Coincidence of Womans Sufferage and Inflation

[I Art Laughing]

Moved from neighboring thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t7653155-15/

We were talking about the inverted pyramid that our economy has become and discussing the division of labor while I was suggesting that the foundation for that pyramid has been severely undermined by humanistic philosophies (including feminism).

votes for women as a cause of inflation, interesting

In the U.S., who instituted the Federal Reserve and when? What has happened since the formation of the Federal Reserve?

As I stated it is a coincidence (I think I'm on pretty solid footing here). I am of the opinion that there is a correlation but not to such a degree that I could argue my case or pull in my sourcing in a succinct manner.

At my place close to the base of the pyramid and with my dedicated study of history and economics (over the last 25 years) I do believe I'm seeing a trend as extraction and production in the West has been completely smothered.

Once women bellied up to the voting machine she gets to take responsibility for the state of their democracy and gets to validate de Tocqueville's prediction for our democracy in the States.

"If I wanted America to fail" - YouTube

When it fails, people are going to suffer.

 

[Athene]

double post

 

[Athene]

Those Who Walk Away from Omelas is a short story by Ursula le Guin depicting a successful and happy town which is kept that way by the suffering and misery of a child locked in a basement. You can read it here.

http://harelbarzilai.org/words/omelas.txt

Any political system, no matter how rich it makes a country, if the only way to keep that system going is to deny basic human rights to a proportion of the population, in this case, over half the population, then that political system needs to die.

For the sake of argument, your proposition shall be accepted, that democracy is dying because of women's suffrage. Well so what. Who cares? It's obviously some third rate system and we need to think of something better, something that can exist and be successful without needing to deny any group their human rights.

When it fails, people are going to suffer.

It's success was dependent upon suffering. Women are people too and women suffer when they are denied their basic human rights.

 

[Athene]

p.s, democracy is humanistic

 

[BigDaddy4]

Blaming inflation on the women's right to vote just because it occurred in the same year as the formation of the Federal Reserve? Wow, that's a stretch.

 

[I Art Laughing]

Show me a system that is not based on suffering. It's the paradigm.

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
(Gen 3:17-19)

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
(2Th 3:10-11)

I think Paul put a fine point on it there in Second Thessalonians. That disorder is contrary to eating.

People are suffering right now because we are eating and not working in the West, while we paper over the existence of it because the Chinese are destroying continents (Asia and Africa) in their resource extraction and using slave labor to produce our equipment and consumer trash. In that light, under your requirements we should fail (and I believe we will).

Holding out for the ideal of a society where there is no suffering is ignoring the travail of nature (Romans 8) and wanting it doesn't accomplish it. The bar for what is considered suffering can always be raised and the basis of our economies can be further undermined.

I have a stockpile of food, a collection of non-hybrid seeds, a greenhouse, a flock of chickens, tools, a woodlot, a cache of gold and silver and the means to protect them. So I say, let the rebuilding begin. I don't think the feminist paradigm is going to hold up well in those circumstances, what a pity.

 

[I Art Laughing]

Blaming inflation on the women's right to vote just because it occurred in the same year as the formation of the Federal Reserve? Wow, that's a stretch.

Nah, the Fed was instituted in 1913 and 19th amendment was enacted in 1920.

It happened under Wilson.

That block of influence had been throwing it's weight around for over a decade by that point, the 18th amendment was enacted in 1919 and was along the same lines.

It's been all "progress" since then. The Fed provided a tool to fund social interests soon to be raised by a new block of voters who had plenty of ideas on how to use it. Usually swift social change is checked by the ability to pay for it, not so with the progressive movement.

p.s, democracy is humanistic

Also, God isn't going to operate a democracy.

Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
(Psa 2:8-9)

 

[I Art Laughing]

Inflation Calculator 2012

$1 worth of 1908 dollars is now worth $25
$1 worth of 1909 dollars is now worth $25
$1 worth of 1910 dollars is now worth $24.39
$1 worth of 1911 dollars is now worth $24.39
$1 worth of 1912 dollars is now worth $23.81
$1 worth of 1913 dollars is now worth $23.26
$1 worth of 1914 dollars is now worth $22.73
$1 worth of 1915 dollars is now worth $22.73
$1 worth of 1916 dollars is now worth $20.83
$1 worth of 1917 dollars is now worth $17.86
$1 worth of 1918 dollars is now worth $15.15
$1 worth of 1919 dollars is now worth $13.33
$1 worth of 1920 dollars is now worth $11.49
$1 worth of 1921 dollars is now worth $12.82 ("Roaring" 20's)
$1 worth of 1922 dollars is now worth $13.7
$1 worth of 1923 dollars is now worth $13.33
$1 worth of 1924 dollars is now worth $13.33
$1 worth of 1925 dollars is now worth $13.16
$1 worth of 1926 dollars is now worth $12.99
$1 worth of 1927 dollars is now worth $13.16
$1 worth of 1928 dollars is now worth $13.33
$1 worth of 1929 dollars is now worth $13.33

