Thread: Possible MANDATORY Swine flu vaccine in the US/UK/Greece..etc

The money issue is a real one, especially when the US government is practically bankrupt. There is just no more money left to spend., and they keep trying to waste it.

You might think that the government forcing people to take optional drugs against their will, isn't a real issue, but it is. Whenever the government tries to force anyone, to do anything it is a real issue. The government really has no right to force people to do anything. The one exception to that is trying to uphold laws and stop criminals.

Originally Posted by Alric

The money issue is a real one, especially when the US government is practically bankrupt. There is just no more money left to spend., and they keep trying to waste it.

You might think that the government forcing people to take optional drugs against their will, isn't a real issue, but it is. Whenever the government tries to force anyone, to do anything it is a real issue. The government really has no right to force people to do anything. The one exception to that is trying to uphold laws and stop criminals.

Man, you have no idea of what a bankrupt government is. Don't say it is when you didn't actually compare it to other countries.

Vaccines aren't drugs.

Man, the government forces you to do so much else... You should try fighting obligatory registration. Yet I see no threads about it anywhere...

Get real, people. You sound like children crying out loud because your dad is taking you to get a shot and you don't wanna.

As much as some people like to believe it, the government is not your parent, nor should they be acting like it.

Vaccines are drugs. It is a substance that is used to effect the body, specifically used to try and prevent an illness. Which is the definition of a drug.

You can believe what you want, but our government is totally bankrupt. It has been bankrupt for years, its just people havn't realized yet. At this time, we can barely even pay the interest rate on our debt. We have been devaluing our money for years and causing inflation just to stay afloat. Though you can only inflate the money so much before it becomes totally worthless.

As for other issues, I post on all of them that I see on this forum. No reason I can't post on this one too.

Originally Posted by Alric

As much as some people like to believe it, the government is not your parent, nor should they be acting like it.

Vaccines are drugs. It is a substance that is used to effect the body, specifically used to try and prevent an illness. Which is the definition of a drug.

You can believe what you want, but our government is totally bankrupt. It has been bankrupt for years, its just people havn't realized yet. At this time, we can barely even pay the interest rate on our debt. We have been devaluing our money for years and causing inflation just to stay afloat. Though you can only inflate the money so much before it becomes totally worthless.

As for other issues, I post on all of them that I see on this forum. No reason I can't post on this one too.

Vaccines aren't drugs. They aren't simple organic compounds. They are life or viral forms. Leave chemistry to those who understand it.

Man, study other countries' economy before you think you understand economy.

And yes, you can post on whatever you find necessary, as long as you agree that vaccines are the last thing we should complain about a government's deeds. The "other issues" part was directed to guerilla mostly.

Vaccines are drugs, and it has nothing to do with chemistry. It has to do with the English language. The definition, a drug is any substance you put into your body to treat, cure or prevent illness. Which is exactly what a vaccine is. And in broader terms it can be anything you put in your body that isn't food, which also covers vaccines. So yea, vaccines are drugs.

I know a lot about other countries economies, and even better I know a lot about economies throughout history. Just take a look at countries who economies crashed, we are on the same path they were on. I am not sure what countries you are looking at, but general signs show that the US is in big trouble, and we are bankrupt. If you actually go look at other countries around the world, you will find most of them are in the same boat as we are, and are doing very badly as well.

The definition of drug is not precise actually. In colloquial usage a vaccine is not really a drug. In scientific usage it is arbitrary.

Originally Posted by Xei

The definition of drug is not precise actually. In colloquial usage a vaccine is not really a drug. In scientific usage it is arbitrary.

Thanks for the support.

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Vaccines are drugs, and it has nothing to do with chemistry. It has to do with the English language. The definition, a drug is any substance you put into your body to treat, cure or prevent illness.

Exactly. The definition of "substance" is very clear to chemistry. And it doesn't include life or viral forms. Also, saying the definition of 'drug' doesn't have to do with chemistry was not a smart move at all, but I'll let it pass.

