Rep. Ron Paul for Prez

[alexamenos]

The right Representative Dr. Ron Paul (R-Texas) is running for president in '08.

He's far too good a man for the office. That he is neither a whore, nor a fool, nor an inveterate liar may well be a fatal liability in his bid. But may he fair well, nonetheless.

--------------

WHO IS RON PAUL?

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.

---------------

The Ron Paul FREEDOM PRINCIPLES

-Rights belong to individuals, not groups.
-Property should be owned by people, not government.
-All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.
-The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.
-Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.
-The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.

------------

[alexamenos]

A man who loves liberty and obeys the Constitution. Chances of winning, << 1 in a million.

[Rhylan]

I love this guy.

[alexamenos]

joe sobran on Rep. Paul......

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2007/070125.shtml

...Paul, a pro-life medical doctor, is a genuine political maverick. When the House votes for something 434 to 1, you can safely bet that Paul is the 1. He really fights for the principles other Republicans only pretend to stand for, and does so with carefully reasoned explanations of his positions.

In essence, Paul appeals to that subversive document, the U.S. Constitution, long since abandoned by both major parties, not to mention the U.S. Supreme Court. He tests every proposed law by asking whether it exercises a power authorized by the Constitution. The answer is seldom yes.

Many years ago Paul told me, with his affably ironic smile, that he felt more pressure from his fellow Republicans than from Democrats, because the Democrats weren’t embarrassed when a Republican voted like a real conservative, but the Republicans were. Showing up his own party has been the story of Ron Paul’s career. No other Republican has voted against President Bush as consistently as he has.

Paul isn’t flamboyant or defiant about it; his style is quiet and reasonable, not combative. Being a maverick isn’t a pose for him. It’s a matter of conscience and logic.

As a result, the GOP doesn’t care much for him and, if he runs, will try to stifle him. The allegedly right-wing Newt Gingrich, when he was riding high, once supported Paul’s opponent in the primary race; Gingrich knew what he was doing. A genuine conservative’s worst enemy is a fake one. And vice versa....

[alexamenos]

A lot of people like Ron Paul....

http://pajamasmedia.com/strawpoll200...01f77d879d30b4

Republican Candidates

Fred Thompson 2084 34.9%
Ron Paul 1731 29.0%
Rudy Giuliani 757 12.7%
Newt Gingrich 398 6.7%
Mitt Romney 390 6.5%
Tom Tancredo 223 3.7%
Duncan Hunter 129 2.2%
Tommy Thompson 108 1.8%
John McCain 94 1.6%
Sam Brownback 44 0.7%
George Pataki 14 0.2%

Not the folks at Pajamas Media, of course....they went so far as to take his name off the list of Republican candidates in order to hide his popularity. Having put him back on the list he now trails only one fellow who hasn't even declared his candidacy.

Of course Paul still doesn't stand a chance. He's the epitome of the unelectable candidate (ie, he's not an lying, conniving advocate of unchecked centralized power). Still, it's fun to see.

cheers

[usafreedom3]

I have studied him a little, and I agree with him on a lot of issues and the way he backs our constitution.

I am supporting Fred Thompson http://draftfredthompson.com and like him a lot and think he is the type of articulate and straightforward communicator we need.

Back to Paul, he does seem to have lots of grassroots support, but I personally do not think he has any chance to win.

I am all for him running, and in fact his candidacy will force others to answer lots of questions that conservatives want answered.

In the end, if he does not get the nomination, I truly hope he does not run as an independent and pull a Ross Perot on us and allow Hillary and Slick Willie to move their party back to the White House.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

A lot of people like Ron Paul....

http://pajamasmedia.com/strawpoll200...01f77d879d30b4

Republican Candidates

Fred Thompson 2084 34.9%
Ron Paul 1731 29.0%
Rudy Giuliani 757 12.7%
Newt Gingrich 398 6.7%
Mitt Romney 390 6.5%
Tom Tancredo 223 3.7%
Duncan Hunter 129 2.2%
Tommy Thompson 108 1.8%
John McCain 94 1.6%
Sam Brownback 44 0.7%
George Pataki 14 0.2%

Of course Paul still doesn't stand a chance. He's the epitome of the unelectable candidate (ie, he's not an lying, conniving advocate of unchecked centralized power). Still, it's fun to see.

cheers

How cynical. So McCain, Brownback, Giuliani, Gingrich and the others are "lying, conniving advocates of unchecked centralized power".

