Saturday, December 20, 2014

Defense of the Gold Standard & the Discovery of Freedom, pt 5 of 7

Jackals Home - [quoting from article] "Yes, some economists say a return to the gold standard would be disastrous, and I'd grant that perhaps even a large majority do." 

Yeah, no shit.

Another dipshit. Murphy's an economic laughingstock that's been predicting double-digit inflation for a decade, and thought Obama was going to replace the dollar with the fucking Amero. Conspiracy theory nonsense (Amero) This guy is a straight-up buffoon. (Robert P. Murphy)

Credibility none. If you want us to stop dinging you with the "He's just a wackaloon conspiracy theorist," then stop buying into every god damned conspiracy theory.

Your second author, Murray Rothbard is a holocaust denier that believes that blacks are "genetically inferior to whites," another "classic" argument, to some. (Murray Rothbard)

Credibility none.

These are who share your views? These are the best examples you could find? My guy was a "slave to our mutual enemy," what the fuck is that? What the fuck are you reading in Kuwait?

Anybody else in this parade of despicable, broken, failed humans you want me to examine?

Jackals Home - And hey, The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies the Mises institute as a "neoconfederate" organization (Neo-Confederate), which basically means they retroactively support the confederate states of America, over, y'know, the United States of America. Real classy organization there.

God damn, please have the courtesy to be embarrassed when you come back.

Muhammad Rasheed - The genetic fallacy

The genetic fallacy (a fallacy of irrelevance) has nothing to do with Darwin or Mendel, but a great deal to do with not liking where an argument comes from. People give less credence to views which emanate from those they detest, regardless of the actual merit of the views themselves. Every time you dismiss an argument or opinion because you dislike its source, you commit the genetic fallacy. The fallacy is sometimes called 'damning the origin', and we can take it that the argument is sent to hell along with its source.

Don't be obsessed with punctuality. It was Mussolini who wanted trains to run on time.

(Mussolini's views on trains, whatever they were, are hardly an argument on punctuality. Bad men, especially verbose ones, are almost bound to say something right occasionally, much as a chimpanzee typing at random might produce Hamlet. No doubt Hitler favoured road safety and disapproved of cancer. Mussolini might have hit it lucky on the subject of trains.)

The genetic fallacy makes the mistake of supposing that the source of an argument affects its validity. Utterly wicked people sometimes utter worthy arguments, while saints are not immune from silliness. The argument stands alone, drawing neither strength nor weakness from its source.

This particular fallacy is often found basking in the hothouse world of fashionable ideas. A view from a currently fashionable source is given credence, but the same view would be rejected if it emanated from someone less modish.

The objections to the Council's new bus timetable come only from private property developers, and can be ignored.

(Why? Private developers might well have legitimate opinions or insights on such matters. They are, alas, still bêtes noires in the world of local politics. Had the same objections come from Friends of the Earth they might have found more sympathetic ears.)

The genetic fallacy is nowhere more widely seen than in connection with the alleged views of a few universally detested figures. The association of Adolf Hitler with a viewpoint is generally sufficient to damn it. His predecessors, Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun, left fewer writings, but have many views attributed to them. In rare cases the hated name becomes adjectival, with the simple epithet Machiavellian or Hitlerian being sufficient to remove an idea from consideration by decent people.

Tinkering with genes is fascist talk. That's what Hitler tried to do.

(Actually, he did favour breeding from what he saw as superior stock, which is not necessarily the same as trying to eliminate certain disorders by gene-splicing. In view of his known association, one is surprised that the bloodstock industry and dog-breeding have gone as far as they have. For that matter, Volkswagens and autobahns seem to have caught on quite well, too.)

To use the genetic fallacy with devastating effect, all you need do is point out that your opponent is echoing arguments first put forward in Nazi Germany, then subsequently taken up by Augusto Pinochet and Saddam Hussein. You, on the other hand, are advocating points of view put forward by Mother Teresa, Princess Diana and Mary Poppins...

~Madsen Pirie

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "...please have the courtesy to be embarrassed when you come back."

Actually I'm not embarrassed at all. You should be though. I try to avoid that particular fallacy. I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I may not like a particular person, but it doesn't mean they’re not an expert on a subject of interest and can provide insight.

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm angered and disappointed in Ron Paul because of that old newsletter thing coming to light and what it revealed. Doesn't have anything to do with his views on the Fed and the gold standard though (which I discovered years before I found out who he was btw), and believe that to dismiss everything he has to say just because he's wrong about that, would mean we can stop listening to everybody about everything... everybody is wrong about something. Which is the bottom-line nature of the genetic fallacy.

He lost my vote to be president though. Should've done a better job at hiding that stuff. That's why God created the shredder. D'duh.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "And hey, The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies the Mises institute as a "neoconfederate" organization (Neo-Confederate), which basically means they retroactively support the confederate states of America, over, y'know, the United States of America. Real classy organization there."

They would prefer a return to the gold standard in the pre-Fed days, and the prosperity with stable economy and deflation experienced in the 19th Century... the confederate days basically. Doesn't mean they want to wave that flag around and return me to chains.

Jackals Home - Bullshit.

If you expect me to believe that I should be embarrassed for posting a Nobel-prize-winning economist's views on why your latest fancy is bunk, and you hyperbolically name him a "slave to our enemy" based on not-a-fucking-thing (except he had the audacity to be far more educated than you, and directly and explicitly refute your central contention) and then super-double-down on that idiotic weak-kneed, slackjawed, knuckleheaded aggressive affirmation of ignorance by comparing the Nobel Committee to Hitler (because rewarding peacekeeping and academics Hitler?)

