Republibertariangoodguys suggest reading Ron Paul for all Americans.

[theVOID]

Are you through putting your foot in your own mouth yet Rev?

Translation: When are you going to grow tired of me moving my goal post back and just tell me Im right?

You falsely claimed that I was advocating hoover's policies and yet you're claiming you were right? Absurd. And tell me, what 'goal posts' did I move as it pertains to this discussion?

Frankly I didnt watch your video because I refuse to waste my time watching any videos you post.

And you further support my claim that you have done absolutely no research into the economic policies you so readily and baselessly dismiss. No wonder you were so unwilling to test your knowledge of AE, you don't have any.

So it wasnt THAT depression that AE fixed. But AE fixed a depression in 1920, which really did WONDERFUL for the economy..except in your own posting you fail to notice that if what you say is true, not only did AE NOT work, but was a precursor to the BIGGEST depression to ever hit America just less than 9 years later.

The causes of the great depression are still, aside from a few significant points where almost everyone agrees, being debated, however, not one credible economic historian has claimed that the policies that lead to the prompt recovery post 1920 was a precursor, namely because there is no viable causal chain connecting those policies with the causes of the great depression, I challenge you to show otherwise.

Those near unanimously agreed upon causes are the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve that post 1923 created obscene amounts of federal reserve notes and lowered interest rates to historic lows which promoted never-before-seen stock market speculation (which is largely analogous to the cause of the recent financial collapse), causing stock prices to become artificially high throughout the mid-late 20's, the "Roaring 20's" as they are known, a stark contrast to the thrift of Harding. Unlike this time however the Fed in 1928 and 1929 hiked interest rates to curb speculation, too little too late as by this time the cheap money fuelled speculation had done the damage, there is good reason to believe that the hiked interest rates bought on the recession, in any case the few years of monetary policy accumulated "black tuesday" (a trend that began the previous Thursday) which saw the stock market go bust, seeing massive drops in stock prices as the effects of monetary policy became apparent.

The fragile post-war economy at the time did not need rapid growth and low interest rates, it needed a steady recovery and thrift, the very thing that ensured America recovered promptly from the war. Resources were too scarce for anything but thrift to be a viable option yet since that is exactly what happened in the mid-late 1920's a great deal of capital needed by recovering European economies and the re-tooling of American manufacturing was squandered in speculation.

Another serious cause was the massive disproportion in wealth that is largely attributed to Coolidge;

"the rewards of the "Coolidge Prosperity" of the 1920's were not shared evenly among all Americans. According to a study done by the Brookings Institute, in 1929 the top 0.1% of Americans had a combined income equal to the bottom 42%2. That same top 0.1% of Americans in 1929 controlled 34% of all savings, while 80% of Americans had no savings at all3. Automotive industry mogul Henry Ford provides a striking example of the unequal distribution of wealth between the rich and the middle-class. Henry Ford reported a personal income of $14 million4 in the same year that the average personal income was $7505. By present day standards, where the average yearly income in the U.S. is around $18,5006, Mr. Ford would be earning over $345 million a year! This maldistribution of income between the rich and the middle class grew throughout the 1920's. While the disposable income per capita rose 9% from 1920 to 1929, those with income within the top 1% enjoyed a stupendous 75% increase in per capita disposable income7."

http://www.gusmorino.com/pag3/greatdepre...index.html

So part of the problem was indeed tax cuts that disproportionately favoured businesses, much like the "Laffer Curve", it doesn't make much sense.

I would suggest you go and read some of the great many case studies that have been complied on the subject as only a tiny fraction of the probable causes are in any way attributable to the policies Harding enacted, those specifically being along the lines of protectionism, then again all this material that I have actually bothered to read would just be "wasting your time", right?

If AE was used in 1920, then I can honestly say that it was the cause of the great depression

Again, I'd love to see you present a causal chain for that assertion.

as most economic system installed in America tends to take several years for them to really kick in.

Except the system that saw a quick recovery was removed shortly after 1923 and replaced with more aggressive monetary policy. And just like the Bush Stimulus and the Greenspan/Bernanke monetary policy in 2003 caused a recession in 2007/2008 the same types of policies in a post-world-war global economy caused a much more severe collapse a similar amount of time later.

Of course not...just be rude to me again, like you always are to most everyone on this forum, and brush the superman cape on your political views again. Never has you political views failed..because if they DID fail..then it wasnt REALLY Libertarian...was it?

