StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Who's the more childish, the child or the child who runs crying from the room saying "he called me an idiot!"? Grow up. Some of us reading this learned stuff from this thread: what did YOU learn?

Attention Board Denizens
Unless kinnison has already replied to you at some point in this thread or you are repeating a request to address some point you made previous in this thread don't post the two line spammy dogpile responses. That list of people to note is Thanas, Nitram, Darth Wong, Samuel, Patrick Degan, Simplicius, The Spartan, Akhlut and finally Destructionator XIII. Are all people who did partial or full point by point responses to kinnison or to whom kinnison has replied to.




Also at this time I wish to offer The Coliseum to kinnison if he wishes to settle down for a response/counter response style debate on this issue in a more controlled and directed setting. If you so accept one person would step forward to debate you directly under a format mutually agreed on between the two of you. This is again I stress an offer from myself as I judge this a Coliseum worthy topic.

kinnison wrote:Mr Wong: I could take several hours picking apart your responses to what I've said, but I have a better idea. Before I express it, I might say that I have spent the better part ot three decades picking apart poorly controlled studies, and I am rather good at comprehending the concept and operation of a controlled study.

And yet you have demonstrated none of this ability here. You constantly lay claim to expertise you fail to demonstrate. Just look at your example of private vs public school where you conclude that the difference must be due to leftism rather than the fact that the private schools are able to exclude certain students.

Unfortunately, it is a fact that "controlled" studies are in a large proportion of cases either counterproductive, or unethical, or both. Many medical trials, for example, have holes that (to use an old-fashioned simile) one could drive a coach and horses through, the usual sticking point being sampling bias.

So if perfectly controlled studies are impossible in sociology, you conclude that you should not even bother trying, and the best policy is to simply ignore the whole concept of controls when drawing conclusions? And you seriously expect anyone to believe your claims of scientific expertise?

Add this to the fact that you have made personal attacks on me; on my personal integrity, intelligence and honesty at the very least, and have made arguments that have little or no (mostly no) relevance to what I've said in the post to which you are supposed to be replying at any given time.

Bullshit. Your dishonesty has been DEMONSTRATED in this thread, by your outright refusal to address 90% of the points sent your way. Anyone who reads this thread will be able to plainly see that while I have been making point-by-point answers, you have been completely IGNORING almost all of what is said to you.

When you asked for criterion for determining whether a service should be provided by the government, I immediately answered by providing just such a criterion, which you completely IGNORED in all subsequent posts. This was perhaps the most central point in the entire discussion, and you chose to ignore it because you did not expect an answer and then you got one anyway.

Having due consideration to your status as a board moderator on this site, nevertheless I'll give the Terminator response - FUCK YOU ASSHOLE! I'm done with this thread. I'd like to remind you that it's usually a good idea, before threatening someone with a gun, to make sure it's loaded.

I never threatened you with anything. However, since you're already ACTING as if I have been threatening you, I might as well do so now. Answer my points or I'll ban your worthless lying ass. It's pretty obvious you're an immature little shit who's pretending to be smarter than you really are, and who would rather slink off this board in a dramatic show of pride and bullshit than admit your mistakes.

OK, Mr Wong, one more time, and replies to your latest post on this thread.

Private and public schools? Let's see, and let's make some assumptions. Assumption 1 is that education is improved by spending more money on it, on such things as teachers' salary, books, lab apparatus, stationery and reasonably comfortable buildings in which to do the teaching.

Assumption 2 is that teachers are like other people in that, on average, they will take the jobs (that they can get) that pay the most money.

Assumption 3 is that teachers are not all identical in ability or in dedication to the job, notably that some teachers are just useless no matter how hard they work at it and that some teachers will, if given the chance, do as little as possible for their pay. (There will be a subset of teachers that are both useless and lazy, of course.)

Assumption 4 is that some children are interested in learning and that some others are not, no matter how hard one tries to make them interested. (A really good teacher can move some of his charges from one group to the other, of course.)

Assumption 5 is that children not interested in learning disrupt and hinder the education of the ones that do.

