Guest Post: Thought Experiment: Why Obama Wants The Fiscal Cliff

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Lance Roberts of Street Talk Live,

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
MFLTucson's picture

Lets go all the way back and only allow men to vote.

Nothing To See Here's picture

Sorry for asking but... does anyone here knows a woman who understands gold, except for jewelry purposes?

Truly, from what I know, I am amazed by the gap of interest about finance and economics between males and females. And not surprisingly, lefties get the women's vote in every instance, no matter the country.

aheady's picture

Sorry for answering but... go fuck yourself.

cornedmutton's picture

Ann Barnhardt (a female) appears to understand gold the best I can tell.

Dr. Sandi's picture

Too many people with a dick use it as their major cognitive organ.

Jumbotron's picture

Becky Quick said:

and the problem is that that 80% turns out to vote in huge numbers. we should go back to only land owners being allowed to vote.


Well...why stop there?  Let's bring back the 3/5 Compromise and juice that landowner vote up a bit.


Go back to sucking Buffett's dick Becky.

Confundido's picture

"...Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?

When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept. Ambition should be made of sterner stuff. Yet Brutus says he was ambitious, And Brutus is an honorable man. You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, Which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition?...:
SmoothCoolSmoke's picture

and low taxes on the 1% creates jobs .....right?  Tired of that disproven lie.


Turin Turambar's picture

Morally, it doesn't matter if any jobs are created or not.  Theft is theft.  Your moral compass is more than slightly askew if you think your decision on from whom to steal being made based upon the wealth of your mark somehow makes it virtuous.  You're no different than a petty criminal in that respect (petty criminals know there's more loot to be had from richer people), except that you don't even have the cajones to do it yourself.  You prefer to hide anonymously in a mob like a gutless coward and then preach to us about how virtuous you are after having robbed other people of the fruits of their labor.

Nothing To See Here's picture

Hey I think you just wrote the sequel to 1984.

War is peace. Slavery is freedom. Ignorance is strenght...

...and Taxation is not Theft.

Panafrican Funktron Robot's picture

If taxation is not theft

And inflation is not taxation

Then inflation is not theft.

Do I get a job at the Fed now?

Grinder74's picture


If I'm not able to refuse payment, then yes, it is theft.

Bwahaha WAGFDSMB's picture

I'll grant that taxation is theft, if you'll grant that all income derived from ownership is theft.  Rent, interest, profits, and dividends are all theft.

Grinder74's picture

Fail.  One can choose to not rent, not buy a product and not contribute to profits.  But I am forced to pay taxes on pain of forfeiture and/or prison.  Again, if I can't refuse to pay taxes just like I refuse to pay for a defective product, than it is theft.

LawsofPhysics's picture

Do you consider inflation theft?  Debasing the very currency in which the value of your labor is stored without your consent or knowledge seems a bit more like a real fucking criminal form of theft.  Pull your head out of your ass.

Dr. Sandi's picture

Fiat currency itself is theft. That is its major purpose. When government creates the money, it gets to set the financial stage.

aerojet's picture

You can do what rich people and dirt poor people do and have no taxable income.

Turin Turambar's picture

You'll "grant" that taxation (coerced confiscation) is theft, if I'll "grant" that rent, interest, et al (voluntary payment upon voluntarily agreed upon terms) is theft?  How logically ridiculous of you!  LOL

MachoMan's picture

You don't have to go there per se...  that's overstretching a bit...  all income derived from ownership is not theft, however a substantial portion of it is given the public/private marriage/bailout system, inside information, exchange protected trading, etc.  It is necessary to differentiate between sources and types of income to ensure you do not fall prey to the mob mentality.

Turin Turambar's picture

With an individual's just property, it is nobody's business as to what the income is or isn't as it pertains to his property, unless the owner voluntarily agrees to share the information, so differentiation is not necessary unless the property owner wishes to do so for economic accounting, or in the case that some non-owning entity is coercing the information from the property owner against his will, which in that case it is unethical, and should be illegal.


See if you can read that sentence out loud without taking a breath?  ;-)  LOL


MachoMan's picture

Nice slight of hand.  

"With an individual's just property..."

So...  begs the question...  how do we determine whether the property is "justly" obtained if disclosure is impossible?

Turin Turambar's picture

Rothbard outlines just property in Ethics of Liberty and why it is important that this question be answered properly.  I'll refer you to his work for a rigorous treatment of just property rights.  As to your butchery of basic logic, why do you assume that disclosure is impossible?  Regarding ownership, if there is nobody who disputes a person's ownership of property, then that should be sufficient until such time as another's claim on said property is presented.  If there is a dispute regarding ownership, then there are legal means to resolve the question of just ownership.  See, that wasn't that hard now, was it?


MachoMan's picture

The problem with your thesis is that it ignores the present situation of the legal and enforcement system.  As it stands, there is no legal mechanism in which to enforce the legal framework and, thus, it is patently impossible to determine whether property obtained is "justly" obtained.  In other words, if there is no mechanism of forced disclosure (e.g. getting hauled to court), then it's an inherent non-starter...  the system cannot recoup any illicit gains or curtail any illicit practices.