I can be rude on occasion sure and I should really try and refrain from it more, that is why you would have noticed in our recent discussions I've toned it down greatly, but for you to complain about rudeness is deeply hypocritical.

I hadn't claimed they'd never failed, I simply reject your assertion that they did in this scenario, there is also very little support for that notion you have presented in academia, compared to other probable causes the number of people who consider Harding's policies to be in any way a significant factor is incredibly small. The biggest conceptual problem with AE is that it has not been widely implemented, thus not widely tested, unlike monetarism, Keynesianism and other modern economic philosophies.

Hoover an example of stimulus money? LMFAO. He lowered taxes during a recession, which helped cause the depression.

He did cut taxes correct, that likely did cause some problems and further the need for ineffective stimulus spending, however the tax cuts relative to his spending were much smaller than the tax cuts that Obama has delivered along side his, yet nobody would even consider saying "Obama an example of stimulus money? LMFAO"

For example;

Herbert Hoover — only nine months into his presidency — assembled leaders from the public and private sectors to create an economic-stimulus package. Among the measures, Time magazine reported at the time, was a promise from Congress to offer bipartisan support for a tax-cut package. The proposal called for $160 million in tax relief — only about $22 billion if adjusted against the gross domestic product at the time, and therefore much smaller than the plan under consideration here in 2008

http://blog.mises.org/7710/the-great-fis...e-of-1929/

"Between Hoover's first budget, for fiscal year 1930, and his last, for fiscal year 1933, the budget balance went from a surplus of 0.8% of GDP to a deficit of 4.5%. This reflected in part a drop in revenues from 4.2% of GDP in FY 1930 to 3.5% in FY 1933, but mainly an unprecedented (at the time) increase in spending from 3.4% in FY 1930 to 8.0% in FY 1933.

Some might think that while he pursued "stimulus" policies during most of his term, he did tighten policy during the last year. But that is not true. While he did raise taxes (Which non-Keynesians can agree was bad for non-Keynesian reasons), he increased spending even more, resulting in an increase in the deficit from 4.0% of GDP in FY 1932 to 4.5% in FY 1933. "

http://stefanmikarlsson.blogspot.com/201...ficit.html

"It's true, in fiscal year (FY) 1933, Hoover had cut the federal budget by $63 million (1.3%) from the previous year. But fiscal year 1933 didn't start until July 1, 1932, which was two-and-a-half years into the Great Depression. Up until then, Hoover had steadily increased federal spending"

https://mises.org/daily/4350

"In 1929, the government had $3.862 billion of tax revenue, and spent $3.127 billion, enjoying a surplus of $734 million. Come 1931, and the US government had its first deficit in eleven years, totaling $462 million. In 1932, the government then spent $4.659 billion, a 49% increase despite the "deflationary" environment."

https://goldnews.bullionvault.com/stimul..._021920092

Besides..whats with your messed up attitude? Stoners, pot heads and other waistoids such as yourself are usually laid back and easy going.

We're both guilty of having bad attitudes at times, ones that tend to feed off each other, but your acting like you've been some kind of angel in comparison is absurd - I never resorted to comparing you to the likes of Hitler, speaking IN ALL CAPS EVERY OTHER LINE or having the gaul to suggest that I'm right and you should just admit it.

I have gone to great lengths in my last few posts to try and be as clear and concise as possible in my arguments, as well as to provide as many sources as possible, I'd appreciate if you tried to make the same effort.

As far as Fred Phelps is concerned..The Democrat party is an "everybody's welcome" type of party. There is also a difference between southern and northern democrats. The democrat party has its fair share of religious freaks and racists as well. So yes, the democrat party isnt perfect. Far from it. Also, yes Phelps IS (or perhaps WAS) in cohoots with the Democrat party..he tried to run for one of its offices didnt he? Apparently the majority of democrat voters around him considered him a poor choice. There are quite a few usavory types and groups and corporations in cohoots with the democratic party. Yup, I openly and truthfully admit it...they are in cohoots with the Democrats.

Whats wrong Void? Did that back fire on you?

If that is what you consider being "in cohoots", a loose affiliation not reciprocated, then sure Paul and the fascists are "in cohoots", I just don't think it's a very astute application of the word, it usually entails reciprocation and joint-planning, something which is not present in either circumstance.

I would say that neither of them are in cohoots, nor does fascist x supporting Ron Paul for election make Paul a fascist any more than a progressive supporting Obama for election make Obama a progressive, both conclusions are neigh more than a failure of reason.