Assumption 6 is that for any given subject there are objectively, and provably, better and worse methods for teaching it.

Assumption 7 is that government control of any social function lessens the proportion of the money available spent on it as a proportion of the total budget for that function, the difference being made up with extra bureaucratic costs; an example from the UK is that State schools usually answer to a local education board which has to be staffed. (This is not invariably true; some schools have the option to opt out of LEA control and do their own admin.)

Assumption 8 is that government control of anything leads to a greater spread of "liberal" (actually collectivist) ideals among the people responsible for it. This also applies to large organisations of a bureaucratic nature not run by the government, and includes notions that all children no matter how violent, disruptive and unpleasant are entitled to equal education.

Assumption 9 is that a government-run organisation is more likely to retain incompetent, lazy or dishonest staff than is a private one; perhaps because the discipline of the bottom line makes it that way in the case of the private organisation.

Assumption 10 is that the popularity among "educationalists" of a given teaching method is not related to its effectiveness; see 8 above.

2, 3 and 7 lead to; schools run by government are likely, on average, to employ worse teachers relative to the available budget than are privately-run ones - and 9 means that the really useless and/or lazy ones are more likely to stay employed. 1 leads to worse results in government-run schools than in privately-run ones, given the staff available and the pupils being taught.

(Oops, sorry, I just found a hidden assumption - that the total budget available is the same. Let's assume further, for the moment, that the argument is between schools funded by some sort of voucher system or direct grant and ones directly run by government - entirely privately funded schools such as English "public schools" are not germane here.)

6, 8 and 10 lead to the greater retention of ineffective teaching methods in State-run schools, driving down standards yet further. 4 and 5, together with 8 again, make them worse still.

A simplification of all the above is this: For a given child of reasonably average ability and dedication he is likely to get a better education in a decentralised system for the following reasons. He is likely to be taught by better teachers, using better methods and equipment in better surroundings, and have his education disrupted less by pig-ignorant yahoos. Why? Because less of the budget is going to be spent on the bureaucracy, incompetent teachers are more likely to be fired, disruptive pupils are more likely to be expelled, and the approved education methods are less likely to be driven by PC instead of effectiveness. An example of the latter is that some of the schools in the UK don't have any streaming by ability at all, for ideological reasons. This leads to a large proportion of pupils being bored and an approximately equal proportion being out of their depth, with very few finding the lessons both accessible and interesting.

A related question is whether the necessity for profit (or at least financial viability) in a privately-run school siphons off more or less money than the bureaucracy that always attaches itself to any State-run organisation. For what it's worth, my opinion is that it's less and that education should be paid for by a voucher system, to be applied however the parents like. An organisation to set and maintain standards would be necessary, of course; but that is already being paid for. Why do I think this? Because relative to the available money, more money would be spent on education and less on everything else attached to it. A privately-run school with poor results would simply close, as nobody would be sending their kids to it.

I think that the assumptions in the above are reasonable and supported by evidence; maybe you don't.

On the subject of controlled studies: I am thinking here specifically of medical studies and the related group of studies on various nutritional interventions. In such cases, a biased or poorly-designed study can lead to extremely serious consequences or, in a lesser case, to the waste of large amounts of money. Examples include the recent trial on beta-carotene as a potential preventative of lung cancer in smokers. That particular trial was negative in results; in fact there was a slightly increased risk among the test subjects. Why? Well, the best guess among professional nutritionists is that the beta-carotene was synthetic and therefore actually made matters worse, by blocking absorption sites for carotenoids found in the diet.

Another example is the use of healthy young adults in clinical studies on drugs intended entirely for use in the elderly.

It ought to be obvious that in any statistical study, sampling bias will probably make the results of the study worthless. Use the right sample for your purposes, and you can get any result you want.

kinnison wrote: Private and public schools? Let's see, and let's make some assumptions. Assumption 1 is that education is improved by spending more money on it, on such things as teachers' salary, books, lab apparatus, stationery and reasonably comfortable buildings in which to do the teaching.