You don't get to claim genetic fallacy. Never ever. Because you haven't done anyone a god damn courtesy to address a single point without using it, and not getting called out on it doesn't mean you got away with it, Slick Willie.

Fuck your stupid claims of genetic fallacy, and fuck you for quoting a fucking white supremacist organization to me with a straight face and telling me they have good ideas. You should be embarrassed, you should be ashamed, and if you want to play with the big intellectuals, you should learn how fucking discourse works.

Your "Austrian Economics" group is a bunch of Alabama neoconfederates who are still fighting the war "for states rights." They endorse the grossest, most regressive stances on every thing in the universe, from wrongheaded racial bullshit, historical revision, women's rights, and climate change. If you specifically set out to find the wrongest, most shitbrained laughingstock disreputable backwater black hole of fucking redneck humanity to show to me, you couldn't have found a more loathsome group. Everything factual that they contend, on every subject, is not only wrong, it's been proven wrong in every meaningful way by a broad spectrum of academia. Climate change? There's an army of scientists who say they're wrong. Black inferiority? There's an army of geneticists who say they're wrong. Holocaust? There's an army of historians who say that shit happened.

Now, if I see that, and I get an Email from the "mises institute" saying human excrement is fucking sweet as candy, I am not required to treat that claim with some sort of respect "because balance." They've proven, time and again, that they are out of touch with what constitutes scientific and historical fact. That means their burden of proof IS WAY FUCKING HIGHER than people who don't get up in the morning trying to be the biggest fistulas on the suppurating ass of humanity. I'd have to use my skull for fart storage to take what any of them say at face value after that parade of useless stoolwater. It's not "balance" to allow anyone with a mouth a free go at your cerebrum, and it's not "genetic fallacy" to figure that an organization SO RELENTLESSLY AND UNAPOLOGETICALLY WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING might not have this subject dead on target.

That's called "critical thinking" and it's a skill you need to fucking figure out, son.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "by comparing the Nobel Committee to Hitler..."

I didn't "compare him to Hitler," I said that if you support whatever the mainstream considers important then you'll be rewarded by the mainstream. Hitler's Germany was the mainstream in that system, so your guy's equivalent mainstream kiss-ass would been treated the same there, too. If the mainstream's views are wrong, as in the case of upholding Fed Reserve policy, then those award-winning, highly-accomplished supporters don't mean shit.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "If you expect me to believe that I should be embarrassed for posting a Nobel-prize-winning economist's views..."

No. You should be embarrassed for committing the genetic fallacy. Don't do that.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "You don't get to claim genetic fallacy. Never ever. Because you haven't done anyone a god damn courtesy to address a single point without using it..."

What?! When?

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm not a member of the Mises Institute and don't care about the group, but some of their economic policies are great and we should incorporate that into a model for a stronger and more stable society. Sure some of them believe things that are offensive and wrong to me. Doesn't mean that they aren't worth listening to on their actual financial theory expertise.

Jackals Home - "Would ANYBODY be allowed to win a nobel prize for talking against the fed policies and publicly poking holes in their bs? You finding a book written by the pigs at the end of Animal Farm in which it insists that 'four legs are bad and two legs are good' isn't going to move me. Finding an article by someone who is a celebrated slave of our mutual enemy was a waste of your time."

"He agrees with the Fed, thus, he's wrong/corrupt"

You think you have a legitimate reason, here? Fuck no.

Why do you disagree with his statements?

"Because he's corrupt."

Why do you think he's corrupt?

"Because he disagrees with what I believe."

Conversely, "Consistently wrong on a litany of provable scientific and historical facts" Is a GREAT FUCKING REASON to disregard someone's opinion. I am baffled that I have to explain this too you while you sit there playing with fallacies, like you understand what they mean. You don't like logical fallacies, don't open and close with them, and don't fill the middle with them.

The fact that you said, without a shred of either irony or evidence of any kind, that the Nobel committee would never give a prize to someone who said something against the Fed, is deliriously, farcically circular an argument.

"Why not?"

"Because they're controlled by the fed."

How do you know?

"Because they would never undermine the Fed with an award."

Your arguments are filled with fallacy, at every stage, and you're gonna contend that I don't have enough information about this group to disregard their bullshit? You don't know what genetic fallacy even is! Do I need to bring out a goddamn science and historical parade to debunk every one of their claims? Do I really need to make an argument that the confederacy was in the wrong? Is this still being debated somewhere?

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "You think you have a legitimate reason, here? Fuck no."

Hell yes, I do! The mainstream financial system is THE problem that caused Great Depressions, housing bubble Recessions, and the global war machine. Everybody that is trained in it and promotes it is the enemy! Of COURSE!

Jackals Home - Thass just some shit you saw spelled in your alpha bits, man.

Jackals Home - You don't get to pretend to debate without sources.

Muhammad Rasheed - I posted a source and you dismissed it out of hand because of your pet fallacy.

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm going to stick to sourcing from Wiki since you are trippin.'

Muhammad Rasheed - THE MONEY TRUST
This idea was validated in the United States by the Pujo Committee in 1913 which unanimously determined that a small cabal of financiers had gained consolidated control of numerous industries through the abuse of the public trust. The chair of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Representative Arsène Pujo, (D–La. 7th) convened a special committee to investigate a "money trust", the de facto monopoly of Morgan and New York's other most powerful bankers. The committee issued a scathing report on the banking trade, and found that the officers of J.P. Morgan & Co. also sat on the boards of directors of 112 corporations with a market capitalization of $22.5 billion (the total capitalization of the New York Stock Exchange was then estimated at $26.5 billion).[1]

Attorney Samuel Untermyer who headed the 1913 Pujo Money Trust Investigation Committee to investigate money trusts defined a money trust to George Baker during the Pujo hearings; "We define a money trust as an established identity and community of interest between a few leaders of finance, which has been created and is held together through stock-holding, interlocking directorates, and other forms of domination over banks, trust companies, railroads, public service and industrial corporations, and which has resulted in vast and growing concentration and control of money and credits in the hands of a few men"

Muhammad Rasheed - The founders of the Money Trust's companies were famous for being racist dicks, too. Since the Fed Reserve system was created by them and perfected by their descendants, how come all of their policies, etc. are cool by you two?