I know a lot about other countries economies, and even better I know a lot about economies throughout history. Just take a look at countries who economies crashed, we are on the same path they were on. I am not sure what countries you are looking at, but general signs show that the US is in big trouble, and we are bankrupt. If you actually go look at other countries around the world, you will find most of them are in the same boat as we are, and are doing very badly as well.

Saying you know something doesn't make it a fact. Your words are way too empty - give me at least one illustrative example for the heck of it. If you really knew economical history, you'd know it's the worst division of history to compare with the past, because the scenario and conditions are always different and economy is very sensitive to those. Brazilian economy is doing pretty well if you ask me.

A substance is everything something is made of, its the same of matter. Anything made of matter has substance. Last time I checked a vaccine was made up of matter.

Besides trying to say a vaccine isn't a drug, is only a way of trying to avoid the real issue. The issue being that it is in fact a substance that is use to prevent or cure an illness. The important part of that, is that it effects the human body and can thus be dangerous. Which is why it needs to be tested. Saying it isn't a drug and thus is not dangerous to take is silly.

If you knew anything about economic history, you would realize that the same problems repeat them self over and over. Its a very common cycle that happens with governments. They will inflate their currency to increase the amount the government can spend(while decreasing the amount the citizens can spend).

Back when they used to use silver and gold as currency, some governments tried the same thing by shaving metal off the sides of coins then using the shavings and melting them down to create more coins. Though we use paper money now, and the government simply prints them at will for their own needs while devaluing their worth.

We had trouble even here in the US back before our country was founded, during its founding and shortly after. Poor money practices destroyed the value of the money, and caused chaos.

A more current example, is what happened in Argentina. They suffered through inflation, then hyperinflation that ruined their country. All the way the government tried many similar things they are trying to do here to fix the economy, however everything they did over there just made it worse.

Though its clear we have inflation already. Prices have been going up drastically in the US. The US runs on the theory, that if you inflate the money you put more money into the system, that money will be spent to buy goods and services which will help grow the economy. The problem is that in the process you destroy savings with the inflation. Which is apart of the reasons everyone is in so much debt in the US. The other problem is this growth can not be sustained. Eventually all the spending catches up to you and the system crashes.

This is part of the reasons we have the bubble effects in our economy. Where say housing went to extreme prices but couldn't sustain itself and so the prices of housing came crashing down.

Originally Posted by Alric

A substance is everything something is made of, its the same of matter. Anything made of matter has substance. Last time I checked a vaccine was made up of matter.

Besides trying to say a vaccine isn't a drug, is only a way of trying to avoid the real issue. The issue being that it is in fact a substance that is use to prevent or cure an illness. The important part of that, is that it effects the human body and can thus be dangerous. Which is why it needs to be tested. Saying it isn't a drug and thus is not dangerous to take is silly.

Not really. Vaccines aren't chemical compounds which affect your metabolism. They are living beings which are inoculated in your body. When a dog bites you, you don't say the dog has drugged you. When a snake does, you do, because of the poison.
Point being, the "substance" referred to in the definition isn't the philosophical concept of matter, otherwise, food would be a drug.

If you knew anything about economic history, you would realize that the same problems repeat them self over and over. Its a very common cycle that happens with governments. They will inflate their currency to increase the amount the government can spend(while decreasing the amount the citizens can spend).

Value of money really does undergo cycles. But the causes of it are never the same. In the 1920s, Brazil suffered because of overproduction of coffee and its price went really low. The Brazilian president then moved on to do something revolutionary up to then: burned all coffee exceeds, bringing its value to the heavens. Nowadays, it would have been a pretty common practice.

A more current example, is what happened in Argentina. They suffered through inflation, then hyperinflation that ruined their country. All the way the government tried many similar things they are trying to do here to fix the economy, however everything they did over there just made it worse.