Wrong. The American health care system costs per capita are far more than its European counterparts and provides shittier outcomes. This includes the cost for the person and the cost for state. How a system is run matters. You also make the assumption that a public education system can't be well funded, which is incorrect. You just have to look at most of Western Europe, Korea, Japan, etc. for examples of nations with well funded and well managed public education systems (Relatively speaking).

Nations with well funded public education systems regularly make the top ten in international rankings of education systems.

kinnison wrote:Assumption 2 is that teachers are like other people in that, on average, they will take the jobs (that they can get) that pay the most money.

Your point being? Wait, that's right there isn't one.

kinnison wrote:Assumption 3 is that teachers are not all identical in ability or in dedication to the job, notably that some teachers are just useless no matter how hard they work at it and that some teachers will, if given the chance, do as little as possible for their pay. (There will be a subset of teachers that are both useless and lazy, of course.)

As with any other job, public or private. Any more gold nuggets of the fucking obvious?

kinnison wrote:Assumption 4 is that some children are interested in learning and that some others are not, no matter how hard one tries to make them interested. (A really good teacher can move some of his charges from one group to the other, of course.)

Er... What does this have to do with public or private education, since both these systems will deal with this particular problem?

kinnison wrote:Assumption 5 is that children not interested in learning disrupt and hinder the education of the ones that do.

That is often the case. Thank you, captain obvious.

kinnison wrote:Assumption 6 is that for any given subject there are objectively, and provably, better and worse methods for teaching it.

WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE POINT BEING DEBATED? DOES ANYBODY KNOW?

kinnison wrote:Assumption 7 is that government control of any social function lessens the proportion of the money available spent on it as a proportion of the total budget for that function, the difference being made up with extra bureaucratic costs; an example from the UK is that State schools usually answer to a local education board which has to be staffed. (This is not invariably true; some schools have the option to opt out of LEA control and do their own admin.)

A retarded assumption, there are numerous public education systems across the industrialized world that (when compared to the rest of the world, obviously) are efficiently managed and have good educational outcomes. You also make the assumption that more money being spent automatically means better marks and better educated students. It doesn't. A recent report in Australia indicated that public school students do better when they reach university than their private school counterparts. Source

kinnison wrote:Assumption 8 is that government control of anything leads to a greater spread of "liberal" (actually collectivist) ideals among the people responsible for it....

What the fuck are you talking about? Provide one example of an OECD government using public schools to spread "collectivist" ideals. Typical libertarian, making "assumptions" that fit in your ideological world view without a single shred of evidence.

kinnison wrote:....This also applies to large organisations of a bureaucratic nature not run by the government ....

So large organizations also spread "collectivist" ideals. Someone should tell Wallmart that they fucking dirty commies. Always knew something was dodgy about those arseholes. Stalinist douchebags.

kinnison wrote:., and includes notions that all children no matter how violent, disruptive and unpleasant are entitled to equal education.

Every child has the right to have an education, that is what a universal education system is, Einstein. This doesn't stop disruptive and violent students being removed and placed in special schools. There are approaches to dealing with disruptive students. You are advocating implicitly that some children shouldn't be educated. We should all return to the days of Victorian England, where children would be born into poverty and remain in poverty for the rest of their lives. What would decide which kids were "worthy" of education? How rich their parents are.

I wonder what would happen to kids with serious learning and behavior disabilities who don't have parents that are loaded. I guess in your world, since they can be disruptive and violent they should die on the streets somewhere as an urchin. Disabled? Have a severe learning disability? Go fuck yourself kid.

kinnison wrote:Assumption 9 is that a government-run organisation is more likely to retain incompetent, lazy or dishonest staff than is a private one; perhaps because the discipline of the bottom line makes it that way in the case of the private organisation.

There are many examples in the Industrialized world that contradict this. Feel free to continue to make fact free assertions. Check up the PISA test scores on the OCED website. They split it up into maths, science, etc. However, all of them constantly show that countries like Finland, Japan, Canada, etc. with public education systems with government oversight achieve the best results.

kinnison wrote:Assumption 10 is that the popularity among "educationalists" of a given teaching method is not related to its effectiveness; see 8 above.