At the end of November 1910, Senator Nelson W. Aldrich and Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury Department A. Piatt Andrew, and five of the country's leading financiers (Frank Vanderlip, Henry P. Davison, Charles D. Norton, Benjamin Strong, and Paul Warburg) arrived at the Jekyll Island Club to discuss monetary policy and the banking system, an event that led to the creation of the current, privately owned Federal Reserve. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, the 1910 Jekyll Island meeting resulted in draft legislation for the creation of a U.S. central bank. Parts of this draft (the Aldrich plan) were incorporated into the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. On November 5–6, 2010, Ben Bernanke stayed on Jekyll Island to commemorate the 100-year anniversary of this original meeting.[9] The Conference was the first official confirmation of the revelations made initially in 1949 by Ezra Pound to Eustace Mullins in his work Secrets of The Federal Reserve and later reported by G. Edward Griffin in his book The Creature from Jekyll Island.

Forbes magazine founder Bertie Charles Forbes wrote several years later:

Picture a party of the nation's greatest bankers stealing out of New York on a private railroad car under cover of darkness, stealthily riding hundred[s] of miles South, embarking on a mysterious launch, sneaking onto an island deserted by all but a few servants, living there a full week under such rigid secrecy that the names of not one of them was once mentioned, lest the servants learn the identity and disclose to the world this strangest, most secret expedition in the history of American finance. I am not romancing; I am giving to the world, for the first time, the real story of how the famous Aldrich currency report, the foundation of our new currency system, was written... The utmost secrecy was enjoined upon all. The public must not glean a hint of what was to be done. Senator Aldrich notified each one to go quietly into a private car of which the railroad had received orders to draw up on an unfrequented platform. Off the party set. New York's ubiquitous reporters had been foiled... Nelson (Aldrich) had confided to Henry, Frank, Paul, and Piatt that he was to keep them locked up at Jekyll Island, out of the rest of the world, until they had evolved and compiled a scientific currency system for the United States, the real birth of the present Federal Reserve System, the plan done on Jekyll Island in the conference with Paul, Frank, and Henry... Warburg is the link that binds the Aldrich system and the present system together. He more than any one man has made the system possible as a working reality.

Jackals Home - Your single source is biased and corrupted. I can't trust "The mise institute" to know how the science of economics works, because they don't understand how history, biology, or climatology work, nor do they understand scientific consensus, as a concept. If they're not playing with grownup rhetorical tools like "facts" and "cited sources" I have no reason to entertain their mouth droppings. You see how that works? That's called critical thinking. Learn it, live it love it, and do it once in awhile. It's not a fallacy, it's "You didn't bring your big-boy pants to the discussion, little man." Y'see, once you could be assed to cite a source(other than your alpha bits), I was empowered to examine your source, in detail, finding out more about them than you knew.

You've latched on to a group of racist shitbags, whose many infractions I've related, and can cite again if you desire. You're too embarrassed to back up and examine what you've affiliated yourself with, and you're doubling down when you should be reexamining.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "Your single source is biased and corrupted. I can't trust "The mise institute" to know how the science of economics works, because they don't understand how history, biology, or climatology work, nor do they understand scientific consensus, as a concept. If they're not playing with grownup rhetorical tools like "facts" and "cited sources" I have no reason to entertain their mouth droppings. You see how that works? That's called critical thinking."

How is using the genetic fallacy critical thinking? Critical thinking uses discernment to separate the chaff from the wheat, it doesn't toss the lot out into the chicken yard. No.

I haven't "latched onto them" just because I find one aspect of their stuff a piece of the puzzle.

Muhammad Rasheed - (arguing with you two is like training in 200x gravity)

Jackals Home - If my first four bites are turd, I'm not biting a fifth time to check if it's an almond Joy. Learn how discourse works. You do not know what genetic fallacy means, so I'll explain again.

If you drive to a gas station, in NJ, lets say, because the attendant fills your tank, and he puts twelve gallons of strawberry Fanta in your new BMW, you might be pissed. If you drove to the same station again, and he did it again, you'd still be pissed. If you did it a third and forth time, it's kinda becoming your fault. And if you're driving by, and he says "Hey, I know how to do it now, this time I got it all right," while holding a pump that clearly says "FANTA" on it, you can do one of two things.

One, you can pull in and let him fuck up your car again, or

Two, you can learn the same way a beaten fuckin' dog does, and not fucking go to that gas station anymore. That's called critical thinking.

I examined your source. Your source was shit. I don't need to examine the whole cesspool looking for a clean almond.

The Federal Reserve System is the third central banking system in the United States' history. The First Bank of the United States (1791–1811) and the Second Bank of the United States (1817–1836) each had 20-year charters, and both issued currency, made commercial loans, accepted deposits, purchased securities, had multiple branches, and acted as fiscal agents for the U.S. Treasury.[1] In both banks the Federal Government was required to purchase 20% of the bank's capital stock and appoint 20% of the directors. Thus majority control was in the hands of private investors who purchased the rest of the stock. The banks were opposed by state-chartered banks, who saw them as very large competitors, and by many who understood them to be banking cartels which compelled to them servitude of the common man. President Andrew Jackson vetoed legislation to renew the Second Bank of the United States, starting a period of free banking. Jackson staked his second term on the issue of central banking stating, "Every monopoly and all exclusive privileges are granted at the expense of the public, which ought to receive a fair equivalent. The many millions which this act proposes to bestow on the stockholders of the existing bank must come directly or indirectly out of the earnings of the American people."