Argentina wasn't the only one to suffer during the time of the south american dictatorships. The first thing you learn when studying history is that historic comparisons only serve for didactic purposes, for there's never really a way to compare: there are too many variables. Argentina was a dictatorship back then, and I'm pretty sure the US are a democracy (at least that's what they proclaim to be)

Though its clear we have inflation already. Prices have been going up drastically in the US. The US runs on the theory, that if you inflate the money you put more money into the system, that money will be spent to buy goods and services which will help grow the economy. The problem is that in the process you destroy savings with the inflation. Which is apart of the reasons everyone is in so much debt in the US. The other problem is this growth can not be sustained. Eventually all the spending catches up to you and the system crashes.

Savings really are a problem to a country's economy, I thought you'd know that. But then again, I cannot blame the US for trying to impose extravagant capitalism - there is a limit to what you can consume, and trying to raise it doesn't help at all. I do not think your opinion of the US is wrong at all, I only think you don't have remotely enough knowledge to back your opinion.

This is part of the reasons we have the bubble effects in our economy. Where say housing went to extreme prices but couldn't sustain itself and so the prices of housing came crashing down.

As I said, it's a result of going to far with profit pursuit. I wouldn't call it "bubble effect", but more like "trying to make a step larger than your leg".

Marijuana brownies, a drug and a food

The except to that definition is food. Though if you stick random things into your mouth, that you shouldn't be eating, then yea that is a drug. Especially if its causing an effect.

You can't say it doesn't effect your body, since clearly it does. It supposed to after all. But more than that, it does have other things mixed into, which we already talked about(and there was more than just the mercury.) And you are not eating it, you are shooting it right into your blood, which skips most of the filter processes in your body.

I know things are never the same, but they are often very similar in nature. Such as the cause of inflation, which is nearly all the same. The government may try to do it in different ways or different reasons but it always has the same result.

The government intervention is rarely a good thing. Even if they some times help short term, they almost never help long term, and normally do more damage long term than they fixed.

As for their government, it really isn't an issue of them being a dictatorship. It has more to do, with having a corrupt government. Which I hate to say but we do indeed have in the US. Its so common, people hardly even flinch when they hear of a new politician getting in trouble. What is worse is they are almost never held accountable for their actions, and are almost never arrested. They just resign from their position, and its like the fact they are criminals doesn't matter.

You can call it what you wish, but the results are the same. When they try to push it to hard, it comes crashing back down. The same things happens when the government gives money to failing businesses. They interfere and try to prop up failing businesses which simply are not competitive in a real market. They waste tons of money, and then the company fails anyway. In the processes they do not have the money to bail out the company so they just inflate the currency in the process.

Savings are really important. If more American's had savings we wouldn't have so many problems in this country. Though if you try to save money, inflation will eat away at it.

In a stable economy, you could put money in the bank then years later you could come back and withdraw it and have as much as you put in. That is not how it works. If you put money in the bank, when you come back you will find you have far less money than you put in. Which is why people try to invest in the stock market, since they have to try and keep up with the inflation.

In a normal stable economy. You put say a house on the market, you will get fair market value for it. Well in the US, houses sold for fair price but when the demand for houses fell, what did the US do? They lower credit to try and give people easier accesses to loans. People go, "Oh great, now I can get cheap loans so I can get a good deal on a house." So instead of prices dropping slightly to a fair value the prices actually go up high. Then the banks come in, and they find they can get a lot of money from the government they start giving loans to everyone. So even more people got money to buy houses, and so they do. The price goes even higher.

It comes to a point, where the price of a house is just so much higher than its real value, that people can't afford it anymore. So what does the government do? They try to low credit even lower, they start funneling money into banks to try to prop them up.

They push it on for a little longer but then eventually housing prices plummet down to their real prices. Everyone who bought at the higher prices get screwed, the government tries to dump even more money into it to fix the problem. And you got the mess we have today.

If you look back though, had the government left things alone there wouldn't have been a problem. The government caused the entire problem. They wanted to fix a minor short term problem, and the result is they caused a major long term one.

Which is a common theme throughout the government, and happens in many areas.

