Redstate

nt

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Why do you think the saving rate is essentially zero? Ordinary people have an uncanny intuitive sense for ripoffs, and they understand fully (even if they can't articulate it) that US dollars are inflationary.

The solution to that is simple: buy stocks and houses. Which is what people do.

To your point about deposits: we've had widespread fractional-reserve banking for more than a century, and the practice itself is many centuries old. There is always a balance between the amount of currency (including specie) and the amount of deposits. And it fluctuates with the confidence people have in the banking system, which again is always uncannily accurate.

Under gold-convertibility, people will respond to financial stress by pulling deposits out from banks and holding them as currency. That has the side effect of causing depressions, because it's the exact opposite of credit formation.

Under the system we have now, people respond to financial stress (as they are doing right this minute) by converting their holdings to US Treasury debt. That reinforces my point that US debt has the same function in today's world that monetary gold has in gold-standard eras.

That's also why international demand is propping up the dollar, as you say. We're going to get a recession, and I expect it to be a nasty one, but it's because of, not in spite of, the movement by global investors into non-risky US treasury debt.

I'll agree that a gold standard isn't workable for the USA, since it assigns too much value to other country's resources. Nor are any double currency schemes going to work, since bad money drives out the good. (Why sell gold when you can sell dollars?) And that's aside from the formidable costs of transition.

Nonetheless, there's something inherently broken about letting either government or banks play with the money supply. I could be tempted to return the government to its Constitutional role of coiner of money, just so those coins would cost them something. (Granted, the dollar bill is already getting darned close to its intrinsic value - but the government isn't limited to printing ones.)

That's a nice way of avoiding having to explain why Ron Paul is a bit of a kook--"everyone else is stupid!"

A passing glance at Romney's CV and W2 suggests he may have some understanding of economics.

Someday I'd like to develop the hypothesis that people invent conspiracy theories and dark, malevolent cabals that run the world via hyper-complicated machinations not from a basis in reality but, in defense of their own smallness to excuse their low position--which, but for "them," they would be a grand citizen, renowned and wealthy.

No, not EVERYBODY else is stupid. Just the politicians, on monetary policy.

Romney is a creditable businessman, but that doesn't suggest that he understands economics.

As I've said, if we had a campaign including people with different economic policy programs, we could have a debate. I remember when presidential candidates like Kemp and Reagan and Forbes and Gramm actually understood these issues. Today, it's just not true. Gingrich actually might add something to the debate if he joined in. But the rest of these guys have no real grasp of these issues. Sadly.

First off, thanks for the clarifications. Without responding point-by-point, I'll note that the major concern for you is to prevent inflation. Fair enough.

I think our most important economic problem is very different. It's low growth and low productivity improvements vis-a-vis our international competition. (And yes, I will grant that I mean that in real terms, not nominal terms.) Going to any flavor of gold convertibility does nothing to solve this basic problem.

As far as inflation itself is concerned: we will have major inflation in the US over the next several decades. That's simply a given because it's the only politically realistic way to fund our entitlement liabilities.

(There are other politically reasonable ways to address the entitlement issue, but in regard to them: I rate martial law or a transition to dictatorship the same way I rate Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation: possible but highly unlikely, and if either one happened we'd have far bigger problems anyway.)

So what does significant future inflation mean for Americans? It doesn't mean a significant decrease in national income or purchasing power (except insofar as the microeconomic outcomes will be less efficient than they would be under freedom). It does mean that we will silently transfer a larger share of purchasing power to retirees, and we will skew our mix of economic activity toward the things that older people consume (largely healthcare services). If that sounds like a truism, remember that it's what the American people keep voting for, election after election.

There are two very simple ways to hedge against a loss of purchasing power in the coming inflationary decades: hold asset classes like stocks and residential real estate; and hedge against the dollar by owning euros.

(Global investors have figured this one out as well, which is why they're so hot to be sure that they earn their income outside of the US.)

You can do either or both of these now, without waiting for the government to permit transactions in gold.

Ah, it's all so familiar. It sounds like the refrain from the Keynesians of the 70's:

"As far as inflation itself is concerned: we will have major inflation in the US over the next several decades. That's simply a given because it's the only politically realistic way to fund our entitlement liabilities."

You were supposed to add: ...and yet, it won't disrupt our way of life significantly.

Yes, I'm hedging where I can, as are most people who understand inflation. But what you don't seem to grasp is how much harm inflation does to the broader economy. If you want to see low growth, check out the Ford-Carter years at the height of inflation. It's not a magic bullet. Inflation doesnt equate to growth, in fact it inhibits it. Stocks during the 1970's were a terrible investment, unless you bought after they fell. The only good investment during that period was gold and other commodities. And these weren't really investments, they were simply hedges. Our concern back then was simply to hold onto the value of our money, not to earn more. Everyone was trying to hold on for dear life, and the idea of economic growth sounded like a wild crazy dream. Until Ronald Reagan came along with his crazy idea of Sound Money. If you read Reagan at that time, he sounds very much like wacky Ron Paul today. He, too, was up against the "mainstream" of the party, like Ford, who said that monetary policy didn't matter, and inflation wasn't a real concern. We just need to stop raising prices and everything will be ok. It was insanity, and yet these same ideas seem to be coming out again now.

I repeat, whether Ron Paul gets his whole agenda on economics passed or not, we desperately need a president who understands inflation and values sound money. We're headed into some very choppy waters economically, and I don't see another candidate on the horizon who offers me anything close to Paul's intelligent understanding of these issues. Sustained inflation isn't as easy a thing as you seem to believe, and I again suggest you do some reading about economics in the 1970's here, or other inflationary times. It was devastating for the economy. Just read Reagan, if nothing else.

is as blakhedd put it:
Funding our entitlement programs.

Until we do something about the massive, non-discretionary spending involved in those problems, we're going to have increasing inflation in order to pay for them.

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

While I agree emotionally, and politically as well in terms of no government bailouts of the subprime borrowers, I do wish to point out that we need to understand the importance of containing the crisis.

It's one thing for some high-risk fund to lose value, and investors in that high risk fund (like myself, coz... I like risk) to lose money. But if the situation is not contained, and it spreads to the general market, then now you're talking about so-called "safe" funds who manage money for pensioners, for little old ladies in Florida, for nonprofits, for educational institutions, and so forth losing value.

Too often the institutional funds that manage money are all lumped together, and seen as billionaires on Wall Street who deserve what they get, and that isn't a good thing. Some of those funds are the "safe" ones where your 401(k) is invested. We should try to make sure the damage doesn't reach there.

I do not support bailouts of the high-risk ventures, and the investors who put money into them. I could, however, support measures to make sure that the losses are contained in such sectors, and not allowed to spread to the overall market.

-TS

"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt

The market is not rational. It is composed of a bunch of panicked sheep, which flee first one way, then another. I agree with you in your assessment of the potential fallout from all of this. My wife's 401K is handled by TIAA - CREF, hardly flighty and high risk. It could, however, get swept up in this maelstrom. There are a lot of good, solid lenders out there that are getting hammered right now, and I plan to convert my cash position into mostly equities real soon.

My real fear is this, and it can be posed in a simple question:

What would you walk away from last - I mean, dead last?

If you said "my home", I believe you have answered the question correctly. The scary part of all this for me is thinking of all the consumer debt, HELOC's and other debt that people are also walking away from. That is the part of the iceberg that we do not see, and if fear takes over and businesses no longer have access to credit or don't want to expand, we are in some serious trouble.

Another part of this crisis is how well it plays into the hands of the populist Democrats that will say "SEE! The whole Bush economy was built on a house of cards! We need to bail out consumers and let evil corporations pay!". This, of course, is exactly the opposite of what we need, but in order to see how well it will play just look at my own post above.

Military Recruitment will take a sharp turn for the Even Better Than It Already Is...

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

The mistake people make with China is considering it a separate country. For all ends and intents, China runs their economy on US dollars. Economically, China is a province of the United States.

And they have raging inflation going on right now, because they undervalue renminbi when they convert the dollars received by their exporters.

And China runs a trade surplus against Europe that is nearly as large as the one they run against us.

Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps the dollar's weakness is being caused by what's going on in China, rather than what's going on here?

I absolutely agree that China's role is complex, and you make a good point on this. But I don't see how that could weaken the dollar. In fact, it seems relatively clear to me that China's actions have been propping up the dollar during this time. I think that's relatively clear to most economists. Please elaborate on why you would suggest otherwise. Your logic isn't clear to me.

Relative currency values are influenced primarily by short-term interest rates. China does have high short-term rates (nearly 7% right now), but they're not a major issuer of debt. On the contrary, they're a net exporter of capital. So you might expect their currency, if they had an externally visible currency, to significantly underperform against others. That's point one.

Point two is that China significantly undervalues the value of the industrial production that they put out to world markets. (You might argue that there is no undervaluation, simply a reflection of their abundance of human capital. I won't elaborate on that just yet.) That also would be expected to produce significant underperformance of their external currency, if they had one. That's point two.

Point three is: China has an externally visible currency. It's called the US dollar. If you look at yuan-euro conversion rates and yuan-yen rates, they look nearly identical over time to the respective dollar rates.

(The yen is currently strong against the dollar, not because of fundamentals, but because everyone is out of their carry trades during the current crisis.)

That's why I'm hypothesizing that China is the reason why the dollar is low and going lower.

I'd invite you to check out his post:

http://bhday.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/the-china-conundrum/

China is not the problem, we are the problem. China is not the province, we are [in danger if becoming if not already] the province.

BD

It might not be a terrible time to add to those holdings.

One thing Alaska will teach you if you are to do at all well is to use any opportunity to take advantage of somebody's misfortune! Especially up in Anchorage and Fairbanks where you get a lot of "fortune seekers," you can buy anything for a song in mid-winter if you have a little cash.

I walked into my current house in '87, at the height/depth of the '80s Oil Bust on an illegal wrap-around and the cost of filing the papers - a good thing, since I was in the middle of a divorce and "if I had any money," I sure didn't want anybody to know it. A couple of years ago I reached the exalted state of the tax appraisal on the land alone being more than I paid for the whole thing. In fact, good residential construction land has become so scarce and valuable here that the highest and best use I could put the house to would be to tear it down and put something tres spendy on it, but I don't want to be upside down in an ego-trip house these days. Owning a big, gas-guzzling boat is problem enough. I stole the boat from a guy who lost his mining job and the only one he could find was in Nevada; he was anxious to sell! But that thing will go through a house payment in gas in a week if you're of a mind to.

In Vino Veritas

I'm pretty sure lots of gently used boats are hitting the market as we type this.

More seriously, I don't know if it's a coincidence, but because Arkansas has basically no property tax on "undeveloped" land, it doesn't hit the market that often. However, it seems that right now there actually is a decent amount of timberland for sale around here.

But, you're right, there are a lot of them on the market now. A lot of people didn't understand that the purchase price was merely the entry fee.

If you have some cash, it is a good time to buy all sorts of luxury products.

Most undeveloped land in Georgia has two prices; with and without the timber. I should have sold my timber a year or so ago, but missed that one. I cut everything marketable on it in '84 and most of it is back to small sawtimber size now; SE Georgia can grow trees!

In Vino Veritas

To 1) switch out my wife's weak and poorly run mutual fund for investments in stocks I have been watching myself
2) buy More Land. Must Have More Land. I'm a big believer in long-term real estate holdings.
3) Be making enough money to support the fixed mortgages I'll have on all the land I intend to collect...

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

prices to fall in my area, but so far we have been immune to the bust. I have some money to put into real estate, but gotta see prices come down some more.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Buying a house ain't going to be for the hoi polloi again for a while. Rentals went flat when everybody and his dog could buy a house; those days are over, at least for a good, long while. As long as we don't get a big whack in unemployment, there'll be a good cohort of people with decent income but without the credit and capacity to buy a house, and throw in a lot of retirees who can pay rent but not buy what they would like or choose not to have the hassle. They can pay rent to me for a while.

The property I'm thinking of developing is in the rural South, so there's always the race issue, but I'll just deal with that. My dad taught me long ago that no matter the color of the hand, the money was green, but there's still a lot of people who don't feel that way. Multi-family units other than Section 8s can be a problem; a middle class Black rents, and all of a sudden, he's your only renter. I'll have to pay my money and take my chances on that; if it's a desirable property, they'll get over it.

Between hurricanes, insurance, and high prices, the coastal areas are pretty much peaked out. An hour or two from the coast and close enough to a city to access city amenities, is going to be really attractive to retiring boomers and the like.

In Vino Veritas

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

To buy single family dwellings and rent them out. Lots of foreclosures in PA right now...

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

....what county in the Creek lottery?? We live in red clay land ourselves with my dh being of Creek descent.

it was in Montomery County, which was huge in those days, basically everything west of the old colonial parishes. Now it is in Emanuel County. It is in the center/north of the county with a lot of evidence of the prehistoric beaches as the red clay uplands transition to the sandy Pine Barrens. Anything south of it is sand ridges and Pine Barrens. Interestingly, that region is about the same geological age as northern Arizona and looks a lot like it. In the sandy parts or in the prehistoric alluvials, if you dig a well, sometimes you find sharks teeth and such like and there are quite literally brilliant white "beaches" a hundred miles or more from the current Atlantic shore.

In Vino Veritas

To financial-market participants, there's a problem if you don't make the right moves. A lot of firms are going to be closing their doors.

To Main Street, there's no problem unless it spills over into the "real world," meaning the productive economy of goods and services and jobs.