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dude1394

So McCain, Brownback, Giuliani, Gingrich and the others are "lying, conniving advocates of unchecked centralized power".

exactly.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

The right Representative Dr. Ron Paul (R-Texas) is running for president in '08.

He's far too good a man for the office. That he is neither a whore, nor a fool, nor an inveterate liar may well be a fatal liability in his bid. But may he fair well, nonetheless.

yep, he is not a whore nor an inveterate liar. ron paul is an honest good man.

however, it is inaccurate to say he's not a fool.....for example:

"Our monetary system insidiously transfers wealth from the poor and middle class to the privileged rich."

"But capitalism is not to blame for the housing bubble, the Federal Reserve is. Specifically, Fed intervention in the economy – through the manipulation of interest rates and the creation of money – caused the artificial boom in mortgage lending."

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

"Our monetary system insidiously transfers wealth from the poor and middle class to the privileged rich."

"But capitalism is not to blame for the housing bubble, the Federal Reserve is. Specifically, Fed intervention in the economy – through the manipulation of interest rates and the creation of money – caused the artificial boom in mortgage lending."

ok MD...friendly advice here.....

put the macro-economics down, and step away from the monetary system...you're probably just gonna wind up hurting yourself.

cheers

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

ok MD...friendly advice here.....

put the macro-economics down, and step away from the monetary system...you're probably just gonna wind up hurting yourself.

cheers

odd, was just listening to johnny cash sing "I hurt myself today..." as I read your post.

hmmm, food for thought.

as for paul, only a fool would claim that our "monetary system" creates wealth for the wealthy, and that the fed is to blame for the run up in housing costs, or that it is the fed who allowed unregulated mortgage cos. to use wall street securitization to push mortgages on unqualified borrowers.

but yes, paul is a good man....not that this in itself qualifies him for pres btw.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

as for paul, only a fool would claim that our "monetary system" creates wealth for the wealthy....

He didn't say that it "creates wealth", he said that it "transfers wealth"....there's a big difference between creating wealth and transferring wealth. People hurt themselves when they don't recognize such differences.

[edit: and that's just the first of you two statements....]

Cheers

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

He didn't say that it "creates wealth", he said that it "transfers wealth"....there's a big difference between creating wealth and transferring wealth. People hurt themselves when they don't recognize such differences.

[edit: and that's just the first of you two statements....]

Cheers

ohhkay, you want to dwell on the semantics of "create" v "transfer"?

when a person wants to not focus on the issue they focus on the minutiae...

to claim that our monetary system "insidiously" transfers wealth to the "priviledged rich" at the expense of the rest of our society is foolish.

are you happier now?

[usafreedom3]

Kick his ass seabass

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

odd, was just listening to johnny cash sing "I hurt myself today..." as I read your post.
.

I was listening to kermit the frog sing the same.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLQRv0RjBBM

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

to claim that our monetary system "insidiously" transfers wealth to the "priviledged rich" at the expense of the rest of our society is foolish.

are you happier now?

Much happier.

I only quibble over semantics because a person who does not readily distinguish between wealth creation and wealth transfer is unlikely to have enough of a grasp on economics to understand how and why our monetary system transfers wealth upwards.

cheers

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Much happier.

I only quibble over semantics because a person who does not readily distinguish between wealth creation and wealth transfer is unlikely to have enough of a grasp on economics to understand how and why our monetary system transfers wealth upwards.

cheers

you know, the difference between "transfer" and "creation" is non-existant to the recipient.

still waiting for anyone to defend ron paul's foolish statement(s)...

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Much happier.

... is unlikely to have enough of a grasp on economics to understand how and why our monetary system transfers wealth upwards.

cheers

Please enlighten us.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

still waiting for anyone to defend ron paul's foolish statement(s)...

still waiting on an informed critique of the statements in question.

cheers

[mcsluggo]

I consider myself moderately to well informed on economics. I have to say that most (read this as ALL, actually) discussants that I have seen that have argued for a return of our monetary system to specie backed system have been crackpots. The arguments tend to be non-specific, vague crap very similar to the anti-globalization claptrap.