I didn't know about this. What were the dates on those pre-1907 bank Panics again?

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: 'You do not know what genetic fallacy means, so I'll explain again."

The genetic fallacy is a form of irrelevance fallacy in which an argument is dismissed because the character of the source used for the point is called into question, despite not being relevant to the point the source was making that he was quoted for.

Muhammad Rasheed - Critical thinking is a tool by which one can come about reasoned conclusions based on a reasoned process. This process incorporates passion and creativity, but guides it with discipline, practicality and common sense. Critical thinking has been defined as:

1. "the mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion"[2]
2. "disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence"[3]
3. "reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do"[4]
4. "purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based"[5]
5. "includes a commitment to using reason in the formulation of our beliefs"[6]
6. the skill and propensity to engage in an activity with reflective scepticism (McPeck, 1981)
7. disciplined, self-directed thinking which exemplifies the perfection of thinking appropriate to a particular mode of domain of thinking (Paul, 1989, p. 214)
8. thinking about one's thinking in a manner designed to organize and clarify, raise the efficiency of, and recognize errors and biases in one's own thinking. Critical thinking is not 'hard' thinking nor is it directed at solving problems (other than 'improving' one's own thinking). Critical thinking is inward-directed with the intent of maximizing the rationality of the thinker. One does not use critical thinking to solve problems - one uses critical thinking to improve one's process of thinking.


I use critical thinking.

Muhammad Rasheed - AFTER THE PANIC OF 1907
A particularly severe panic in 1907 provided the motivation for renewed demands for banking and currency reform.[4] The following year, Congress enacted the Aldrich-Vreeland Act which provided for an emergency currency and established the National Monetary Commission to study banking and currency reform.[5]

The chief of the bipartisan National Monetary Commission was financial expert and Senate Republican leader Nelson Aldrich. Aldrich set up two commissions — one to study the American monetary system in depth and the other, headed by Aldrich, to study the European central-banking systems and report on them.

Muhammad Rasheed - In 1910, Aldrich and executives representing the banks of J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn, Loeb & Co., secluded themselves for ten days at Jekyll Island, Georgia.[5] The executives included Frank A. Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank of New York, associated with the Rockefellers; Henry Davison, senior partner of J.P. Morgan Company; Charles D. Norton, president of the First National Bank of New York; and Col. Edward House, who would later become President Woodrow Wilson's closest adviser and founder of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Muhammad Rasheed - Aldrich fought for a private monopoly with little government influence, but conceded that the government should be represented on the board of directors. Aldrich then presented what was commonly called the "Aldrich Plan"—which called for establishment of a "National Reserve Association"—to the National Monetary Commission.[5] Most Republicans and Wall Street bankers favored the Aldrich Plan,[6] but it lacked enough support in the bipartisan Congress to pass.[10]

Muhammad Rasheed - Because the bill was introduced by Aldrich the bill received little support. It was derided by southerners and westerners who believed that wealthy families and large corporations ran the country and would thus run the proposed National Reserve Association.[10] The National Board of Trade appointed Warburg as head of a committee to persuade Americans to support the plan. The committee set up offices in the then-45 states and distributed printed materials about the proposed central bank.[5] The Nebraskan populist and frequent Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan said of the plan: "Big financiers are back of the Aldrich currency scheme." He asserted that if it passed, big bankers would "then be in complete control of everything through the control of our national finances."

Muhammad Rasheed - There was also Republican opposition to the Aldrich Plan. Republican Sen. Robert M. LaFollette and Rep. Charles Lindbergh Sr. both spoke out against the favoritism that they contended the bill granted to Wall Street. "The Aldrich Plan is the Wall Street Plan…I have alleged that there is a 'Money Trust'", said Lindbergh. "The Aldrich plan is a scheme plainly in the interest of the Trust". In response, Rep. Arsène Pujo, a Democrat from Louisiana, obtained congressional authorization to form and chair a subcommittee (the Pujo Committee) within the House Committee Banking Committee, to conduct investigative hearings on the alleged "Money Trust". The hearings continued for a full year and were led by the subcommittee's counsel, Democratic lawyer Samuel Untermyer, who later also assisted in drafting the Federal Reserve Act. The "Pujo hearings"[12] convinced much of the populace that America's money largely rested in the hands of a select few on Wall Street. The Subcommittee issued a report saying:[13]

"If by a 'money trust' is meant an established and well-defined identity and community of interest between a few leaders of finance…which has resulted in a vast and growing concentration of control of money and credit in the hands of a comparatively few men…the condition thus described exists in this country today...To us the peril is manifest...When we find...the same man a director in a half dozen or more banks and trust companies all located in the same section of the same city, doing the same class of business and with a like set of associates similarly situated all belonging to the same group and representing the same class of interests, all further pretense of competition is useless.... "[11]

Muhammad Rasheed - ... several Congressmen, including Owen, Lindbergh, LaFollette, and Murdock claimed that the New York bankers feigned their disapproval of the bill in hopes of inducing Congress to pass it. The day before the bill was passed, Murdock told Congress:

"You allowed the special interests by pretended dissatisfaction with the measure to bring about a sham battle, and the sham battle was for the purpose of diverting you people from the real remedy, and they diverted you. The Wall Street bluff has worked."[21]

Muhammad Rasheed - While a system of 12 regional banks was designed so as not to give eastern bankers too much influence over the new bank, in practice, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York became "first among equals".


"Some are more equal than others."

