ITT We discuss economic fallacies some Holla Forumsocks actually believe

Like?

(inb4 an attempted rebuttal which will just be 'evidence by citation' with an ad hominem and a load of links posted, but no specific concrete points are being discussed.)

The goal should be the elimination of consumerism in totality – not constructing the best system of management over it.

One of the biggest fallacies is believing your tax dollars actually go towards anything.

The government just destroys them.

Worse, destroys them, then ask for a fucking loan the people are on the hook for on top of that.

A loan from who?

The Federal Reserve Bank, and others willing to purchase some form of U.S. collateralized debt. Of course there is also the outright theft that comes from running government expenses and liabilities as if budget deficits and debt do not matter as well.

That's the point, economics are means for the real objectives, not an objective inself

No

They destroy taxes because they dont need them. The government creates its own money. The Fed is just a tool of the government.

'under a fiat monetary system, the government spends money and then borrows what it does not tax, because deficit spending, if not offset by borrowing, would cause the fed funds rate to fall'

'Debt monetization is usually referred to as a process whereby the Fed buys government bonds directly from the Treasury. In other words, the federal government borrows money from the Central Bank rather than the public. Debt monetization, all else equal, is said to increase the money supply and can lead to severe inflation. However, fear of debt monetization is unfounded, since the Federal Reserve does not even have the option to monetize any of the outstanding federal debt. The debt is not really a debt.

Inflation is a like an taxe

Inflation - a general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money

(due to an increase in money supply)

its not inherently harmful

our grandfathers paid 12 cents for a loaf of bread or whatever

now we pay $4

thats inflation

Yes, but the payment never go along the inflation.
And is like a ta in stoped money

yes agreed

but the problem is not inflation

Inflation is part of it, like a symptom

for you mate, macrobusiness.com.au has steered me in the right direction

reported

In part, but when you have asset inflation like we are seeing with stocks, as a way for a few to get out of the USD and other fiat currency, and preserve a small groups wealth as the purchasing power of everyone else goes to shit, inflation is a legitimate problem combined with the stagnation and growing decline of real wages over the last few decades.

The money they created is given to banks and corps., that's the major cause of wealth disparate.

>>>/gaschamber/
>>>/oven/

the stock market follows the money supply

Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

...

DIJA?

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is a price-weighted average of 30 significant stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the NASDAQ. The DJIA was invented by Charles Dow back in 1896.

Not sure if I completely buy that given the aftermath of Greenspan's 'Irrational exuberance' where he was told the shut the fuck up, and the U.S.'s monetary policy was more or less bought by the largest speculators to push and pull as they wanted, and the Federal Reserve and U.S. Congress have been serving it up ever since to them.

Is there an economic reason why socialized healthcare, education, etc is bad?

its easy to find out

i did it for my economy in australia

think about it

If someone gets richer, someone else has to get poorer. If one company gets richer and higher stock prices, another company loses profit or potential profit.

The only way for the whole market to go up is to get more money into the system.

Socialized healthcare results in skyrocketing prices. Estimates of its cost is usually based on the pre socialized rates. But, as it is made 'inexpensive' by government fiat, more demand happens as more people use it at a cheaper price than there is actually supply to provide. So eventually shit breaks down, quality goes to shit, cost cutting becomes draconian, human cost is horrific, etc, etc.

You see the same with the others. Socialized things, over a market discovered price, tend to end with artificial scarcity that eventually causes a market to collapse.

Why don't use just a public service system?

What about free K-12 education? Would we see an improvement in education if it was privatized?

If you can't pay for it, you're fucked.

No, but you do see an improvement when it is made competitive, i.e., when traditional public, charter, and private all compete for funds.

And if there were various public services, competing for funds?

What do you think, user? What are the factors in the equation?

Depends, are they competing with privatized solutions, on a level field where they have both have to compete to best use limited resources? If so, yes.

like in state capitalism, various gov. organization for the same goal, eg. education, the more successful get more funds, the less are close, and new ones can get the places.

In which case you would have schooling, a service whose economic benefit is almost entirely intangible for many years, dictated via tangible elements. Does your intuition suggest that this is good or bad?