For a first point, it is innacurate to say that Fed monetary interventions led to the housing bubble, but you COULD say that the Fed's FAILURE to intervene in monetary markets ALLOWED the housing bubble. There is a BIG difference there, especially for the point he is trying to make. Movement to a specie backed system would lead to a greater incidnce of bubbles, not smaller, as you reduce the effectiveness of a policy lever, and inject greater variability and volotility into the monetary system.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

still waiting on an informed critique of the statements in question.

cheers

ok.

the monetary policy of our federal government does not in itself transfer wealth to the priviledged rich, and in fact is a catalyst for the lower and middle class to have the opportunity to increase their wealth thru an expanding economy.

second, the low interest rates promugated by the federal reserve board and the money supply did not precipitate nor cause the "artificial boom" (how can the very real and quantifiable "boom" in mortgages be called "artificial"?) in mortgage lending, wall street and the emergence of non-regulated/non-bank mortgage cos., along with the free flow of capital across national boundaries, contributed the fuel to a frothy residential marketplace.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Please enlighten us.

i'm really not sure where to begin....

...if I said to you that increasing the money supply is an inherently inflationary act, would you agree, disagree, or would you rather surf the 'net for porn?

[Mavdog]

an increasing m1 can contribute but in itself is not an "inherently inflationary act".

[mcsluggo]

Well, I would ALWAYS rather surf the internet for porn, so its difficult to use that as a benchmark for anything. You can define, as an identity expression (ie, an expression that holds true in ALL circumstances):

Surfing porn > discussing politics


BUT, starting from that point, your statement raises ANOTHER key weakness with specie backed systems: increasing the money supply is NOT an inherently inflationary act. In an expanding economy you have to expand the money supply continuosly in order to maintain a nuetral monetary policy, and that assumes no international markets. In the case of the US, with the dollar's role as international currency, you not only have to increase MS to keep up with domestic demand, but you also have to constantly increase MS to keep up with foreign demand for dollars. In this environment, keeping the nominal MS fixed is an inherantly contractionary (rather than inflationary) policy.

Which leads to a problem with specie backed systems. Gold (or whatever commodity) has some value independent of its role as a currency backer. Additionally supply of gold is not controlled. Taken together this means that a monetary authority has a MUCH tougher time controlling the MS in a specie backed system than it does in a system where the currency has no backing other than the "full faith and credit" of its issuing government. It is very difficult for a government to maintain a money-nuetral policy under a specie system, instead they used to have to rely on inflation and recessions to move the ECONOMY to stay with the MS (rather than the other way around, as we try to do today).

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

I consider myself moderately to well informed on economics. I have to say that most (read this as ALL, actually) discussants that I have seen that have argued for a return of our monetary system to specie backed system have been crackpots. The arguments tend to be non-specific, vague crap very similar to the anti-globalization claptrap.

For a first point, it is innacurate to say that Fed monetary interventions led to the housing bubble, but you COULD say that the Fed's FAILURE to intervene in monetary markets ALLOWED the housing bubble. There is a BIG difference there, especially for the point he is trying to make. Movement to a specie backed system would lead to a greater incidnce of bubbles, not smaller, as you reduce the effectiveness of a policy lever, and inject greater variability and volotility into the monetary system.

Do you include folks like Rothbard and Von Mises (or the Austrian school, generally) in the crackpot category? If so, I'm quite the crackpot myself...not that this would be the first time I've been called such a thing, nor would I frankly be bothered by such a characterization.

Anyhoo....Rothbard's What Has the Government Done to Our Money? is an insightful little tract, imho. I really don't find any objections to a hard currency system to be horribly compelling. The basic judgment, "it won't work", is rather ironic, given the relatively short and disastrous history of every fiat currency in the history of human kind.

Incidentally...I think the one thing that keeps the good ole US Dollar from spinning off into Reichsbank Germany style hyperinflation is the close link between the USD and Oil. Correlations between, say, USD currency exchange rates, the price of gold and the price of oil are rock solid tight. What I'm saying is....because Saudis and Kuwaitis (and everyone on earth) like to do their oil dealings in the USD, oil is the money which backs the currency. So in my view we probably have a several more years before a dollar bill is worthless than a sheet of toilet paper, and all that this implies.

but I digress....