What the fuck is an educationalist? You have never elaborated. Where is the proof this statement? I'm assuming there is none, since you have provided none despite numerous people asking you.

kinnison wrote:2, 3 and 7 lead to; schools run by government are likely, on average, to employ worse teachers relative to the available budget than are privately-run ones - and 9 means that the really useless and/or lazy ones are more likely to stay employed. 1 leads to worse results in government-run schools than in privately-run ones, given the staff available and the pupils being taught.

(Oops, sorry, I just found a hidden assumption - that the total budget available is the same. Let's assume further, for the moment, that the argument is between schools funded by some sort of voucher system or direct grant and ones directly run by government - entirely privately funded schools such as English "public schools" are not germane here.)

That's funny, results tables in Australia constantly show that government schools rank just as well or better than private schools, despite having a fraction of the private schools budgets. And as I have already pointed out, public school students have been shown to do better than private school students at University. The PISA results seem to also indicate public school systems produce good results. The country with exceptional performance, Finland relies mainly on a public school system. Private schools are not allowed to charge tuition fees. Their admission criteria must be exactly the same as the local public school. So they really aren't the public schools you have envisioned. This system has achieved excellent results.

Many other school systems with government oversight have also achieved good results.

Once again, your predictions are not borne by any actual data or evidence. How unsurprising.

kinnison wrote: 6, 8 and 10 lead to the greater retention of ineffective teaching methods in State-run schools, driving down standards yet further. 4 and 5, together with 8 again, make them worse still.

Statistical evidence of educational outcomes all over the industrialized world show otherwise. Can you even provide ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE for any of these claims?

Remember evidence? The stuff you avoid like everybody else avoids herpes?

kinnison wrote:A simplification of all the above is this: For a given child of reasonably average ability and dedication he is likely to get a better education in a decentralised system for the following reasons. He is likely to be taught by better teachers, using better methods and equipment in better surroundings, and have his education disrupted less by pig-ignorant yahoos. Why? Because less of the budget is going to be spent on the bureaucracy, incompetent teachers are more likely to be fired, disruptive pupils are more likely to be expelled, and the approved education methods are less likely to be driven by PC instead of effectiveness. An example of the latter is that some of the schools in the UK don't have any streaming by ability at all, for ideological reasons. This leads to a large proportion of pupils being bored and an approximately equal proportion being out of their depth, with very few finding the lessons both accessible and interesting.

Evidence shows otherwise. Yawn. I'm getting tired of repeating this. Typical libertarian bullshit tactic of coming up with assertions with absolutely no evidence.

kinnison wrote:I think that the assumptions in the above are reasonable and supported by evidence; maybe you don't.

You have not provided one single shred of evidence. Not one. You are a bullshitter of the highest order. If bullshit were compared to mountains your "arguments" would be the Mount Everest of bullshit.

kinnison wrote:Private and public schools? Let's see, and let's make some assumptions. Assumption 1 is that education is improved by spending more money on it, on such things as teachers' salary, books, lab apparatus, stationery and reasonably comfortable buildings in which to do the teaching.

Only true if the system is not sufficiently funded.

kinnison wrote:Assumption 7 is that government control of any social function lessens the proportion of the money available spent on it as a proportion of the total budget for that function, the difference being made up with extra bureaucratic costs; an example from the UK is that State schools usually answer to a local education board which has to be staffed. (This is not invariably true; some schools have the option to opt out of LEA control and do their own admin.)

So, in an attempt to prove that private industry does things better than public governmental service, one of your underlying axioms is that private industry does things better than public governmental service.



Additionally, it's demonstrably not true. The typical American HMO spends, on average, 16% of their budget on administrative overhead, ranging as high as 25-30% (source), while Medicare's administrative overhead is below 2% (source). So, not only are you using your conclusion to prove your conclusion, it's a false statement if used as evidence.

kinnison wrote:Assumption 8 is that government control of anything leads to a greater spread of "liberal" (actually collectivist) ideals among the people responsible for it. This also applies to large organisations of a bureaucratic nature not run by the government, and includes notions that all children no matter how violent, disruptive and unpleasant are entitled to equal education.