In modern world? No, it would be turned in more PC, more money.
In others cases, like in Japan or Romania? Yes
depends on the state ideology

THIS THREAD IS FULL OF BOTS

Or, if the stock market is not the economy, and draws in from the larger market, via government and banking interventions by monetary policy.

Just some of them.

I didn't think Holla Forums was this bad.

Watch these, friend:

youtube.com/watch?v=SPq6_7AFsp4
youtube.com/watch?v=NJY6P7t-yD0
youtube.com/watch?v=Vc6PK7aqTO0

Of course. All you need is enough schools to move your kids around and sooner or later the best one will get most of the kids and money and open more schools with the profits.
Although i have to say that the free market has already fixed education and you can get a great K-12 education with a combination of homeschooling groups & online learning.
Thanks to the internet you can provide your children with a complete education for the price of a bicycle.

what the fuck are you talking about?

"pure coincidence"

No, not of course. That only works when consumers are infinitely aware and have an infinite capacity for movement, as well as assuming it will not become centralized by special interests.

Plus, best profit isn't always best education,

What, like the gold standard? Or worshipping a man who created a government that spent half again what it brought in through taxation on social programs?

That would be required to find the very best school for your child, but not to find a better school for your child. When you look at 3 schools, you pick the best one and if everyone does that you get a galvanizing effect. The bad schools close down, while the good schools expand. Of course it takes time, but in the marketplace the best schools surivive, while the worst schools go bankrupt.

Thus you ignore my other two points. "Better schools" do not progress along a linear line, if you have the choice to send your kid to a school with terrible facilities run by retired teachers, or one with fantastic facilities run by pedophiles, which do you choose?
No. No they don't.
Because not everyone can afford that school.
And not everyone can get there.
And there are finite positions at that school.

On another point, what's to stop that occurring with state-funded education with proper oversight? I think what you're forgetting is that there existed a vast majority of human history where education was solely private, and it was in this time that huge swathes of children did not receive education.

When you privatize a market yes you take power away from the government, but you give power to the already rich.
If you privatize bakeries, then the man controlling all the grain is now functionally the same as a government, but with less incentive to do right by the people.

Well why don't you go ahead and suggest what the money would have been better spent on than programs beneficial to society and infrastructure.

Not necessarily. That presupposes a closed system in which there is X resource that has to be shared around with no new inputs. Raw resource production (farming, mining, energy), the invention of new technologies, the creation of new markets - these things create new value to add into an economy.

The whole economy went up like crazy in the 90's due to computing technology, for instance. You don't have to dump more money into the system to adjust for that, but if you do not deflation occurs, which has its own attendant problems (namely that the money you paid for business ventures and investments in the past is worth more now than those ventures and investments - i.e. rich people don't like that, while peasants that stashed their money away like squirrels do).

Finally, unlimited growth is rightly impossible and the only way you get continuous growth in any market is for big companies to die and smaller companies to devour its market share. It mimics nature - if one halts this process by letting some companies live beyond their natural lifespans (like bailing out banks that shot themselves in the head in 2008), then in the long run growth slows to shit as the big old companies choke the life out of the smaller ones and the whole economy declines when they eventually, inevitably, die despite being propped up so.

You know, like how the police forces and fire departments and road systems and so on all collapsed in the Big Happening way back when, shortly after they were socialized…

Some institutions are absolutely awful when socialized, while others benefit greatly. I would argue that police departments can trace a major part of their corruption to Capitalistic competition, that is that they reap money from making tickets out to citizens and seizing assets from them. Privatized jails are encouraged by the nature of Capitalism to stuff in as many prisoners as possible and make recidivism as likely as possible to generate more money - the conflict of interests defeats its own purpose. Healthcare, I would argue, could be great socialized as long as you solve that perceived unlimited supply problem, which could be done through clever means rather than monetary burdens.

But some institutions are better off floating in the free market than others, because they stand to benefit from competition like that. Farming is a great example - farmers spend way more time and energy if they can make a profit than if they simply 'have to' (like in Communist Russia).