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

BUT, starting from that point, your statement raises ANOTHER key weakness with specie backed systems: increasing the money supply is NOT an inherently inflationary act.

You're of course right.

About the surfing the net for porn, I mean.

I can't quite agree that increasing the money supply is not inherently inflationary. Ceteris paribus, none of us would argue that an increase in the money supply is inflationary.

You say that "In an expanding economy you have to expand the money supply continuosly in order to maintain a nuetral monetary policy"....

I would first of all question who "you" is in the context of this sentence, then I'd question why you must expand the money supply with the economy. Without conceding that maintaining a "neutral monetary policy" is self-evidently a good thing, I'd point out that the Fed hasn't come close to maintaining a neutral monetary policy since the demise of bretton woods -- I can remember when a soda pop cost a quarter, today that same soda is about a buck-twenty-five. whatever that is, it ain't neutral.

....finally I'd point out that increasing the money supply raises prices versus what prices would have been in the absence of an increase in the money supply.

Sure, general price levels may be lower after the increase in money supply than they were before the supply increase, but they are nonetheless higher than they would have been in the absence of a supply increase. This, in my view, is to say that a money supply increase is inherently inflationary.

I don't belabour this point because I like to argue trivalities but instead because it is necessarily, inherently, absolutely the case that printing new dollars decreases the amount of stuff that old dollars will buy.

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Gold (or whatever commodity) has some value independent of its role as a currency backer. Additionally supply of gold is not controlled. Taken together this means that a monetary authority has a MUCH tougher time controlling the MS in a specie backed system than it does in a system where the currency has no backing other than the "full faith and credit" of its issuing government.

i would argue that this is a strength of a sound money policy rather than a weakness.

I would argue this, but I'd really rather look at nekkid women right now...you understand.

Cheers

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

You're of course right.

About the surfing the net for porn, I mean.

I can't quite agree that increasing the money supply is not inherently inflationary. Ceteris paribus, none of us would argue that an increase in the money supply is inflationary.

You say that "In an expanding economy you have to expand the money supply continuosly in order to maintain a nuetral monetary policy"....

I would first of all question who "you" is in the context of this sentence, then I'd question why you must expand the money supply with the economy. Without conceding that maintaining a "neutral monetary policy" is self-evidently a good thing, I'd point out that the Fed hasn't come close to maintaining a neutral monetary policy since the demise of bretton woods -- I can remember when a soda pop cost a quarter, today that same soda is about a buck-twenty-five. whatever that is, it ain't neutral.

this is the "royal you". as in whomeverthefuck is doing it. Beyond that I made no value judgement on whether raising the MS is a good thing or bad thing, it is simply the PRICE nuetral monetary policy, if the economy is expanding and the MS is held fixed than you have a deflationary (rather than nuetral) monetary policy. In fact the fed does not persue a zero inflation monetary policy, because defaltion is a bigger economic pain in the heiney than inflation, and since the feds policy lever are incapable of directly steering the level of inflation (than can only "nudge" it), they maintain a core, non-zero, level of infaltion as a buffer (to avoid deflation).

Furthermore in the 60s and 70s there were "activist" fed boards that sought to exploit an inflation versus economic expansion tradeoff that is unexploitable in the long run, this (along with the oil shocks) caused inflation to become inbedded in expectations and required a huge monetary contraction in 1980 to stamp it out. (which is why you will never see 25cent sodas again)

....finally I'd point out that increasing the money supply raises prices versus what prices would have been in the absence of an increase in the money supply.

Sure, general price levels may be lower after the increase in money supply than they were before the supply increase, but they are nonetheless higher than they would have been in the absence of a supply increase. This, in my view, is to say that a money supply increase is inherently inflationary.

well, whatever.
Q: will a continuously expanding MS lead to inflation?
A: No, not at low levels of expansion, for a growing economy.

I don't belabour this point because I like to argue trivalities but instead because it is necessarily, inherently, absolutely the case that printing new dollars decreases the amount of stuff that old dollars will buy.

No. In an expanding economy a constant MS leads to deflation. Period. Therefore an expanding MS is needed just to stay even.

i would argue that this is a strength of a sound money policy rather than a weakness.

I would argue this, but I'd really rather look at nekkid women right now...you understand.

