[ExI] Warren Buffett is worried too and thinks Republicans are "asinine"

Kelly Anderson kellycoinguy at gmail.com
Tue Oct 22 19:43:37 UTC 2013

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:15 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com>wrote:
>> > But with the juggernaut that is Washington, how else do you slow it
>> down other than throwing bodies under it? This is a serious question. How
>> the hell do we slow it down?
> Easy, if you're in congress you vote to spend less money.

Uh, that just never happens. Or so rarely that I can't recall it, other
than "Dr. No", Ron Paul.

> And if things don't come out your way you try to convince others to come
> around to your way of thinking so that next time the outcome is different.
> What you DON'T do is have a temper tantrum and try your very best to
> destroy the world because you're angry that you lost.

So Obama in stating that he would not negotiate with the other side is MORE

> Well, wars are very expensive, the Republicans started 2 and refused to
> raise taxes to pay for them.

I was never in favor of the first or second Iraq war. I was not in favor of
the expensive nation building in Afghanistan.

> And then we entered the greatest economic downturn since the 1930's. And
> by the way, the Great Depression would have probably ended in 1938 if
> drastic measures were not taken to stop inflation,  inflation which did not
> exist in 1938. Sound familiar?

Not really. World War II ended the depression.

> > creationism.  The Tea Party holds no position on that subject.
> I don't know how you determine the position of the Tea Party about
> anything except by looking at the position of Tea Party members, and nearly
> all of the most prominent ones are creationists, and very vocal and
> militant ones too. And there is a connection, if you don't think logic is
> important in one subject, like biology, then you probably don't think logic
> is important in another subject, like economics. At any rate it would
> certainly be irrational to claim that there is not a very strong connection
> between the Tea Party and creationism.

There is indeed a strong correlation. I just find it irrelevant.

> > The president would have folded in the face of such pressure, and the
>> individual mandate for Obamacare would have been sensibly put off for a year
> It is time to face reality, the president is never EVER going to abandon
> Obama care. There are 2 reasons:
> 1) It was passed by the House and the Senate and the Supreme Court said it
> was constitutional and, although you may not like it, Obamacare is the
> single thing the president is most proud of having accomplished.

I know he's proud of it. I think it's going to blow up in his face though.

> 2) If Obama gives in to terrorist demands and they are seen to be
> successful then he knows that the exact same tactics will be used against
> him and future presidents again and again and again.

See, there you go calling the Tea Party terrorists. That's not the way to
build consensus, even amongst us friendly individuals.

>  > what CRAZY economic theory do you attribute to the Tea Party?
> How about the USA going back to the Gold Standard and in effect give China
> and Australia and the happenstance of geology the power that the Federal
> Reserve Board has now, as both countries produce more gold than the USA
> does. And Uzbekistan becomes a major world power and Japan and Briton and
> Germany and France become insignificant footnotes. Do you expect a radical
> change like that to happen in 90 minutes without blood in the streets?

China's star is rising regardless of the gold standard. They will own the
moon. I'm public about that on the Long Now Bet site. I am not in favor of
going back on the Gold Standard, but I wish the dollar was treated with a
little more reverence than quantitative easing pays to it. We are not
Zimbabwe or at least we shouldn't be.

> > We need a currency based on Work, in the Physics sense. You could value
> oil in the amount of Work it would do, and then you could value everything
> else in terms of oil.
> So how much Work in the physical sense does a computer programmer do, or a
> novelist, or a cancer researcher, or a Tea party politician?

The amount that someone will pay them in oil for that work. I wouldn't
personally pay much for any politician, though the argument could be made
that if you paid them enough, you would get better ones.

> > Money's main purpose is to simply avoid barter.
> Yes.
>> > To store wealth in between transactions.
> Yes.
> > Anything will serve this purpose
> No not just anything can serve that purpose, only those things that, for
> whatever reason, people have faith will retain its value in the future. And
> thanks to Tea Party Neanderthals in congress that is the faith that came
> within 90 minutes of being destroyed forever.

Political Theater. Pandering to their base. Just like the other side.

> > The reason that some of us like Bitcoin is that it is just such a
>> currency, and is largely independent of centralized meddling (other than
>> just declaring it illegal).
> If the free market decides it would prefer Bitcoins to dollars who am I to
> disagree, but that will take a long time if ever. Bitcoin, just like any
> other form of money, has value because people have faith it will be
> valuable in the future; right now far far fewer people have faith in
> Bitcoin than in the US dollar, so far far fewer people are willing to
> accept it as exchange. If Bitcoin can get over its wild and unpredictable
> price swings

I don't think it's all that wild. Silver did a bigger jump in 1978 and
everyone sees that as money.

> the faith people have in it could increase, but that sure as hell was not
> going to happen on Wednesday night in the 90 minutes before the dollar was
> lynched by hillbillies.

No, certainly Bitcoin is a long term bet.

> > The problem most people have with the debt and deficit is not related to
>> deflation or inflation, it's related to fairness.
> If the Tea Party can make rich people poor but can't make poor people rich
> then fuck fairness.

Sorry, it's the Liberals that want to make rich people poor by taxing them
into the ground. Seems you want to fuck fairness.

> > How can the government operate in perpetual deficit when individuals and
>> corporations can not?
> Because government can print money and corporations can't. Printing money
> can be a wonderful thing, or a terrible thing, it depends on the
> circumstances.

I think it's a terrible thing to print too much of it.

>>  >Every time the government prints a dollar, the dollar in your pocket
>> goes down in value just a little.
> During the last 5 years the free market has disagreed with you about that,
> despite a lot more dollars having been printed prices have not gone up, and
> I think the free market is wiser in these matters than you or me.

In what sense has the dollar not lost value? Gold has gone up a lot. Oil
has gone up. Everything of real value has gone up.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20131022/082c3871/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list