Jackals Home - Gish Gallop

Newsflash. Posting walls and walls of text, context free, and holding your hands up in the air going "Wake up, sheeple!" is not how discourse works.

If you're not saying what your sheafs of virtual paper means to your argument, you're just filibustering. These are not cited sources, they're just a wearying barrage of text designed to exhaust your opponents, a bullshit fusillade.

I'm not trying to sort through this shit to find your argument for you. YOU SHOULD KNOW YOUR ARGUMENT, and be able to communicate it succinctly.

"I use critical thinking."

No the fuck you don't. You came up with a conclusion, and are working backwards to support it. That's baby shit. Your rhetorical skills are limited to begging the question, gish galloping, and ad hominem attacks against those who have evidence (again, things like dates, charts, and facts) which directly and explicitly refute your central point. You look at a mountain of evidence, literally more than a dozen economic experts, who EXPRESSLY REFUTED YOUR CENTRAL POINT, and your response was:

"Nuh uh!"

Why do you say that, Muhammad?

"Because they slaves of the Fed! Wake up!"

How do you know that?

"Because they refuted my central contention."


Here's how you know you're a critical thinker. If you ever actually address how your feelings on a subject differ from the mountain of evidence about it.

You see, when I came to this discussion, I didn't know shit about the gold standard. I used critical thinking to examine arguments and sources all across the spectrum (especially since you were unable to cite a source for your first fifty thousand garbage words), looking for pro's and cons, and figured out pretty quickly that if there's anything resembling concensus in the economic community, it's that a return to the gold standard is a Tea-Party fairy tale, perpetuated by states' rights racists (and no-one else, which is key), and is on the whole, a terrible idea.

I used the EVIDENCE to structure my VIEW.

Meanwhile, you started with your view, and have been kicking discourse from pillar to post trying to shore it up with whatever notions fell out of the Alpha-bits box. You're busy posting screeds that you think support some fanciful, unspoken secret narrative about the bilderbergers or Hydra, or whatever secret society lives in your addled forebrain, and you're so convinced that that narrative is true, even the verified fact that your primary examples think you ARE LITERALLY A SUB HUMAN won't cause you to step back and examine the mountain of easily verifiable facts that DIRECTLY AND EXPLICITLY REFUTE YOUR CENTRAL POINT.

See all those words? That's what an argument looks like. See how My conclusions are based on my premises, and are supported with sources I've already cited? That's what grownup big boy discourse looks like. When you get out of Jr. liederhosen, you can try to rebut.

Until then, I'm not reading this bullshit where you CNTRL-P a block of text from wikipedia and post it like it means something, without even understanding yourself why you posted it.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "Newsflash. Posting walls and walls of text, context free, and holding your hands up in the air going "Wake up, sheeple!" is not how discourse works."

I posted that for ME so I could reference it later when I got back to where I left off in my bank explanation. I knew you weren't going to read it, you didn't before.  You’ve complained whether I sourced anything or not.  I Google up someone’s article that backs my point and what do you do?  Side step the argument and attack the author in a classic genetic fallacy.  So I source from someplace neutral like Wiki (neutral because you use it yourself) and you attack me for sourcing that as “TL:DR.”  If I don’t source anything at all and just explain it based on my understanding of the research, you say I’m just making it all up. 

Don’t tell me about knowing the rules of discourse until you figure it out yourself, please.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: “I used critical thinking to examine arguments and sources all across the spectrum..."

No. You immediately demonized a whole argument because it wasn’t supported by the mainstream view. Alternate views you dismissed because you demonized the sources first before you studied the material. That’s not even remotely critical thinking, when you are using emotion-based bias to repel you from using discernment in sorting an individual’s views into separate knowledge and opinion piles. You were probing with your genetic fallacy from the beginning asking who’s my ‘guru.’ I told you I didn’t have a guru, and when I did search to find some pro-gold standard articles, you were all gleefully, “Aha!! THIS must be your guru!” When I pointed out that your favored weapon was an irrelevance fallacy, you spewed forth a concentration of profanity so intense, I thought I was reading a transcript of Richard Pryor’s “That Ni99er’s Crazy” (1974). Like a young Tom Cruise just figured out your bluebells riddle.

Your version of critical thinking is that of a 90 year old house wife. “Oh, I didn’t trust him for a second. There’s just something about him.” –versus- “What a nice young man! Have a cookie!” You’ve casually dismissed everything I said about gold without thinking about what I said once. When I pointed out how the banks were acting during those Panics, you just dismissed it without a thought. I said the little guy who didn’t invest made bank runs, but you kept saying that I said “the small investor” even after I corrected you.

So your version of ‘critical thinking’ is emotion-led, hard-headed, and extremely narrow-minded, confined to what fits comfortably in your accepted view. You continue to deliberately create a very wrong caricature of what I say, and continue to argue against what you made up as if it is my argument, despite numerous times where I’ve corrected you.  You’re addicted to the strawman, another pet fallacy of yours.  You’ve proven to lack basic levels of discernment, and the sorting-to-order of the viewpoints of individuals. The who’s who of contributors to everything we enjoy in modern Western society were flawed humans. Throwing out someone’s entire body of work because they think something wrong about a topic they are not expert in, based on them not being up on the latest in that particular field for WHATEVER reason, is the opposite of critical thinking. It’s knee-jerk reacting out of emotion. That’s NOT a smart person’s trait.  You shouldn't continue to do that.

Jackals Home wrote: "You're busy posting screeds that you think support some fanciful, unspoken secret narrative about the bilderbergers or Hydra, or whatever secret society lives in your addled forebrain, and you're so convinced that that narrative is true, even the verified fact that your primary examples..."