The Long-Term crisis didn't. The Asian Flu didn't. 9/11 did, big time. The 1987 crash didn't. The 1929 crash and subsequent events did, enormously.

And even though it may sound like a silly question to a non-specialist, this is still a matter of active debate among economists. Through exactly which channels did the pressures on the financial system get transmitted to the real-world economy in 1930 and 1931, where they caused massive disruptions including 25% unemployment and widespread business failures? No one is quite sure to this day.

Does the current crisis matter? If we get a slowdown in real economic activity, yes it does. A lot.

And I can suggest a mechanism. Credit unavailability for business expansion.

Other people will tell you that the distress will be transmitted through consumers feeling less "wealthy" as their stock and real estate holdings lose value, but I don't buy that story.

To your original post:

This 'crisis' was created by the Fed. Period. Greenspan created a situation in the 90s which allowed markets to believe the Fed would always come to their rescue, the Greenspan put. That was bad enough. Then, post bubble, post 9/11 he decided to not only open the spigots, but drop rates to next to nil. This 'saved' many a company that should have gone under and also resulted in the next bubble - the housing boom. This was followed on by the LBO boom and earlier this year as a side dish, the Cov-light and Cov-less boom. There was so much money in the systems, lenders basically said 'here - take this money I don't give a rats who you are or if you pay me back'. OOOps.. well we didn't realllly mean that did we? And for those who are screaming cut rates! cut rates! interest rates are too high! They are not historically and M3 (only available if you go to third parties) has been growing at an enormous rate. Did you notice yesterday the funds rate traded at 4%? There is NO lack of money - there is now a lack of trust and just like putting rates to 0 for a decade didn't jump start Japan, flooding the markets because nobody wants to take asset backed CP solves nothing either. (You might also look to NZ as another example of an c.bank that keeps raising rates.. but forgets to stop the printing press).

As to your follow up

Does the current crisis matter? If we get a slowdown in real economic activity, yes it does. A lot.

No, it does not. The business cycle is not dead and has been artificially kept in stasis for far too long. A *gasp* recession is not likely but if it happens it happens. Everyone here but the kiddies have lived through at least one and probably five or six. Last I looked things came back better each time.

Oh and lastly,

I can't explain this any better than to ask whether you would be willing to lend money, even overnight, to a person or business that is in even a slight danger of going bankrupt.

Every company, agency and government has a credit rating. Very few are AAA. Many are in the B's. How have they been getting money? Go check some of the money and bond funds you may be in. Bet they own some BB or B's. What about your preferred income funds? Lots of people in those and many are not highly rated credits. They all have a chance to go belly up. And we've seen enough reasonably sound companies have the rug pulled out from underthem to know what was A yesterday can be see ya next week. People lend to companies that have a risk of going under every day.The rate and collateral demanded reflects the lenders estimate of the risk of not getting his money back and thus compensates him for taking said risk.

Apologies for the length of reply.

Rant Street! www.rant.st

I think people start taking Ron Paul seriously when more and more of the things he's been predicting start to come true.

My suggestion: just don't bash him too hard until you see how things come out.

If you're right, and he's a buffoon, he'll wander off into the sunset, and you have no worries.

If we're right, and his predictions have been on the money, then you might want to be able to have a candidate to support who actually is still viable. Remember, Bush had a hard time taking back all those comments about "Voodoo economics" that he lobbed at Reagan.

In my opinion, though, we're headed toward a perfect storm for Ron Paul, and if my economic analysis is correct, his predictions should start coming true about the time of the primaries. That may be hard to beat.

Again, it might be beatable if there were other Repubicans that had economic plans, but they don't. I think Gingrich has some credibility on the subject, but too much baggage to be a winning candidate. Huckabee is trying hard to learn economics fast enough, but isn't there yet. The others just don't seem to care. I keep thinking that Giuliani will use Steve Forbes somewhere to give him tips on Econ policy, but so far, nothing.

This is why Ron Paul is not just a quirky candidate, but a realistic one.

Point is, there's no benefit to bashing him now. Argue policy, but please try to keep the invective to a minimum.

What kind of problems are you expecting to see before the primaries next year, and how do you expect them to vindicate Ron Paul? It's not a trick question.

Can't be much worse than what I'm predicting: a monster recession, perhaps as bad as the one that followed 9/11, and a multiyear hangover in the housing market.

To a guy with 2 stable and increasing incomes, solid assets for collateral and minimal debt that will be paid off just in time for this to happen and a desire to buy up a lot of land...

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

You're so young! LOL. No, the post-9/11 recession was pretty small. I'm thinking more like the Stagflation of the 1970's. I don't imagine that Paul needs to be "vindicated" as such. I'm just thinking that a big economic blowup, when he's amongst candidates that can't articulate any economic theory (except for John Edwards and his Marxist class struggle garbage) will give him some more exposure. I would hope it doesn't come to that, but I think we all realize that we're on pretty shaky ground.

does our little buddy Ron still support the armed couple holding out against federal authorities?...I think this is a bashable instance, no?

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

He was asked about people that he had no knowledge of, and was told that they were refusing to pay income tax. He answered theoretically that such acts of civil disobedience were the core of movements like Gandhi's reforms in India, and commended the idea that people take stands that they believe in.

No one had informed him that they were armed, nor that they were planning to respond violently. When he learned this, he disavowed that action specifically.

He said that people should stand up for things they believe in, but that they need to realize that such actions come with consequences. Said that such people will naturally spend time in jail, and that's what they should be prepared for.

So, again, misinformation mixed with partial truth. He never endorsed these people specifically, but said that civil disobedience is sometimes a good thing.

what you're telling us is that when asked specific questions, if he doesn't know the answer he makes up stuff. Just the kind of POTUS we need.

Sheesh.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

is there any chance that RonPaul™ has actually clarified what he meant and that you can link to said clarification? Or are you just making stuff up.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Here's your link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZnzGredcIs

Not the best interview he's ever had, but it deals specifically with your question. Might have been worthwhile if Cavuto didn't cut him off on every question.

And, no, he doesn't just "make stuff up when he doesn't know the answer". He spoke in generalities, and said that civil disobedience is a great tradition in our country. People took that as specific support. People like to twist things. Go figure.

now I see, Ron was misunderstood. Cavuto is so mean.

How did this guy ever get elected in the first place?...

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

I was particularly amused by Cavuto's effort to stay "on message", as though the interviewer is the one who gets to choose the message. It must be quite annoying for these newsfolks when someone answers a question differently than they wanted.

Refusing to pay your taxes does not in any way make you comparable to MLK or Ghandi, yet he keeps making the comparison. Ron Paul certainly comes off as the nutcase he is in this interview.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

would come out and condemn action like this...afterall, armed Federal agents have been deployed to resolve it.... noooooo, Ron is misunderstood..! BAH!

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

Didn't say it made him look good. Just offering his own words, in what I thought was a bad interview. But truthfully, the income tax isn't structured in a way that our founders intended, and while I don't agree with Paul that it was unconstitutional (since it came as part of a constitutional amendment), it very clearly was in opposition to the intent of the founders.

Apparently, to some today, that's meaningless, because they're all a bunch of old dead white guys, but seriously, can you step back long enough to think about why they might have opposed such a tax structure?

And if you believe it is unconstitutional, can you not understand why civil disobedience might be a legitimate means of response? Again, I don't agree with him on this point, but I certainly see his point of view. Instead, you seem to be very willing to brand anything different as insane. This is an approach to politics that I find unhelpful. Again, I can see you would have been on the Ford side of the Reagan-Ford debate.

constitutionality of the income tax has been adjudicated numerous times and has always been upheld, civil disobedience is absolutely not a legitimate response. RonPaul™, on this issue, like most everything else, is simply a moonbat.

You will find very little, if any, support here for the current tax system. You will also find no support (except for the RonPaul™ supporters) for the Browns. Most of us support either the FairTax or FlatTax as a replacement for our current tax system. We are/have been working to get the current system replaced. Nobody is branding "different" as insane. We are branding RonPaul™ as insane. Except I'm not sure he's really that close to rational.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Apparently, to some today, that's meaningless, because they're all a bunch of old dead white guys, but seriously, can you step back long enough to think about why they might have opposed such a tax structure?

I hate the income tax as much as anybody. I'm not sure what that has to do with making out tax dodgers are some kind of heroes, though.

And if you believe it is unconstitutional, can you not understand why civil disobedience might be a legitimate means of response?

As far as I'm concerned, not paying your taxes doesn't qualify as "civil disobedience." By not paying your taxes you are, in fact, victimizing all other taxpayers, because they are going to have to pick up your share while you take some time off the tax roles. You might as well just break into people's houses and steal their belongings. That's just as admirable as not paying your taxes. We have a system for dealing with laws we don't like, and it doesn't involve breaking the law and foisting your obligations on other innocent parties.

Again, I can see you would have been on the Ford side of the Reagan-Ford debate.

Maybe you can provide a transcript of the part where Reagan was comparing tax dodgers to Ghandi and MLK? I guess I missed that part.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Ghandi was a tax protestor. He and his followers refused to pay their lawful salt taxes. Moreover, the strategy of non-violent civil disobedience used by both Ghandi and MLK was created by one Henry David Thoreau a man who advocated non-payment of taxes as a form of political protest (he was even jailed for refusing to pay taxes).

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

India 80 years ago and the US today don't exactly have a lot in common. We are talking about people who refuse to pay their taxes in the US today, not those who refused to pay taxes in a totally different situation. There certainly are situations where it may be called for. None of those situations currently exist in the US. We have elected representatives. If we don't like our tax system, we are free to change it. We are free to speak our minds, publicly, and recruit others to our cause without fear of any repercussions. That is not exactly the situation that was present in India during the 20s and 30s or in the colonies in the 1770s.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

My point is that their acts are comparable in deed (non-payment of taxes, or other coercive fees as a form of protest). I have made no attempt to compare motivations, environments, or results.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

That's like comparing someone who kills a bunch of innocent people because he doesn't like their shoes and a soldier in a war zone that prevents his position from being overrun by killing a bunch of enemy soldiers. If you totally ignore the context, they committed the same deed. That doesn't make them at all comparable.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Yes I agree that both of your hypothetical actions are not highly comparable. The soldier is not a voluntary actor in your scenario. He is acting to defend his life and the success of his orders. Presumably failure on the soldiers part will result in his own death, or other grievous suffering. The murderer acted completely voluntarily in your scenario. Moreover the actions of all the various tax-protestors mentioned in this tread are to the best of my knowledge completely voluntary.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

I wasn't comparing the tax dodgers to the soldier. Not that it matters anyway, but you could certainly argue the point about it being voluntary (and it certainly is in many cases... heroism is always voluntary).

The point is: the details matter. You can't just ignore them and make a stupid comparison like Ghandi or MLK to these tax dodgers and expect it to stand up to any scrutiny at all.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

"I wasn't comparing the tax dodgers to the soldier."

I did not say that you compared the tax-protestors to the hypothetical soldier. " I pointed out that your comparison of a hypothetical soldier and a hypothetical murder/shoe killer (a better name is eluding me) is not highly comparable.

"Not that it matters anyway, but you could certainly argue the point about it being voluntary (and it certainly is in many cases... heroism is always voluntary."

I can agree with your statement about heroism on a heuristic level. The soldier scenario though sounded too "do or die" to assume it was an act of heroism.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

"We are free to speak our minds, publicly, and recruit others to our cause without fear of any repercussions."

That is not really consistent with the reality of political correctness.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

That is not really consistent with reality in general. Even groups like the KKK are free to spread their hateful rhetoric and protest on the streets in their costumes. They don't have to worry about being hauled off to some gulag somewhere (or worse, just shot on the spot) because of their vile ideas.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

There have been a whole lot of posts and comments on this site alone over the last few years about people who have been arrested and charged with various things merely for violating
P.C. Yes, I know that the charges do not usually stick, but arrest, and having to defend oneself in court are repercussions.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Just saying- yeah Ron Paul is extreme and not a credible candidate for President- and I don't agree him him or Thoreau.

But that does not mean that all his ideas are worthless or that we should mock him and his supporters.

I know he's got a bunch of anti-war nuts supporting him.

But there are other issues where Ron Paul brings up issues that while I often disagree with his conclusions, I do wish that Presidents spent more time thinking about those things.

What's with the ridiculing of libertarians today?

I mean, they are our allies on more than half the issues that are perennially debated.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't debate them when we disagree with them, but there is no need to be cutting.

What's with the ridiculing of libertarians today?

I guess I missed that part. A lot of people here have strong libertarian leanings, myself included. The specific issue here is his defense of tax dodgers. Condemning those who refuse to pay their taxes (the same taxes we all pay), for whatever reason, and being a libertarian are not at all inconsistent. That is what Ron Paul and anybody else in his position should do. It is pretty clear cut. There shouldn't be much debate about whether people should pay their taxes or not, certainly not among Presidential candidates.

This is just another way he shows how unserious he is and how unfit he would be for the office he is seeking.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I don't think anybody is ridiculing libertarians. We're heaping ridicule on RonPaul™. There's much I like about the libertarian positions on a number of issues. I just happen to think that RonPaul™ is absolutely the worst possible spokesman for those issues.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Okay,

Just wanted to make sure we weren't ignoring the message just because we don't like the messenger.

Perhaps part of the reason I don't see the point in mocking Ron Paul is that he isn't going to get anywhere anyways, so why bother?

I wish we had one Ron Paul in the congress for every trotskyite like Ted Kennedy. but as a national leader?
hhmmm, don't think so.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

It's possible to be a Constitution-loving Libertarian without being a nutjob like Ron Paul. He makes that whole wing of the party look bad.