Anyway, socialization is good or bad depending on the institution in question - you can't just sweep everything one way or the other like a Libertarian or a Communist would like to, unless you want a failed state on your hands.

A bit of austerity to not overspend your government deep into debt, forcing you to invade your neighbors under false pretense in a desperate bid to annex their treasuries.

No, the gold standard is Jewish you fucking retard.

So you don't have an answer, and are just shitposting?
I'll ask again: What should the money have been spent on? It did after all turn Germany from the most impoverished European nation into the most wealthy, so it would be interesting to see how you outdo that.

Governments cannot go into debt, retard.

Like the german debt was bigger than USA, UK, France…

Then why are they?

Because Jews want to keep extorting the populace. No better way of doing that than taking the institution with all the power and saying "You owe us, goyim."

They are in debt, so they have to accept "proposals" of FMI and other globalist shit, to don't fall in credit ranks

Once school choice has been implemented we will see a lot more schools, because everyone can create one and movement won't be an issue, particularly, because a lot of the learning will be done online. There's just no reason to walk to and from school every day when you can participate via livestream or get an online lesson.

lmao, those are the only choices? I doubt it.

As a matter of fact I understand how it works, I was checking to see how well you could articulate the view. 3/10 apply yourself

Check the IDs, retard. The majority of government debt is to Jew-run institutions, ergo to Jews.

Nobody wants to send their kids to a bad school, so those pedophile schools that you fantasize about won't come into existance, because as soon as there's a scandal, parents pull their children out of it. There's just no way for bad schools to survive. Today with public schools, people can't afford to move to another school district and so they're stuck, but when you have multiple small schools instead of one large one, you can change schools rather easily.

...

where did you get that idea?

they aren't supposed to go into debt but the eternal jew has connived and convinced well meaning governments to do exactly that.

Frankly it doesn't matter whether or not you're the same guy; you answered the question. Chalking it up to joos is not the way to go.

It's not an opinion, it's objectively wrong. Price controls always lead to shortages.

The choice of schools already exists.
We would see a lot more doctors if we gave all hobos medical licenses too. It's actually quite funny that you admit here that quality will starkly drop as the unqualified will flood the market.
Online learning only goes so far. English for native English speakers cannot be effectively taught online. Nor can the humanities. Or sports.
Perhaps because even the most basic societies understand the need for children to interact with other people, and aren't so stupid that they think it's a smart idea to remove such a needed skill from the next generation's repertoire?
Are you autistic, or do you just want your kids to be?

Classic Libertarian response.
When confronted with an uncomfortable scenario, pretend no such scenario exists.

But what people want and what they are able to do are different things you fuckwit. You cannot possibly be this stupid.
So there is no way for bad businesses to survive in your world? You cannot fathom a bad business existing, because you assume people are INFINITELY AWARE AND INFINITELY MOBILE and can just choose other businesses without repercussion?
And your solution is to drop public schools and institute solely private schools, which are now and have always been more expensive? So they'll be able to afford it if it's more expensive, but not if it isn't?
You are mind-bogglingly stupid man.

That's exactly why it exists though. Jews and traitors. You're trying — I gather from your image — to paint it as "Government debt exists because of the financial system," but that has very little to do with why governments are in debt, when in principle as the creator of money and arbitrator of resource distribution there is no reason why the government cannot be debt-free.

In fact, you blaming "the financial system" only proves how much you miss the point, because we only have a debt-based financial system because of Jews and traitors. If it weren't for them it wouldn't exist.

Thats exactly what im saying. Im talking monetarily richer. Money is a closed system and the only way for everyone to get financially richer is to create more money, or, as you put it, new inputs.

LOL. Who can afford to move school districts? Very few people.
And of course you don't get a differnent school or curriculum, you get the same government school, the same curriculum with different teachers and different students.

That's not a real choice. If you want to learn logic, programming, philosophy, different languages or even if you just want to put a different emphasis on different subject you are out of luck with the public school system. It's an ancient, obsolete system and it needs to be replaced by a mixture of homeschooling, online learning and private schools.