Originally Posted by Alric

The except to that definition is food. Though if you stick random things into your mouth, that you shouldn't be eating, then yea that is a drug. Especially if its causing an effect.

You can't say it doesn't effect your body, since clearly it does. It supposed to after all. But more than that, it does have other things mixed into, which we already talked about(and there was more than just the mercury.) And you are not eating it, you are shooting it right into your blood, which skips most of the filter processes in your body.

Then is the blood you get from blood transfusion a drug? Man, stop bending over yourself to try to come off as right, admit you were wrong and that vaccines aren't drugs.

I know things are never the same, but they are often very similar in nature. Such as the cause of inflation, which is nearly all the same. The government may try to do it in different ways or different reasons but it always has the same result.

The cause of inflation is never the same. If you had studied economical history you'd know.

The government intervention is rarely a good thing. Even if they some times help short term, they almost never help long term, and normally do more damage long term than they fixed.

Government intervention is what allows us to live in society. It's the reason one single company hasn't taken over the world yet. So don't say it's not a good thing. Economy without intervention is like letting kids play without a watching parent - sooner or later they will get hurt.

As for their government, it really isn't an issue of them being a dictatorship. It has more to do, with having a corrupt government. Which I hate to say but we do indeed have in the US. Its so common, people hardly even flinch when they hear of a new politician getting in trouble. What is worse is they are almost never held accountable for their actions, and are almost never arrested. They just resign from their position, and its like the fact they are criminals doesn't matter.

So the dictatorship is not really the problem?

I wonder why I'm still talking to you.

You can call it what you wish, but the results are the same. When they try to push it to hard, it comes crashing back down. The same things happens when the government gives money to failing businesses. They interfere and try to prop up failing businesses which simply are not competitive in a real market. They waste tons of money, and then the company fails anyway. In the processes they do not have the money to bail out the company so they just inflate the currency in the process.

All growing is a bubble, and all bubbles eventually burst. You can only do so much as be smart and make it last for a long time with a considerable size.

You have no idea how much a country loses if a bank goes bankrupt. It is perhaps the thing with greatest multiplicatory factor in economy. The smartest thing the government should do is, if not stop it, make the process slow down, so that the financial sector has time to respond.

Inflation can be good or bad, it only depends on which side of economy you are. For exporters, a devalorized money is a dream, while for importers, it is hell on earth. It's all subjective.

Savings are really important. If more American's had savings we wouldn't have so many problems in this country. Though if you try to save money, inflation will eat away at it.

Savings stagnate the economy, cause inflation and ultimately social inequality. The government doesn't "inflate" the currency to fight savings - inflation is a natural consequence of savings.

In a stable economy, you could put money in the bank then years later you could come back and withdraw it and have as much as you put in. That is not how it works. If you put money in the bank, when you come back you will find you have far less money than you put in. Which is why people try to invest in the stock market, since they have to try and keep up with the inflation.

Yes, always., Money today is worth more than money tomorrow, because today you still have time to invest on something and have more money tomorrow. The value of currency is always continually decreasing. This is Economy 101.

In a normal stable economy. You put say a house on the market, you will get fair market value for it. Well in the US, houses sold for fair price but when the demand for houses fell, what did the US do? They lower credit to try and give people easier accesses to loans. People go, "Oh great, now I can get cheap loans so I can get a good deal on a house." So instead of prices dropping slightly to a fair value the prices actually go up high. Then the banks come in, and they find they can get a lot of money from the government they start giving loans to everyone. So even more people got money to buy houses, and so they do. The price goes even higher.

Exactly. Extravagant capitalism. Trying to give people money they don't have (or that doesn't exist for the matter) so they can consume more. It's what makes the bubble burst. The american 1929 crisis was a crisis of overproduction, the american 2008 crisis was the crisis of overfinancing.

It comes to a point, where the price of a house is just so much higher than its real value, that people can't afford it anymore. So what does the government do? They try to low credit even lower, they start funneling money into banks to try to prop them up.