I wish we had one of those for every lefty, sure. Just one a Ron Paul.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

People don't twist things. Politicians don't explain themselves clearly enough so that people can understand.

And one of the REAL problems with The Idiot RonPaul™ is that he does not understand this and just shoots off his mouth. Go figure.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

But he doesn't want to write off half of his base by dissin' the non-taxpaying militia formin' underground bunker dwellers. Where would his campaign be without them?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

People aren't turned off about many of Ron Paul's ideas but more so the man himself and his perceived capability to execute any plans. Secondly, in our current political/government system a lone wolf isn't going to get much done, even if he is right. Washington, right or wrong, is about building a coalition as it is about ideas. Thats why politicians pimp themselves out and flip flop on positions. They are horse trading support for various endeavors.

That is why the only real change comes from outside of Washington by the people. Gingrich is right when he says real change requires real change. Our elected elite must be forced to change or they'll continue feeding at the trough of the public's money.

Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite

Not sure I agree about his capability to execute plans, but regardless, I'd rather have a President moving ineffectively in the right direction than one moving effectively in the wrong direction.

If you offered me alternatives that were at all conservative, we might have something to discuss. Meanwhile, Ron Paul is by far the most viable conservative candidate running in either party. Even if Gingrich ran, which I don't think he will, but even if he did, I don't think he is electable, while I've seen enough of Paul's ability to draw in independents to know that he can, IFF the supposedly loyal Republicans would ever stop bashing. No, he doesn't "go along to get along", but maybe that's needed sometimes. In a time when we lost Congress because of too much "going along" with Abramoff, etc., I'd suggest that someone of Paul's idealism may be the only electable Republican out there. Just a thought...

Thats a big IFF and you even added an extra F. Sure, we all joke about being better off if our elected elite do nothing but most people want to pursue some goal and some change.

The same if can be applied...IFF Gingrich was more electable, he'd be elected too.

Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite

Isn't that mathematicalese for "if and only if"?

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Why won’t Paul support the FairTax? I find his position on it irksome.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_scorecard_10

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

I don't know the distinction between those two, but it's clear that with a Constitutional federal government that lived within its mandate and means, we would not need anything like the 23% the FairTaxers require for a revenue neutral IRS replacement. From the Congressional Record:

"Mr. Speaker, America survived and prospered for 140 years without an income tax, and with a federal government that generally adhered to strictly constitutional functions, operating with modest excise revenues. The income tax opened the door to the era (and errors) of Big Government. I hope my colleagues will help close that door by cosponsoring the Liberty Amendment." (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=658)

"Modest excise revenues" is not incompatible with the FairTax philosophy.

The FairTax, as attractive as it is, doesn't deal with the real problem: RidiculousSpending. Check this out:

Current National Debt: $8.9 Trillion ($5.0 Trillion held by public, $3.9 Trillion by government)
National Debt in 2006: $8.5 Trillion ($4.9 Trillion held by public, $3.6 Trillion by government)
Interest Expense on National Debt in 2006: $406 Billion ($222 Billion on debt held by public)

How does this compare with how we spent money (2006)?
Department of Defense: $633.9 Billion
Health and Human Services: $627.4 Billion
Social Security: $593.1 Billion

If you exclude SocSec, which should be a separate "trust fund", the interest payment on our national debt is the third largest department in the federal government (!)

How does this compare with the size of the economy?
GDP (2006 current dollars): $13.2 Trillion

Where do we get the money that we spend (2006)?
Individual Income Taxes: $1.0 Trillion ($1.8 Trillion including earmarked deductions)
Corporate Income Taxes: $350 Billion
Additional Deficit: $247.7 Billion

Sources:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
http://fms.treas.gov/fr/index.html
http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp

Unless we deal with RidiculousSpending, get rid of the IRS, and return to our free market roots, we're kind of hosed:

http://bhday.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/the-china-conundrum/
http://bhday.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/preventing-economic-growth-101-sec...

He's not against it, he's just not for it. And in the real world, exactly what is the difference between those two?

I know in the foggy cave that RP inhabits there's all the difference in the world. The rest of us just don't fit well in that cave.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Basically, he'd go along with it if it was the best that could be achieved, because he believes it's fairer than the IRS-based system. However, he believes it is still taking a much higher tax than should be necessary to fund a right-sized gov't. So, this goes back to your whole idea that compromise is always better than holding out for the ideal. I guess some of us just realize that compromising isn't always the best solution, and you're just convinced that it is.

You do realize that the FairTax proposal is still a pretty high tax,right?

to make conversation. You have no clue.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

We don't have to wait to judge Ron Paul's record as a prognosticator. He predicted the housing bubble in 2002. (Look it up on his Congressional website, in the Texas Straight Talk columns.) He predicted the Iraq war would be a military and political disaster before it happened.

The Fed is merely pushing off the day of reckoning, and making the ultimate crash a lot worse in the process. If it was created to prevent panics, why did the worst depression occur on its watch? Why do conservatives who instinctively distrust bureaucratic central planning trust bureaucratic central planning to manage the money supply?

Even if the Fed is the lender of last resort, and props up some bad banks, why should we all have to pay? Is a dollar that is worth 5% of its former value really an improvement over an economy where bad banks and bad lenders go out of business promptly?

to address the housing bubble and Iraq and the Fed. And he built a coalition in the Congress to address the situation too.

Oh yeah, never mind.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

The liquidity injections provide them with a means to try to keep the market on their target. The rate is the target and telegraphs to the world what they want the rate to be. So they serve two separate purposes, and both are critical pieces of the puzzle.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

It seems to me that there is a lot of wishful thinking at work. The Fed consists of people that try to be very plugged into what businesspeople and market participants are thinking, but at the same time they need to play their own hand close to the vest. That's for more reasons than just the fact that they move markets just by farting at the wrong moment. Everything that the Fed does depends on credibility.

And especially with a new Fed chairman. Bernanke wants (needs) more than anything else to be perceived as a hawk on inflation. This is his first major crisis and he's two years into his term. (Greenspan was two months in when the 1987 crash happened.)

Fed funds (which are targeted at 5.25%) have been fluctuating between 1 and 6 percent over the last week, but mostly around 5 or 4.9 or so. There are people who are taking that as a sign that the Fed is ready to pull the trigger on a rate cut. I just started hearing people say they're expecting a 50 basis-point cut, to 4.75.

But a rate cut would signal that they have made a "policy change," in the direction of greater ease, and it's far from clear that the economy at large is soft enough to justify a move like that.

The current "liquidity injection" moves are temporary repos, as you know. In theory, all of the extra liquidity will get taken back out of the system when the crisis passes. In theory. Most of the excess was already supposed to be gone by now, but the Fed added $17 billion more this morning.

More than anything else, this crisis needs time for people to calmly assess what their mortgage portfolios are really worth. Short-term panic is the enemy, threatening financial firms with failure if they can't meet their margin calls, although the underlying fundamentals are almost certainly not as bad as everyone's worst fears. But when things are wild and crazy, the fear-valuations become operative, not the calm-valuations.

Everyone was hopeful last weekend that last week's massive Fed and ECB interventions would calm everyone down. It hasn't happened. And I'm getting an ugly feeling that the Fed is almost out of ammunition.

1951 was a watershed year for the Federal Reserve, as you of all people would know! It was the year the young William McChesney Martin showed down Truman and the Treasury and assured the Fed's full independence from the Treasury. It was also almost the year that Milton Friedman was expressing serious misgivings about the role of economics in finance, which was then in its infancy, and now is fully in control. The biggest changes happened in the 70s and 80s with the growth of derivatives markets.

I'm really not clear on what our friends among the Ron Paul advocates would have to say about this situation. Presumably, they blame the crisis on the very existence of the Fed, as an enabler of moral hazard. They may have a point, but if we had to give up all of our shock absorbers, the global economy would be a much smaller and poorer place. And who knows, on a down-300 point day, maybe that's something we ought to look forward to.

I don't think the Ron Paul advocates would speak with one voice on this. Yes, the Fed has been enabling moral hazard, and creating the boom with the resulting bust also a part of the necessary outcome. They create the business cycle.

Ron Paul advocates, i suspect, don't fall into only one school of economic theory, so you shouldn't expect a single answer from all of us. Personally, as I've tried to express, I do have a fondness for the gold standard and for the absence of central banking. But I also know, as I believe Dr. Paul does, that any major adjustment like that comes with great difficulty. Still, if the current system collapses, I'd want a president who can think clearly about it.

Whether we blame everything on the very existence of the Fed, or just on the loose monetary policy of recent years necessitated by wild spending, it's clear where the problem is. From my point of view, solutions include reining in the Fed, reducing spending, and stabilizing our currency before it becomes worthless. If any of this involves gold, so be it. I'm a moderate on gold or the Fed. I understand why the current system is less than optimal. I also know that drastic changes are risky (unless we've already collapsed, then rebuilding a system differently may be wise). But, I reiterate, I'm very distressed by the calibre of economic reasoning coming out of most Republican candidates' mouths. There is NOTHING THERE. Ron Paul represents the ONLY candidate to stand for sound money, and considering the economic crisis that is happening in the background, I don't see how you can consider any of these others. It's just unfathomable to me.

I suspect, if things unfold as they might, that other voters will be thinking the same way in a few months. At that point, gold will still sound quaint and archaic, but someone talking intelligently about inflation and the Fed will be very well received. Think about it.

Speaking only for myself, I don't think Ron Paul is a nut. That doesn't mean I'll support him for President, which hopefully you will consider fair enough.

I do need to point out yet again that your analysis of both the politics and the economics of monetary policy make the assumption that inflation is the key problem we face. Again, I don't agree with that.

I believe the most important economic metrics are not the financial ones but the real-world ones. I'm dismayed that our real (not nominal) economic growth is now the slowest of any major country.

I don't believe there is any point in reviving American manufacturing. That would be the wrong focus of any economic-revival policy. However we do need to find new ways to grow and to compete overseas.

What bothers me the most about Republican voices on the economy (including Larry Kudlow, for whom I have great respect) is that they are way too optimistic about corporate earnings and US growth.

As you can see, I think inflation isn't our biggest problem. Is it possible that factors relating to monetary policy are constraining our growth? Yes, definitely. I'm not sure what to do about them.

In terms of politics, I think you can rest assured that if we have the huge recession with lower real wages that I'm expecting, that and not inflation will be economic topic A among the voters next year.

Of course I hope I'm wrong. If I am, I'll be the first to admit it. But as far as having a President who understands economics goes, I'd much rather have a President who has the judgment, the leadership, and the balls to surround himself with strong, exceptionally capable people to handle the economy.

I hate Bill Clinton's fish-eating guts, but I'll always give him credit for picking Bob Rubin to run Treasury. Rubin quietly saved this country from some of the worst ideas that Bill and his witch of a wife had to offer.

Hopefully you won't be offended if I choose to agree with you on many of these points. I can respect the idea of not voting for Paul if you have a better candidate. I haven't seen one offered up yet, and I don't imagine we're getting any new ones, but I'll accept that you're not in line on this.

I also found Robert Rubin to be the one saving grace of the Clinton years...an advisor that I wish had a parallel in the current administration, sadly. I had hoped Glenn Hubbard would offer some sensible ideas, but it seemed as though the economic advisors over the past 7 years didn't really have much input.

I, too, am satisfied if our next president had trusted advisors who understood these issues. But normally, you hire advisors who share your own approach. Thus, we may be beset with aimless economists. I hate to be so critical, but I'm more than a little disgusted with the lack of interest in economic ideas among Republicans anymore.

I agree that Kudlow is way to optimistic. There's lots of reason to be concerned about a dismal economy here. But the dismal economy could be swept aside if the Fed had any more tools accessible. I think they're out of mechanisms. But allowing the economy to go into recession will not be politically feasible, and with a Keynesian in the White House (oh, come on, he's a Yalie), we won't allow that to happen. Watch for more loosening if the recession hits. It won't boost the economy this time, and we'll have that stagflation again that Gerald Ford is famous for.

I understand that you don't see inflation as the biggest worry, and that you think growth is more important. But this tradeoff is a fallacy, and I have to be very dogmatic on this point. In a truly inflationary economy, THERE IS NO GROWTH. Yes, those of us over 45 are "irrationally" worried about inflation. Some of us have also seen it in other countries where it was even more devastating. We know what inflation does, and our "irrationality" is partly based on what we see as the recklessness of the younger generation (I assume that's you) in regard to this menace. The way you readily accept inflation as something that's ok. The idea that you can have inflation and still expect growth in the economy is ludicrous and flies in the face of history. It's Keynesian economics at it's finest. It's what I was taught as an undergrad. I had to sneak out to read Friedman on the side, because that was considered nutcase stuff back then.

The slowing of growth that we've seen is a result of three things.

1. Rising inflation that is inhibiting normal transactions, even as most of it is hidden by low-priced Chinese imports.
2. Slow steady increases in regulation. The big government framework is recovering. Sadly, we have to take some responsibility for that since our party has been in power.
3. MOST IMPORTANTLY: The boom-bust cycle, in which we are now heading toward the "bust" end of the cycle. Here, Austrian economists like Paul have it nailed, and I have no question about being behind their position on this economic issue 100%. The business cycle is purely a result of Fed actions, and since we've inflated, we're moving toward the next phase, when the malinvestments start to deteriorate, and the overindebtedness unwinds, and the economy weakens, even while interest rates rise to compensate for anticipated inflation. Sadly, there's no easy fix of this. It's just a time to 'suck it up'. But again, since this is purely a result of Fed loosening, one could argue that a different plan that didn't allow for such Fed manipulation would prevent this cycling.

