Forced Ranting
Still don’t get the concept of the “Petrodollar”

ordnungsokonomik:

I must be missing something important, hopefully someone can explain this to me.

If the Saudis agree to price their oil in dollars, that essentially places their oil in the same situation as goods produced in America. If the money supply doubles, the price of American goods double, including Saudi oil. This is no different than if the Saudis didn’t price their goods in dollars but in some other currency, since a doubling of the money supply would cause the exchange rate of the dollar to fall by half. Either way the price of oil would double in dollar terms. So there is definitely no sense in which the petrodollar allows inflation to be exported.

The only way inflation could be exported is if the price of oil in dollars was fixed. In that case, if the US money supply is expanded, oil would fail to rise proportionately with other goods priced in dollars, causing the relative price of oil to fall. More oil would be imported into the US, dollars would flow outwards (into foreign reserves), and American prices would rise less than otherwise would have. (This is why fixed exchange rate systems cause inflation or deflation to be transferred between countries.)

As to the question of whether the petrodollar raises global demand for US dollars, why this is important baffles me. After all, dollars are merely paper, the real value of American products hasn’t changed. If the Canadians decided they would adopt the US dollar as their currency, the result would be deflation as there would be the same quantity of US dollars spread across a greater amount of production. Sure, the dollar would be more valuable, but that rise in the value of the dollar would be exactly offset by a fall in the nominal incomes of Americans.

"The Petrodollar" was a creation of the diplomats, not economists. It was a project of Kissinger and Nixon as a weapon against the Soviets and the "3rd-world", aka non-aligned countries.

"Raising the global demand for dollars" has the effect of forcing increased reliance upon US (dollar)-based financial institutions to settle transactions, and that means that the US Government (through its regulatory system) can exert control over the transactions of 3rd parties, otherwise known as "sanctions".

If you need to use dollars to purchase some good on the global markets, and the US Government says “nobody using dollars can do business with you”, you’re suddenly going to have a hard time finding goods you are able to purchase. Even worse, your foreign reserves, deposited in a dollar-denominated account, would also be frozen and suddenly unavailable to make the purchase, even if you could find a seller.

Macro-economic analysis is not going to get you anywhere, because it’s not an economic system; it’s a system of power and control.

communismkills:

If anyone knows how to get rid of these stupid curls around your ears, let me know. Even if I straighten them, they go back to being curled and it looks blah.

Curls around your ears? You mean like these?

jenlog:

I think the argument that really shot through my belief in the state having an involvement in healthcare was, as D. Friedman describes it, the time the FDA admitted to killing 100,000 people.

I know what libertarianism is, okay? I watched hours of youtube videos mostly of julie borowski

eltigrechico:

Commenting on the state of the libertarian movement after the rapid growth in the 1970’s R.J. Smith once lamented to Brian Doherty

…it used to be that if you met a fellow libertarian, they were truly libertarian. They had read everything and knew everything—and now everybody’s a libertarian and no one reads anything. It’s just astounding—ask them the most basic book, they’ve never read it—‘I’m just a libertarian.’

In a sense, this is a good thing, as it shows the spread of libertarian ideas. If you talked to the average abolitionist in the 1840’s and 1850’s they were probably very well versed in the anti-slavery literature. They perhaps subscribed to The Liberator, they knew who Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison (et al) were and were familiar with their writings. They could themselves probably articulate a sound anti-slavery argument which they could defend well. But today, none of us know anything of that literature, because we have so absorbed the abolitionists central tenet that we don’t need to study, we just believe that slavery is wrong. And that’s certainly all the better for the cause of freedom.

So, as libertarian ideas become more commonplace in American society, we are likely to see more and more people who call themselves “libertarians” and even “ex-libertarians” who don’t know jack shit about what they are talking about. It’s a sign of progress. Even if it is infuriating and obnoxious to hear these people spout loudly about things they obviously haven’t bothered to give much attention or study to.

Hopefully, one day the earth will be entirely populated with such ignorant “libertarians”. And those who still bother to study libertarian ideas will be driven nuts by them, but at least they’ll be free.

It was eye-opening to me to talk about politics with Polish people, who had zero exposure to Liberal or Scottish Enlightenment philosophers. They forced me to consider just how many rhetorical shortcuts I had become used to making. In the US, when you refer to arguments made by the Founders, or by Rawls, or Locke, Hobbes, and Hume, most reasonably-well educated people will at least have a rough understanding of the argument being made.