Well, that is what your dumb, libertarian government did. A real government would makes loans harder to get, to decrease demand and lower house prices.

They push it on for a little longer but then eventually housing prices plummet down to their real prices. Everyone who bought at the higher prices get screwed, the government tries to dump even more money into it to fix the problem. And you got the mess we have today.

More like, people got money they didn't have, and then they have to pay it back, by a lot more. Simple stuff.

If you look back though, had the government left things alone there wouldn't have been a problem. The government caused the entire problem. They wanted to fix a minor short term problem, and the result is they caused a major long term one.

Well, with a government as dumb as Bush's was, I really see why you complain. Matter is, the governmental actions that made the crisis were libertarian. A leftist government wouldn't have done that.

Which is a common theme throughout the government, and happens in many areas.

Yet they are all very different, in cause and effect.

Seeing as the United States is the largest economy and the largest consumer of goods, if it's economy goes down the tubes so do all the other countries that depend on America's business.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Seeing as the United States is the largest economy and the largest consumer of goods, if it's economy goes down the tubes so do all the other countries that depend on America's business.

It doesn't happen only with the US. Any country with some economic importance would affect global economy. Japan, India, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Germany, England, Australia, Canada, Brazil, Russia, China.

The US is the largest economy, but it's not by so much.

I suppose if you wanted to consider a blood transfusion as a drug you technically could by its definition. Though your still avoiding the entire point, that yes it does effect your body. In fact bad blood transfusions can be very dangerous. So you pretty much prove my point here. Even if you want to say blood transfusions are not drugs, they can still be very dangerous. So stop the bull crap, that vaccines are not dangerous because they are not drugs.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the economy. How can you make the claim that inflation is never caused by the same thing? That comment alone shows that you lack a fundamental understanding of what inflation is.

The cause of inflation is mostly cause by the government printing money. You print money, you cause inflation. This is basic economy. They might be printing money for different reasons but this always causes inflation. How can you claim its never the same? Its always the same. You don't print money, you don't have inflation. Simple as that.

No, a large company would never rule the world. Capitalism is based on competition, the less government gets involved the more competition there is the lower prices are and the smoother things run. It is government involvement that removes competition within the market, and increases prices of goods and services. Sure the government does play a part, but it should be in stopping criminal behavior, not trying to control the market and competition.

Dictatorships always become corrupt and abusive so yea, it is a problem. My point is that it doesn't matter what type of government you have, if its corrupt its going to cause the same problems.

Banks should be allowed to fail or succeed on their own merit. We would all be far better off if bad banks failed, as it would leave us with good competitive banks. Instead of of the other ones that we are sinking billions of dollars into, just to keep afloat. Its a waste of all of our money.

Savings does not cause inflation. That has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. That doesn't even make senses. There is no physical way saving and cause inflation. Inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply. Holding onto money and not spending it, can not possibly increase the money supply. That comment flies in the face of all logic.

As for economy 101, what bullshit. It is not natural for money to decrease in value as time goes on. There was another thread on this board a couple of days ago, explaining inflation, go look it up. The value of our money remained relatively the same for nearly 200 years. Until the recent amount of inflation which is eroding the dollar. That comment you made it totally 100% false.

Lastly, you have no clue what you are talking about if you think Bush is libertarian. That has to be the most insane thing I have ever heard. He has to be the polar opposite of what a libertarian is. Libertarians are for small government. Nearly everyone elected in congress and our president is for large government. None of this is the fault of libertarian policies. If they actually listened to libertarians, our country would be far better off than it is today.

I am going to assume, that where ever you come from, the word has a far different meaning than it does in the US. There is no way anyone could ever describe him as anything even remotely libertarian.

Originally Posted by Alric

I suppose if you wanted to consider a blood transfusion as a drug you technically could by its definition. Though your still avoiding the entire point, that yes it does effect your body. In fact bad blood transfusions can be very dangerous. So you pretty much prove my point here. Even if you want to say blood transfusions are not drugs, they can still be very dangerous. So stop the bull crap, that vaccines are not dangerous because they are not drugs.