Anyway, good discussion. I wish some of your less educated friends were a little less antagonistic.

Just to let you know, I have a degree in economics also,
first, you are correct that Rubin was the one saving grace of the Clinton admin. and that Kudlow is a wild eyed optimist in all situations.

I don't see how you can possibly say it is part of the Austrian, or any other school to blame the Business cycle on actions of government.

True government can sometimes make things worse, and sometimes better, but if you want to see true high and low cycles with very erratic swings then look to the nineteenth century, the time of laissez faire.

Perhaps the government was a little too loose with credit in recent years, but I have a feeling that if they had not been, there would have been a hew and cry from libertarians, the Wall Street Journal, and the Chamber of Commerce about "too much government meddling" in the marketplace.

The Fed is far from perfect, but under the present mostly monetarist regimes (at least since the time of Volcker) it has been very helpful in easing us past a few crunches into a time of unprecedented prosperity.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I can say that the Austrians blame the business cycle on gov't, or more specifically on the central bankers, because they do. Simple as that. That's the theory. It goes back to Mises, and Rothbard, and nearly all of the modern-day Austrians also adopt that theory.

Frankly, I think even many monetarists would suggest that there's some truth to it.

I don't understand how you can imagine that Fed actions do NOT have any effect on business cycles. That, to me, is the odder position to take. There, again, the Keynesian philosophy rears its ugly head.

I read Rothbard many years ago but don't remember that. At any rate it is ridiculous, as there were booms and busts before the existence of any central bank anywhere in the world.

Furthermore, the cyclical swings were greater before adoption of controls. This has little to do with Keyensianism.

Look, I am a fairly libertarian person myself, but it seems to me that whenever someone takes any set of theories and runs with them to the reductio absurdum, and then begins to worship that theory, then you risk being just as wrong and foolish as the leftists.

Free markets, laissez faire, globalization, it is all ok up to a point, but the many things which true believers attribute to this theory simply do not always pan out. In the real world you better have someone smart in charge because the best laid plans are oft gang a glee.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Rothbard took ending the Fed as one of his primary goals in life, and it was a major premise of his writing. In fact, his book on the Great Depression speaks about how its actions were the primary cause of that debacle. We can argue whether he was right or not, but really, it's pretty simple for you to check out and stop just living in denial. I'm sad to say that a lot of current Republican ideology about economics is just that - ideology - that has lost touch with anybody's theories anymore. There's some benefit to actually studying what the experts say. I know they're not always right, but isn't that better than just playing off the cuff?

In particular, it scares me to hear conservative Republicans moan about how the free market is so dangerous and how we can't possibly allow it to be taken to extremes. That's leftist baloney, and the very fact that you try to quote it as a somehow conservative ideal suggests how far you guys have drifted to the left without noticing.

Of course, in my book, GWBush is a RINO, but I know you guys probably still think of him as the center of conservative ideals.

I am a newcomer to the economic game and rather a bit of a novice, but it seems to me that the business cycle is much older than the Fed.
The difference between monetary systems has been the length of the cycle and how severe the Bust/Recession part of the cycle is.
As it is, we appear to have a much shorter cycle than under any previous system, however, our busts have been shorter as well. The Busts have also been weaker, causing less distress to the average person than the busts of any previous system.

Now, likely there are ways to improve the system and shorten and weaken the busts even further, but I don't see any previous monetary system as being better than we have now.

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

and manageable is because we now live in a world of mostly free trade and with very fast electronic transfers and computer decision making.

That means that unlike in the past. When resources are being underutilized, either capacity, resources, labor or capital, they can be quickly routed into areas where they are needed.

Contrast that to the world of 1930 where there were global markets but no one knew what anyone else was doing in other countries with capital or credit.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

My reading of the historical data is that there are three things that jump out at me:

1: The long term rate of growth was higher prior to the Great Depression

2: The Booms were higher, and the Busts were deeper prior to the Great Depression.

3: The "cycle" was shorter prior to the Great Depression.

There has been some recent work done that argues that the last 2 points are actually the result of less accurate records.

Trying to remember the name of the Economist doing that research....

I know -- Vol. 1 ends with The Accord, so I stopped doing research just about the time that I might have learned something presently useful, other than don't raise interest rates while the stock market is collapsing (amazing to think how history could have been different if that 4-3 vote had gone the other way). Without an official background in finance, I doubt I could have gone much further anyway.

At any rate, that makes explanation makes sense. The rate change would signal a long-term policy shift, especially being an initial cut, whereas what happened last week was short-term. Thank you for the lengthy and informative answer. And I agree -- too many people miss that the Fed can only do so much outside the short-to-medium term to help the economy, other than create a stable business environment through sound policy.

On the actual subject, I think you miss the libertarian view. To them (well, to me, though to a much lesser extent than the Paul people) the Fed is just another enabler for government messing things up. The Fed creates inflation and nothing more; the economy largely charts its own course except to the extent the Fed screws it up by inflating the currency, however mildly. I agree -- the comparisons of economic performance pre-1913 with the performance of a fed with competant leadership post-1978 should spell the of that. On the other hand, ideological libertarianism is about letting people fail if they make poor decisions as a matter of principle, as opposed to its utilitarian cousin, so the Paul-ite answer might be: The economy suffered serious collapse in pre-Fed days and righted itself. It will do so again. We shouldn't look to the Fed to bail people out for poor decisions and poor investments, especially at the price of inflating the currency through printing money. Or something along those lines.

I think that's naive, but I think that's probably the gist.

http://www.myelectionanalysis.com

...the Fed's job is to be a lender of last resort. This is an exceptionally important job, and I don't believe any kind of large global economy is possible without it.

Where do I get the experience that informs that view? Well, have you ever been the CEO of a business that was hitting a rough patch during the process of raising capital? I have. Investors are animals. They smell distress, and they respond to it like piranhas react to blood. Rather than investing in you, it makes more sense for them to stall on the paperwork, wait for you to get into more trouble, and then buy you out at ten cents on the dollar.

Multiply that attitude by an entire sector in distress, such as subprime mortgages, and you get the idea of why someone like the Fed must be there to keep the lid on.

It's well and good not to trust the government (I certainly don't), but this is a case where you're asking the private sector to perform a function that it's only too well equipped to perform. If we lose the Fed and another panic of 1907 comes along, can we count on Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and Carlos Slim to be as civic-minded as J. P. Morgan was?

And what if they're not enough, and we have to go to Hu Jintao?

In October 2006, China's foreign exchange reserves exceeded USD1 trillion for the first time. By mid-2007, the reserves had reached USD1,000 per head for the entire population of China.
(http://www.chinability.com/Reserves.htm)

What happens when he starts saying no?

the opposition isn't just to the Fed, but to the banking laws that promote boom/bust economies in the first place. With a static money supply, you arguably see far less of this behavior.

How on earth you enforce this is not clear. Every credit-card is effectively a money-creator, between the times you buy something with and the time you pay off the bill. Those would have to become illegal too. Same with check-into-cash places that give money in exchange for future payment.

How you transition from a monetary system based on U.S. government debt to one based on assets is even less clear. It's a puzzlement.

But I'll give Ron Paul this much credit - he's at least looking for solutions. That's more than I can say for any other candidate. Of course, that doesn't mean I'd consider voting for the guy. :)

Really destructive boom/bust cycles are a constant feature of free markets, even in commodity-money eras.

By "banking laws," are you talking about deposit insurance? Or fractional-reserve lending? The Fed can raise reserve requirements any time it chooses. But do you really want to throw that many people out of work?

I guess I want to see the following: let's accept that fundamental changes in US economic management will take a long time to introduce. The current era of economics-driven finance is perhaps only about 30 years old. Exactly what is the envisioned endpoint of the policy changes Paul would like to impose? What does the US economy look like 30 years from now, according to the Paulian ideal?

Since this question incorporates so many unknowns, might it not be better for the world to just find its own level?

Economic life in the post-industrial age is not about money. It's about goods, services, and jobs. Moreover, business relationships are about trust. Right now, the US Treasury enjoys a huge amount of trust around the world. If that ever changes, the world (and the American economy) will adjust.

If that day ever comes, I'd bet you that the government, not the economy, will come out the loser.

fractional reserve lending. Were there no Fed to restrict the practice and provide bailouts, this seems quite enough to amplify business cycles, especially the pain as the bank calls in its investments as it falls. I don't think there's any reasonable doubt the Fed is better than nothing. However, it does have enough costs that it's worth looking at a better solution. It's not just the cost of bailouts; the U.S. government has to pay interest on all the debt we use as currency. That's a decent chunk of our taxes.

I agree the economy is far more important than the currency that facilitates it. Nonetheless, I think we should be open to improvements in our finance laws. That's an awfully tricky challenge, though, and I'd want more direction than Ron Paul offers before setting sail over the deeps.

Shock absorbers are one thing, but the implication of needing a shock absorber is that you have an unstable system that hiccups (or vomits) occasionally.

As a Ron Paul supporter (but speaking only for myself, of course), I believe the current situation is an inevitable consequence of the current system's inherent instability. The solution to the bust will be selective application of liquidity, selective enrichment, and further impoverishment of the lower and middle class as purchasing power is further eroded.

An inherently self-limiting system that tends towards stability would be preferable, but it will take us time and effort to get there. Ron Paul's first suggested step (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=624) is allowing competition in the money supply by repealing legal tender laws and eliminating taxes on gold/silver transactions to allow private money. Which means if someone doesn't believe that Federal Reserve Notes will survive as the long-term global currency, s/he will have other options.

blackhedd, you make some good observations, but I think you're a bit too sanguine in accepting the consequences of monopolistically-controlled fiat currency and taxpayer-guaranteed fractional reserve banking. Together with our Federal government's inability to live within its means, we are sowing the seeds of our own economic destruction.

I agree with your other comment that the big concern is real growth. It's not about trying to artificially stimulate industries that have died in our current managed markets, it's about returning to our roots as a Constitutional democracy with free markets that allow entrepreneurship to flourish.

Capital (I mean investments focused on real, productive economic growth) is fleeing our country -- why should it stay here with our punitive tax codes and increasing regulatory burdens (http://bhday.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/preventing-economic-growth-101-sec...)? Is it any surprise that we are growing at 3% (if you even believe that number), and China is growing at 11%? I've spent time in China, and believe that number is real.

Unfortunately, we have been conditioned to look to government and "official" institutions like the Fed for solutions to problems that ultimately a free market is best suited to solve.

but that is simply not true. In the era of laissez faire and gold standards, both in USA and Britain, (1830-1914) there were the most wild economic swings ever. And although it was generally a boom century, the extreme cycle retarded growth to some extent as capital markets and business found it difficult to plan for the future.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

"The financial panics of 1873, 1884, 1893, and 1907 were in large part an outgrowth of ... reserve pyramiding and excessive deposit creation by reserve city banks. These panics were triggered by currency drains that took place in periods of relative prosperity when banks were loaned up." (See Vera C. Smith, The Rationale of Central Banking, 1936.)

We actually have two forces interacting that reinforce each other: fiat currency on top of fractional reserve banking. A "gold standard" (those words are meaningless, though, without further clarification...) is not enough. Fractional reserve banking that lets banks lend above their reserves is an equally important part of the problem. Runs on banks inevitably resulted... with the swings you note above.

The joke is on us, really. We've been allowed to confuse demand deposits and time deposits. We should be forced to make a simple decision when we put money in the bank:
- Do I want it back on demand? If so, I should pay for the convenience of writing a check or Web-based EFT.
- Can you have it for a specific period of time? If so, *I* should be paid based upon the rate of interest the bank can earn over that period of time.

From your signature, Kyle, you seem like someone who wants to get to the bottom of this issue. What if you could choose a bank where:

- All money deposited in your checking account was just held there for your convenience. No need to worry, it just sits in the "vault" (electronically, for the most part), and no loans are created against it.

- Your bank could offer savings options that paid interest, but those would invariably be time deposits (like CDs). You can't get the money back on demand, because it's out there working to earn *you* (and the bank) interest.

That's an "honest" banking system. Coupled with an "honest" currency, we'd have stability.

Can you point to one time in history where we've had a real gold standard (currency backed by a commodity without tender laws and price fixing of that commodity) and an honest banking system?

I think the government is totally incompetent and totally corrupt (with the exception of the US military). I also think they are involved with stuff they have no constitutional authority.

That said, I support the Fed and am 150% opposed to the RonPaul™ moonbat position on gold standard.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

mbecker908, I don't know what you mean when you say "gold standard". I think that's part of the problem with this debate -- we've never had a "gold standard" that would work because it we've relied on artificially fixing the price of gold. That never works when the temptation to print grows into the need to print additional money. I'd be interested to get your comments on this post: http://bhday.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/what-gold-standard/

What's a moonbat, anyway?

BD

I'm using it (unfairly, I'll be the first to admit) as a general term that includes/implies moving away from the federal reserve system to any currency system that is based on metal.

With respect to the linked article, I don't have time to deconstruct it, but a quick read tells me nothing.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

The words "gold standard" are meaningless and shouldn't be used without clarification.

Our 20th century "gold standards" were guaranteed to fail because although the government said dollars were convertible into a certain amount of metal, they also *fixed gold's price* without removing the Federal Reserve's ability to create additional paper currency at will.