 

[JaneFW]

Those Who Walk Away from Omelas is a short story by Ursula le Guin depicting a successful and happy town which is kept that way by the suffering and misery of a child locked in a basement. You can read it here.

http://harelbarzilai.org/words/omelas.txt

Any political system, no matter how rich it makes a country, if the only way to keep that system going is to deny basic human rights to a proportion of the population, in this case, over half the population, then that political system needs to die.

For the sake of argument, your proposition shall be accepted, that democracy is dying because of women's suffrage. Well so what. Who cares? It's obviously some third rate system and we need to think of something better, something that can exist and be successful without needing to deny any group their human rights.



It's success was dependent upon suffering. Women are people too and women suffer when they are denied their basic human rights.

The good thing is that, regardless of male panic on the subject, the world is not going to end just because women are no longer dependent on the whims of men.

It is said in the Bible that only God knows the timing of the end - and therefore all these dire predictions are just unbiblical anyway.

 

[dallasapple]

It is said in the Bible that only God knows the timing of the end - and therefore all these dire predictions are just unbiblical anyway.

And like a thief in the night..to boot!

I also agree with Athene .if the only way thus far to have had a stable economy(assumign IAL is "right) is to opress 1/2 the poulation by mere fact of their gender(or for any reaosn other than maybe 1/2 half are born cirminally insane) then I pesonally dont give a rip if it crumbles. and I for one am not volunteering to suffer so the men can fair better..I have a feeling we can revamp..just some of the men will be left out becasue its not going to leave them with what they so desire.. superior to women or in "control" of the females..I AM willign to suffer to prevent that from ever being the case again..NOT going to happen...Sorry Charlie..

Dallas

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Nah, the Fed was instituted in 1913 and 19th amendment was enacted in 1920.

It happened under Wilson.

That block of influence had been throwing it's weight around for over a decade by that point, the 18th amendment was enacted in 1919 and was along the same lines.

It's been all "progress" since then. The Fed provided a tool to fund social interests soon to be raised by a new block of voters who had plenty of ideas on how to use it. Usually swift social change is checked by the ability to pay for it, not so with the progressive movement.

Nice try. Actually the Fed was nothing new. Alexander Hamilton tried a similar idea with the 'Bank of the United States' (BUS) in 1791. So your little story connecting the Fed to those big bad feminists who "had plenty of ideas on how to use" money on wasteful social interests is a lead balloon.

 

[dallasapple]

Nice try. Actually the Fed was nothing new. Alexander Hamilton tried a similar idea with the 'Bank of the United States' (BUS) in 1791. So your little story connecting the Fed to those big bad feminists who "had plenty of ideas on how to use" money on wasteful social interests is a lead balloon.

+1

Dallas

 

[I Art Laughing]

The good thing is that, regardless of male panic on the subject, the world is not going to end just because women are no longer dependent on the whims of men.

It is said in the Bible that only God knows the timing of the end - and therefore all these dire predictions are just unbiblical anyway.

Whose predicting the end? When Jerusalem got sacked was that the end, would it have been unbiblical to suggest that it was toast in 72 AD when you could see the armies of Titus marching up? Was it the end when Alaric sacked Rome, do you think it would have taken a genius to see that the legions were in disarray and that the provinces where overrun? How about when the Turks sacked Constantinople in 1475?

Maybe the Lord will tarry, who can say? Maybe we're just heading into another dark age. Mark this however, the United States military is acting as a restrainer upon the behavior of numerous potential regional conflicts: Israel/Arabs, Pakistan/India, China/Taiwan-Southeast Asia, Russia/Georgia-Poland-Ukraine, North Korea/South We have all of the pieces in place for a global war that will redefine "World" War. A single misstep, or overreach and the genie might come out of the bottle, it will not be going back in soon or pretty.

I buy into the secular cycle theory of history proposed by Strauss/Howe and by that model we are overdue for a cycle completing crisis.

It's not about the independence of women, or even their ability to vote, never something so simple as that. However, I think that having a great many people with the franchise who are also on the dole is exactly the recipe for disaster the Alexis de Tocqueville rightly predicted would be the death of our democracy (as it always has been).

At the risk of cliche I would also site George Santayana here.

 

[I Art Laughing]

Nice try. Actually the Fed was nothing new. Alexander Hamilton tried a similar idea with the 'Bank of the United States' (BUS) in 1791. So your little story connecting the Fed to those big bad feminists who "had plenty of ideas on how to use" money on wasteful social interests is a lead balloon.