I'll also ask what planet you're living on to think that there is no one that claims virtually all the property of another?  It's a zero sum game...  actually, it's worse than a zero sum game because the pie is shrinking.  Think how the phrase getting "corzined" was developed...  or south park's "and it's gone..."  It's disingenuous for you to ignore...

Effectively, your thesis simply boils down to might makes right...  which has been thoroughly discredited ages ago.  This academic bubble from which you pontificate is completely and totally not fit for the real world.  Maybe if we were creating a new system with all the constraints (all else equal) implemented for your thesis to hold water, then and only then would it be practical to discuss...  until that day, welcome to the party...  and, given your thesis, welcome to the consequences of enticing the mob...  it will behave in reckless and arbitrary fashion to enforce "social justice".

Turin Turambar's picture

"Effectively, your thesis simply boils down to might makes right... "


Sigh, your reading comprehension skills are lower than your critical thinking skills.  The basic axiom of Libertarianism is the non-aggression principle.  Get back to me when you can square that with what you said above.  Until then, no more casting pearls before swine for me.


MachoMan's picture

First, you can speak in vaguaries and generalities all you want...  you're not backing up your original thesis nor have you addressed any of my criticisms of your thesis.  The only thing you've managed to post is an ad hominem.

Second, presuming that your views somehow coincide perfectly with libertarianism, there are still incredibly large issues with the concept (some of which were stated in my post).  The implementation of less control, at this juncture, does nothing to cure past or present wrongs.  The market simply has no answer.  (neither does the textbook; it's time to apply theories to the real world).

Third, libertarianism is nearest anarchy on the spectrum between anarchy and socialism.  Inherently, some type of collective control (government) is necessary to ensure that might does not make right [albeit a bit of a conundrum since government is vested with the right to make might].  While libertarianism might protect physical ills associated with disparate social powers, we certainly can't say the same for socio economic status and the fair treatment of labor.  Coercion through economic control is the kissing cousin of slavery.  I'm not sure this is even capable of reasonable dispute at this juncture...  [hint: you have better arguments in the toolbox]. 

Diogenes's picture

"I'll grant that taxation is theft, if you'll grant that all income derived from ownership is theft.  Rent, interest, profits, and dividends are all theft."

A fair exchange is no robbery. If you receive value for money in a voluntary exchange how is that theft?

MachoMan's picture

If all economic actions were simply a meeting of the minds between voluntary participants, then we would not even need to have the discussion...  the economy would be humming like an old sewing machine.  [hint: necessities; propaganda; education; etc.]

Almost Solvent's picture


Let's make sure we differentiate between legit wealth and this wealth. That is those who actually did something of value to earn vs. wall street/DC cronyism.


Cause I will fucking rob steal and murder the latter once this facade finally falls away along with my mob.



Turin Turambar's picture


Implicit in my position is just property rights.  Rothbard explicity makes the important case for just property rights in his excellent book Ethics of Liberty.  I'll be more aware of including "just" in the future so as to tighten up my position.

Almost Solvent's picture

I thought so. Just checking.


yabyum's picture

Smooth, The 1% have had these tax breaks for years.....where are the fucking jobs?

Nothing To See Here's picture

Sorry that in your mind, things should be as so simple as to work under a function like (tax rate) -> (employment).

Once upon a time there was a guy who wanted to start a business in a low-tax state. Then he looked at the quadrillion pages of contradictory regulations which he would have had to comply with under the federal, state, municipal and regolatory levels. Then he changed his plan.

Snoopy the Economist's picture


Please show me the last job created by a poor person. Don't even bring up gov't jobs.

Everybodys All American's picture

Yep. Obama is a marxist. Any questions?

SmoothCoolSmoke's picture

and who do you think gave Marx his start?


NooooB's picture

I am a Groucho Marxist... That is all...

Diogenes's picture

Yeah, a Marxist whose family has worked for the CIA for 3 generations. A Marxist who sucks up to the biggest banks, corporations, unions and government agencies at the expense of the common people. Some Marxist.

NEOSERF's picture

Well the market right now is pretty clear that because two guys are talking and Obama goes to Hawaii on vacation starting Dec 17, this is getting done today..

john39's picture

Meanwhile patriot missles being installed in Turkey, U.S. aircraft carrier group arrives off the coast of syria...  the House of Reps passes the NDAA yesterday that includes instructions that the administration put together intervention plans....  nothing to see here... 

caconhma's picture

The US Congress is a bunch of clowns. It is another Kabuki show. They decide close to nothing.  They are paid servants to the Banking Mafia.

Somebody writes for them all the legislations and tells them how to vote and in what sequence. There is a certain amount of money provided to the Congress members (they fight for between each other) to reward themselves for their performance and to assure their next reelection.

surf0766's picture

Why? So the transformation can be completed !

Turin Turambar's picture

"Never let a good crisis go to waste."


I know, I know.  The term "fiscal cliff" is absurdly hyperbolic.  Still, it won't be good for the economy, Then again, sometimes you've got to break a few eggs to make an omelette.  Right Barry?