So eventually the tempation/need to create currency (read: Vietnam, Great Society) shows up. USD start sloshing around the world in greater numbers, central banks call our bluff and start redeeming their USD for gold, and Nixon is forced to shut the "gold window". That's just the most recent example, we had devaluations before then as well.

Bottom line: a true "gold standard" requires that currency be convertible into a fixed quantity of gold, WITHOUT the government (or anyone) fixing the price of gold or doing silly things like preventing gold ownership. The goal is to preserve the purchasing power of the gold in the currency itself.

Does that make sense?

Try Ron Paul.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

.

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I know the Ronulans keep trying to make this about government, but to me it has nothing to do with how competent government is, and everything to do with the practicality of finding enough gold to back our money supply, which is the only true way to get rid of the Fed, as well as the problem of keeping enough money in the system to avoid deflation, as well as the problem of preventing foreign powers from manipulating the amount of money in the system.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

People who use terms like moonbat and Ronulan pretty much lose all credibility.

The big issue is about precisely what Cicero said...how much you trust the government. If you want to try to make it narrow and focus on "finding enough gold" you've already missed the point. The issue is whether we have a system that can be easily manipulated by government, or one that is not.

As I've tried repeatedly to point out, Dr. Paul is NOT looking to go back to a gold standard. He has said this many times. I outlined what he offered as his first steps. I suggested what he would be working toward in broader terms, which would undoubtedly include large-scale discussion among economists before any major radical steps would be taken.

Yet, you continue to come back to this inane discussion about finding enough gold. If the currency is backed by a "basket of commodities" for example, the amount of gold in that basket may be quite small. That would resolve your complaint.

However, I don't believe you want your complaint resolved. You'd rather back candidates with no economic policy and no learning on the subject, while insulting those who back the only Sound Money candidate in the race. Fine. But stop trying to pass that off as somehow the more rational position. You have no position other than "stay the course", and in the midst of this financial crisis, that's going to look more and more foolish.

People who have no credibility are those who spend twenty years in congress and accomplish absolutely nothing.

I don't trust the government at all. But I trust them more than I trust RonPaul™. The guy is a complete phony and an incompetent fool.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

You know, as this discussion has progressed, I've heard a lot of people offer meaningful insights.

From you, on the other hand, I get nothing but insults and falsehoods. Where you get "complete phony and incompetent fool" is beyond me, unless you've been reading the lefty press too much. Either that, or you're just still stuck on some issue that you just can't see past.

Do you really think a Congressman's job is to "get bills passed"? The better role of a Congressman, in a small-government world is to prevent bad laws from being passed. If you're a progressive or a liberal, you ought to be calling for someone to pass more laws. If you're a conservative, you should be thinking differently.

Either way, your contribution to this discussion is worse than worthless. I don't know if you're a regular around here, or what, and maybe you offer worthwhile opinions on other subjects, but if you're just here to insult people who aren't you, I'd say there are other places where that's probably more in line with the program.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS in the last 20 years and maybe I'll back off. And voting no on everything and proposing legislation that won't get five votes doesn't count.

A congressman's job is to work for change. To build alliances to effect change. RonPaul™ has done nothing but feather his own nest for the last twenty years. You obviously don't understand that to get rid of things like the DoE and to privatize entitlements, someone has to write new legislation. They have to have a plan. They have to be able to work with other members to get anything done. RonPaul™ fails on every count. The guy is a complete phony.

In terms of making a contribution to a discussion like this, where you are in so far over your head it's just not funny, it's not an issue. I defer to those who know infinitely more about economics and money supply than I do, like blackhedd. And I have absolutely no use for those who are acolytes of RonPaul™ who are too invested in the cult to be able see the light of day.

There's a lot of good things to be said for libertarian positions on many issues. There's nothing to be said for RonPaul™'s bastardization of many of those positions and his total ignorance about the Constitution and the "founders" that he is so fond of quoting out of context. The problem here isn't the issues, it's the messenger. Go find somebody who can accomplish something and who can communicate and he'll develop a following.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I don't know where all this antagonism comes from, but it's unfounded.

If you are making a case that perhaps Congressman Paul is an idealist and impractical, you've made good arguments for that. But being an idealist is quite the opposite of being a "phony". Actually, characterizing one as a phony for idealism a rather extreme mischaracterization. And standing firm on principle, even when one knows one may not win is, again, not the same as being incompetent or a fool, although some overly pragmatic compromisers might make that accusation.

Dr. Paul's political career has been marked by that kind of idealism, such that many of us, while supporting his positions, worried that his effectiveness might be gone. Yet, in this world there is an appropriate role for both the pragmatist and the idealist. The pragmatist is, as you say, the one who gets things done. The idealist, on the other hand, is the one who calls we pragmatists back to the principles when we've compromised too much. The idealists are the real reformers. Ronald Reagan came to power as an idealist. George Bush, Gerald Ford, et.al. are the pragmatists.

The interesting thing is that most times idealists are relatively unelectable. They aren't practical, they won't lie about positions, they won't compromise to get along, won't flip-flop, and they don't get lots of bills passed. That said, they are important, because they remind us of our values. In this case, Congressman Paul is reminding us what it meant to be a conservative before we started compromising on things like No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug plan, nation-building, the U.N., the Dept. of Education, the deficit, etc. In almost perfect parallel, he is running on the Reagan platform, albeit presented slightly differently. The difference for me is that Paul actually HAS more credibility, because he hasn't voted for any of these things. We're in an interesting phase of history where, I believe, the idealist has a more reasonable chance of getting elected than the compromisers. This is largely due to the Abramoff and DeLay reputation, and the whole K Street problem. The people aren't going to elect anyone with strong ties to these things, or with even that reputation.

Again, I couldn't care less whether he's passed a specific bill. He has served an important role in our party, albeit one that has often rankled leaders. Yet, I'd argue that those leaders needed to be rankled, and that, had we listened to Dr. Paul earlier, we'd still be in power.

As far as finding someone else, I don't think that's necessary. First, the candidate himself didn't intend to run, and was approached to do so. He suggested that there were probably others who were younger and more well-known that might make better candidates. In the end, though, they didn't choose to run, and he took up the challenge as a backup choice. I think most people, including the candidate himself, didn't believe that people were ready for his message. I should emphasize that there is no "cult" here. It isn't even about the candidate. This is the only campaign I know where the candidate could drop out and be replaced by someone else standing for the same principles, and it wouldn't even miss a beat. It is about a return to the principles of the constitution, and the principles of our founders. I guess I don't understand how you feel that he has misinterpreted those. I have to say that he has, for the most part, been very clear and correct on each of those principles, and historically, right in line with traditional conservative Republican principles, as espoused by Goldwater and Reagan. This is quite different from what I see among the "mainstream" candidates, who have largely dumped most conservative principles. Many of us had hoped that Mark Sanford might run, but that didn't happen (although I hear rumors that he might be Paul's VP choice). In any case, Paul, because of his age, would be, at best, a one term president. Even if he weren't the most "effective" president, he would be able to chart out ideals and remind the country what we're about, which is, I think, another valuable goal. Then, we'd be in good position for another term, much better than we are now, I must say.

I have to suspect that antagonism toward his ideas on the war are behind much of your distaste for him. I don't know if it's true, but that's what I see from a lot of mainstream Republicans today. Truth is, regardless of whether we choose to stay or leave Iraq, what he's suggested is 100% in line with traditional conservative principles again. Not the idea of leaving in the middle, but the idea of how we should enter wars -carefully, and with great forethought. Two details: 1) No undeclared wars, and 2) No nation-building. These are not because of some arcane constitutuional ideal, but are because of what conservatives learned by watching libs get bogged down in all kinds of wars for Wilsonian Democracy. First, that no matter how good your intentions, you can't really build a nation from outside. Second that undeclared wars tend to turn into police actions that never end, that cannot be won, and that drain the treasury yet yield no result. Again, we can argue about whether leaving Iraq is right or wrong, but the way we went in was not wise, and has made this whole venture more difficult. Also, the idea of setting up a Democracy is impractical.

Whatever, that's way off topic. The point is that, there's nothing fake or incompetent about Paul. He is probably not the great compromiser who will achieve the most "wins" in legislation, but if you really think that this is the ONLY way to get things done, or that this is the only honest way to behave, I think you've got a very warped view of politics...a view that will eventually lead you to compromise all your principles and move leftward over time. Because the one thing I've observed about compromisers is that they tend to accept more and more gov't solutions over time, because "its just the way it is". This is precisely why we talk about term limits, because Washington rubs off on this type of person. Ron Paul isn't that type.

Anyway, I know that the Congressman has written much legislation, and passed some. But it's frankly not worth my time to go through 20 years of service just to find you something that shouldn't matter anyway. The idea that this is so important is, in itself, worrisome to me.

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

camrones renagades

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

The money in those bills has already been committed to be spent. The earmarks for specifics like the shrimp only set it to a specific use instead of trusting the bureaucrats to do so.

Not saying I agree with this approach, but it's how he sees it. There's at least some truth to that.

The bigger battle is to do away with the spending overall, not to cut out just this method. Anyway, as long as the method is legal, why should one district be prevented while every other district gets a percentage of the "take"?

If excessive taxation is theft, then earmarking is receiving stolen property.

If he's an idealist, then why would he do that?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

What a great excuse. That money has to come from somewhere. If it gets allocated to specific projects that wouldn't get funded otherwise (say, wild shrimp), it will come from some other, probably more worthy project. That other project will still get paid for, if not this year, then next year or the year after.

What next? Is he going to apply for food stamps or medicaid? That money is going to be spent anyway... so he might as well try to get in on the action and get his share. What an idealist.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

1. RonPaul™ is utterly wrong on his approach to foreign policy.

2. He is utterly wrong on the Fed.

3. If anything, I am way to his right on the functions of government that should be shut down, and shut down with vengeance.

4. If he want to be an "idealist" then he should be teaching college someplace. "Those who CAN, do. Those who CAN'T, teach". Other than that, if he wants to hang out in the real world, he will be expected to produce. So far, all he's produced is methane.

5. I completely reject your "he didn't want to run" thesis. It's simply crap on it's face. There is too much involved in running for POTUS for that to be anywhere near true.

6. Paul's followers are, realistically, a cult. You folks make the Rombots and FredHeads look like they're asleep. Heck, you even make AFC look good.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

At the moment, he has two pieces of legislation he's working on:

1. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h2387_ih.xml
This is a bill to reduce the usurpation of parental authority by government in handling mental health treatment for their children.
2. He has also offered a bill to provide tax credits for parents who home school their kids.

This may not be the earthshaking kinds of things you think every congressman should be doing, but this is just two very simple things that he's doing right now.

It sounds to me like you're just parroting someone's idea that he doesn't do anything, because it's very far from the truth, and it's a very bizarre accusation. Again, you can argue his position on issues if you like, but this garbage about him being phony is just weird. It has no basis in reality. If you'd paid any attention to his career over the past 3 decades, you'd realize that. Instead, you find somebody who takes positions that you don't understand, and you figure he must be evil. Try to take a step back and consider. Is it possible that you might be wrong, and that his positions might actually represent the historical positions of the Conservative movement? You don't have to go very far back in history to find Republicans opposing Nation-Building. Or no-win wars. This is basic conservative philosophy, and I kinda resent the idea that the whole party is supposed to shift its philosophy because one president came along who took them in a different direction. Hey, maybe you guys are right about all these issues. Even if that's true, that doesn't make you into the arbiter of what Republicans always used to believe. Get in touch with your party's history.

If Ron Paul wants to run for President, and not co-moderator of alt.economics.gold.cross.cross.cross, we're long past the time for broad terms. He ought to have a detailed plan published.

Let's see it.

No more theories. No more against this and disfavor that. Ron Paul needs to put up or shut up. Nobody wants to vote for an unknown quantity.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

Yup. Absolutely. As soon as Giuliani, Romney, and McCain publish the FIRST chapter of their monetary policy program, I'll get Paul to start working on his chapter 3. Until then, he's still way out in front of all the other Republicans.

He has offered his general direction of policy. He has offered his insights into how it works. He has offered his first steps. He has offered his stop-gap measures. Have any of the others come close to that much detail?

Stop trying to make this into a means to diminish the candidate.

Nobody else is talking about throwing out the whole system. Ron Paul is, so the burden is on him to make his case.

And I didn't make this about diminishing him. The fact that his supporters have no means of giving clear, direct answers to basic questions diminishes him all by itself.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

All your questions have been answered and reanswered. You just don't like the answers because they don't fit into your narrow view of what they should be. You also act as though the world would end tomorrow without a central bank. Our nation existed for generations without a central bank. Many other nations still do. This is definitely different from today's system, but it isn't unknown or unfathomable, and has been discussed in academic circles countless times.

A monetary system backed by something (gold or whatever) is very simple. Paul doesn't advocate backing with gold in the way you describe, so there's no need for your 400,000 tons of gold. No, I'm not going to tell you where to find 400,000 tons of gold, because it's not relevant, because his plan DOES NOT INCLUDE THE NEED FOR THAT. How much more direct do we need to be. Everyone else on the site, except two of you, have caught on to the discussion and are having an intelligent debate about the pros and cons of these various systems. You are still stuck in the 400,000 tons that aren't needed!!!

But, seriously, talking about keeping the current system needs every bit as much of an explanation as reforming it. The current system is unstable, and whatever you think about a gold standard, there's no sense in electing a president who doesn't even know what the Fed does, especially in a year with so much turmoil.