Now..with that said..I am an INDEPENDENT Progressive. The word Independent means "not currently affiliated with a party" in this context. Which means I vote for the most progressive person REGARDLESS of party affiliation. This year I more than likely will be voting many people from the green party, and maybe a small handful of Democrats.

I wasn't addressing your positions, I was merely seeking to demonstrate the absurd conclusions of your reasoning. Were I to go for you specifically it would have been taking your flawed reasoning with the example of some progressive like Oblerman or Maddow who are inevitably going to call for people to vote for Obama in the upcoming election and then declare Obama a progressive, but that wasn't my intention, the Phelps/Democrat connection was enough to show that your reasoning was egregiously flawed.

...but we all know that isnt the same rules for Voidian Libertarianism. If a Fascist group asks its members to vote for a Libertarian into the Republican party, then that Libertarian is innocent. I notice that you dont argue something like:

"Besides, a real fascist would not vote libertarian. Thats just someone 'calling' themselves a fascist, and is really a Libertarian....its obvious. If he wasnt libertarian then why would he vote libertarian?"

I didn't say anything like that, you provided ample evidence of fascists who did intend to vote for a libertarian, my point was only that this does not make the libertarian a fascist, nor does it mean they are in cohoots.

No, of course that argument will NEVER come from your mouth

Which is precisely why I never made it.

Those who do wrong in the name of Voidian Libertarianism arent true scottsmen...I mean libertarians.

I didn't say that either, I've said many times before that there are hypocrites and assholes in all philosophical 'camps', the Cock brothers for one.

If Penn Jellete were to come out tommorrow and say "fuck all black people..they should all DIE!", then Void would merely say "Penn wasnt ever a 'real' Libertarian anyways...he just said he was one...saying and believing are two different things...Just because you vote for and root for Libertarians doesnt make you a 'real' Libertarian....comparing libertarianism to Penn is a personal attack on me and the next time you do it I will rate your warning up!!!!" And then Void would stamp his feet, and possibly run off to get stoned out of his mind again. Now go ahead and say I am personally attacking you with the pot quote..the man who has a pot leaf and "administoner" for his avatar.

Unless he called for the state to round up an execute them, to thwart their rights specifically because of their race, he would not be violating any libertarian political ideals, he would just be an complete fucking asshole and I'd stop watching his show - The vast majority of the time I ever contended whether or not someone was a libertarian was when the people in question had never described themselves as such, like Paul Ryan who you claimed to be a "LIBERTARIAN HACK" or Bachman who has never claimed to be one. I conceded I was wrong about the Cock brothers who do consider themselves conservative libertarians, I might even be wrong about Beck but to the best of my knowledge he has said little more than he is 'leaning libertarian'. You're the only one here who has use the term "true" libertarian in any of these discussions.

Calling people Nazi's or claiming that everyone who identified with group x or y is just like them is entirely an insult, as well as flaming - associating someone either directly or indirectly with a group of people known for perhaps the most honorific acts carried out in recent memory is one of the most offensive things you could say to anyone, it does little more than bait responses and disrupt and chance of a meaningful discussion. It is in principle, like I pointed out before, no different that saying jews rape babies.

And lets say Penn is in fact a racist - Insinuating that all libertarians or republicans are racist and doing so repeatedly would still constitute flaming - someone would fully be within the purview of the rules to report your posts for it and the staff would give you a written warning just as I did for the other scenario.

I will be even more truthful to you. Theodore Roosevelt was VERY MUCH a Progressive. In fact he started the Progressive movement in America. He was also a bit racist and like to refer to black people as "darkies". He also waxed poetic about slaves he once knew who refused to leave their slave homes and refused to ask to be paid for their work. Sure, he had some unsavory characteristics about him, but he still VERY MUCH was a 'true' Progressive.

And Ron Paul is still someone very much libertarian despite him being a bit of a nutty Christian at times. The problem is not that there are examples of nutty libertarians, which there are just like any other group, but that by far most of the people you claim are libertarians by way of your 'republicoliberarianazi' line have never claimed to be such.

Calling Bachman a "republicolibertarianazi" is plain absurd, she has never claimed to be a libertarian nor are many of her polices compatible with the majority of self-described libertarians. Even calling her a "republiconazi" is bullshit, she might be a douchbag, she might even be considered a fascist in some loose sense, but to say that she's comparable to the nazi's or the acts they committed is intellectually dishonest.