Government could easily tell kikes to piss off. Fact remains, there is no "debt." It's fictional.

usdebtclock.org/

And immediately it becomes clear that it is not simply joos. I'm aware that it's possible to abstract to that point, and at times have done so myself, but that level of abstraction is useless. The social phenomena and character flaws we know and love aren't unique to certain groups, and trying to illustrate the issue, without, ironically, describing the issue itself in the general sense is asking for it to be repeated. Chalking it up to joos is not the way to go.

he is mostly right

You can see Big Gov. borning (+120% in federal spending)

Now you're just being pedantic and obtuse. Saying "Jews" around here gets, succinctly, the point across very fast. Any experienced Holla Forumslack reading that would know exactly to whom that refers, without having to specify exactly every single time who exactly I am talking about. This isn't Facebook.

This guy have a point

we all agree that the supply of money must grow as the nation and it's economy grows. If the money supply is tied to population growth as the the NSDAP's labor backed currency was then the problem is solved naturally.
Without flexibility in the money supply any economic method is doomed to eventual failure.

What's the point of preaching to the choir?

Since when is "Using Holla Forums lingo to discuss things on Holla Forums" the same as "preaching to the choir"?

Every Holla Forumslack knows who is responsible, and if you don't wait for a newfag redpill thread to pop up. It serves no purpose to be verbose about a subject that has already been discussed at length on Holla Forums when I can simply say "Jews" instead and get the meaning across.

good point

yes they could

The original intent of the US founding fathers was for the government to issue the money. But Wilson sold us out to the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 and we've been circling the drain ever since.

No we don't. Legal tender laws need to come to an end to checkmate manipulation and debauchery of the currency.
As soon as you have legal tender laws, the game is over and the people in control of the money supply will manipulate it to their advantage.

Tender money to what, rice, gold, bread, iron..?

The fallacy that wealth is driven by markets instead of conquest

I bet the Jews are behind this!

I bet the Jews are behind this!

I bet the Je- I-I bet the white man did this!

Are you going to contribute or just shitpost?

Good one, user. What has japan conquered lately?

Congratulations, retard, now the government can't get taxes.

Is that you Common Filth?

It can get in specie or in something almost universal, like gold

You mean to tell me that they can't trade currencies on the open market like everyone else?

are you seriously saying you want a fixed size to the money supply?
What happens when the population increases?
What happens when all the money is in use and no more is available for critical needs such as infrastructure or defense?

Literally why.

Option 1 removes all benefits of money, which is retarded. Option 2 essentially creates a new currency anyway, which will lead back to a situation of legal tender.

National debt, war bond… you don't need flexible money to do that

Your waifu

Read my post before you reply. Without legal tender laws people can choose whether or not they want an expanding, contracting or stable money supply.

Because then they can manipulate the taxable currency. Drive it up come tax day and then screw people over.

So what's a Tel Aviv summer like anyway, are you guys close enough to the sea to keep it cool?

Vague accusations don't make for good discussion.

The fuck are you talking about OP? Holla Forums's position is for supply control by throwing out non-natives and not letting companies employ them not price control

No thermometer here, but unlike you i have a working sarcasm detector.

that money has to be borrowed from somewhere user

once all the money is tied up where do you find money to borrow or lend without creating new money?

Yeah, or you could just speak for yourself.

Shoo shoo jew the white men are talking

war bonds ares like a load from the people, to be paid after the war

"Can" is different than "probably will." Governments have operated off legal tender for over two thousand years and what you described has never been any more a rational fear than being struck by lightning. At best you might say that legal tender runs the risk of government manipulation over the long term, but it's my judgement that that is a lesser danger than creating inefficiencies in government management.

By your own logic, how is a government-issued currency any different from a private one? Allowing for people to make transactions in different currencies, there is basically no difference, except the fact that government currencies are viewed as more stable and reliable than others, driving them out of the market except for niche areas like cryptocurrencies or company credit.

There's a reason people don't use Bitcoin over government-issued currencies.

"Who precisely is to blame" is not the point of the thread, as I've repeatedly pointed out. Again, there are other threads for that.

What are taxes? If the government needs money it can always raise taxes. If it can't be arsed to raise taxes for a program it doesn't deserve to exist.

just what do you think legal tender laws are user?

load = shit

again you make my point user, what money will the people have to loan if it's all tied up in other transactions?