Cheers

greater uncontrollable volatility of the MS is a strength?

(given the draw of Nekkid women, I assume you won't anwer til tomorrow.)

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

...In fact the fed does not persue a zero inflation monetary policy, because defaltion is a bigger economic pain in the heiney than inflation, and since the feds policy lever are incapable of directly steering the level of inflation (than can only "nudge" it), they maintain a core, non-zero, level of infaltion as a buffer (to avoid deflation).

price deflation is a royal pain in the hiney????

like falling computer prices, that's a travesty. Or hdtvs....can't have prices of those dropping, can we? Or health care costs....oh, wait, those costs are going the other way.

Certainly price deflation is a pain in the ass if you're borrowing, but it's not so bad if you're saving....I guess we can't have a monetary environment that encourages savings and investment and discourages borrowing. Not here in the good ole USA where people are notoriously inclined to save and invest rather than borrow and spend.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but it's not at all self-evident to me that a little deflation here and there is a bad thing. anyhoo....

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

....since the feds policy lever are incapable of directly steering the level of inflation (than can only "nudge" it), they maintain a core, non-zero, level of infaltion as a buffer (to avoid deflation).

and how is it again that the Feds maintain a "non-zero" level of inflation???? Is it by increasing or decreasing the money supply? Increasing, decreasing???

bueller?
bueller?

It's by increasing the money supply. What were we arguing about, again?

Oh yeah....

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Q: will a continuously expanding MS lead to inflation?
A: No, not at low levels of expansion, for a growing economy.

regardless of whether an increase in the money supply is "inherently" inflationary, at least we agree that the Fed deliberately increases the monetary supply at a rate sufficient to cause inflation.

Fair Enough????

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

greater uncontrollable volatility of the MS is a strength?

Actually it's not the uncontrollable volatility, but instead it's the lack of a "monetary authority" that I cite as a strength--in large part because "monetary authorities" are a greater source of volatility than the vagaries of the market place.

and it may comfort you to know that I finished my tour some time ago, and I did use both hands at all times while typing this post.

cheers

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

price deflation is a royal pain in the hiney????

like falling computer prices, that's a travesty. Or hdtvs....can't have prices of those dropping, can we? Or health care costs....oh, wait, those costs are going the other way.

Certainly price deflation is a pain in the ass if you're borrowing, but it's not so bad if you're saving....I guess we can't have a monetary environment that encourages savings and investment and discourages borrowing. Not here in the good ole USA where people are notoriously inclined to save and invest rather than borrow and spend.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but it's not at all self-evident to me that a little deflation here and there is a bad thing. anyhoo....

well, thats all fine and dandy until you account for the single most important price: wages.

if ALL prices simply slid up or down by 10%, and everyone was well iniformed and rational enough to simply make the mathematical adjustments and deal... then price levels (up OR down) would have no effect on the economy. However, they do NOT move in unison AND people do not view changes in all prices the same way.

By the way there is a difference between prices dropping in a specific industry because manufacturing has become more efficient , and economy wide prices dropping, because of the macroecon factors. Enough of the first could TEMPORARILY lead to the second, but it wouldn't bother anyone, but when macro is the CAUSE of defaltion, then you are in a bad place.

So back to normal deflation... prices are dropping for the goods firms are selling, not because they are making goods more cheaply, just there isn't enough demand for the goods. What does the firm do? it cuts costs. Either it fires people or it reduces their wages (the OTHER half of deflation)

unfortunately people are not to keen to see their wages cut (when was the last time YOU accepted a salary cut?) and instead people tend to get fired, until enough people are out of work tht THOSE people are willing to accept jobs at lower wage rates and the wage rate is slowly, painfully wrenched down. Of course this leads to a general reduction in demand which depreses product prices further, leading to more layoffs or wage decreases... etc etc etc...

defaltion has BOTH a recessionary element to it AND a self propogating element. It is both caused by a recessionary environment and contribute TO making recessions worse.