Everything I just posted about the Money Trust, their efforts to create a monopoly and partner with the US gov to control our money supply to their benefit, the peoples' rejection of this offer because they didn't trust them for that very reason, their secret meetings which restructured their plan into the Federal Reserve Act, came from Wikipedia. A source you've also used.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "I feel like you're in a position where you're isolated both ideologically and geographically, and what you're exposed to is maybe not the best?"

I first came across the gold aspect of it shortly after I started at RH Donnelley at the beginning of '06. I discovered RWL from one of the Raleigh Flea Market vendors loaning me a copy of his book in the fall of '08 or so. Doesn't have anything to do with being in Kuwait.  So what you "feel" about what i'm researching is worthless and based on nothing but your blind faith.

Jackals Home - "No. You immediately demonized a whole argument because it wasn’t supported by the mainstream view."

Let's crack this open. What is "the mainstream view?" As near as I can tell, if it agrees with your sad, huddled masses of confederate reenactors, it's not mainstream, and thus, good.

Mainstream means "adopted by the most people," you div. You know what mainstream is? Dentistry. Physics. Facts. If your argument is that it's not good because it's "mainstream," you're, again, arguing like a child. These are the reasons people enjoy dubsteb, not reasons why we rework the economy.

"Alternate views you dismissed because you demonized the sources first before you studied the material."

Motherfucker, I was doing research on this stupid juvenile shit for hours because you were too scared to post a source, because in your heart, you know they're fucking clowns and con men. I learned about it because all you were saying was fucking talking points with no sources! If you suddenly develop an intense interest in fucking tea-party talking points so strong as to spend your waking hours repeating the arguments of holocaust deniers and climate-change cranks, you didn't fucking make that shit up yourself. I was probing for a guru, because until you post a source, you aren't even in the discussion, you're just a hype man for a guy behind a curtain, jumpin' around goin' "Yeah! Yeah! Money trust! yeah!" Wake up!"

It's not my fault it took you fifty thousand words to get involved with your own post, and have a tiny amount of integrity, rather than squirrelling away your precious confederate think-tank.

You don't know how fallacies work, and until you post a single argument without one, I'm going to disregard that shit. You're Luke Skywalker pointing a lightsaber at your face, and I aint Obi-Wan today. I'm not gonna talk you through why you're fucking wrong again. Be a grown up. Figure it out yourself.

Jackals Home - "your version of ‘critical thinking’ is emotion-led, hard-headed, and extremely narrow, confined to what fits comfortably in your mainstream view. You’ve proved to lack basic levels of discernment, and the sorting to order of the viewpoints of individuals. The who’s who of contributors to everything we enjoy in modern Western society were flawed humans"

So, the dozen economic experts I posted that said returning to the gold standard was shit? Why are they dismissed again? Oh, because they were mainstream.

"Those guys are wrong! You can't trust them!"

Why is that, Muhammad?

"Because they're mainstream! They're in the Fed's pocket!"

They work in education, why would you believe that?

"Because they directly refuted my central contention, en masse!" (


You antiintellectual assgike. You continue to clutch the claims that I didn't give your collection of lynch mob fanciers a fair shake like a string of pearls to an old lady's breast, abut you disregarded a dozen voices from across the educational system's best and most influential schools.

If everything I post is "too mainstream" to be considered, and being a tiny group of crackpots who are shunned and disregarded by economic experts means they're brilliant iconoclasts, then that just makes me wonder what other shit you've got wired up backwards. Do you believe in immunizing your children? Do you believe in flouridated water? Chemtrails?

If your basis for finding new beliefs is that you want the fewest, most reviled people to have them, and mountains or long-established fact and historical records proving it false on the other side,then there's some dark shit hiding in you, brother.

Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "What's the case FOR the gold standard if we went through the same shit that we go through today?"

For one you must understand that the banks are going to be straining against their regulations chains like rabid mongrels no matter under what system we are under, as demonstrated by the Panic of 1907. They manipulate interest rates and play around in the speculation market deliberately causing destabilization to make a profit whether the economy is stable or not. The gold standard restrains them. That what they were complaining about during the Great Depression, caused specifically by their manipulations. The Federal Reserve Act gave them permission to print currency beyond our gold stores, and combined with their stock market foolishness, created the Panic of '07 on a grander scale. They told the gov that the only way to fix it was to spend, and printed more money beyond our stores. They wanted to do it indefinitely and manipulate the market at will, but the gold standard still represented restrictions on them. So they blamed the Great Depression it self on it, until it was finally released. Did that stop the recessions/depressions? Of course not. Because they were the cause.

For two, in the normal flow of business in the free market there will be perfectly normal dips and rises in prices of goods and supply and demand... like your famous buggy whip analogy. This can cause ripples that mimic the deliberate manipulations of the banks, but they self-correct, again just from the normal flow of day-to-day business. The buggy whips are gone because we have the steering wheel. That factory now absorbs those unemployed buggy whip dudes. The change doesn't happen overnight; adjustments have to be made, and people were really struggling for a while, but now finally things have worked out. Free market. That's what the free market actually looks like when it is left alone btw. Gov interference would've forced the automobile to go under and gave subsidies to the buggy whip plant or something retarded like that.

Anyway, that's what I mean about we were fine under the gold standard. The system was straight, and an economy in which the currency is stable and the economy is booming under technological growth such as in the 19th century and what we've experienced helps us all. The banks are the force that have proven to be the snake in the garden.

Jackals Home - Frankly, if I'm being emotional, it's because I resent being dragged into a discussion that is in no way designed to be a legitimate discussion. Like I said, I came into it not caring about the fucking gold standard. Fortunately for me, I'm confident enough that enough Nobel winners and Harvard laureates are out there to successfully keep the country from reverting to a dopey, disproven system. I don't think I'm in any danger from it.