With the Poles, I had to start over and explain the basic assumptions and foundational logic that I was basing my perspective upon. It made for some interesting conversations, and a few embarrassing moments. 

According to that graphic, Vermont has “high incidents of gun violence”. I call bullshit. Both graphics are actually just county-level electoral maps; neither has anything to do with crime.

According to that graphic, Vermont has “high incidents of gun violence”. I call bullshit.

Both graphics are actually just county-level electoral maps; neither has anything to do with crime.

rvd420:

deathoftheobject:

"welcome to my fucked up mind. i probably hate you. follow for follow"

I feel like if you did a statistical analysis of tumblr that exact sequence of words would appear at least once on over forty percent of the blogs on here

image

mmmmbeefy96:

xenotran:

johnmosesbrowningvevo:

Paprika>Garam Masala>Every other spice

discuss

Disgust

Cinnamon is superior in every way.

Black Pepper is the King of Spices.

I remember you asked me a long time ago while Kant shouldn't be considered a libertarian and I forgot to reply. I had a conversation about Kant yesterday and it reminded me of it. Kant was a socialists. He thought that the world could not function without state intervention and that citizens ought to comply with a strict system of rules in order to achieve greater collective freedom. He talks of freedom a lot but it's hard to see what his idea of freedom means in the material world.

While many of Kant’s followers ended up being Socialists, in my (admittedly limited) reading of Kant, he always seemed to be more of a Liberal. Take his pamphlet, The Doctrine of Rights, for example. In it, he argues in favor of a system of private property rights. While I prefer Locke’s formulation, Kant comes to broadly similar conclusions, despite the different assumptions and reasoning.

The Applied Ballistics Mobile App runs a Point Mass ballistic solver; the state of the art ballistic solver calculates long-range rifle trajectories, and along with the library of ballistic coefficients provided by Bryan Litz, makes this the most accurate and complete ballistics app available.

The program integrates the equations of ballistic motion numerically, using a 4th-order Runge-Kutta method ; the standard way of solving dynamic equations of motion in aircraft and missile simulations.  Former missile design engineer, ballistician and President of Applied Ballistics, LLC, Bryan Litz wrote this solver, which is common among many of the Applied Ballistics devices – providing the same accuracy you expect.

The application also comes with G1 and G7 BC’s for over 1,300 bullets- allowing users to easily select their bullet and have its data loaded into each individual ammo profile automatically.

butmuhgains:

titovka-and-bergmutzen:

paintedcowboy:

marinthomas:

Cowboy Lingo: Suicide Gun
Suicide Gun…Cowboys called the Colt .32 a suicide gun because it lacked the power to stop an assailant dead in his tracks and thus often led to the death of the man who fired it.

Amen. Same with the modern 9mm.

That .45 Shopkeeper’s Friend in the back has seen some use.

No, not the “same with the modern 9mm”. Stopping your defender depends on shot placement. If you miss with a .45 you’re just as fucked as with 9mm. With 9mm, you have twice as many chances to hit vital organs.
No, it doesn’t have as large lasting cavities, but with a higher velocity, it disrupts the body more while it’s moving through.

You should inform the military of your discovery. 

"The 9mm doesn’t score high with soldier feedback," said Easlick, explaining that the Army, and the other services, want a round that will have better terminal effects — or cause more damage — when it hits enemy combatants. "We have to do better than our current 9mm."

butmuhgains:

titovka-and-bergmutzen:

paintedcowboy:

marinthomas:

Cowboy Lingo: Suicide Gun

Suicide Gun…Cowboys called the Colt .32 a suicide gun because it lacked the power to stop an assailant dead in his tracks and thus often led to the death of the man who fired it.

Amen. Same with the modern 9mm.

That .45 Shopkeeper’s Friend in the back has seen some use.

No, not the “same with the modern 9mm”. Stopping your defender depends on shot placement. If you miss with a .45 you’re just as fucked as with 9mm. With 9mm, you have twice as many chances to hit vital organs.

No, it doesn’t have as large lasting cavities, but with a higher velocity, it disrupts the body more while it’s moving through.

You should inform the military of your discovery.

"The 9mm doesn’t score high with soldier feedback," said Easlick, explaining that the Army, and the other services, want a round that will have better terminal effects — or cause more damage — when it hits enemy combatants. "We have to do better than our current 9mm."

i-am-dallas:

forcedranting:

i-am-dallas:

blackmack87:

i-am-dallas:

laliberty:

not-quite-snow-white:

laliberty:

Most people love stuff paid for by other people.

