Thanks Bush

[loseyourname]

Then tell me why history shows such a remarkable pattern of people that are arranged into nation-states being more affluent and powerful than those who are not.

I agree that our government, and all governments, for that matter, interfere way too much with free markets, and they could do much better. This doesn't change the fact that governments are necessary for a variety of non-economic reasons.

P.S. I don't see why you're whining about the thread being off-topic. We're the only people posting in here, so we may as well take it where it goes. If it's that important to you to keep this contained as a discussion of George Bush's questionable moral fabric, then I'll split the thread.

[Anonymouse]

Okay, now that you clarified it, we are headed toward a more economic slant. The the idea that the "nation-states" are far more rich than others is unfounded. Almost every country now is a nation-state, as is the way it goes with evolution war and politics. With that said, not every country is rich. Precisely why Europe, or the West, or America is enjoying it's prosperity is a result of the industrial revolution, free markets, etc., and not governments. The reason why other societies are not wealthy is because they did not go through this transition. Now, the West is starting to show signs that are unhealthy, chest pains akin to a person prone to heart attack.

With that said, it was because of no restrictions that the initial companies that were rising during the industrial revolution were able to go and, in the minds of the Marxists "exploit" people. The present course is not sustainable for the West because it has largely gravitated away from laissez faire, and is, to a scary degree, very socialistic.

One can point to the false "prosperity" generated by the illusion of the U.S. economy, by printing endless fiat money. The present real estate boom is an example of this illusion. The Federal Reserve can lower interest rates, sure, and thereby create a illusion of success, but interest rates go back up, and so then reality will begin to hit, and the prosperity bubble will burst. We are already on the beginnings of an inflationary depression, all this because government meddles in the free market, whether it was taking the economy off the gold-standard to the present worthless fiat money, to imposing embargoes and anti free market legislation. The Federal Reserve, which came to be as a result of government policy, has been slowly depreciating the value of the American dollar. By manipulating money and interest and bringing about the business cycle, it causes unemployment because inflation ( as we are experiencing now ), not only raises prices, but in the process labor is misallocated.

It's all part of the grand illusion which we call the United States Empire. And if you are protecting the country and it's principles now, you are obviously against the principles the Republic was founded on.

[jilbagh]

thanks g.w. for creating and airing distorted negative ad's that totally deceives the public with false accusations of Sen. Kerry's voting record and policies.
thanks g.w. vooridzag

[loseyourname]

Do you just get off on twisting every argument your fellow posters make? Right after I finish saying that government meddles too much in free markets, you come back and say the exact same thing, but in 300 words. If you read anything I actually post on this forum, you would know that I support very little of what our government currently does. I do, however, support its existence, and I very strongly support the principles on which it was founded - the stated principles, anyway.

If not for the existence of nation-states, there would have been no industrial revolution. Look at all of the peoples that have historically been wealthy, that have accumulated capital, that have produced great art and architecture. Every one of them was either an empire, nation-state, or city-state. No group of people living outside of a centralized government has ever done anything but be conquered by people that had a government.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Do you just get off on twisting every argument your fellow posters make? Right after I finish saying that government meddles too much in free markets, you come back and say the exact same thing, but in 300 words. If you read anything I actually post on this forum, you would know that I support very little of what our government currently does. I do, however, support its existence, and I very strongly support the principles on which it was founded - the stated principles, anyway.

If not for the existence of nation-states, there would have been no industrial revolution. Look at all of the peoples that have historically been wealthy, that have accumulated capital, that have produced great art and architecture. Every one of them was either an empire, nation-state, or city-state. No group of people living outside of a centralized government has ever done anything but be conquered by people that had a government.

I never twisted youre argument. You contradicted yourself, by claiming at one hand how government interferes in free-market economics, yet attributing prosperity to the nation-State ( the government ). You attributing the Industrial revolution to nation-states is exactly the anti-thesis of how economics works, and as Mises would say, ignoring the single most evident axiom - that man acts. And it is because man acts that man was able to make the necessary "gains from trade", as Adam Smith would say. Individual economic actors bring about economic prosperity. That you attribute the rise of the Industrial Revolution to the nation-State, I am sorry to say, shows your misunderstanding of economics.

Any basic student in economics knows that it was a result of mass production, the factory system, etc., bringing in new methods of production and marketing, resulting in better tools, mines, farms, inventions, etc. It is this fact, along with competition that leads to the expansion of the system. In fact, why this system arose in the first place is because it made the political system accomodate itself, making for conditions that made capital accumulation safe.

[loseyourname]

Okay, you have again twisted my argument. I never said that nation-states caused the industrial revolution. I was quite explicit in saying that the necessity of government is separate from economic concerns. Government brings about the state of affairs necessary for there to be an industrial revolution. You have ignored every objection I made to your babbling. Either address them, or I'm through with this thread. I'm getting sicker and sicker of your constant evasion.

[Anonymouse]

Everytime I shatter your argument, you say the same thing "you evade my question", and resort to name calling in other threads. It's okay loser, I know I intimidate you and it infuriates you that I do. But with that said, anyone who is reading this discussion will judge for themselves who said what and who appeared contradictory and evasive.

P.S. Bush and Kerry are Skull Bones, is there a difference whom you vote for folks?

[loseyourname]

You just love arguing with yourself, don't you?

Why have all historically affluent peoples been organized into empires, nation-states, or city-states? Not answered.

Why have all peoples not under a government been conquered by those who were? Not answered.

I am fully confident that you will continue to ignore these and argue with something else I didn't say.

[Anonymouse]

Well, the same old loser tries to save himself trying to hide an obvious error in economics. Hehe, it happens, I've made lots of errors talking about physics since it isn't my endeavor.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by loseyourname I am fully confident that you will continue to ignore these and argue with something else I didn't say.

I know you well, don't I?