Bring me an alternative. So far, we're looking at candidates who have nothing to offer. Paul offers a plan that has most of the details filled in. You bring me a candidate with a better economic plan, and I'll consider him. Until then, Congressman Paul is the only one who is offering ANY solution to the financial crisis that is in mid-swing. I spend my career analyzing financial markets, so you'll pardon me if I take this a bit seriously.

I find it unimaginable that these other guys think that everything is just going to be alright if they just don't think about it at all. The Greenspan years have you guys lulled to sleep. Greenspan was great, but he and Volcker have been the only two Fed governors in my lifetime who didn't utterly mismanage the system. This is why the system is so dangerous in my opinion. It is too dependent on the skill level of a handful of individuals to centrally manage things. If there's one thing that any conservative should know it is that government is not ideally suited to centrally manage anything. Once in a blue moon, you may get a lucky and skillful manager who comes through without disaster, but that doesn't mean that the system is great. Any decent presidential candidate needs to outline a clear understanding of economic principles before I would consider voting for him, and particularly in relation to the Fed and inflation. So far, Congressman Paul has done that. No one else has. If you believe his plan is lacking details, go ask him. But again, his plan is far more detailed than anyone else's. Ask them what their plan is for when the mortgage crisis grows.

You have a perfect right to dislike the congressman, or any of his policies. But are you seriously going to suggest again that he needs to come up with a way to find 400,000 tons of gold? HE ISN'T DOING THAT! Why can't you get that?

And the fact that you can write so many paragraphs WITHOUT anything concrete is baffling.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

Given that the term Ronulan was brought into Red Sate by one of the Front Page guys...

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Question: did we ever have enough gold to back are money supply on a 1 for 1 basis.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

That doesn't mean we are better off choosing any alternative that removes the involvement of the government.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

It may not mean that 100% of the time, but certainly it means that most of the time we're better off without gov't intervention. And it absolutely means that we should ALWAYS discuss whether we should find a way to do it without government.

Finally, it necessarily means that, in the party of small government, we ought to be able to discuss the radical notion that less government might be better without getting called moonbats.

But maybe I'm just a throwback to the Reagan days. I guess I remember when conservatives were still in charge.

So as mbecker says, he believes that government is incompetent and corrupt, but opposes the gold standard because (presumably) he feels that in this instance, even an incompetent and corrupt government is better than none.

In fact that is often the whole argument for non-anarchist libertarians. When is government a necessary evil?

For example, from my dealings with the military and my friends who are members, I would say that there is some incompetence and corruption within the US military. Of course, compared to any historical standard the US military is actually very competent and less corrupt than both other countries militaries, and our own past military. I think it also compares favorably with the incompetence and corruption we find in the private sector. Relative measurements matter alot.

However, even those past US militaries that were more incompetent and corrupt than the private sector (and there have been times when the US military was), an incompetent's government monopoly on the military force was much better than a private military, or even not having a military at all.

In other places- such as Saddam's Iraq- having a corrupt military was much worse than not having a military. Mainly because of the lack of checks on the governments power.

So the question becomes how strong of restrictions should we place on the government control of the Monetary system.

Notice that there have been other people who have looked favorably at a "gold standard"- such as Steve Forbes who has favored the Fed. adopting a rule that follows stabilizing the price of gold as a way of preventing the Fed. from allowing inflation.

There is even a faction of economists that favor replacing the Fed. with a simple rule as to how much money the government creates each year. (Monetarists)

Today most people don't look favorably on these ideas- primarily because we have had a series of relatively competent and benevolent (and lucky) Fed. Res. Chairmen.

That doesn't make the ideas bad or unwise. The real question will be what happens when we again have a Fed. Res. that makes a big mistake.

At that point these ideas for restricting the power of the Res. will likely increase in popularity. That doesn't mean we should adopt them.

My point is that this issue is not as clear cut as some want to make it. Neither position should be considered illegitimate.

Personally, I am suspicious of giving the government this much power over monetary policy. However, I also believe that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Greenspan was pretty much a monetarist. His policies of slow but steady money supply growth, and avoiding wild fluctuations in interest rates were consistent with monetarism.

It remains to be seen if Bernanke is cut from the same cloth, but having a financial crisis early in his term will let us soon see his true mettle.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Part of the Monetarist Creed is that there should be a rule- and that it should be public! Stability and Transparency- that way everybody would know what was going to happen in Monetary policy, and could plan accordingly.

Greenspan did seem to agree with having a rule- but he definitely did not believe in transparency.

Hey, I like what you are saying. You sound like a liberal. :)

The articulated position above is typical conservatism.

Skeptical of new government interventions and powers, and also skeptical of ending those activities long within the traditional realm of government power.

It sounds nothing at all like modern liberals who whenever there is any problem or difficulty ever seem to immediately conclude that the government needs new powers, should spend more money, and therefor needs to raise taxes.

Just because it doesn't fit the moronic characterization of the conservative position created by the left, doesn't mean it isn't conservative. Conservatives aren't anarchists.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

It's all tied up with the aim, purpose and necessity for the Federal Reserve Bank. By now the front lines are well-established.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Has Rep. Paul ever, in either stint in the House, introduced a monetary reform bill?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

your comment is utter H.O.G.W.A.S.H.

A consistent, principled avocation for a Constitutional federal government over a twenty year period as a member of the the federal government that has produced exactly NO change, NO movement toward what he sees as Constitutional government is the product of a fool and a phony.

RonPaul™ deserves only to be soundly beaten in the upcoming primary in his district and to be ignominiously forgotten. He has created nothing but a cult of followers who aren't generally bright enough to understand that accomplishment means more than just speachifying.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

here in Alaska in the late seventies, early eighties. They never got a statewide office or a legislative majority, but they elected several Ls and drove both parties, and especially the Rs, their way.

Frankly, in those days Libertarian was code for tax-evader. They could come up with all sorts of philosophical rationales, but fundamentally they were making a hundred or two grand a year in the oil industry and didn't want to pay taxes on it to either the State or federal government. Those were also the days when Alaska was full of signs that said: "Happiness is a Texan going home with an Okie under each arm."

During their ascendency, they got the State's income tax repealed; a major mistake at a variety of levels. Got both the Permanent Fund and the Public Employment Retirement System to invest heavily in gold when it was at its peak - and lose their collective butts on it. Passed or drove all sorts of whacko privacy laws and suits, in concert with the Lefties, that got Alaska notoriety for legal marajuana and crippled law enforcement at all sorts of levels for a couple of decades. It is an even more insiduous version of "me first" politics than Boomer Socialism, which is at least somewhat logical.

When they can convince me that they've given up their black helicopters, their Tri-lateral commission conspiracies, a return to gold standard, and all their other whacko ideas, they might have something to say that I'd be interested in listening to.
In Vino Veritas

You're right, we're pretty good at creating wealth through hard work and intelligent application of human and financial capital. But the wealth created in that pursuit, if held in cash, purchases less tomorrow than it did today.

Do you honestly believe the government's inflation statistics? Do you buy your own groceries? Check out this document:
http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/article/id=343

When the monetary unit at the foundation of our economy doesn't provide a stable store of value, we all suffer.

Visit the following purchasing power calculator, based on our own published CPI data:
http://www.measuringworth.com/ppowerus/

I don't understand how any thinking human being can accept the legitimacy of this system.

Why can't someone work half his life, live on half his income, and retire? Instead, you have to take the fruit of your labor, put it at risk in potentially volatile markets, and pay the financial services industry handsomely for the privilege. And that's after you've paid 30-40% in taxes which is STILL not enough to balance the federal government's budget.

BD

Everyone agrees that inflation is bad. But tying the currency to gold isn't going to fix that. I remember Nixon tried to fix inflation by inacting wage and price freezes, and that failed completely. Like the gold standard, it addressed the surface of the problem without dealing with underlying causes.

Money is not a brick of gold, it's a social construct that represents labor and commodities. The money supply is not constant, it grows with the population and when the economy grows. We must always address structural issues that keep our economy strong -- education, science, free markets, opportunity, entrepreneurship, work ethic, etc. Lose those, and the Dollar will become as worthless as the Peso.

For now, I think the biggest danger would be if some demogogue stepped in and did something simplistic and stupid, against the advice of economic experts.

Money as a social construct? Now we've got Sociology Ph.D.'s trying to argue economic policy? Sheesh.

Yes, of course wage and price controls failed. Not because this was similar to fixing currency to something of substance, but because it was THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE. The underlying issue is whether or not the currency is something of value. This little experimental journey we are on, essentially since Nixon, where the currency is based on absolutely nothing, has functioned fairly well for a period of time. So, that's a fair argument for not trying to fix what ain't broken. BUT...if it does turn out to break, the sensible, logical thing to consider is that just perhaps the fact that we tried to create a monetary system out of thin air (or social constructs if you prefer) might have been the reason for the problem. As it stands, the dollar has value ONLY because of the things you suggest. Or more correctly, only because people have FAITH that it relates to the things you suggest. That is different from the history of money, where it has historically always ALSO had an intrinsic value. Paper money systems like ours typically always fail. This one has lasted fairly well for a decent period of time. So, sure, let's let it go as long as we can, but let's not live in denial. It isn't really likely to succeed indefinitely. Nowhere in history has that happened, and while our technology may make it stronger and more stable than usual, I think it's quite arrogant to assume that we're smarter than everyone in history. If you're right, great. You'll notice we're going along with it. But stop trying to assert that this is a perfect system that can't possibly fail.

because people believe it does. Supply and demand. It is that simple.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

This is not a new concept, by the way.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Money is many things to many people, but at the end of the day you have to admit that Ron Paul makes sense when he says that he's against letting the government print as much money as it wants. The current situation is just that... but since we're in a privileged position as the "global reserve currency", we've been able to get away with it for much longer than Zimbabwe, for instance.

That dynamic is changing, however. What happens when China's 1.3 billion people change from being creators of cheap goods to the world's most voracious consumer? And at the same time, the Chinese government gives us our wish of letting the RMB rise to true market levels? (Hint: the dollar will no longer be the global reserve currency, for starters.)

The words "gold standard" cease having meaning in an intelligent debate because our experiments with 20th century so-called "gold standards" were always doomed to fail. While our Treasury said they would convert Federal Reserve Notes to a specific amount of gold, they only did so in an environment where they artificially fixed gold's price!

They still had the ability to print money when needed, and we needed to for the Great Society and Vietnam. As a result, paper dollars sloshed around the world, and foreign central banks started to call our bluff and exchange their dollars for our gold. Hence Nixon closed the gold window in 1971, basically admitting that we'd cheated and gotten caught.

A sound currency only seeks to capture the purchasing power of a commodity that has a non-trivial cost to produce (i.e., it must be in limited supply) and is impossible to counterfeit. It's that simple. But just because something is labeled a "gold standard" doesn't mean it meets that test.

RP is not a demagogue, and isn't advocating something "simplistic and stupid". Initially, his first advised step is legalizing competition in the money supply. Why is a monopoly on phone service a bad thing, but a good thing with the foundation of our economy?

BD

And each account number will begin with 666.

And it will all be monitored by a large computer somewhere in Switzerland...

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2007/April/07_crm_301.html

Obviously, the government does not like competition in this area.

If I knew for sure what the Fed was thinking about this, I'd probably be sworn to secrecy and couldn't tell you. My belief is that the inflation indicators they are most concerned about are wage increases that aren't matched by productivity increases. That's a sure sign that there are too many dollars chasing too few goods.

On the other hand, wage increases that are matched by increases in production, productivity, or both, are healthy.

They also seem to care a lot about nationally- and regionally-calculated consumer-price numbers, minus food and energy.

Housing is so illiquid, and the consequences of needing to ride out decreases in housing values so non-disruptive, that I don't think housing gets anyone too worried at the Fed. My opinion, of course.

you can usually buy most anything with gold if you're of a mind to. In much of Alaska, if you don't mind spending your summer being wet and cold, you can mine a lot (relatively) of gold. There are still merchants that will trade with you in gold. You can't shop at WalMart, Costco, or Home Depot and the like with it, but the businesses that cater to Bush Alaska will trade with you. When I was in the building business in Anchorage in the early '80s, I had several offers to pay all or part of a project's cost in gold. Ususally, you're dealing with someone who has a powerful interest in the government not knowing what they make or what they're doing. Sometimes it is ideological - we have more than our fair share of the black helicopter crowd, sometimes its because they're doing something illegal, sometimes its because there's a warrant for them or, very commonly, a child support order. In the places where it can be done, it is a good way to stay out of the formal economy.

In Vino Veritas

I have no problem with paying in Gold (if I had some) and I doubt there are many family owned businesses that would refuse payment in Gold/Silver from someone local as long as it was something they could properly assess.

For example a British Sovereign probably wouldn't carry but an American Eagle would.

Heck, I'd take payment in gold and silver for that matter.

Walmart? Not a chance.

not refined or minted gold coinage. Anywhere around here, I could spend two or three hours being cold and wet and come back with some dust or flakes, maybe even a nugget if I got lucky. It's its own world.

I have an acquaintance that goes up to Nome every couple of summers and uses a hydraulic dredge off the beaches there. With what he makes off that, and maybe a little "agricultural" production in his crawl space, he lives quite well and almost totally off the formal economy. Ever so often, he'll drive a taxi for a while and pay some taxes and declare some income so he doesn't join the ranks of the "no visible means of support" crowd. There's an amazing number of people like that throughout the mountain West.

BTW, if you'd like to be truly miserable, wade into the Bering Sea and run a hydraulic for ten or twelve hours a day. Whatever else you can say about the way guys like that live, they earn every "penny" they make. I've done it for sport, and you couldn't pay me enough to do it for a living.