That depends on the currency, but the main difference is that the market provides choices, whereas the government does not. So if one currency fails or is mismanaged you can always move to a different one. It would be a bit like the international currency markets on steroids, crypto currencies are actually a good example, although they're limited to digital.

The gov. will always get loans, but in this system, it easier to control it. And you can have war/relief taxes, that only hurt for a moment

who keeps the profits? that's the difference user, if the profits of issuing the currency fractional reserve profits are kept in government hands it greatly reduces the need for taxation
if left to private hands it means the ruination of all but the rich, for they will buy the politicians to make the laws that will ensure their perpetual power thru unending debt

And how many of these currencies are still alive? It's not an irrational fear that governments debaucher their currencies, it's a historical fact. The history of argentina, italy, germany and so many other states is a story of failed and devalued currencies.

Yes, Taxes are overrated. We don't 90% of our current government.

That's why i said it is going to take some time to galvanize.

There's no incentive to do a better job and they're bound to teach you certain thingsbecause you don't get money for actual results, but for grades, so all you have to do in the public school system to get more money is to lower the requirements and give everyone an A. Government incentive programs always have perverse effects

Movement would be less of an issue than it is today.

t mandates and school districts people You can create your own mom & pop schoolwon't have to
THere are going to be more

There are no substantial differences between micro and macroeconomics, most of it is size, but today macro referrs to the

Admittedly, i cherrypicked the comment, but i didn't think there was much merrit to your other points.

Yeah, online learning has some shortcomings, but most, if not all of them are already being fixed by better technology.
You should use skype or google hangouts, there's no

Overrated. A NEET like you should know that. Besides, homeschoolers have plenty of social interactions, online and offline
and often have more contact with adults, which is far more important for your character than hanging around people your age.

i don't assume that people are mobile, i know it. It doesn't matter if you're in australia or south america or europe, you can attend the best online school for your child, and yes, people are not always aware of the best schools, but as i have said, they don't have to be.
They only need to make comparisons

Which profits are you talking about? Many currencies are not even technically private.
Take bitcoin. Is it a private currency?

and you can issue bonds and start a public works program, etc.
There are a lot of ways to solve these problems

Multiculturalism destroys societies. Socialism destroys the economy. Nobody is listening.

The USA is a socialist welfare state already. The USA already has socialized medicine.

youtu.be/9ESlS2jrhXY

youtube.com/watch?v=e-fTYCCbXZ4

Economic and Cultural Marxism. In other words: The Jews destroy the economy.

reading comprehension giving you problems user?
fractional reserve profits

I'm going to side with nationalisation on this one; allowing homeschooling and private schools is a path to degeneracy. Military public schools are much better.

t. Richfag who moved from private to emblematic (public)

In poor countries "emblematic" schools are schools for "gifted" people funded by the government, it's supposed to promote a generation of doctors, engineers; normally poor countries are full of plumbers, the government spends x300 more money on those schools though.

I literally just said that it was an option of many currencies in a market. Except for a very few historical situations (post-WWII US, for example), people have never been prohibited from using other currencies. And yet the government-issued ones stayed on top. Amazing.

Beware of generalizing. "Moving to a different one" isn't as easy as you like to pretend, and you shouldn't imply that you can't get drastically screwed over by large private currencies.

Because if there's one thing we want, it's for the domestic market to more resemble the international one, especially the financial sector.

It seems from my perspective that there is little benefit to issuing your own currency unless you also operate transaction fees, an area where you can quickly become uncompetitive. I certainly don't see how the government could directly profit off of currency-issuing.

Could you explain further?

How many private currencies are still alive? Whoops, guess that means you should never invest in a private currency! Hmm, how many governments from the past still exist? Whoops, guess you should never live in a country!

Don't be a retard. The inevitable dissolution and destruction of things has nothing to do with the usefulness of such things in the present. Can I count on my US dollars being worth the same forever? Obviously not. Just the same as I can't rely on the Sun shining forever. However, what I can do is make the reasonable assumption that the Sun will shine tomorrow and that my US dollar will be worth roughly the same tomorrow. The retarded search for a universal and ever-valuable currency is just that: retarded. Don't go throwing it around like it's a legitimate criticism.

