neighbors and subjugate their citizens to a living nightmare.

BO: "How do you reconcile this? I can't see you answering this without coming off as completely regressive. "

How did I do? What is regressive about my policies? If you mean they aren't progressive; then sure. But that is a loaded term.

BO: "Please enlighten me/anyone reading our conversation. I do you the service of citing what I am talking about I have yet to see you cite anything aside from a political chart a 5th grader could've made."

I think Ayn Rand stated it best.

"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his." - Ayn Rand in "For the New Intellectual"

BO: "How the fuck does that make any sense. Even if it was the policy of a handful of advisors isn't it what ACTUALLY HAPPENED during the last 3 republican administrations. You realize that right?"

Once again; I saying that it is your opinion. You are stating an opinion about the motives of people. Be careful; it is very very difficult to determine someones motivation with certainty. I agree that Republicans are not fiscally responsible lately. Neither are Democrats. Both parties are kill the whole system with debt and inflation.

Lol at Obama being in the running for fiscally responsible president. You are beyond the reaches of logic at times.

BO: "It doesn't matter if on an internal level these presidents and party leaders didn't like the idea, starving the beast is actually what happened. You can't deny Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II didn't tremendously run up the deficit. See this chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg";

I'm not denying that at all.

BO: "I go to Notre Dame. You're hard pressed to find anyone who isn't conservative and religious."

Well go ask around. You are the first person I've ever met that has mentioned "Starve the beast". It seems more like a democrat bogeyman rather then a real conservative policy. But alas; like I said it is pretty much impossible to understand what is going on inside some of these politicians heads. They are after their own interests whatever that may be.

Btw; BO; what do you think of the UN. Did you see the newly elected UN Human Rights Council. The results are in; here is the new leaders of the UN Human Rights Council:

China (won two elections, with vote counts of 146 and 167),
Russia (137, 146),
Cuba (135, 163),
Saudi Arabia (126, 154),
Libya (155),
Egypt (168),
Pakistan (149, 114),
Algeria (168),
Tunisia (171),
Mauritania (167),
Bahrain (172),
Qatar (170, 177),
Jordan (178),
Angola (172, 170),
Cameroon (171, 142),
Gabon (178),
Kyrgyzstan (174),
Azerbaijan (103) and newcomer
Congo (176).

"So let me pre-empt that and say "I disagree". The FDA doesn't protect us from dangerous food and drugs any more then the TSA protects us from terrorists. Or the FCC protects the airways. Or the FED protects our currency / unemployment rates. Or the NPR protects open and free dialog. Or the DMV protects us from bad drivers. Or the Department of Education produces good students. Or the SEC protects us from frauds and manipulation. I could go on and on naming complete and utter failures that we spend countless billions on; but you think most of these things are all successes. Go figure."

It seems like you simply have a poor understanding of how any of these institutions work, or for that matter how order is maintained in society. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration and tell me in your opinion what aspects of the FDA (which accounts for less than .001% of the budget) are superfluous.

It seems like you just generally have a poor grasp of what the government spends its money on. I find it hilarious that you actually have a qualm with NPR, you drink up the conservative narrative like kool-aid don't you? You realize billionaires spend millions of dollars to get people like you to believe exactly what you believe right? You want to know how much of an impact NPR has on our government spending?

Here: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2011/0119-budget/index.html Go there and type Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That's the parent company of NPR. Furthermore if you added up all the institutions you named I doubt it would account for more than 1% of the budget.

I'm going to just 'pre-empt' this entire discussion and ask you: if you love libertarianism so much why don't you live in a country that's truly libertarian like say Somalia? There are libertarian countries in the world and coincidentally none of them are first world nations. None of them are nascent powers and in fact I am struggling to name a single libertarian regime that was ever successful. You are way to optimistic dead. People aren't self regulatory, people will lie, cheat and steal their way to their own ends and without somebody playing referee there isn't much we as a society can do. That's where the government comes in my friend.

Imagine for a second that the nation is a game of baseball (don't watch or play baseball so I'm doing my best to relate this). Each part of the field represents a different industry and each umpire represents a different regulatory agency. Some parts of the field don't really need an umpire but the bases and especially home plate definitely do. In the ideal game of baseball, everybody is playing to win and the umpires are just there to keep the game honest. This is what every progressive thinks the relationship between the government and society should be (at a domestic level). What it seems to me you have a problem with is the fact that a lot of times these umpires are clearly accepting bribes or are simply very incompetent (never mind that they wouldn't get their positions without being competent). Basically, this would be crony capitalism at play. What you and conservatives would like to do is get rid of the umpires all together. What I and other progressives would like to do is keep the umpires honest (and competent) so they can in turn keep the game honest. Tell me where I went wrong on this analogy if I did at all. If I didn't then, since I believe you played baseball, tell me how the game would be more honest/better without umpires.

