Gyroscopic Investing

OK Dudes and Dudettes, what do you think?

... M 

I voted within 100 years. Gives me plenty of time to collect my social security benefits.

I tend to think we were more divided in the 1960's. And our world is getting smaller and smaller. I don't think we will ever split.

moda0306 wrote: I tend to think we were more divided in the 1960's. And our world is getting smaller and smaller. I don't think we will ever split.

Come on Moda. You're smart enough to know that "ever" is not an option.

screwtape wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I tend to think we were more divided in the 1960's. And our world is getting smaller and smaller. I don't think we will ever split.

Come on Moda. You're smart enough to know that "ever" is not an option.

Ah it's madbean!  Why'd you change your name?

I guess never can't be the correct answer. Perhaps aliens will be the final variable.

moda0306 wrote:

screwtape wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Ah it's madbean!  Why'd you change your name?

Just for fun mostly. And I had another one before that a long time ago.

I think Fred has it right: http://www.fredoneverything.net/Secession.shtml

There will probably not be a formal secession, but a series of de facto secessions are already in the middle of taking place as states openly violate federal law and get away with it. State and local leaders are starting to realize that they can basically ignore whichever laws they want as long as no federal troops show up. The more this happens, the less power the federal government will have, until the different regions of the country become distinct enough that they might as well be different countries, even though they're all nominally subject to the same laws. Maybe like the way Europe is now under the EU.

Pointedstick wrote: I think Fred has it right: http://www.fredoneverything.net/Secession.shtml

There will probably not be a formal secession, but a series of de facto secessions are already in the middle of taking place as states openly violate federal law and get away with it. State and local leaders are starting to realize that they can basically ignore whichever laws they want as long as no federal troops show up. The more this happens, the less power the federal government will have, until the different regions of the country become distinct enough that they might as well be different countries, even though they're all nominally subject to the same laws. Maybe like the way Europe is now under the EU.

Decriminalization of marijuana is an outstanding example of states reasserting their sovereignty.

There is no need for states to secede.  Simply exercising 10th Amendment powers should be plenty.

I think that as originally conceived, the only purpose of the federal government was to provide national defense and coordinate diplomatic and trade relations with other countries.  It should have been a pretty dull operation, with the real action happening at the state level.

The fact that U.S. Senators were originally selected by state legislatures should tell you a lot about how the federal government was supposed to work--i.e., as a servant of the states, not its master.

MediumTex wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: I think Fred has it right: http://www.fredoneverything.net/Secession.shtml

There will probably not be a formal secession, but a series of de facto secessions are already in the middle of taking place as states openly violate federal law and get away with it. State and local leaders are starting to realize that they can basically ignore whichever laws they want as long as no federal troops show up. The more this happens, the less power the federal government will have, until the different regions of the country become distinct enough that they might as well be different countries, even though they're all nominally subject to the same laws. Maybe like the way Europe is now under the EU.

Decriminalization of marijuana is an outstanding example of states reasserting their sovereignty.

There is no need for states to secede.  Simply exercising 10th Amendment powers should be plenty.

I think that as originally conceived, the only purpose of the federal government was to provide national defense and coordinate diplomatic and trade relations with other countries.  It should have been a pretty dull operation, with the real action happening at the state level.

The fact that U.S. Senators were originally selected by state legislatures should tell you a lot about how the federal government was supposed to work--i.e., as a servant of the states, not its master.

Yes, that was the plan, until a certain Republican President decided that he wanted to be "King of the Popes". It has largely been downhill ever since until recently; I'm glad that the states are finally standing up to the feds to at least some extent.

How could any state/region split off from the federal government and satisfy all the welfare needs of the people?

versed1967 wrote: How could any state/region split off from the federal government and satisfy all the welfare needs of the people?

Better yet, how can any state/region split off from the Union without invoking a Civil War II?

MachineGhost wrote:

versed1967 wrote: How could any state/region split off from the federal government and satisfy all the welfare needs of the people?

Better yet, how can any state/region split off from the Union without invoking a Civil War II?

From another thread on the Civil War (emphasis mine):

Initially intended to express anger at the draft, the protests turned into a race riot, with white rioters, mainly but not exclusively Irish immigrants, attacking blacks wherever they could find them. The official death toll was listed at 119. The conditions in the city were such that Major General John E. Wool, commander of the Department of the East, said on July 16 that "Martial law ought to be proclaimed, but I have not a sufficient force to enforce it."

I think states/regions may split off when the Feds lose the will and possibly the forces required to keep everything together.  It would be "interresting" to see what would happen if the great plains states stopped exporting any agricultural products outside their borders and Texas shut off export of people with common sense (hat tip to MT).  The rioters in the northeast and mid-Atlantic would keep the forces quite busy for a while.  Could get like the movie Red Dawn in a redux version called "Rainbow Dawn". 

... M

Simonjester wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: I think Fred has it right: http://www.fredoneverything.net/Secession.shtml

There will probably not be a formal secession, but a series of de facto secessions are already in the middle of taking place as states openly violate federal law and get away with it. State and local leaders are starting to realize that they can basically ignore whichever laws they want as long as no federal troops show up. The more this happens, the less power the federal government will have, until the different regions of the country become distinct enough that they might as well be different countries, even though they're all nominally subject to the same laws. Maybe like the way Europe is now under the EU.

this seems very likely to me as well
in fact i just saw this poll which supports the idea we are moving in that direction..
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2015/support_grows_for_states_to_ignore_the_federal_courts

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 33% of Likely U.S. Voters now believe that states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if their elected officials agree with them. That’s up nine points from 24% when we first asked this question in February. Just over half (52%) disagree, down from 58%

Putting it in historical context, we're nowhere near as divided as we were all throughout the 1800's.