On the other hand with inflation you have slack bulit into the equation. when both goods prices and wages are going up, purchasing power is essentially unchanged. Unfortunately inflation gets embedded into the economy because people set their demand for wages going frward based on what they have seen in the past, so if they say 10% infaltion last year, they expect to see it again and they want a 10% raise for the next year (which forces firms to raise THEIR prices 10%) and so on. BUt the GOOD thing is that people are much less resistant to seeing their wage only go up by 5% even though general prices are going up 10% than they are to seeing their ACTUAL wages going down by 5%. so this is the slack.

a little bit of inflation allows firms to adjust to changes in demand for products by slowing the INCREASE in wages, rather than CUTTING wages, which gives the slack I was talking about...

I gotta go, but you get the general idea? no?



[ quote]

and how is it again that the Feds maintain a "non-zero" level of inflation???? Is it by increasing or decreasing the money supply? Increasing, decreasing???

bueller?
bueller?

It's by increasing the money supply. What were we arguing about, again?

Oh yeah....



regardless of whether an increase in the money supply is "inherently" inflationary, at least we agree that the Fed deliberately increases the monetary supply at a rate sufficient to cause inflation.

Fair Enough????



Actually it's not the uncontrollable volatility, but instead it's the lack of a "monetary authority" that I cite as a strength--in large part because "monetary authorities" are a greater source of volatility than the vagaries of the market place.

and it may comfort you to know that I finished my tour some time ago, and I did use both hands at all times while typing this post.

cheers[/QUOTE]

[alexamenos]

mcsluggo -- discussions such as these remind me why I so prefer an nba fan forum to a politics (or economics) forum....pardon my extreme brevity...

the thing is, prices and wages don't move in unison. at best, wages lag the prices. an increase in the money supply doesn't effect everything at once, it affects somethings early and other things later and other things not at all. since no new goods or services are created by the act of putting new money into the economy, it's really a zero sum game -- the mere fact that some win means others lose and vice versa. bankers get their grubby little hands on the money first, so they profit by having new money to loan. little old ladies living on fixed pension don't benefit from the new money at all, in fact they lose because their fixed incomes buy less than before.

so the moral of the story is that if you favor a constantly expanding money supply you love greedy bankers and you hate little ole ladies.

also...i wouldn't agree that price deflation is both recessionary and self-propagating -- declining prices may lead wage cuts but it certainly won't lead to a decrease in demand....people aren't going to demand less food just because the price of corn is dropping.

i've already gone much further than intended, so what the hell....i think a lot of (what shall we call it??), orthodox economic thought here the ole US is based upon a faulty premise that ever expanding consumerism is a good thing. so what if there is a five year period where people aren't buying more and more and more shit? we just can't picture any scenario in which people are generally content with their material status.

it's like we're a bunch of hamsters in a cage....we work our asses off so we can buy more shit, and we can't stop buying more shit because if we do we'll lose our high paying jobs which allow us to buy more shit. meanwhile, our wives are working their asses off too so that we can pay the interest on credit cards that we used to buy more shit, and rather than spend time with our kids we buy them a lot of shit and send them to shitty schools which are paid with our ever spiraling property taxes, thanks to rising property values.

and at the end of the day fucking citibank owns everything.

all i'm saying is that this what an ever expanding federally controlled money supply does for us. most generously, it enables some really shitty elements of human nature.

cheers

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

mcsluggo -- discussions such as these remind me why I so prefer an nba fan forum to a politics (or economics) forum....pardon my extreme brevity...

the thing is, prices and wages don't move in unison. at best, wages lag the prices. an increase in the money supply doesn't effect everything at once, it affects somethings early and other things later and other things not at all. since no new goods or services are created by the act of putting new money into the economy, it's really a zero sum game -- the mere fact that some win means others lose and vice versa. bankers get their grubby little hands on the money first, so they profit by having new money to loan. little old ladies living on fixed pension don't benefit from the new money at all, in fact they lose because their fixed incomes buy less than before.

so the moral of the story is that if you favor a constantly expanding money supply you love greedy bankers and you hate little ole ladies.

first, you need to look at the m1 numbers, they've been in a fairly tight band for the past dozen quarters or so. not really increasing nor decreasing.

yet we've had an underlying 2 to 3% rise in the marketbasket of goods we call the CPI.

the conclusion? inflation in prices is not solely tied to the money supply, and money supply by itself is not the cause of inflation.

those bankers with "grubby hands" don't like inflation at all, as it erodes their return on old loans and also are paid back in cheaper dollars.