Oh, well, that obviously means that we don't need any taxes. Obviously. Clearly.

Yes, there is. Only retarded neoclassicalists like to pretend there isn't because they destroyed legitimate macroeconomic theory so they could bring it in line with their microeconomic fantasy theories. Perhaps there is some legitimacy to your claim in the sense that microeconomics could be related to a functioning theory of macroeconomics, but considering we're a little short on functioning theories you're full of shit.

As i have said, most currencies are not technically private. All the commodity currencies that are backed by metals are just metal standards and there are no profits.

Schools. You can argue yourself hoarse without coming up with arguments as good as Milton Friedman.

youtube.com/watch?v=c6WN4RjEdlI

do you not understand that fractional reserve banking practices allow the creation of money?
when a bank holds 100,000 units and is allowed to loan out 1,000,000 units the extra 900,000 units paid back aren't a profit?

Okay? How does this address anything I said?

FRB ≠ government money-issuing.

There's only a difference between micro and macro economics if you view it through the lense of keynesianism.
Even the terms micro and macro are confusing the issue, because there aren't two types of economics, there's only economics, which is nothing but the study market activity.

Whatever the case may be, what is today termed "microeconomics" is fundamentally wrong and lobotomized, and what is termed macroeconomics has been eviscerated in order to fit nicely in with microeconomic theory, therefore also making is fundamentally wrong and lobotomized.

Wrong, the founding fathers had just learned the hard way what happens when governments are given the monopoly of fiat currency printing with Continental Dollar, which was printed so much that it lost ~95% of its value in only 5 years. The only people who wanted the government to have those sorts of powers were assholes like Hamilton.

Your pic fails to mention this currency, which is the most important one of all since it was the one which influenced the constitution the most.

The 'weights and measurements' clause was put in so that people couldn't cheat the system, by defining what '1 ounce' was it meant that a 1oz gold coin minted in New York was worth the same as one minted in South Carolina.

The 'Labor Backed' Reichsmark also lost most of its purchasing power during the time the NSDAP was in power, if I remember correctly it lost about 80% of its purchasing power compared to other currencies just from all the printing and deficit spending the government did. The only reason why internal prices didn't rise significantly was because of the massive amounts of price controls. I will admit its a novel idea but ultimately it goes off course because it provides government the ability to spend what they don't have at the expense of the future, economic Judaism vamparism of the unborn.

Every possible fiat currency you can imagine has been tried, thousands of them throughout history, and they all went to zero. Every time this happens its the middle class and their children, the backbone and future of the nation and economy, who gets screwed the most. Churchill once remarked that the further you look into the past the further you can look into the future, real money has a proven track record.

Despite being wrong on some things the Chicago School guys certainly did save Chile from becoming like Venezuela, among other things the school vouchers are a pretty good idea.

what is the US constitution Article 1 section 8?

How so user?

Checked.

user would never say that.

That gives them the power to mint their own coins, it doesn't give them a monopoly on coin minting (remember, the constitution says the government only has the powers granted by it, they have to explicitly state that they can mint their own coins for them to be able to do it).

Also, Article 1 Section 10

Also, thats the 'weights and measurements' clause I was referring to.

Amazing, a war-time currency of an emerging nation became unvaluable.

Pro-tip: the only thing Hamilton economically had wrong was private central banking.

Somehow "the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof" becomes "an ounce is an ounce." That's incredible, user. What'll be your next trick? Weird how they immediately started making credit money after the war though.

Yet again with this goldbug fallacy. I bet you're going to say that the Sun isn't really valuable because it'll go out some day. Right?

Because Churchill is the most reputable historian.

There is no such thing. Money is only worth what people will give for it, and gold isn't somehow immune from this.

By the way, metal currencies have almost always circulated at above-worth value. Or do you honestly think a $2 gold coin contains $2 of gold?

To use your own example, Continentals went to shit because States kept issuing them without deferring to Congress. No shit they immediately prohibited uncoordinated money creation.