So, the SEC and Federal Reserve under George W. Bush spread collectivist ideals, rather than an ideology emphasizing individual liberty and deregulation at the expense of the common good? Funny, that's not what I remember...

The rest of your post is based on these faulty and self-serving assumptions, and need not even be addressed.

kinnison wrote:OK, Mr Wong, one more time, and replies to your latest post on this thread.

Private and public schools? Let's see, and let's make some assumptions.

<snip long list of assumptions>

I think that the assumptions in the above are reasonable and supported by evidence; maybe you don't.

I previously accused you of not knowing how to properly support your beliefs the way any academic student would be expected to, and you respond by listing your assumptions and declaring that you think they are supported by evidence, without showing how? You just proved my point for me, kiddo. You have no idea what the correct method of supporting an argument is.

On the subject of controlled studies: I am thinking here specifically of medical studies and the related group of studies on various nutritional interventions. In such cases, a biased or poorly-designed study can lead to extremely serious consequences or, in a lesser case, to the waste of large amounts of money.

How does this support your own conclusions, which employed methods which aren't even anywhere near as good as these "biased or poorly designed" studies you speak of? You sound like every anti-science crackpot I've ever seen: you point out flaws in mainstream science and then use them as an excuse to promote even more flawed conclusions of your own.

It ought to be obvious that in any statistical study, sampling bias will probably make the results of the study worthless. Use the right sample for your purposes, and you can get any result you want.

This is like saying that if you do science badly or dishonestly, you can produce bogus conclusions. Congratulations on seeing the obvious, but not realizing that this is why scientists insist on peer review. And once more: why do you think these criticisms of mainstream science somehow exonerate your own reasoning, which was shown to be far below the standards of even these flawed studies you speak of?

With each new post, you only prove my point again: you have no idea how to properly support your conclusions when challenged. Your work would be flunked by any university prof: if you handed in an argumentative paper where you supported your conclusions by listing ten assumptions and declaring by personal fiat alone that they are "reasonable and supported by evidence", he'd hand it back to you with a nice shiny red "F" grade and tell you to transfer to Communications so you can share a class with the football guys.

Damn I should have checked in earlier than Sunday. Anyway, here we go back to page 5:

Patrick Degan wrote:

Count Chocula wrote:
The pursuit of stable prices and moderate long-term interest are listed as the first area of the Fed's duties. Perhaps you could explain to me how a 95% decrease in the purchasing power of our currency lends stability to prices.

Congratulations, moron, you've discovered the concept of long-term inflation. Which, no matter how much you like to think you've done so, demonstrates nothing. Or have you failed to notice how the whole wage/price structure has adjusted along with that rate of inflation over the course of a century?

You're an idiot. The key problem with the Federal Reserve's hands at the levers is that it has resulted in unpredictable inflation, and wages do not adjust in tune with inflation, with the result that living costs increase while wages stagnate. Here's a 2007-2008 snapshot. Historically, inflation rates have varied wildly, which makes business planning more difficult and complicates such matters as attaining credit for business operations. Here are some historical inflation rates, from this source:

• 17.26% in 1918 (probably due to WW I)
• -10.85% in 1921
• -10.3% in 1933, when the Depression got rolling
• fast forwarding a bit: 1.07% in 1961
• 1.28% in 1964
• 6.16% in 1973
• 11.03% in 1974
• 6.5% in 1977
• 13.58% in 1980 (when mortgages got to 20% interest IIRC)
• 5.39% in 1990
• 2.34% in 1997
• down to 1-some-odd percent in 1998 and to 3.85% in 2008, after 10 years of hedonic adjustments and wild swings in gas, bread and milk prices

It's been less stable since the Fed's inception than beforehand. From this calculator, we see the following:

• $1 in 1800 would buy what cost $.49 in 1900 (steady fall of prices over a century!)
• $1 in 1800 currency would buy $.57 worth of merchandise in 1912
• $1 in 1800 currency would buy $1.17 in 1920....IOW, a 200%+ increase in costs over 8 years
• 1 1800 dollar would equate to $.81 in 1939, at the end of the Depression
• In 1950, the ratio went to $1.41, a near doubling in 10 years
• In 1960, it was $1.74, 25% inflation over 10 years
• By 1970, the ratio was $2.28, 31% over 10 years
• 1980 gets us $4.85; in one decade, inflation more than doubled!
• 1990 and we have $7.68, another near-doubling
• 2000 gets us $10.10, a more modest 20% inflation rate over 10 years
• $1 in 1800 would buy $12.50 in 2008 $$, reported 25% inflation since 2000 pre-TARP and trillion-dollar deficits.