Yeah, and nothing happened between the completion of the unconstitutional Second Bank of America's charter and the institution of the Fed, you know in the intervening 75* years.

Are you seriously arguing that the extension of the franchise to women had no political/social/economic effect? What was the point then?


*edit (75 not 90)

 

[I Art Laughing]

And like a thief in the night..to boot!

I also agree with Athene .if the only way thus far to have had a stable economy(assumign IAL is "right) is to opress 1/2 the poulation by mere fact of their gender(or for any reaosn other than maybe 1/2 half are born cirminally insane) then I pesonally dont give a rip if it crumbles. and I for one am not volunteering to suffer so the men can fair better..I have a feeling we can revamp..just some of the men will be left out becasue its not going to leave them with what they so desire.. superior to women or in "control" of the females..I AM willign to suffer to prevent that from ever being the case again..NOT going to happen...Sorry Charlie..

Dallas

I'm just curious who is going to march into the muzzle of the cannon for this ideal? I can't think of any takers. I can defend myself and my own with a little help I might be able to help out my neighborhood. After that, I have said it many times, the ones who need civilization the most are also the ones most responsible for tearing it down.

 

[I Art Laughing]

Case in point, which presidential candidate is leading women in national polling? What is his record in connection to the national debt?

 

[SearchingStudent]

Case in point, which presidential candidate is leading women in national polling? What is his record in connection to the national debt?

And who ran up the deficit? Who was in office when the housing market tanked?

Blaming the current economic disaster on women's sufferage is bogus. Blaming inflation on women's sufferage is bogus. Go do your homework. Post WW2, the men came back from war with the GI Bill and the VA educational benefits. They wanted the education, higher paying jobs, the nice house in the 'burbs. The following generation (the baby boomers) wanted even more.

Chart the growth of the federal deficit since WW2, specifically during the VietNam era. I remember during the Nixon era the wage/price freezes to attempt to slow the inflation.

Therefore your attempted correlation between women's sufferage, the creation of the Federal Reserve and inflation is just not working.

 

[I Art Laughing]

And who ran up the deficit? Who was in office when the housing market tanked?

Blaming the current economic disaster on women's sufferage is bogus. Blaming inflation on women's sufferage is bogus. Go do your homework. Post WW2, the men came back from war with the GI Bill and the VA educational benefits. They wanted the education, higher paying jobs, the nice house in the 'burbs. The following generation (the baby boomers) wanted even more.

Chart the growth of the federal deficit since WW2, specifically during the VietNam era. I remember during the Nixon era the wage/price freezes to attempt to slow the inflation.

Therefore your attempted correlation between women's sufferage, the creation of the Federal Reserve and inflation is just not working.

Because you are the arbiter of historic truth? What social policies have set the course of our democracy? What social policy set up the housing collapse? Separating cause and effect does not impress. FDR, Truman, LBJ, and Carter? Certainly defense spending has been a perennial drag (so the Iron Triangle shares much of the burden) but it's going to be the social safety net that finishes us off, especially as the wars abroad wrap up. "Universal" health care? QE3 anyone?

Also, any thoughts on what drives consumer debt and basically always has? Domesticity. Let me turn on my T.V. and see which ad's are messaged to which gender....

 

[citizenthom]

Thinking about your premise, it seems to me that inflation could be correlated with EVERY new voting group we've added in the past couple centuries: women, non-whites, non-landowners, 18-21-year-olds. That is most likely a function of time. But it could also be noted that every new group of voters has had a tendency to vote themselves increasing funds from the public treasury--one of the more general problems behind our debt. In short I don't think it's a "women" issue so much as every previously-disenfranchised group coming into the fray thinking it's "owed" something for that disenfranchisement.

 

[I Art Laughing]

Thinking about your premise, it seems to me that inflation could be correlated with EVERY new voting group we've added in the past couple centuries: women, non-whites, non-landowners, 18-21-year-olds. That is most likely a function of time. But it could also be noted that every new group of voters has had a tendency to vote themselves increasing funds from the public treasury--one of the more general problems behind our debt. In short I don't think it's a "women" issue so much as every previously-disenfranchised group coming into the fray thinking it's "owed" something for that disenfranchisement.

I wouldn't be so generous. I would point to any expansion of the franchise to an expansion of potential dole recipients coinciding with the dilution of tax payers leading to fiscal frivolity. The larger the expansion the greater the frivolity. This is very well laid out in de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", the thought is not original to me, he predicted all of this in 1835. So these calls of "bogus" are falling on deaf ears as far as a general theory.