At one point a $2 gold coin actually contained close to $2 of gold, now they don't contain any gold since the value of the currency is far less than the metal which made it up in the past, same with the silver coins (silver quarters have a melt value of nearly $4). Even the current 1 cent coins aren't copper but just a copper wash over a nickel core (they actually have a melt value of something like 1.8 cents, they are worth more as a pile of slag than as minted coins).

As for monetary value, of course they usually trade above the melt value, thats why prices need to be in ounces of precious metal rather than in dollars.

Its not a fallacy if its factually correct.

The difference is that by the time the sun goes out I will have been dead for billions of years, a man born in 1913 would have watched the USD lose 90% of its value before he died. Its all about time scales.

Its the stuff added by the federalists like Hamilton which is used by the leftists to justify all the progressive bullshit, foreign invasions for greatest ally, erosion of states rights, and continued government expansion we see today. I would hardly call that 'getting it right' considering that was the main argument against the federalist stance.

Way to miss what I said. "Real" money basically never circulates at its "real" value. Do you even know what fiduciary value is?

Literally no one is going to do this because it's only good in goldbugs' heads.

Actually it is. Something can be a fallacy and factually correct, which you would know if you weren't committed to one. Like I asked the other user, according to your logic nothing is valuable because it "eventually goes to zero." So either get a new line of argument or admit that criticizing non-metal currencies on the basis that their worth is determined by social trust is completely stupid.

I trust you'll be able to prove that devaluation is an inherent property of credit-money that outweighs its other benefits. As well as that, perhaps you'd like to tell me why currency increasing in value is such a great thing.

And guns are used by my enemies to kill me. That doesn't make them suddenly not good for me. If it weren't for the Federalists we would be more than totally fucked, because we wouldn't have industry, wealth, independence, or the Constitution and, most importantly, the Bill of Rights.

Antifederalists were so retarded that they thought agrarian republics were a good idea, that free-trade was a good idea, that unguaranteed rights were a good idea, and that stripping most power from your country was a good idea. Because "freedom," supposedly.

Not a Federalist policy.

Irrelevant. States cannot have rights (they aren't individuals), and it is, moreover, stupid to support them over what is good for whites. Call me when "states rights" means "State border patrols and deportations" rather than "Break up your power, goyim, and let California declare open borders."

Because any government power means infinite government power. Are you sure you aren't an anarchist?

Better than the antifederalists who would've seen us become a Jewish slave-state with no capacity for fighting for our own freedom.

Please. If you want to remain relevant to the thread, it would be far better to discuss the trappings of the monetary system than to signal how in the know you are about the Jews.

What an amazing lack of self-awareness.

Whether or not you think it's ironic doesn't really matter. It's disappointing to see your engagements with other anons is unnecessarily hostile, but I'm glad you got a modicum of discussion in regardless, and surprised you managed to do it with a minimum of offhanded remarks about der juden.

As a point of note: the thread's already bumplocked; sage isn't a downvote.

Nice trying to turn my condescension back on me. That was good.

You should probably stop pretended that the argument was about blaming Jews for everything though. At this point you're just trying to desperately keep making non-points to try and pretend that this somehow wasn't about you being retardedly pedantic about well-established terms on Holla Forums. Again, if you want to discuss the finer points of how not every Jew is to blame, and how not all Jews are responsible, etc., etc., you can do that elsewhere. I've told you this repeatedly, and the fact that you ignore it in favor of arguing inanely shows you are either obtuse or can't let go of your ego. If this wasn't bumplocked I might've called you a shill trying to garner sympathy with Jews, but other anons have done that and, frankly, I don't believe it.

I sage posts that aren't on topic. It's called a courtesy.

...

I'm not trying to belittle you user, and I certainly don't share your zest for argument; it's simply poor form to reduce the wealth of knowledge you have at your disposal to platitudes, however politically incorrect they may be, on the presumption that the community - an anonymous, wholly ambivalent one at that - understands your grasp of the lingo. It's nice that you want to be courteous, also, but believe me when I tell you that your common courtesy means jack shit on a board like this, and indeed most any forum you ever encounter.

#OFFICIALREKT