Under the gold and silver standards, the money supply worldwide grew on averate 2% a year based on the ability to pull gold out of the ground. With exceptions like the Spanish conquest of the New World, bankers and borrowers had a pretty good idea of what price action based on money would be. Such can not be said today.

J wrote: It worked quite well until "Easy Al" Greenspan & other key members of the board was co-opted by the Goldman-Sachs mafia in the early 90's. Which led to all rules of prudent lending & banking practices being thrown out the window in the pursuit of profits along with turning a casual blind eye to widespread fraud and Enron accounting.

J brings up an excellent point. Understand that I am not opposed to a central bank; however, I would prefer that it be overseen by Congress, as the Constitution requires. That would make Congress accountable for their actions. Instead, we have appointed chairmen like Burns, Volcker, Greeeenspaaannn and Bernanke (for good or bad); non-elected individuals who decide fiscal policy that affects all Americans, without accountability for their actions. And surprise surprise, most Fed chairmen have come from the banking business; can you say conflict of interest?

Surlethe wrote:Who gives a shit about long-run inflation? Chocula, the Fed's duty is not simply to long-run price stability, but also to keeping unemployment at its natural rate in the short-run. 2% annual inflation is not a particularly big deal over a person's decision-making horizon unless they're particularly anal-retentive - the problem with inflation is when people have to take its effects into account when they're making one- or two-year decisions, and low-level long-run inflation's effect is not significant.

Surlethe, I agree with you. A predictable inflation rate under a fiat money system is simple to account for; large swings introduce problems. That debbil gold (and silver) used as the medium of exchange tend to produce 2% inflation or an equally steady deflation; in other words, precious metals as a currency base have produced smaller, more predictable swings in purchasing power. If our Fed chairmen kept the expansion of our debt-based currency stable, there'd be little contrast between it and older precious metal systems. I don't know much about central banking in Europe, so I have no clue how the EU inflation rate is managed.

Back to the kinnison brouhaha, already in progress....

Count Chocula wrote:Damn I should have checked in earlier than Sunday. Anyway, here we go back to page 5:

Patrick Degan wrote:

Count Chocula wrote:
The pursuit of stable prices and moderate long-term interest are listed as the first area of the Fed's duties. Perhaps you could explain to me how a 95% decrease in the purchasing power of our currency lends stability to prices.

Congratulations, moron, you've discovered the concept of long-term inflation. Which, no matter how much you like to think you've done so, demonstrates nothing. Or have you failed to notice how the whole wage/price structure has adjusted along with that rate of inflation over the course of a century?

You're an idiot.

Look who's talking.

The key problem with the Federal Reserve's hands at the levers is that it has resulted in unpredictable inflation, and wages do not adjust in tune with inflation, with the result that living costs increase while wages stagnate.<snip Chocula's laundry-list>.

Wrong again, stupid. Temporary variations in the rate do not indicate a failure of Fed policy long-term. There has never been such dramatic upsurges in the inflation rate in any given year or block of years which has induced runaway price increases or dollar devaluation, and your chart does not support any such argument no matter how much you like to imagine it does. You and only you are insisting upon the black/white fallacy of either perfect, totally predictable inflation control or the Fed's a complete failure. Furthermore, "wild swings" are not a 5% jump in one year and a steady fallback to the old rate two or three years later. Those would be something like 10-15% jumps and worse.