wages may lag price increases, and it may lead price increases. the answer is what does the market anticipate? if the worker believes that there will be a healthy dose of inflation, they will seek wage increases to compensate, a situation where wages will lead prices and contribute to inflation.

also...i wouldn't agree that price deflation is both recessionary and self-propagating -- declining prices may lead wage cuts but it certainly won't lead to a decrease in demand....people aren't going to demand less food just because the price of corn is dropping.

no, the consumer will eat just like in the past, but they will delay discretionary purchases due to the expectation that whatever they are looking to buy will be cheaper tomorrow. deflation contributes to recession as business investment all but disappears.

i've already gone much further than intended, so what the hell....i think a lot of (what shall we call it??), orthodox economic thought here the ole US is based upon a faulty premise that ever expanding consumerism is a good thing. so what if there is a five year period where people aren't buying more and more and more shit? we just can't picture any scenario in which people are generally content with their material status.

it's like we're a bunch of hamsters in a cage....we work our asses off so we can buy more shit, and we can't stop buying more shit because if we do we'll lose our high paying jobs which allow us to buy more shit. meanwhile, our wives are working their asses off too so that we can pay the interest on credit cards that we used to buy more shit, and rather than spend time with our kids we buy them a lot of shit and send them to shitty schools which are paid with our ever spiraling property taxes, thanks to rising property values.

and at the end of the day fucking citibank owns everything.

all i'm saying is that this what an ever expanding federally controlled money supply does for us. most generously, it enables some really shitty elements of human nature.

cheers

did I just read that citi is laying off 8% of its workforce? so much for their owning everything...now if you want to talk about private equity owning everything, you might have a case.

there is some truth in the fragile nature of consumer consumption as the bedrock of our economic base.

however the philosophy that people seek a higher standard of living with their economic decisions is what capitalism is all about.

you should spend some time familiarizing yourself with japan and their problems with deflation, and the parellel problems with their lack of consumption. not a very pretty picture I can assure you....

[alexamenos]

just noticing that it appears the Right Representative Ron Paul held his own pretty well last night. Even Jonah Goldberg grudgingly acknowledges that he did ok.

A lot of polls I've seen placed him in the top 3 last night, which surely means he'll be invited to subsequent debates.

Way to go, Congressman Paul.

[Ninkobei]

a friend of mine is a huge supporter of Ron Paul. he has much of the same characteristics as you might expect a democrat to have for this election. he's pretty much the only republican presidential candidate who is against the war. he would be the best rep. candidate to challenge the democrats I think..

that said, I will be voting for Barack Obama.

[usafreedom3]

Are you friggin serious? The guy stands against big Govt and has some sound ideas, but made a complete fool of himself in the 2nd debate. He is done! Nice guy, but DONE. Really does not matter as Fred will be entering soon.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by usafreedom3

The guy stands against big Govt ....

Unlike the rest of the GOP.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by usafreedom3

[Ron Paul] made a complete fool of himself in the 2nd debate.

yeah....he's polling a close 2nd on last night's debate. I believe the implication is that one can make a complete fool of himself and still beat most of the Republican field.

FoxNews early poll results on last night's debate:

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who ignited controversy at the debate with remarks that U.S. policy had invited the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, came in second with 25 percent. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who strongly admonished Paul for his comments, came in third place with 19 percent. Arizona Sen. John McCain, who is the frontrunner in South Carolina polls, came in sixth with 5 percent.

You Decide GOP Primary Poll Results

— 29% Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney

— 25% Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas

— 19% Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani

[usafreedom3]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

yeah....he's polling a close 2nd on last night's debate. I believe the implication is that one can make a complete fool of himself and still beat most of the Republican field.

FoxNews early poll results on last night's debate:

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who ignited controversy at the debate with remarks that U.S. policy had invited the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, came in second with 25 percent. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who strongly admonished Paul for his comments, came in third place with 19 percent. Arizona Sen. John McCain, who is the frontrunner in South Carolina polls, came in sixth with 5 percent.