I've already said in a previous post the only ways a vaccine can be dangerous. You may have forgotten it, but I haven't.

The cause of inflation is mostly cause by the government printing money. You print money, you cause inflation. This is basic economy. They might be printing money for different reasons but this always causes inflation. How can you claim its never the same? Its always the same. You don't print money, you don't have inflation. Simple as that.

Not mostly. Printing more money is only one of the causes of inflation. There are many others, including excessive saving by the population.

No, a large company would never rule the world. Capitalism is based on competition, the less government gets involved the more competition there is the lower prices are and the smoother things run. It is government involvement that removes competition within the market, and increases prices of goods and services. Sure the government does play a part, but it should be in stopping criminal behavior, not trying to control the market and competition.

Don't tell me what capitalism is, I know it. Yes, it is based on competition. But don't come with libertarian ideology then, saying that government intervention is bad. Government intervention is what makes sure a company doesn't do bad practices such as dumping or holding. People have already tried minimal government intervention, and it led to the 2008 crisis.

Dictatorships always become corrupt and abusive so yea, it is a problem. My point is that it doesn't matter what type of government you have, if its corrupt its going to cause the same problems.

You think your american government is comparable to a south american dictatorship? Jebus... I have many adult friends who were tortured, wanna meet them some day?

Banks should be allowed to fail or succeed on their own merit. We would all be far better off if bad banks failed, as it would leave us with good competitive banks. Instead of of the other ones that we are sinking billions of dollars into, just to keep afloat. Its a waste of all of our money.

A country's economy relies on its banks. It is in the interest of the country to help them. Matter is, your bank might be the most competitive around, but when its competitor goes bankrupt, it will not keep its competitive policy. You talk so much about competition, but you defend bankruptcy as if it were the solution. It's actually the problem.

Savings does not cause inflation. That has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. That doesn't even make senses. There is no physical way saving and cause inflation. Inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply. Holding onto money and not spending it, can not possibly increase the money supply. That comment flies in the face of all logic.

Go study economy. Don't just say what you think out of sheer opinion.

As for economy 101, what bullshit. It is not natural for money to decrease in value as time goes on. There was another thread on this board a couple of days ago, explaining inflation, go look it up. The value of our money remained relatively the same for nearly 200 years. Until the recent amount of inflation which is eroding the dollar. That comment you made it totally 100% false.

Yes it is natural, and it's common sense in economy. Read a book or get classes on economy, instead of reading things about it on an internet forum.

Lastly, you have no clue what you are talking about if you think Bush is libertarian. That has to be the most insane thing I have ever heard. He has to be the polar opposite of what a libertarian is. Libertarians are for small government. Nearly everyone elected in congress and our president is for large government. None of this is the fault of libertarian policies. If they actually listened to libertarians, our country would be far better off than it is today.

Libertarianism is the opposite of capitalism.

I am going to assume, that where ever you come from, the word has a far different meaning than it does in the US. There is no way anyone could ever describe him as anything even remotely libertarian.

Your opinions aren't facts. You speak like an angry teenager.

You can't just make up random stuff, and put it off as fact and expect people to believe you. You can try and insult me all you want but I do know what I am talking about. Savings does not and can not cause inflation. It is impossible, and makes no sense.

Like I already said before, inflation is an increase in the money supply. Since saving money does not put any new money into the economy, it simply can not cause inflation. This is a fact. Though if you are as smart as you think you are, I am sure you can explain how saving money causes inflation?

If a bank makes bad loans, then should be allowed to fail like any other business. This would eliminate bad banking practices. Instead, what you got today is that banks practice bad banking on purpose because the rewards are to great to pass up. They know if they fail the government will bail them out and it leads to them taking far more risks than any reasonable company would take. Protecting the banks, actually causes a large amount of the problems we have today.