I’d rather have a government that actually provides services for the poor because I DON’T PUT THE VALUE OF MONEY OVER THE QUALITY OF OTHER PEOPLE’S LIVES 

not-quite-snow-white also added these tags: #because i am a decent human being#it’s not that hard you guys
So she is such a decent human being that she’s willing to force other people to be “decent” by threatening them with violence if they don’t pay for the things she believes help people. And nevermind the fact that the “value of money” ultimately cannot be separated from the utility a person places on it, i.e. “the quality of other people’s lives,” as it were.
In truth, charity is not charitable, it is not noble, when it is forced.
And government is no friend of the poor. Far from it. See here and here. 

This whole response is predicated on the false accusation that taxes are theft. This is the centerpiece of the libertarian (or anarchist) rhetorical strategy. It is claimed that you have to pay taxes or you are threatened with robbery, slavery and even death. This is nothing other than a misguided view on government and taxes. More than this, it is an appeal to emotion designed to inflame the reader.
This is not a dictatorship and taxation isn’t theft if there is active representation. Think of it as an HOA (Home Owners Association). As a member and resident of this club, you have the choice of either changing the laws yourself through the proper channels, voting for those who will change the laws to your liking (ie. removing dues or regulations), or moving out. No one is forcing you to be here.
If you don’t believe that societies success depends on many factors, one of which is helping the less fortunate, a stabilization of the market, foreign defense and contract protection, and a reinvestment in society (infrastructure), then move to a place that doesn’t have a government.
The argument that she’s “threatening other people with violence if they don’t [pay taxes]” is ultimately false because you can leave at any time and not have to pay the taxes. You are asserting, not only an extremist and incorrect view of government and taxation, but that, in the face of disaster, we should do nothing if just one doesn’t agree. Clearly this a recipe for disaster.
Voluntary societies are horseshit. They have never worked in large numbers and I suspect they never will. Sure, I’d love to live in a place where everyone was peaceful and everyone voluntarily helped out the rest of society, but that’s not the real world. We don’t live in a Utopia and we never will. If you invested just half of the effort you spent writing about this bullshit as you do to actually helping others, this really would be a better place and perhaps taxation wouldn’t be necessary.

Did this guy actually compared the state to a Home Owners Association? Holy shit.

VALID analogies are generally the most difficult to accept for those with an agenda.

Since when does an HOA require you to pay a percentage of your income, rather than a fixed sum? Since when does an HOA threaten you with violence and imprisonment for failing to heed its dictates?

All of those specifics you talk about are irrelevant to the “club effect” I am mentioning when comparing an HOA to paying taxes in the United States. It’s called an analogy, and it’s perfectly legitimate. You just don’t like it because it doesn’t sit with your extremist hyperbole.

The fundamental difference, though, between an HOA and the State, is precisely the one you ridicule: membership in an HOA is voluntary. Membership in a state is not.

You clearly didn’t read what I typed. Membership (aka citizenship) in the United States is voluntary. Don’t like it? LEAVE and you will never have to pay those fees again… JUST LIKE A HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION.
If you can’t find the analogy here, and if I have to break it down for you like the child that you are, I’d be happy to. Just let me know. There’s always free cheese in the mouse trap.

Membership in the US is not voluntary. It is bestowed upon people from birth, and the federal government claims the power to reject attempts to ex-patriate. To wit, from the State Dept:

Persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware of the fact that renunciation of U.S. citizenship may have no effect whatsoever on his or her U.S. tax or military service obligations

So, sure, you can leave….but that doesn’t mean you can leave. Can you show me an HOA which claims the power to collect fees from people who no longer live in the development?

i-am-dallas:

forcedranting:

i-am-dallas:

blackmack87:

i-am-dallas:

laliberty:

not-quite-snow-white:

laliberty:

Most people love stuff paid for by other people.

I’d rather have a government that actually provides services for the poor because I DON’T PUT THE VALUE OF MONEY OVER THE QUALITY OF OTHER PEOPLE’S LIVES 

not-quite-snow-white also added these tags: #because i am a decent human being#it’s not that hard you guys

So she is such a decent human being that she’s willing to force other people to be “decent” by threatening them with violence if they don’t pay for the things she believes help people. And nevermind the fact that the “value of money” ultimately cannot be separated from the utility a person places on it, i.e. “the quality of other people’s lives,” as it were.