In Vino Veritas

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

I thought RonPaul™ was the most dense guy around until you dispelled that notion.

Banks issuing their own currency. Wow. Just wow.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

>>>Banks issuing their own currency. Wow. Just wow.<<<

Just like during the Confederacy. And boy was that an economic wonder!!

Just printed money. Like we do now.

Why not. If it's backed by gold. You bet. Most would probably just mint Gold coins by the gram. 28-21-14-7 etc etc. Gold coins would have no fixed value. The Daily gold price would determine the value.

I was going to write a reasonably detailed response, but you are obviously not bright enough to understand the reality of what you are proposing.

Wow. Just wow.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Well, I have an MBA from Harvard.

Don't worry, William. They're just smarter than we are. It's irrelevant that we've studied this stuff or worked in the field for years. They KNOW we must be wrong, because we don't think like they do.

Hey, in the end, the best way for Ron Paul to win the general election is if he gets lots of virulent opposition from the Bushites before winning the Republican nomination. So, I think we can be secure in the knowledge that that kind of opposition is forthcoming. Thanks for the PR, guys. Nothing works better for winning over independents than having Republicans yell at you because you're not like Bush! ;-)

Thanks again! Keep up the good work. Repeat after me: "Ron Paul is NOTHING like George Bush."

If you really want to change minds about Paul on this site You should start by addressing a lot of questions. Paul is a frequent subject of posts here, go back through about two to three months of Paul posts identify all the material questions and criticisms raised about him, research the questions/criticisms, and then respond to them systematically and with sources in a series of posts. I know that this will require a lot of work, but the reality of the matter is that numerous serious questions and criticisms have been raised about Paul on this site over the last few months and almost none of them have ever been responded to in a serious and documented way. In consequence many of the regulars on this site have come to accept these criticisms as fact. Until Paul supporters disprove the criticisms of Paul in a systematic and documented way they are going to win very few converts, and many snarks on this site.

P.S. Ironically this site is very libertarian friendly. Moreover, more than a few of the individuals that have snarked at your comments are libertarians or libertarian-conservatives.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Honestly, i doubt if I'll have time to do that until mid- to late-September. My career requirements will take me away a lot of the next few weeks, so that type of time investment just isn't available for the present. But I'll try to see if I can find time for that later.

And, thanks for the encouragement. I was about ready to give up on this site, frankly. While a lot of people claim to be conservative or libertarian, they seem so hyped up on compromise that they reject out of hand anything that sounds at all unpopular.

The past few days has been interesting. I started out just arguing logically, and while that worked on some, others just ignored facts and demanded an explanation for positions that the Congressman hasn't even taken. I don't know how to explain why he took a position that he didn't take. It's just nonsense.

So, that got me a little depressed, thinking that perhaps the Republicans really aren't ever going to support Ron. Sad. But then I stopped focusing on Ron and tried to just argue issues. Real, old conservative issues. And they shot me down again. This is when I realized just how important this campaign really is. Because in the past few years, apparently while I wasn't looking, we've not only rejected Ron Paul, but we've also rejected most of what Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were about. We still use the term "conservative", but today the term apparently means "I support the war and I don't question the president". It clearly doesn't mean much in economic or social policy, as I learned while reading what everyone thinks about health insurance, and how "we" have to come up with something that LOOKS like universal coverage, otherwise "they" will give us real universal coverage. Well, I gotta tell ya, I don't WANT universal coverage. Personally, I don't even like health insurance. I would carry catastrophic care coverage myself, if I had the choice, but I have absolutely no interest in traditional healthcare insurance. I'll put that money aside and save it for my own choice of private care physician, thank you very much. Incredible!

But, I'll take your advice under advisement. I'll have to step back for a couple of days now anyway, but hopefully I'll be back. We'll see.

conservatives and even Libertarians will not support RonPaul™. Get over it. As a matter of fact, find a candidate with a record of accomplishment and you'll find support for libertarian ideas.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Project Director
LJF Management Group

Your welcome. Do not give up on this site. It is the premier conservative blog. You will find people from all three legs of the Conservative Movement on this site. You will also find a few CINO's here, and the occasional leftist that just wants a good honest argument/debate/discussion (Flyer is probably the best such example). I have seen very few regulars advocate the compromise of principles. Compromise is usually argued for as a means to get closer to the realization of a goal derived from principle.

"The past few days has been interesting. I started out just arguing logically, and while that worked on some, others just ignored facts and demanded an explanation for positions that the Congressman hasn't even taken. I don't know how to explain why he took a position that he didn't take. It's just nonsense."

I am not particularly familiar with Paul's record, so I cannot really say much about the accuracy of facts offered up in support of him, or in criticism of him. It is though an unfortunate reality of blogs (and other mediums) that unchallenged erroneous facts are occasionally accepted as accurate.

"So, that got me a little depressed, thinking that perhaps the Republicans really aren't ever going to support Ron. Sad. But then I stopped focusing on Ron and tried to just argue issues. Real, old conservative issues. And they shot me down again. This is when I realized just how important this campaign really is. Because in the past few years, apparently while I wasn't looking, we've not only rejected Ron Paul, but we've also rejected most of what Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were about. We still use the term "conservative", but today the term apparently means "I support the war and I don't question the president". It clearly doesn't mean much in economic or social policy, as I learned while reading what everyone thinks about health insurance, and how "we" have to come up with something that LOOKS like universal coverage, otherwise "they" will give us real universal coverage. Well, I gotta tell ya, I don't WANT universal coverage. Personally, I don't even like health insurance. I would carry catastrophic care coverage myself, if I had the choice, but I have absolutely no interest in traditional healthcare insurance. I'll put that money aside and save it for my own choice of private care physician, thank you very much. Incredible!"

You will find that some of the greatest opponents to Paul on this site are also some of the strongest supporters libertarian-conservative ideas. Paul's comments on the war during the debate angered a lot of the regulars. You must remember that there are RedStaters in Iraq right now. There are also a lot of regulars that have served there or have family serving there right now. Anything that can even vaguely be interpreted as not supporting the troops (that is how Paul's comments from the debate were interpreted) is not going to get a lot of support from the regulars. Moreover, if you look at other posts on socialized medicine you will find many of the same people who went after your pro-Paul comments did the same to the advocates of socialized medicine.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express!!

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

So we'll have 'bad' money, but only if the government does it? Unless you make gold legal tender, compelling people to take it to cover debts, how is that different from what we have now?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

I suggest you take a gander at a gold coin. New ones minted every year by our government. The Double Eagles. On the back it says, 1 OZ fine Gold 50 Dollars.

Of course we know it's worth a lot more than 50 dollars. Gold closed today in New York at 661 an ounce. But if you were dumb enough to take that Double Eagle Gold coin, you could get 50 dollars worth of goods and services for it anywhere.

Banks could issue their own gold and silver minted coins. Their value would be set by the market. Not the Government. It's truely Free Market money. We don't let the government have a monopoly in grocery stores, computers or anything else. But we do allow them to have a monopoly in money and education. After reading these threads, I see that monopoly in education has done great damage. :>)

The gold coins issued by the government are legal tender because the government says they are. The only way you are going to get someone other than Citibank to accept a Citibank coin is for the government to force people to accept them. The free market at work, I guess.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I think the Second Life dollars would have a real shot at gaining wide use if the company running that system weren't so horrifically bad at software.

But again, here we're getting another Ronulan filling in his own favorite theory where the man himself has left a big gap in his stated plans.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

Is when is Second Life going to finally get rid of their peg to USD and let their currency float freely?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Probably when they stop profiting from it, heh.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

I don't think Second Life currency should be a problem. I know that Ron would also be very supportive of things like e-gold that someone else on here mentioned. And IF Citibank issued coinage, i doubt if it would be that difficult to find people to accept it. My goodness, in Great Barrington, Mass, there's a deli that issues their own scrip, and it's commonly accepted throughout the town and county.

The point is that the Paul philosophy on currency is very free market. So, while he's not going to specifically announce which types of competitive currency he would endorse (I think that would be inappropriate for a candidate), I think it's fair to say that he'd be more open to such things.

Again, though, I don't see what particular piece of policy is missing from his platform. He's provided a fairly voluminous set of writings. I think, perhaps, you're just afraid that the free market can't work for money. Because in this country, we've never done that before (at least not in our lifetimes). But really, this isn't that dramatic. There's not a lot of pieces to the puzzle. You allow the free market to operate, and the world doesnt come to an end. How is that a gap in the plan?

You can take that Double Eagle to any grocery store and buy a 6 pack of beer with it today. You might have to call the manager and explain that this gold coin is legal tender and show it to him. If he isn't as dense as some of the posters here, he'll take that coin and give you 44 dollars in change.

You must've aced Pointless and Irrelevant Observations 101 at Harvard, because you are a master. None of that has anything to do with private coinage.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Legal tender is a concept that most of us have never used in our lives. If you bring a court action against someone and win, you cannot deny that legal tender is a valid means of the other party paying the debt. You are still welcome to accept gold, silver, Euros, Yen, or a bucket full of warm spit if you like.

Alternative currencies are not generally popular outside of hyperinflation because it is really convenient for people to generally use the same currency. Outside of airports and major tourist shopping destinations, most stores only accept legal tender, but that is entirely their choice.

Currencies are now more competitive than they used to be. You can go to Amazon and buy goods in any currency you like, pay on your privately issued credit card, and settle the credit card bill in a different currency.

I usually settle my bills in either pounds or dollars, because they happen to be convenient for me.

In hyperinflation countries governments usually make it illegal to hold stocks of other currencies. People usually ignore this.

Ron Paul's ideas for currency competition are entirely solid, but also entirely unnecessary. You don't have to use dollars now. But in a competitive market, most people choose to do so. Ron Paul is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Go read the Posting Rules to this particular bit of private property, WilliamR. Then start working on your apology.

That's going to be your next post, by the way.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

WilliamR has an MBA from Harvard.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

to endless stays in Pipeline Camps and maintenance stations. If you were foolish enough and didn't have anything else to do, you could have this conversation endlessly. 'Course, most of those guys didn't have the excuse of a Hahvud education, they were just making more money than God and didn't want to pay taxes. There's nothing more dangerous than a little knowledge.

In Vino Veritas

Some of us wrestle with cognitive dissonance, and work to align our observations of the world with our beliefs.

Others just hold beliefs and refuse to question them, regardless of how much those beliefs are tested by objective evidence to the contrary, and historical precedent.

How about this article in the Financial Times featuring David Walker, our own Comptroller of the Currency and head of the GAO:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/80fa0a2c-49ef-11dc-9ffe-0000779fd2ac.html

In the words of the immortal Hans and Frans: "Hear me now and believe me later..." All we're asking is for you to consider if we're in a sustainable situation. But if you'd rather ignore David Walker, the performance of our currency in the international market, the fiscal impossibility of funding our entitlement programs, and the historical record of fiat currencies, go for it.

Ron Paul and Ben Bernanke

Assuming that you can make an inconvenient reality go away by simply ignoring it, that is. Well, As Above, So Below.

Blam.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Apparently an Ivy League education is just not as worthwhile as it used to be. I blame grade inflation. :)

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

But he has overcome his handicap. That's what faith and the power of transcendence can do! :>)

I mean no disrespect here but I feel like I'm carrying on a conversation with a computer that spits out random phrases. You're pretty impressive for machine intelligence, not so much for human intelligence.

What is "that" in "that's what we call a non-viable strategy"? What "inconvenient reality"?
Well, As Above, So Below?

Well, whatever. One last reading assignment for you chaps:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_47/b4010001.htm

Now, this is about the most economically illiterate piece of drivel I've ever seen. Mostly because while it strings together a bunch of problems, and it never stops enlarging the scope of government in proposing solutions. Does it occur to anyone that persistent interference in markets might be part of the problem?

However, this is widely-read mainstream journalism. Are there any quotes that jump out at you? Here are a couple:

“The best solution would be some sort of global central bank with real powers–but that’s not going to happen until there’s a big enough financial crisis to truly scare people.”

“The idea of a national economic policy may be fundamentally out of date in a world of global markets. Washington is no longer the center of the economic universe. That’s a basic fact that Democrats and Republicans alike will need to get their heads around.”

I had thought this was a "conservative" blog, whatever that means. I had thought that folks here might be interested in limited government, economic self-determination, and our national sovereignity.

I don't think anyone here advocating for change would state that the sky is falling, or that economic oblivion happens tomorrow. But keeping one's head in the sand and not questioning the sustainability of the current situation isn't in your, your family's, or your nation's best interest.

But maybe that's ok by you. As Above, So Below.

with an abundance of conservatives. Pretty much everybody here supports the idea of limited government, economic self-determination, and our national sovereignity [sic]. You can throw in a pretty wide swath of libertarian ideas.

What we are not the least interested in is RonPaul™.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

then you might consider showing some interest in the problems being faced by our country, and not mindlessly following the repetitive "nuke 'em and wave the flag, things will be just fine" drivel out of the current roster of "Republican" candidates.

How do you explain this? http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

(Republicans, supposedly fiscal conservatives, have presided over the largest expansion of our national debt in history.)

I thought I was a Republican -- as defined by a respect for individual liberties, a strong national defense, free markets and entrepreneurship, and a limited government. I've always had a respect for the Constitution, though, and find our complete ignorance of the document in recent history to be a tremendous handicap.

Now if you folks truly speak for "Republican" philosophy, perhaps we need a GNP (Grand New Party). The status quo, as evidenced by Bush's approval numbers and the momentum against the war in Iraq, has about zero chance of winning in 2008. Corporate America (the BIG money donors) have already spoken, and they're putting their money on Obama/Clinton.