"First of all; Sinclair's book wasn't even about food quality. It was about working conditions. Sinclair himself says that he believes that political forces used his book as a political football. Politicians used a book about poor labor quality to whip the country into a fear-inspired fury over food quality. Thus the creation of the FDA. And a finger was never found in food ever again and we all lived happily ever after. :sarcasm: (in case you were wondering)."

Sinclair's book was a depiction of immigrant living standards. Its focus was the highlight how bad wage slavery had become and the necessity for social programs not unlike what Europe has today. I agree with Upton's message but that's not why I mentioned the book. I mentioned it because it gave an honest depiction of the meatpacking industry before we had healthcode regulations. What kind of healthcode regulations do you think Somalia or other libertarian countries have?

"Because they use inflation to create the perception that the boom continues when it doesn't. Cmon; BO you should know this. Once the Fed and the dollar was delinked from gold; they could print money to cause stocks to go up.

Surely you are versed in how inflation works. Only you would use data that shows recessions with inflation unadjusted figures. You are going to be coffee boy at Morgan Stanley in a matter of months with your overlooking of very important facts. "

The US Dollar wasn't separated from gold until Nixon see the Nixon Shock: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock

For someone who knows a lot about finance you don't know a lot about financial history dead.

As far as inflation goes, you're wrong again dead. During the period of increasing Panics and Recessions after the Civil War and leading up to the Great Depression (before FDR) inflation was an historic low: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Historical_Inflation_Ancient.svg

In fact the power of currency was relatively stable but the economy itself was very unstable. The reason being that there were no umpires keeping industry honest. The result was recession after recession and panic after panic and ultimately we ended up in a situations not too unlike what we have today - except much much worse.

Here are those recessions again for your perusal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

"Cmon BO; this is an obvious straw man. Just give it up. "

So when you can't defend your argument it's because you got strawmanned and not because your position is flimsy at best and completely unsound most likely?

"We are very capable of protecting our citizens abroad without military bases. We have missiles that shoot across the earth; floating cities with thousands of troops and aircraft; nuclear submarines; stealth bombers; delta force; seal team 6. I think we can handle ourselves fine."

Isolationists don't meddle with foreign affairs though. That's the point, if you indeed want to step out of foreign affairs butting into them with say missiles or SEAL teams isn't going to fly -- you'll have a war on your hands. Consider the implications for a moment if the United States receded back to its own hemisphere. Other powers would begin buildings arms as they had in the past, while we reduce ours to appropriate levels. Nationalism would once again take root, and the result would be polarization and animosity not unlike what was present leading up to WW1, at best, and at worst a nuclear holocaust. You're essentially suggesting we recreate the atmosphere that lead up to the greatest atrocities of the 20th century (the first and second world wars). So no, I don't think returning to that state of affairs is a good idea. Interdependence and globalism alone are the only things stopping the world from descending into another world war.

To clarify being regressive is a way to say reactionary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

Concerning the Ayn Rand quote: Rand was a melodramatic russian jew. If she was alive today I am positive she would struggle to defend her melodramatic depiction of the world in Atlas Shrugged just as much as you have struggled to defend libertarianism.

Here is what someone else said on the subject and, being that I never read Atlas Shrugged (I only spark noted it for a paper once) I feel it's more apt than what I could've said: "Ayn Rand made a mistake in Atlas Shrugged when she assumed that talented folks and great innovators would automatically be capitalists. Rand had too much reverence for the “system” and naively suggested that capitalist Atlases might shrug, but that’s never been the case-because they always benefited too much from the “system.” Rand might as well have titled the book Robber-Barron Shrugged or Industrialist Shrugged or When Corporations Shrug. History clearly suggests that the “shruggers” were never members of the upper capitalist caste. They were hardscrabble types, common people, beset-upon folks that refused to surrender to the robber-barons, industrialists, and corporatists who solemnly and repeatedly endeavored to relegate them to capitalism’s dirty, secret byproduct: a powerless heap of the collaterally damaged and chronically disenfranchised (also known as the middle and lower classes)."