You Decide GOP Primary Poll Results

— 29% Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney

— 25% Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas

— 19% Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani

PUUULLLEEAASE dude. I knew you or someone else was going to say that. I know that Ron Paul supporters are very enthusiastic, and more power to them (you). I also know for a fact that many of these hard core Ron Paul supporters have been banned from many polls for "bombing the polls", cheating against rules of only one vote per person etc. Not sure if you are a part of that or not, but this is simply a fact. He came in second on an American Idol type text messaging deal, and this is hardly a reflection of what the GOP voters think of him or his performance. Not that current polls are a definite as to who is going to win, but is he polling at 25%? Heck, even 2%?

Listen, I respect the guy and some of his libertarian beliefs are excellent, but he is nuts if he thinks we caused 9/11 and he is way out there on a lot of things, and as I said before he is officially DONE.
Some things are true whether we believe them or not. I will save a seat for you on the Fred Thompson train my friend!

God bless you

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by usafreedom3

PUUULLLEEAASE dude. I knew you or someone else was going to say that.....

How crude of me to point out that support for someone who really thinks the US Gov ought to obey the Constitution is far more enthusiastic than the support for a lisping, thrice-divorced baby-killer....

...it must be poll bombing, how else could we explain polls suggesting Republicans' have a respect for the Constitution?

[usafreedom3]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

How crude of me to point out that support for someone who really thinks the US Gov ought to obey the Constitution is far more enthusiastic than the support for a lisping, thrice-divorced baby-killer....

...it must be poll bombing, how else could we explain polls suggesting Republicans' have a respect for the Constitution?

Don't shoot the messenger chief! In fact, one of your fellow Ron Paul supporters is joining in to support Fred Thompson just today (see copied message below) , and I will gladly endorse your support of him as well. Welcome aboard my friend! Fred Thompson is a Federalist (actually the new term will be FREDERALIST) through and through, and while he may not be who you think Ron Paul is, he is the best you are gonna get.

Wasn't accusing you of poll bombing, but it has been going on for a while now, and I know of several major polls that took Paul off the ballot because of cheating and harrassment by Paul supporters. I know you would not do that, you are way to sensible and kind.

Here is a fellow Paul supporter facing reality so enjoy:

03:41:30 am, by Rossputin \
Why I support Fred Thompson
Following is a comment I posted at Townhall.com in response to Fred Thompson's recent speech to the Council for National Policy, and the online debate about it in which many commenters were discussing the merits of Congressman Ron Paul.

As someone who is more libertarian than the Republican party, it's often difficult to find someone running for federal office who seem to understand our Constitution and founding principles well enough to justify supporting that person's candidacy.

Of course I love most of Ron Paul's positions, though I'm not quite the isolationist he is.

But the bottom line is that Dr. Paul can't win. So the question becomes "Who can win who actually supports liberty, federalism, and limited government?"

It seems clear to me that Fred Thompson is the best choice. I don't believe that Romney truly knows what he believes. I like Rudy but have been quite unimpressed with his ability to handle the abortion question lately, and I wonder about whether he would be too inclined toward increasing executive power the way our current President has. Gingrich is very smart and has excellent positions on most issues but probably is too divisive and has too much baggage to win.

Fred Thompson, as silly as it might sound (or maybe it doesn't sound silly), has a real advantage in being an actor because it allows him to imply, if not explicitly claim, a Ronald Reagan-like mantle...in addition to his positions being closer to Reagan's than any of the current front-runners.

I would very much like to hear Thompson make a more aggressive repudiation of the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act (and apologize for supporting it to begin with.) That is the only major flaw I've found in his voting record.

Nobody is perfect, and the libertarians among us might wish for a government run by people like Ron Paul. But part of the problem with the capital-L Libertarian Party is that they are so ideological that even though they are generally right they are completely ineffective on a national scale.

Given the realities of who can put together a winning campaign and who can't, I believe those of us who consider ourselves lovers of liberty should support Fred Thompson...even while donating to Ron Paul's campaign so he can keep pushing a message of freedom and force other Republicans to move in that way, just as leftist Democrats and left-leaning 527s move the Democrat candidates away from liberty.

[alexamenos]

I think if you were to review my earlier posts in this thread you'd see that I put Paul's chances of winning at something less than 1<< million, so it's hardly news to me. It's just a matter of time before the Republicans squeeze him off the stage.

regardless.....Hillary is going to win it irrespective of whomever the Republicans nominate.

As I often say, and as I truly believe, people get the government they deserve and they get it good and hard.