You also overlook the inconvenient fact that, for as long as currencies were tied to metals, every time there was a downturn the result was a freeze on credit which only turned what would have been recessions into full-blown depressions. I need only point to the fact that, in the years since the Panic of 1908, after which the Federal Reserve system was created, there has been only one major depression (1929-1934), and since the further addition of the New Deal programmes to guarantee bank deposits, regulate the banks, and the removal of the dollar from the gold standard, there have been none. Even the present economic crisis has not tipped into depression in part because credit has not completely frozen solid as it would have done months ago with a gold-standard in effect. Furthermore, commodities are not stable; their price fluctuates even more wildly than the rate of inflation does. Oil is a perfect example of this. The same has held true for gold and silver —especially when speculation enters into the mix (re: Nelson Bunker-Hunt and the Silver Bubble of the 70s).

To underscore the point, as pointed out by Prof. James D. Hamilton, University of California:

I argued in a paper titled, "The Role of the International Gold Standard in Propagating the Great Depression," published in Contemporary Policy Issues in 1988, that counting on a gold standard to enforce monetary and fiscal discipline in an environment in which speculators had great doubts about governments' ability to adhere to that discipline was a recipe for disaster. International capital flows became more erratic, not less, as doubts were raised about whether first the pound would be devalued and then the dollar. Britain gave in to the speculative attacks and abandoned gold in 1931, whereas the U.S. toughed it out by deliberately raising interest rates in 1931 at a time when the economy was already near free fall.

Because of this uncertainty, there was a big increase in demand for gold, the one safe asset in this setting, which meant the relative price of gold must rise. If everybody is trying to hoard more gold, you're going to have to pay more potatoes to get an ounce of gold. Since the U.S. insisted on holding the dollar price of gold fixed, this meant that the dollar price of potatoes had to fall. The longer a country stayed on the gold standard, the more overall deflation it experienced. Many of us are persuaded that this deflation greatly added to the economic difficulties of those countries that insisted on sticking with a fixed value of their currency in terms of gold.


Ben Bernanke and Harold James, in a paper called "The Gold Standard, Deflation, and Financial Crisis in the Great Depression: An International Comparison" published in 1991 (NBER working paper version here), noted that 13 other countries besides the U.K. had decided to abandon their currencies' gold parity in 1931. Bernanke and James' data for the average growth rate of industrial production for these countries (plotted in the top panel above) was positive in every year from 1932 on. Countries that stayed on gold, by contrast, experienced an average output decline of 15% in 1932. The U.S. abandoned gold in 1933, after which its dramatic recovery immediately began. The same happened after Italy dropped the gold standard in 1934, and for Belgium when it went off in 1935. On the other hand, the three countries that stuck with gold through 1936 (France, Netherlands, and Poland) saw a 6% drop in industrial production in 1935, while the rest of the world was experiencing solid growth.

By abandoning gold, the United States started it's recovery faster than any country which remained tied to gold as it's monetary standard. By sticking to gold as it did before FDR, the United States experienced severe deflation. And for those countries which stuck to gold after 1934, their economies stagnated or slumped further.

To sum it up, Chocula, you're an idiot.

Simplicius wrote:And who will vote in the interests of the underclass, if they cannot do so themselves?

Indeed, to me the "no representation without taxation" policy looks nakedly, shamelessly tailored to open the doorway to anyone being dependent on any kind of government aid being totally fucked over by the selfishness of the rest of the population. It takes the franchise away from people who are benefitted by government aid, and confines it exclusively to those whose short-term economic interests are served by reducing it (and thus lightening the tax burden on themselves). The probable results are not difficult to imagine. The people who support it may like to talk about how it's a way of curbing the selfishness of people who would otherwise just vote themselves money, but it's telling how it does nothing about the selfishness of those who would vote themselves lower taxes at the cost of boning the poor.

My apologies if this seems like dogpiling, but I didn't see anyone else explicitly call this, and honestly I may seem to be Captain Obvious here I really thought it merited somebody pointing this out.

Destructionator, in a normal distribution (like IQ), the precentages are 68%, 90% and 99.5% for 1st, 2nd and 3rd standard deviations. For IQ, the standard is 15 points and the mean is 100 so all but 4.5% are above 70 IQ points.