Desert wrote: The plan has kicked up chatter outside of Texas that it's a step toward secession, an idea raised now and then on the state's farthest political fringe.

Texas would turn into Greece if it was stupid enough to secede and use gold as money.  Did all the goldbug nuts move down there?

MachineGhost wrote:

Desert wrote: The plan has kicked up chatter outside of Texas that it's a step toward secession, an idea raised now and then on the state's farthest political fringe.

Texas would turn into Greece if it was stupid enough to secede and use gold as money.  Did all the goldbug nuts move down there?

Yeah, it's obvious that using gold for money is just as bad as using unbacked paper drachmas!
Is that why central banks have gigantic hoards of gold?

Libertarian666 wrote: Yeah, it's obvious that using gold for money is just as bad as using unbacked paper drachmas!
Is that why central banks have gigantic hoards of gold?

That paper drachma backed by the productivity of Greece would be anti-austerity.  Gold, however, is austerity and anti-growth.  Besides, when gold is money it doesn't protect you from inflation as it declines on inflation.  I rather have the ability to protect myself as we do now.

MachineGhost wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: Yeah, it's obvious that using gold for money is just as bad as using unbacked paper drachmas!
Is that why central banks have gigantic hoards of gold?

That paper drachma backed by the productivity of Greece would be anti-austerity.  Gold, however, is austerity and anti-growth.  Besides, when gold is money it doesn't protect you from inflation as it declines on inflation.  I rather have the ability to protect myself as we do now.

There is no mechanism by which a paper currency can be backed by the productivity of a country, other than if all production belongs to the government to be used to back that currency. I don't know of any successful implementations of such a notion. However, I do know of lots of unsuccessful paper money experiments.

Gold is pro-growth, because it allows people to save in money that they can be fairly certain will be worth something later. Of course there is always the threat of government dilution of the money, but that is not just a threat but a certainty in the case of irredeemable paper currency.

Other than that, we are in full agreement. :-)

Libertarian666 wrote: There is no mechanism by which a paper currency can be backed by the productivity of a country, other than if all production belongs to the government to be used to back that currency. I don't know of any successful implementations of such a notion. However, I do know of lots of unsuccessful paper money experiments.

Gold is pro-growth, because it allows people to save in money that they can be fairly certain will be worth something later. Of course there is always the threat of government dilution of the money, but that is not just a threat but a certainty in the case of irredeemable paper currency.

Legal tender laws and taxation are what marries a "currency" to the productivity of a nation.  Productivity is value not whatever "money" is used as the transmission mechanism to pass value around.  Gold, turds, seashells, cattle, toilet paper, currency, the form of "money" is completely irrelevant to generating wealth from productivity.  It is a useful metaphysical social fiction, that's all.

People are not stupid.  They demand and expect higher interest rates after the rate of inflation so that their future money is worth something.  That's why gold is a poor inflation hedge.  It's just inert and doesn't respond to higher growth and higher interest rates.

Government's debase ALL FORMS OF MONEY WITHOUT EXCEPTION INCLUDING GOLD.  In fact, if gold content is not being debased or diluted in some way then it is not being used as money.  It's as simple as that.

Gold is actually anti-growth as history has demonstrated many times due to its inherent austerity and deflationary properties when the money supply needs to expand to fulfill demand for increased productivity.  If gold was really pro-growth, it would be in the Prosperity quadrant of the PP not the "Last Resort" quadrant.  There is a reason we abandoned several gold standards historically.  It simply doesn't work.  It stifles growth by not allow productivity to be monetized or inflation to be arbitraged away.  You need to study up on history and take off the rose colored goldbug glasses.

MachineGhost wrote: Government's debase ALL FORMS OF MONEY WITHOUT EXCEPTION INCLUDING GOLD.  In fact, if gold content is not being debased or diluted in some way then it is not being used as money.  It's as simple as that.

As I have explained before (although why it needs explaining is beyond me), it is impossible to debase gold. Gold is element 79 in the periodic table, and cannot be altered other than by converting it to another element by nuclear reactions, which has not been done by anyone other than in milligram amounts for research purposes. Thus, the rest of your commentary is null and void.

Hope that helps.

They debase currencies that are based on gold. They don't make gold itself into money, they mint coins made out of gold with little numbers on them saying "this coin is worth such-and-such amount of sovereigns/francs/guineas/pesos/drachmas/whatever." Then they reduce the gold content of the coin over time through various methods.

That's what historically actually happened, and that's what MG is talking about.

Libertarian666 wrote: As I have explained before (although why it needs explaining is beyond me), it is impossible to debase gold. Gold is element 79 in the periodic table, and cannot be altered other than by converting it to another element by nuclear reactions, which has not been done by anyone other than in milligram amounts for research purposes. Thus, the rest of your commentary is null and void.

You know what I meant unless you're being intentionally obstinate or are seriously that fucking deluded.  I'm not sure which.  Are you KShartle under a new name???

MachineGhost wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: As I have explained before (although why it needs explaining is beyond me), it is impossible to debase gold. Gold is element 79 in the periodic table, and cannot be altered other than by converting it to another element by nuclear reactions, which has not been done by anyone other than in milligram amounts for research purposes. Thus, the rest of your commentary is null and void.

You know what I meant unless you're being intentionally obstinate or are seriously that fucking deluded.  I'm not sure which.  Are you KShartle under a new name???

What you said is meaningless. If you have something meaningful to say, please say it. I'm not a mind reader.

Libertarian666 wrote: What you said is meaningless. If you have something meaningful to say, please say it. I'm not a mind reader.

Allrighty, I'm totally done trying to help pull your head out of your goldbug ass.  Good evening, sir, and enjoy your echo chamber.

Fellas, don't be like that.