Libertarianism is not the opposite of capitalism. Libertarianism is the believe of small government, and holding individual liberties as the most important thing. Capitalism is about having free markets and competition. One doesn't oppose the other. In fact most libertarians in the US are strongly for capitalism. The idea that government should let the markets decide for them self, instead of interfering is a very capitalist idea.

Sweet Zombie Jesus, when did dreamviews become Nutjobs HQ?

This went from "we shouldn't take the vaccine because it hasn't been thoroughly tested" to "we shouldn't take it because it's part of a conspiracy to wipe the population".

Kromoh, you are clearly a very intelligent individual. However I do agree with Alric specifically on how saving doesent causes inflation. Do you think you could elaborate on this? This is a "Debate" after all, and I firmly believe that any person who wishes to argue there point should bring the sources with them rather than referring to some unknown book?

Thanks,

Matt,

Originally Posted by guerilla

I wonder what they are spoonfeeding you kids in schools today, glad i graduated a long time ago.

Yes, back in the days before they taught kids how not to be delusional, paranoid fucknuts...ah, those were the days.

To end a massive off topic; saving money removes it from circulation, which deflates the economy.

Well I skim read though this thread, and it didn't seem anyone mentioned anything about sterelization. I don't think they would intentionally make a vaccine that will kill people off, but making a vaccine that has a side effect of sterelization is far less suspicous, and just as effective for population control. I'm saying this cause theres some dude Obama put in some office whos a eugeneics. Thats where u want to control who can give birth and who can't. He also wants to make it legal to abort babies... up to two years after they been born. I think this is the guy 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren#Controversy"It says he was all into sterelization and less feretility rates, even though when asked about it recently he was like "the goverment should play no part in controlling population rate". I guess he changed his mind.

When people start to save more, banks take measures to counter the deflation, because deflation would mean people would actually keep their money instead of spending it. However, there is of course no reason for a bank to stop at the previous inflationary rate, and so it increases more. It's why economy is a human science, not an exact one - as soon as banks start getting money from their measures, they try to push it more and more. So, in a capitalist society without much government intervention, a tendency towards savings actually makes inflation increase.

It's one funny thing about economy, philosophically. Knowing the future changes the future.

Finally - libertarianism is against fair competition. A libertarian and capitalist society is the dream of any businessman. Like I usually say, it'd be like playing a game without rules.
What you libertarians do is, whenever something you defend stops working, you say "that's not capitalism" or "that wasn't true libertarianism". Refusal to see the truth, really. Whenever economical liberalism was high, in history, a crisis always followed. The 1929 crisis, the oil crisis, and the 2008 financial crisis.

That's the reason why I said libertarianism is the opposite of (your definition of) capitalism. Capitalism is about fair competition, libertarianism is about unfair competition.

Well that statement kind of makes sense, but there are two things you need to take into account. The first is that saving isn't causing the inflation, the banks are causing the inflation. Secondly, as you just pointed out the banks do that regardless of if there is high or low savings. Even while there is high inflation they continue doing it, because there is no reason for them to stop, as you just said.

So no, its not saving that causes inflation(saving would actually cause deflation as verto pointed out), its the banks. Which is why we can do without banks that use bad business practices, such as banks that loan out more money than they actually have. Which causes inflation and puts the peoples money at risk of being lost. Most often without even telling the people their money is at risk. This is why I am not a fan of banks, and should one fail it is probably a boon for the rest of it. Let the good stable banks succeed and the risky poorly managed ones fail. That is captalism.

I know a lot of people believe that about capatalism that it can not work without heavy regulations, but I do not believe that at all. I believe in free markets, and in a free market compition is high. Regulations always reduce compitition. The less rules you have the more people who can get in on the action.

How is the government giving money to special select companies or sections of the market fair? How is putting high taxes on one group, while giving another breaks fair? Government regulation far more often seeks to control the economy, rather than induce fair and open compitition.

Libertrians want everyone to play by the same rules, how is that unfair?

And to get back on topic, there was vaccines that were used in aferica which were found to cause sterelization. There are some cases around the world of the companies sterelizing people on purpose, without telling anyone what they were doing.