What I resent is that you, Muhammad, frame this as a discussion, as if you're looking to examine the issue, and make an educated decision on it. But you're not. It's not in good faith. I'm here as a prop to reinforce your belief structure, because you thrive on being the guy with secret knowledge. You want to feel like the guy with the water engine, and you cast your friends and family as the evil corporate empty suits to hammer at you saying "It'll never work, oil is where it's at!" We're cast members in a show put on to make you feel more like a misunderstood outsider.

"Those Harvard guys, that Nobel family! They're all against me! My precious engine! My gold standard! I must be doing something right! I will revolutionize the world with my ideas!"

You were pleading for someone to take the part of "Enemy of progress," you weren't looking for facts or educated opinions, or anything other than someone to tell you you're wrong, so you could feel more dogmatic in your "rightness."

I felt creeped out and angry about this all day, and it's still pretty much true, so, like Abdur, i am out again. Enjoy posting your blocks of text about the Evil money trust. At this point I'm sure the ceaseless waves of our rhetoric haven't shaken a single grain of your mighty sandcastle of intractibility. Good job, I guess. You were the most intractable. I'll be sure and send you a crown.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "(unaddressed by you in any way, because you are too chickenshit to do so..."

Okay, thanks for reminding me, I was planning to grab that guy's posts and address it but I got derailed from my topic[s] because of you clowns.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "If everything I post is 'too mainstream' to be considered..."

Only when it comes to certain concepts. The mainstream is full of a LOT of stuff, good and bad. Remember when we were talking about the typing keyboard? How the one we're using isn't the one designed to be most efficient, but it's the mainstream one now. It's a fallacy to suggest that any and everything in the mainstream is the best thing. We can't predict what will take off and become wildly popular and what will fail. "Critically acclaimed, but a commercial flop" is a normal part of life. And there are many people that cheat like rat bastards, forming monopolies so that a little start-up-that-could (Dell) won't come along and topple an established giant (IBM). In this particular topic concerning our financial system, a banking cartel known famously as the Money Trust (see: Wiki) are in control of our money supply, using techniques that destabilize the economy for their own gain. They want their gravy train to go on forever and not pop and collapse as in times past, so they are trying to hold it up... like a massive boulder balanced precariously on the peak of a mountain. But the consistent continuous inflation over the last 100 years has steadily weakened the USD, and that boulder will topple when the currency's value eventually reaches zero. The traditional fix has always been to return to a precious metals standard to restore citizen confidence and jumpstart the economy once more.

Jackals Home wrote: "...and being a tiny group of crackpots who are shunned and disregarded by economic experts means they're brilliant iconoclasts...

They are economic experts, too. There are competing schools of thought. What those folk think about other matters is irrelevant, hence your pet fallacy.

Jackals Home wrote: "...then that just makes me wonder what other shit you've got wired up backwards. Do you believe in immunizing your children?"

Yes. I read the materials on that, but I was unconvinced. For one, all tech has some risks. It's better to err on the side of caution, i.e., don't let the baby get polio or whatever. For two, for millennia caucasians couldn't even LOOK at the continent of Africa without falling down dead from some horrendous disease. Once the immunization tech was perfected now caucasians are all over it. Immunization tech is fine. The danger from it, other than an individual having some kind of rare reaction, is that you don't want to let them inject ALL of them into a new born at once. I think the evidence is strong that was what contributed to SIDS. Better to space them out over the recommended number of weeks. #criticalThinking

Jackals Home wrote: "Do you believe in flouridated water?"

Yeah. I don't want my teeth fucked up like the Brits. If the conspiracy theorists are correct and fluoridated water really IS a deadly poison that veeeerrrryyyy sllllooooowwwwllllyyy kills you over the course of what? 80-90 years? I'm basically like: Okay, so? #criticalThinking

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "Frankly, if I'm being emotional, it's because I resent being dragged into a discussion..."

You said you saw no reason to jump into this quagmire, I challenged you to stay and discuss it with me, and you said, "No."

lol And then you stayed. So how did I “drag you into it” again? lol

Muhammad Rasheed - My arms are too short to reach NC, James.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "At this point I'm sure the ceaseless waves of our rhetoric haven't shaken a single grain of your mighty sandcastle of intractibility."

Well, although fun (and often hurtful), you two's comments haven't moved me off of my stance for reasons already stated. I'm sorry I made you feel creeped out and angry, that was never my intention. I'll take it from here. Go on and work on your minis and stuff.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "Paul Krugman: Gold Standard Would Ruin U.S. Economy"

See I already addressed this up a ways, but you said I didn't address it at all. This goes with Abdur's post about what's the difference between being under each system if we experience the same stuff. The economy is more stable on the gold standard. The only reason why they prefer the fiat system is because they have total control over the market. Klugman's statement is misleading because it gives the impression that the panics were CAUSED by the gold standard and that is 100% not true, and it is also absolute bullshit that he would include dates that fell under the Great Depression. Let's look at the Panic of 1907 again:

Panic of 1907
"Primary causes of the run included a retraction of market liquidity by a number of New York City banks and a loss of confidence among depositors, exacerbated by unregulated side bets at bucket shops."

Can you see it? The direct causes of the trouble were the banks playing around with their speculative witchcraft. They tried to corner the market on copper stock, building another monopoly because that's the Money Trust's main weapon, but the bid failed. When the average Joe found out that the banks had been playing with THEIR money for the cornering scheme and LOST, they freaked the fuck out and made a 'bank run' on ALL the banks involved, snatching their gold out. That's the "panic" part. In merely a week this caused the "downfall of the Knickerbocker Trust Company—New York City's third-largest trust" creating a chain reaction panic that spread across the nation. The average person in those days didn't trust the banks AT ALLLLLL. Why? Because they were more informed at the time as to what banks do and how they operate. Remember recently, here in the 21st century, the banks were JUST released from the bulk of all those regulations that restrained them all these decades. But the modern populace didn't think it was a big deal, and didn't bat an eye... believing the banking industry's bs that they have OUR best interests at heart. Past generations knew better.