In truth, charity is not charitable, it is not noble, when it is forced.

And government is no friend of the poor. Far from it. See here and here

This whole response is predicated on the false accusation that taxes are theft. This is the centerpiece of the libertarian (or anarchist) rhetorical strategy. It is claimed that you have to pay taxes or you are threatened with robbery, slavery and even death. This is nothing other than a misguided view on government and taxes. More than this, it is an appeal to emotion designed to inflame the reader.

This is not a dictatorship and taxation isn’t theft if there is active representation. Think of it as an HOA (Home Owners Association). As a member and resident of this club, you have the choice of either changing the laws yourself through the proper channels, voting for those who will change the laws to your liking (ie. removing dues or regulations), or moving out. No one is forcing you to be here.

If you don’t believe that societies success depends on many factors, one of which is helping the less fortunate, a stabilization of the market, foreign defense and contract protection, and a reinvestment in society (infrastructure), then move to a place that doesn’t have a government.

The argument that she’s “threatening other people with violence if they don’t [pay taxes]” is ultimately false because you can leave at any time and not have to pay the taxes. You are asserting, not only an extremist and incorrect view of government and taxation, but that, in the face of disaster, we should do nothing if just one doesn’t agree. Clearly this a recipe for disaster.

Voluntary societies are horseshit. They have never worked in large numbers and I suspect they never will. Sure, I’d love to live in a place where everyone was peaceful and everyone voluntarily helped out the rest of society, but that’s not the real world. We don’t live in a Utopia and we never will. If you invested just half of the effort you spent writing about this bullshit as you do to actually helping others, this really would be a better place and perhaps taxation wouldn’t be necessary.

Did this guy actually compared the state to a Home Owners Association? Holy shit.

VALID analogies are generally the most difficult to accept for those with an agenda.

Since when does an HOA require you to pay a percentage of your income, rather than a fixed sum? Since when does an HOA threaten you with violence and imprisonment for failing to heed its dictates?

All of those specifics you talk about are irrelevant to the “club effect” I am mentioning when comparing an HOA to paying taxes in the United States. It’s called an analogy, and it’s perfectly legitimate. You just don’t like it because it doesn’t sit with your extremist hyperbole.

The fundamental difference, though, between an HOA and the State, is precisely the one you ridicule: membership in an HOA is voluntary. Membership in a state is not.

You clearly didn’t read what I typed. Membership (aka citizenship) in the United States is voluntary. Don’t like it? LEAVE and you will never have to pay those fees again… JUST LIKE A HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION.

If you can’t find the analogy here, and if I have to break it down for you like the child that you are, I’d be happy to. Just let me know. There’s always free cheese in the mouse trap.

Membership in the US is not voluntary. It is bestowed upon people from birth, and the federal government claims the power to reject attempts to ex-patriate. To wit, from the State Dept:

Persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware of the fact that renunciation of U.S. citizenship may have no effect whatsoever on his or her U.S. tax or military service obligations

So, sure, you can leave….but that doesn’t mean you can leave.

Can you show me an HOA which claims the power to collect fees from people who no longer live in the development?

Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to provide food to its employees, which is why they all starved to death long ago.
Robert Murphy (via communismkills)
i-am-dallas:

blackmack87:

i-am-dallas:

laliberty:

not-quite-snow-white:

laliberty:

Most people love stuff paid for by other people.

I’d rather have a government that actually provides services for the poor because I DON’T PUT THE VALUE OF MONEY OVER THE QUALITY OF OTHER PEOPLE’S LIVES 

not-quite-snow-white also added these tags: #because i am a decent human being#it’s not that hard you guys
So she is such a decent human being that she’s willing to force other people to be “decent” by threatening them with violence if they don’t pay for the things she believes help people. And nevermind the fact that the “value of money” ultimately cannot be separated from the utility a person places on it, i.e. “the quality of other people’s lives,” as it were.
In truth, charity is not charitable, it is not noble, when it is forced.
And government is no friend of the poor. Far from it. See here and here. 