Here's the thing man some of the greatest inventor and innovators did their work because of their passion not because of some sort of greed. In fact even today the smartest, most innovative of us generally don't prosper in the way that corporations prosper from their work. Indeed you hear all the time about scientists who got fucked out of a lot of due compensation because the corporation they worked for had them by the balls. So in fact it is the corporations, who don't actually innovate or invent, that profit and it is in fact the corporations that shrug. You wonder why we need subsidies to get catch our green technology up with the rest of the world's -- well it's because corporations don't care and corporations are the ones who control the resources innovators and inventors have at their disposal. We'd be far better off funding a public institution like NASA than literally paying companies to do the same for us through subsidy.

"Once again; I saying that it is your opinion. You are stating an opinion about the motives of people. Be careful; it is very very difficult to determine someones motivation with certainty. I agree that Republicans are not fiscally responsible lately. Neither are Democrats. Both parties are kill the whole system with debt and inflation."

It's not my opinion, it's what their administrations said through official channels (not candidly). I don't give a shit about individual motivations, the conservatives as a whole moved to run up the deficit purposefully and the reason they gave was to "starve the beast" so that they could then cut whatever they wanted. Maybe if you knew about shit like this you wouldn't sip so much conservative kool-aid but feign ignorance if you want. That's exactly what the billionaires who trick you into voting their way want anyway. Democrats administrations on the other hand have been without fail fiscally responsible, cutting the deficit every time. How much do you want to bet me that Obama will bring the deficit down to below what it was for Bush by the end of his term? I can make that conjecture because frankly, one party wants the government to fail and it so happens that party isn't the one in power.

"Well go ask around. You are the first person I've ever met that has mentioned "Starve the beast". It seems more like a democrat bogeyman rather then a real conservative policy. But alas; like I said it is pretty much impossible to understand what is going on inside some of these politicians heads. They are after their own interests whatever that may be."

That's probably because the people that vote conservative have no idea what the people they vote for actually do. Most of them are ignorant and either vote republican because of wedge issues or because they've been raised to. http://www.american.com/archive/2009/october/are-liberals-smarter-than-conservatives

What it comes down to is this dead - the reason we have two political parties in the united states instead of one is because one inherently supports the economic interest of the many whereas the other supports the economic interest of an elite few. social issues not taken into consideration, one party has the self interest of the many in mind while the other has the self interest of an elite few in mind. inherently the party of the many has the voting advantage but the party of the few makes up for this in variety of ways (marketing, rebranding, media, wedge issues, etc). I could elaborate on each manner of manipulation but I'm positive it would be lost on you. Ultimately the result is the democratic and republican parties we have today. And I'll be honest sometimes when the democrats forget why there's two parties they start acting like the republicans lite and when that happens the actual republicans get elected (by virtue of being consistent).

I don't give a shit about the UN human rights council. it's the same council that let rwanda get fucked and is letting darfur and the palestinians get fucked.

BO: "... tell me in your opinion what aspects of the FDA (which accounts for less than .001% of the budget) are superfluous. "

All of it.

BO: "You want to know how much of an impact NPR has on our government spending?"

Very little. But what is your point? That wasteful spending is ok if it is small? Please elaborate on this grand theory of yours.

BO: "if you love libertarianism so much why don't you live in a country that's truly libertarian like say Somalia?"

Lol; that one took the cake. Somalia is a Libertarian country. LMAO. This conversation is obviously not going anywhere. How can you say such an intellectually dishonest statement and expect to hold a conversation with someone.


BO: "The US Dollar wasn't separated from gold until Nixon see the Nixon Shock: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock

For someone who knows a lot about finance you don't know a lot about financial history dead. "

Umm where did I say that wasn't the case? Are you confusing me with someone else? Did I stutter? After nixon; inflation was used to build larger "boom" cycles.

BO: "As far as inflation goes, you're wrong again dead. During the period of increasing Panics and Recessions after the Civil War and leading up to the Great Depression (before FDR) inflation was an historic low: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Historical_Inflation_Ancient.svg";

I know you get all your information from shiny charts; but once again; I cannot respond to a chart with no access to the assumptions and data. Are you kidding me; are you really a finance student? Or was that a lie? Either you are being very intellectually dishonest or you are a complete dunce in finance. Charts are not valid data by themselves.

I can only assume (seeing as I know nothing about the chart you posted) that they are using CPI as the basis for their calculations. Congratulations; you use CPI for inflation calculations; CPI leaves out energy prices and food prices; amongst a litany of other products. These flaws are well documented. The government removes industries that break their models. For example; once the housing market started heating up; they removed the housing data from the CPI. Brilliant...

BO: "So when you can't defend your argument it's because you got strawmanned and not because your position is flimsy at best and completely unsound most likely?"

Umm no because it is a straw man argument. Go read the definition.

I'll have to answer the rest later.