All of those Panics were like that, they were all caused by...

...let me double-check to make sure before I put out another definitive/absolute statement, since Abdur is trippin.' Hold on.


Panic of 1873
The background set up for this Panic was that it was after the civil war during the great American rail road era. The rail roads were the nations 2nd largest employer, and they were over-built because the US gov was throwing unlimited amounts of money at it; anybody and his brother who wanted to start a rail road company could get that free gov subsidy. Consequently, everybody was over-extended. The previous 37 years since the 2nd central bank of the USA's charter had lapsed, saw the banks very busy. They managed to get the National Banking Act passed which enabled them to create national banks to compete directly with state banks, and even got laws passed limiting state bank powers. Those state banks that manged to survive did so by being forced to partner with the national banks (which is their relationship today). Back in 1871 Germany had decided to stop minting their nation's silver coin, causing the demand for silver to drop. This hurt American mining businesses, but they would've been alright. But oddly, the US gov passed the Coinage Act of 1873 which made the leaders of the silver mining industry scream in outrage that it was the crime of the year, ruining them. Interestingly "silver dollars (worldwide) fell in value against the US dollar." The banks? They saw what Germany did, so they bought up all the silver and got that act passed? A major bank called Jay Cooke & Company over-extended itself to make yet another rail road company, and tried to get a $300 million loan from the gov and then found out their credit was worthless forcing them into bankruptcy. Once again this caused a chain reaction bank run that swept across the nation. The cause was over-extended bank credit and playing in the speculations industry again around the rail road industry.

Muhammad Rasheed - Panic of 1884
Fresh on the heels of the previous Panic above, the American people REEEALLY didn't trust those slimy fools. Wiki says that the "[g]old reserves of Europe were depleted" (since they were firmly in the grasp of the central bank, it means they had just handed their last gold crown over to their debt massa), and for some reason (what the fuck did that have to do with us?) the US Treasury Dept gave the NY national banks permission to halt all US investments and call in all their loans. Of course upon hearing THAT shit, every single person in NY wanted their fucking money right NOW!!! and 'ran' to get it, causing a bank run ripple the length and breadth of Wall Street, collapsing several firms.

Muhammad Rasheed - Panic of 1890
This was a London Panic that came from a bank owner named Baring fuckin' up by "excessive risk-taking on poor investments in Argentina." The entire Rothschild clan had to come out of pocket to bail him out, but not before it caused a recession and messed up Argentina really bad. This one doesn't count anyway since we're talking about the US under the gold standard and whether the gold standard caused the Panics or not.


Okay I take that last sentence back. It was 100% relevant.  Look at THIS one...

Muhammad Rasheed - Panic of 1893
This is a good one. For one, apparently the higher ups of the banks and Wall Street learned NOTHING from the Panic of 1873 except that they could get obscenely rich from fuckin' up, so the over-extensions and ultra risky speculations involving the rail road industry actually CONTINUED! Ain't that a bitch? A major Philadelphia based rail road company went bankrupt because of the same nonsense that made that Jay Cooke bank fall twenty years before, causing the first half of the national freakout. For two, lol, all the investors that were screwed by that London Baring bank fuck up in Argentina a few years back went to cash in and get their gold. All of them. This freaked out the already half-freaked out American people, who started another chain reaction bank run.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "

So, I repeat, all the Panics from 1873 up to the 1907 one were actually caused by the banks themselves. What did the gold standard do exactly? Well, of course all the cash in stores has to be represented by gold, so if I do a 'bank run' with all my cash in tow, you MUST give me my gold NOW. And if your ass had been illegally (or at least with special, temporary gov permissions) printing out more money than we had in stores, YOU will have to eat that, usually collapsing several banks. But I don't give a fuck. I have MY money. You shouldn't have been fucking up, Mr. Private Bank Entrepreneur. Perhaps the next bank owner that comes along WON'T be a greedy jackass. 'Tis doubtful, but it may be true through some queer twist of fate.

History has shown that the gold standard wasn't causing the financial crises. The only economists who argue otherwise, are those who support the current system devised by the Money Trust itself.

The gold standard was the bank's archenemy historically. The Panic of 1907 was the straw that broke the camel's back as far as J. P. Morgan was concerned. One of the actual Money Trust members, he was determined to have the ability to fuck up the markets at will and NOT have to bail himself out ever again...

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "The gold standard played a direct role in causing the Great Depression"

That's CLEARLY a lie.

"The Wall Street Crash of 1929... was the most devastating stock market crash in the history of the United States... [and] signaled the beginning of the 10-year Great Depression that affected all Western industrialized countries."

The Wall Street crash of 1929 caused the Great Depression. Well, did us being on the gold standard cause the stock market crash then? In all the financial crises up until then that we've looked at, NONE OF THEM were caused by being on the gold standard, but instead were caused by the banks and Wall Street itself manipulating the markets, over-extending, and playing with over-risky speculative tricks. Why wouldn't they have been directly responsible AGAIN considering the entire American financial system had just been handed over to the Money Trust just 16 years before, with which they generated massive debt to get us into a World War to play financial game footsies with their colleagues in the Old World? The history of the previous Panics has shown that the banks and Wall Street have ALWAYS caused the financial crises, but the gold standard has not.

I have my suspicions as to what caused the 1929 stock market crash of course. But let's have a look at the story...

No comments:

Post a Comment