And how do you do that cool (TM) thing?

Generally speaking, most of us would agree with you on most issues. Where we draw the line is simple. We won't support a guy who's been in the Congress for twenty plus years and has absolutely no accomplishments to show for it.

He's supposed to be opposed to a bunch of stuff and introduces boilerplate legislation that he knows will never get out of committee. He's yet to actually produce any kind of a plan to implement any of what he believes. He has yet to get another Congressman to work with him on an issue he cares about. He's shown exactly no leadership - and making speeches and writing drivel isn't leadership - in twenty years in the Congress.

RonPaul™ is an incredible phony. He is utterly incompetent to serve in Congress and we've got twenty years of proof of that. His stated policy on foreign affairs is completely unhinged. His ignorance of economics is simply stunning. And his inability to get anything accomplished is legion.

With respect to the "momentum against the war in Iraq", come back after General Petraeus gets done and we'll talk.

The (TM) thing: RonPaul[&]trade; without the brackets will give you RonPaul™.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. Specifically with the following statements:

"We won't support a guy who's been in the Congress for twenty plus years and has absolutely no accomplishments to show for it." --> So he's not the best at building coalitions among professional bureaucrats who sell their votes to the highest bidder. Did Republicans vote for the Medicare prescription drug plan, the largest expansion of our entitlement system in recent history? In God's name, why? Is that in the Constitution? I go back to his consistent and principled support for a Constitutionally-limited Federal government. At this point, sticking to justifiable principles is a good thing. Give the guy a break -- he's just trying to honor his oath of office!

"He's supposed to be opposed to a bunch of stuff and introduces boilerplate legislation that he knows will never get out of committee. He's yet to actually produce any kind of a plan to implement any of what he believes. He has yet to get another Congressman to work with him on an issue he cares about. He's shown exactly no leadership - and making speeches and writing drivel isn't leadership - in twenty years in the Congress." --> Again, he's in the minority trying to educate. But at least he's now being joined by Congressman Paul Broun (who won the special election for Norwood's old seat following a Constitutionalist conservative grassroots campaign). So there are two votes, now...

Regarding "His stated policy on foreign affairs is completely unhinged." --> No more unhinged than Jefferson and Washington. What nutjobs they were.

Regarding "His ignorance of economics is simply stunning." --> The fact that we've moved to a substantive dialog on blackhedd's new thread is evidence, I think, that there's at least some level of interest in his perspectives. I'd say this is the most patently false of all your assertions.

Regarding "With respect to the "momentum against the war in Iraq", come back after General Petraeus gets done and we'll talk." --> I wish him, and our troops, God's blessing for safety and a safe return home. I just wish there was more hope for a long-term political solution. Cheney was right in 1994: http://bhday.wordpress.com/2007/08/17/talk-about-cognitive-dissonance/
Bringing "democracy" to Iraq at gunpoint is about as likely as bringing it to China. A true Constitutional republic that respects the rights of the minority is not part of their culture or heritage any more than China's. We are unique, and precious, in that respect. This is not to disrespect our troops at all -- I have friends in the service, we are thankful for their sacrifice, and we pray for their safety and safe return. I just wish we defended OUR borders, and protected OUR national security, as diligently as Iraq's. In my opinion, the battle to moderate the middle east needs to be fought with a military defense and an economic offense, as opposed to a military offense and an economic defense. Education and economic development are the key to defusing Islamofascism, at least according to George Bush:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM

Thanks for the TM thing. Yes, I'm a RonPaul™ supporter. Not because I believe he's the second coming, but because I believe his message of respecting the Constitutionally-authorized role for our federal government has been ignored for way too long. All objective economic evidence suggests that the government in its current role is literally eating us alive.

That's all for me on this thread... Have a great weekend, and God Bless America.

You were told to do something: do it. Last chance.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Nothing to show for 20 years in Congress? I am not sure what could be more valuable than an impeccable conservative voting record consistent with his stated beliefs.

To which 'we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.'

After 20 years in Congress Ron Paul can claim he has retained his Honor. What could be greater?

For Freedom and protection of Life, Liberty and Private Property: RonPaul2008.com

Nothing to show for 20 years in Congress? I am not sure what could be more valuable than an impeccable conservative voting record consistent with his stated beliefs.

He could have abolished a government programme. You know, a small one. He could have found himself an ally on an issue or two: someone to second one of his propsals, so that it might just get debated.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Sneaky way to re-frame the issue; However, it is ineffective.

Ron Paul's ability to 'show anything' is only dependent upon his actions; the actions of his colleagues are irrelevant.

If Ron Paul is the only one who wishes to retain his honor by upholding the Constitution, even if it is 434-1 as it has been on numerous occasions, then so be it. His honor is not tarnished because all his colleagues have tarnished theirs.

For Freedom and protection of Life, Liberty and Private Property: RonPaul2008.com

dumb as a post. The perfect foil for RonPaul™. He spends twenty years casting completely meaningless votes and isn't able to mount an effective campaign to eliminate a single federal JOB let alone department and you think he's a hero.

There's one born every minute. You people are simply amazing.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

You still have not addressed the issue so keep chasing your tail. You ought to attack the message and not the messenger unless, of course, your logical abilities lack and your ideas are weak.

For Freedom and protection of Life, Liberty and Private Property: RonPaul2008.com

I've addressed this issue more times than I can count. OK, I can count higher than that. I've addressed this issue more times than you can count. Even with your shoes off.

You jerks keep pounding the glories of RonPaul™'s inability to accomplish anything because it's part of the Messiah legend you've built around the fool. And I'm not wasting my bandwidth (Erick's bandwidth) explaining the obvious again.

Go do something productive, like load up an online poll.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

All Ron Paul Supporters.

Please Listen and Listen Clearly.

This could, in fact, be a breakthrough.

We are attacking the messenger. Not the message.

You want to know why? Your messenger is a fraud. He's ineffective. He's a hypocrite.

Most of us here lean, in fact, Libertarian/Conservative.

But when a total and complete charletan who votes against all spending bills because they contain spending "not specifically authorized by the Constitution", but then earmark specific funds because "it didn't increase overall spending, just re-directed it", we know we have a fraud. Does the consitution specifically authorize spending money to promote wild shrimp? Even if it didn't increase overall spending? I think not.

Your messenger is less than imperfect. He's fatally flawed. He's unelectable, perhaps even for congress from his home district.

Please spend some of your enerty into figuring out how to elect someone that can effect change, instead of someone who will never, EVER, appear on a national ballot.

it better than I did. You're obviously not all that tired. :>)
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Just finishing that other half of the bottle of Chiraz that was so helpful in preparing last night's troll bait.

Thanks for the '5' Neil, and to all a good night.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

I do not see earmarks as the issue but instead the vote on the bill.

If one puts an earmark on a bill and then votes against the bill what difference does it make to their integrity? 'Fatally flawed' and a 'fraud' ... if that is the most dirt you can dig up on the Messenger then please keep shoveling.

As such, he usually votes No on the bill even if it has an earmark for district: http://tinyurl.com/2ldjs3

For Freedom and protection of Life, Liberty and Private Property: RonPaul2008.com

And a lie not just to his voters but to himself. Which makes it pathetic to boot.

He knows the bill will pass regardless of his own vote on it, and That is why he included the pork. Because he knows the pork will help him get reelected.

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

If he can't coax anything out of the Congress, then isn't he next to worthless as President?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

If Ron Paul can't get one member of congress to agree with him, how is he ever going to get elected?

Even if the rest of us suspend reality and assume he is elected...

whoa, need a moment there, that's a tall order

...guess what? 434 votes override a veto!

Ron Paul promises to be even more ineffective as President than he has been as the LEAST ineffective member of congress for two decades.

Thank you. I believe you've inspired tomorrow's Ron Paul Troll Blog trade;

Considering the other article on Congressional Approval Ratings and if Ron Paul were elected by The People then there just may be a whole new Congress also. It seems The People are getting annoyed with the Establishment and the Internet, assuming it remains open, will bring increased scrutiny and accountability to the process.

Anyway, money and power are impotent against ideas. Only ideas can confront other ideas.

Few people I encounter who, when exposed to a significant amount of Ron Paul's ideas, disagree with them.

Very few of the articles on this site even confront his ideas. Instead they focus on him or his voting record or his weird supporters, etc. Of course, when one has weak ideas it is best to not discuss ideas.

The People are getting fed up with politicians who derive benefits from bridge collapses: http://mises.org/story/2670

This may lead to them to changing their philosophy of government.

For Freedom and protection of Life, Liberty and Private Property: RonPaul2008.com

Ideas are worth exactly nothing without action. And the reason the posters here focus on the RonPaul&trade. voting record is that his track record shows him incapable of any action. So the ideas you PaulBots are so fond of blathering about are worthless, right or wrong.

I have an idea. Everybody send Mrs908 money. Click on my contact email and I'll send you a PayPal link. Wow! What a great idea.

Come on guys. Click through. Just $10 per click. You'll get a personalized thank you from Mrs908 as soon as we get to $500,000.

Click NOW!
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Every action you refer to is preceded by an idea. Perhaps the reason for his track record showing him incapable of any action is because the marketplace of ideas had been constricted.

Now, because of the Internet and technology, the marketplace of ideas is much larger. The MSM is losing their grip and ability to constrict the ideas in the marketplace to further their agenda. His ideas must be grappled with or the Internet must be constricted for those who hold power to retain it.

The MSM has attempted to ignore Ron Paul but that has only resulted in more people being exposed to his ideas: http://tinyurl.com/34j8xk

For Freedom and protection of Life, Liberty and Private Property: RonPaul2008.com

They pull me back in.

Yes, Ron Paul is rejected by normal people (read that as 70+% of the public)because he has 1) "weird supporters" (your words, not mine. Deadly accurate, but your words, not mine), and 2) His voting record.

I ask you sir, How are we to judge this man?

1) His voting record? Why what a fabulous idea! Well, he votes against everything in a vacuum, and has no eveidence that he can convince anyone to vote his way.

Anecdote, take it for what it's worth. My Congressman recently found himself the only person to vote no on a bill with Ron Paul. He called me twice afterwards to make sure he did the right thing, because voting with Paul made him that uncomfortable.

So, Paul stands on principal, but in 20 years of this stance, he hasn't taken a step towards first base. The country doesn't need a batter, it needs someone who will swing for the fences. Ron Paul ain't him.

2) Weird supporters. The thing I'm most amazed about RP supporters is that they can't ever find anyone who disagrees with them. But (based solely on my years of anecdotal experience), I'll bet they talk a lot and don't listen at all. I'm sure there's a lot of ranting, and the people they rant too just listen and nod, hoping they'll go away soon. There lies the disconnect. The nutjob ranter believes the person agreed with everything they just said, and the innocent bystander just was happy to leave without getting knifed.

So yep, there's two problems you guys might want to work on instead of spending all your time on-line with interenet polls.

Free advice, no charge.

charging these idiots, Iccy. After all, a fool and his money...
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Free consulting is too expensive. I can't take it anymore.

(I guess they'll pay me in gold?)

Well, thanks for the free consulting. However, the political landscape is changing and I am not sure how applicable it is or will be.

Perhaps some Ron Paul supporters talk a lot. I usually just give someone a URL to YouTube or DVD with 3.5 hours of Ron Paul stuff on it and let them view it themselves.

If anyone is swinging for the fence it would be Ron Paul .... He really does want to change the system.

For Freedom and protection of Life, Liberty and Private Property: RonPaul2008.com

Well, my purse strings are fairly tight so good luck.

Heck, I haven't donated to Ron Paul's official campaign. I figure I can allocate the capital more efficiently than he can.

For Freedom and protection of Life, Liberty and Private Property: RonPaul2008.com

“…Ron Paul is rejected by normal people (read that as 70+% of the public)…”

The Rasmussen poll I linked below suggest that the Paul is rejected by about 60+% of the electorate.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/congressman_ron_...

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

I voted Harry Browne in 2000 beacuse I was terribly displeased with Bush and McCain. If you can't sell Ron Paul to me, Ron Paul is in trouble.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

I voted for Ron Paul in '88.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Or if he was, you wouldn't be around here now.

And I've not discussed it with him either. And I'm hoping he's lost interest in this thread.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

You were actually watching me ban somebody for not playing nice. I'm one of the people who get to do that.

So, three points.

1). Are you WilliamR? Please answer in your next post here - and bear in mind that you'll be immediately tossed off of the site as a retread if you are.

2). Lose the attitude - which includes whatever impulse is telling you that trash-talking site moderators is a good idea. You won't get another warning.

Thanks in advance for your compliance.

Moe

Oh, yes: 3). Life isn't fair, but I only care about whether you do as you're told, not if you enjoy doing it.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I didn't know to which message that reply referred. Now I'm with you.

No I'm not WilliamR. Don't know the guy. Based on his writing style, his brain works a little differently than mine.

Apologies for trash-talking. No offense intended. I honestly just didn't know what you were saying.

'Night

(oh, and ps -- I completely understand and respect your private property rights. I take appropriate care to delete obscene and irrelevant comments from my blog, and have come to appreciate this dialog a great deal.)

I appreciate your civil response; we do have to be a little hard-nosed sometimes to get people's attention, so my apologies if I came across as being terse.

Have a good night.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

You'll be a fine dad, and you will survive the "teenage years" if just pretend your kids are trolls and you are the moderator. Actually, you'll find that when they become teenagers, they ARE trolls. :>)
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

In Vino Veritas

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777