DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

Countries will continue, and as for Greece – Yes, Greece will continue, either as its own country or be absorbed into a larger conglomeration such as the "New European Unionized Peoples Republic" (don't worry STS, this is something I just made up) or whatever the failing European Union will evolve into.

Note to TheJared – Since the World Economy (like the U.S. economy) is wholly based on the world's governments ability to tax the worlds population, the "economy" per se will never totally collapse, rather it will have rises and falls just like we have recently experienced, thereby giving the governments of the world total control over the worlds population . . . That is until the worlds population finally sees the light and does something positive for a change. B)

One point of order: "Countries will continue" and then "be absorbed into a larger conglomeration" are two separate statements and thus two separate possible outcomes. There are lots of independent states throughout history that no longer exist, absorbed by larger countries, or which have been carved into and out of existence. Greece itself is one such country, given its history being conquered by Macedonia, Rome, or the Ottomans.

If you are talking about the concept of "nations", with distinct cultural identities and histories, then Greece has a lot more going for it than in the actual political organisation into a state, but that's a different outcome than saying "Greece" as an independent nation-state will "continue", and a further distinction from saying "it will be absorbed", by.. whatever.

You cannot claim both things could happen and presume to be saying anything of interest. This is a meaningless opinion which you would have done better to just say "I do not know".

Second point. I think you have the "economy" backwards. The existence of nation-states largely depends on its ability to levy and collect taxes on the existence of economic activity occurring within its jurisdiction. But that economy doesn't exist because of the state. It often exists in spite of it. As far as levels of taxation by those states, no state, even totalitarian North Korea or China or Russia has ever possessed the ability to tax ALL economic activity. And most states lack such ambitions or the power to even consider realizing such ambitions. For example, Greece or Italy experiences enormous amounts of tax evasion where people just don't pay what they legally owe. The US experiences this in a different form where large loopholes or differentiated tax forms are used in order to legally evade the tax man.

The economy doesn't experience its rises and falls based upon the power of the state to seize monies as a result. If it did, taxes in the US are lower now than they were under the Clinton or Reagan administrations, even under the Bushv2 administration taxes are lower for many people (excise and state/local taxes excluded). By your logic, the economy should be booming. It isn't. This is because the economy has its own features and factors that relative government tax rates can at best influence. Within the confines of an economic Laffer curve, tax rates have minimal influence on economic activity within a state and most economists recognize that the US enjoys marginal rates which are well below that possibility. There are taxes that the US could cut or eliminate, but I haven't seen you propose doing so (corporate income taxes for instance) and I certainly wouldn't expect you to do so when you are stating something as absurd as "the economy is wholly based on the world's governments ability to tax the worlds population".

You are a describing a world that even Marx didn't even dream up. I have to wonder where your communist party card is sometimes in your wallet and console myself with the notion that you don't know what you are talking about.

Two words . . . "Federal Reserve" = The ability of the Government to tax the population. That is the ONLY thing that backs the Federal Reserve Note (look on your dollar bills – that is what they are, Federal Reserve Notes).

Once the government loses its ability to tax the population (like if we all refused to pay our taxes – which just ain't gonna happen) our money becomes just as worthless as our government (and there goes the economy as we know it).

P.S. – Keep reading my original statement until you actually comprehend and understand what I wrote.

The Federal Reserve is not the ability of the government to tax the population nor a measure of "the economy". Trillions of dollars of activity occurs without the governments of the world noticing at all or having any significant ability to influence it. Some economists put this global level at a rough par with the entire GDP of the United States and it all occurs with barter or alternative currencies. The issuing of currency by fiat has little to do with "the economy" in the abstract. All it does is smooth transaction costs.

The Federal Reserve note is backed by "the Full faith and credit" of the US government yes. But part of that phrase implies that "faith" of the US public in the currency is involved. So, for example, if the government were somehow unable to print more money or to tax the public for its own ends, it is perfectly possible for the public to continue using the currency already available in circulation to smooth out the problems involved in bartering and the economy could continue along with minimal disruption. One example is the focus of some groups of people on using "Liberty dollars", silver backed certificates that are no longer issued but still circulating, or on the use of precious metals themselves, which could still retain a monetary value even if governments collapsed. As before, all the state-issued currency does is smooth out valuations and allow for mixed transactions or precision in valuation that isn't as easy with bartering or alternative currency. That hardly means the economy goes away if the state does. It just complicates it a little (there are other problems with the lack of existence of a state in a large and diverse population like the US, but these are different issues than currency related problems).

What would cease if the government goes away is other things like the government handing out money to particular groups of people (yourself for example). Which is unfortunate for those groups of people, but not so challenging to the actual economic activity of a nation-state.

An alternative problem is that your theory makes no accounting for the problems with hyperinflation regimes. The reason the German mark or Zimbabwe's currency became useless had little to do with the collapse of the state's ability to tax or an inability to print money. It had much more to do with the state's over use of printing money in fact and the subsequent public's lack of faith in these currencies' overall value. As usual, monetary policies have far more influence than taxation policies and you somehow have managed to link the two as though they are related far more than they actually are.

You are still confused. I'll await some sort of explanation but I'm not expecting it to make any sense or address any of the points I raised in objection to your thesis. You are now sounding like you managed to mangle some Austrian economist's theory, which is amusing but even Ron Paul sounds coherent when he does it. You should probably be paying more attention to him instead of denigrating him if this is the sort of economic mythology that you want to embrace.

You would at least learn how to properly construct and explain your arguments even if they are still bad ones.

Your lack of knowledge of the world monetary system that has been slowly put in place since the time of Woodrow Wilson is glaringly evident.

Pity.

I'm quite certain few people reading the preceding paragraphs would conclude that it is you who somehow has a fundamental understanding of monetary policy history (considering I cited several actual monetary policy events all of which you ignored. As I expected you would).

I would also wonder, if this is your understanding of the linkage of taxation and monetary policy, how governments could possibly have taxed their citizens prior to centralised banking regimes (and also the continuing ignorance of how currencies can exist without centralised banks). As but one further logical objection to how badly you understand monetary policies. Pity that a basic grasp of history keeps getting in the way of your tidy worldview.

I repeat a bewilderment that you're not more fond of Mr Paul if this is the critique that you wish to hamfistedly reply with as your own. You would be having a lot more fun this election cycle at least than you will end up having when you have to vote for Mr Romney.

Since when is it a dictate that you have to vote at all, much less for anyone in particular?

Ignoring your uneducated remarks is the best form of flattery I can give you.

Lol. So you're telling me that, given the opportunity, you would not vote against Obama by voting for his mainstream GOP opponent? During what will probably be a close election cycle? I find that even more amusing. I'm quite sure you will cave. 100% sure in fact. There's no way you're sitting it out with the amount of vitriol you have stored up for Obama. You will have to swallow and vote Romney. Admit it.

Ignoring contradictory facts will get you nowhere PD. And personal attacks haven't at all advanced your dialogues. They've just made you look like an old crank who hates everyone.

But I suppose if you are interested in such thinking, ignoring you will get me somewhere. It does appear to be a severe waste of time to try to reason and inform and even educate you about things that you clearly do not understand but heard bits and pieces of and assume are expressible in a coherent viewpoint.

Thanks for the encouragement. Perhaps I would feel much better if people like you did not exist, in the manner that you must feel by ignoring educated and intelligent people who actually know things and are capable of constructing sentences that don't contradict themselves logically. In truth however, if it were not you, there would be others who are just as offensive in their prideful and willful ignorance (Jared for instance).