This whole response is predicated on the false accusation that taxes are theft. This is the centerpiece of the libertarian (or anarchist) rhetorical strategy. It is claimed that you have to pay taxes or you are threatened with robbery, slavery and even death. This is nothing other than a misguided view on government and taxes. More than this, it is an appeal to emotion designed to inflame the reader.
This is not a dictatorship and taxation isn’t theft if there is active representation. Think of it as an HOA (Home Owners Association). As a member and resident of this club, you have the choice of either changing the laws yourself through the proper channels, voting for those who will change the laws to your liking (ie. removing dues or regulations), or moving out. No one is forcing you to be here.
If you don’t believe that societies success depends on many factors, one of which is helping the less fortunate, a stabilization of the market, foreign defense and contract protection, and a reinvestment in society (infrastructure), then move to a place that doesn’t have a government.
The argument that she’s “threatening other people with violence if they don’t [pay taxes]” is ultimately false because you can leave at any time and not have to pay the taxes. You are asserting, not only an extremist and incorrect view of government and taxation, but that, in the face of disaster, we should do nothing if just one doesn’t agree. Clearly this a recipe for disaster.
Voluntary societies are horseshit. They have never worked in large numbers and I suspect they never will. Sure, I’d love to live in a place where everyone was peaceful and everyone voluntarily helped out the rest of society, but that’s not the real world. We don’t live in a Utopia and we never will. If you invested just half of the effort you spent writing about this bullshit as you do to actually helping others, this really would be a better place and perhaps taxation wouldn’t be necessary.

Did this guy actually compared the state to a Home Owners Association? Holy shit.

VALID analogies are generally the most difficult to accept for those with an agenda.

Since when does an HOA require you to pay a percentage of your income, rather than a fixed sum? Since when does an HOA threaten you with violence and imprisonment for failing to heed its dictates? The fundamental difference, though, between an HOA and the State, is precisely the one you ridicule: membership in an HOA is voluntary. Membership in a state is not.

i-am-dallas:

blackmack87:

i-am-dallas:

laliberty:

not-quite-snow-white:

laliberty:

Most people love stuff paid for by other people.

I’d rather have a government that actually provides services for the poor because I DON’T PUT THE VALUE OF MONEY OVER THE QUALITY OF OTHER PEOPLE’S LIVES 

not-quite-snow-white also added these tags: #because i am a decent human being#it’s not that hard you guys

So she is such a decent human being that she’s willing to force other people to be “decent” by threatening them with violence if they don’t pay for the things she believes help people. And nevermind the fact that the “value of money” ultimately cannot be separated from the utility a person places on it, i.e. “the quality of other people’s lives,” as it were.

In truth, charity is not charitable, it is not noble, when it is forced.

And government is no friend of the poor. Far from it. See here and here

This whole response is predicated on the false accusation that taxes are theft. This is the centerpiece of the libertarian (or anarchist) rhetorical strategy. It is claimed that you have to pay taxes or you are threatened with robbery, slavery and even death. This is nothing other than a misguided view on government and taxes. More than this, it is an appeal to emotion designed to inflame the reader.

This is not a dictatorship and taxation isn’t theft if there is active representation. Think of it as an HOA (Home Owners Association). As a member and resident of this club, you have the choice of either changing the laws yourself through the proper channels, voting for those who will change the laws to your liking (ie. removing dues or regulations), or moving out. No one is forcing you to be here.

If you don’t believe that societies success depends on many factors, one of which is helping the less fortunate, a stabilization of the market, foreign defense and contract protection, and a reinvestment in society (infrastructure), then move to a place that doesn’t have a government.

The argument that she’s “threatening other people with violence if they don’t [pay taxes]” is ultimately false because you can leave at any time and not have to pay the taxes. You are asserting, not only an extremist and incorrect view of government and taxation, but that, in the face of disaster, we should do nothing if just one doesn’t agree. Clearly this a recipe for disaster.

Voluntary societies are horseshit. They have never worked in large numbers and I suspect they never will. Sure, I’d love to live in a place where everyone was peaceful and everyone voluntarily helped out the rest of society, but that’s not the real world. We don’t live in a Utopia and we never will. If you invested just half of the effort you spent writing about this bullshit as you do to actually helping others, this really would be a better place and perhaps taxation wouldn’t be necessary.

Did this guy actually compared the state to a Home Owners Association? Holy shit.

VALID analogies are generally the most difficult to accept for those with an agenda.

Since when does an HOA require you to pay a percentage of your income, rather than a fixed sum? Since when does an HOA threaten you with violence and imprisonment for failing to heed its dictates?

The fundamental difference, though, between an HOA and the State, is precisely the one you ridicule: membership in an HOA is voluntary. Membership in a state is not.