BO: "Isolationists don't meddle with foreign affairs though. That's the point, if you indeed want to step out of foreign affairs butting into them with say missiles or SEAL teams isn't going to fly -- you'll have a war on your hands."

If we are attacked; as you stated earlier; then we should go to war if necessary. I disagree that it is necessary. Believe me; when those countries nationalized our oil; if we moved an aircraft carrier off the coast and shelled a few military bases they would cave in.

BO: "Consider the implications for a moment if the United States receded back to its own hemisphere. Other powers would begin buildings arms as they had in the past, while we reduce ours to appropriate levels. Nationalism would once again take root, and the result would be polarization and animosity not unlike what was present leading up to WW1, at best, and at worst a nuclear holocaust. You're essentially suggesting we recreate the atmosphere that lead up to the greatest atrocities of the 20th century (the first and second world wars). So no, I don't think returning to that state of affairs is a good idea. Interdependence and globalism alone are the only things stopping the world from descending into another world war. "

A lot of assumptions in your above paragraph. We will have to agree to disagree on them.

BO: "Concerning the Ayn Rand quote: Rand was a melodramatic russian jew. If she was alive today I am positive she would struggle to defend her melodramatic depiction of the world in Atlas Shrugged just as much as you have struggled to defend libertarianism."

Lol; your on a roll today; good job. I must have pushed your buttons. I suggest you read the book; otherwise let's just move on. I'm not really interested in arguing against your cliff notes; the book is 1000+ pages long; and fictional. Cliff notes will not do it justice.

BO: "Here's the thing man some of the greatest inventor and innovators did their work because of their passion not because of some sort of greed."

I agree.

BO: "In fact even today the smartest, most innovative of us generally don't prosper in the way that corporations prosper from their work. Indeed you hear all the time about scientists who got fucked out of a lot of due compensation because the corporation they worked for had them by the balls."

Do I? I haven't. Sources please.

BO: "You wonder why we need subsidies to get catch our green technology up with the rest of the world's -- well it's because corporations don't care and corporations are the ones who control the resources innovators and inventors have at their disposal."

No it is because consumers don't care about "green" products. Let's face it; the whole global warming thing was a sham; I hope you don't believe it that crap as well.

BO: "Maybe if you knew about shit like this you wouldn't sip so much conservative kool-aid but feign ignorance if you want. That's exactly what the billionaires who trick you into voting their way want anyway."

First of all you have no idea who I voted for. Second of all; one of the richest people in the world George Soros is the funder of your ideas. Are you seriously stating that your worldview is less funded then libertarians?

BO: "Democrats administrations on the other hand have been without fail fiscally responsible, cutting the deficit every time."

Inflation....

BO: "How much do you want to bet me that Obama will bring the deficit down to below what it was for Bush by the end of his term?"

You have nothing I want. What is the point of betting; I don't need the hassle of going to the mailbox for your 10 dollars. We can just wait and see. Well you can; I'm already sure of the consequences of this administration and the last.

BO: "That's probably because the people that vote conservative have no idea what the people they vote for actually do. Most of them are ignorant and either vote republican because of wedge issues or because they've been raised to. http://www.american.com/archive/2009/october/are-liberals-smarter-than-conservatives";

Wow very telling statement; so you are right because everyone else is stupid. Brilliant... Maybe one day your graduation from college will be a national holiday.

BO: "What it comes down to is this dead - the reason we have two political parties in the united states instead of one is because one inherently supports the economic interest of the many whereas the other supports the economic interest of an elite few."

Thanks for educating me...

BO: "social issues not taken into consideration, one party has the self interest of the many in mind while the other has the self interest of an elite few in mind."

So one party is evil and the other is good. Hmmm and I drink the koolaid...

BO: "I could elaborate on each manner of manipulation but I'm positive it would be lost on you."

Haha; nice; it's a regular slugfest.

Wow; your quality has really went down hill. I'm not sure I can continue the conversation any longer if this is the trend you are on.

Perhaps we should part ways for now and reconvene when you have a better topic.

I've said my part; present by point of view; I'm satisfied with it. The last few posts your answers have been pretty much indefensible; so I'm satisfied just leaving them be.

Btw; kudos on the somalia is a libertarian country quote. Classic.

Btw; have you thought about audio recording these debates. My style is much more conversational; and I have to say typing these long diatribes is tedious and the forum is unforgiving of typo's etc. Surely we should just audio record our responses and post them instead. Much easier.

BO: "I don't give a shit about the UN human rights council. it's the same council that let rwanda get fucked and is letting darfur and the palestinians get fucked."

I'd say defund them; and kick them out of the country.