Cagematch: Ron Paul's two views - wacky or sane?

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller


Could be? HIstory has shown me as correct.

Actually a case could be made for either through history.

As far as the direction, discussing the viability is a poor way to frame your original thought, to increase oversight and provide more transparency. If you framed it like that, then you'd be OK. However, nobody does.

Those are things Paul has been pushing for for years. Increased transparency and more congressional oversight.

Indeed, but he muddles the debate with other things.

Sure, because he feels he has so much to cover. Of course this is IMO.

No, he just thinks he knows everything. Sorry chuck, but he is so one-sided and centered on theory and stodgy practices that he refuses to acknowledge that those ideas didn't work for a reason. If he followed KISS, he might get more votes. Instead, he doesn't and ends up looking like an idiot.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller


Could be? HIstory has shown me as correct.

Actually a case could be made for either through history.

As far as the direction, discussing the viability is a poor way to frame your original thought, to increase oversight and provide more transparency. If you framed it like that, then you'd be OK. However, nobody does.

Those are things Paul has been pushing for for years. Increased transparency and more congressional oversight.

Indeed, but he muddles the debate with other things.

Sure, because he feels he has so much to cover. Of course this is IMO.

No, he just thinks he knows everything. Sorry chuck, but he is so one-sided and centered on theory and stodgy practices that he refuses to acknowledge that those ideas didn't work for a reason. If he followed KISS, he might get more votes. Instead, he doesn't and ends up looking like an idiot.

I don't think he ends up looking like an idiot. I think just as he is set in his ways as to the best economic solution to things, so are you. Who says those "theories" and "stodgy" practices didn't work? They worked just fine till Woodrow Wilson sold out. I think Lozina brought out a graph showing the debt or inflation (cant remember which) from 1913 (year of FED creation) till now. Before 1913 you could almost use a ruler as to how straight it was. Since the creation of the FED however, you would need a compass.

"Keep it Simple Stupid" is a good moto

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

I don't think he ends up looking like an idiot. I think just as he is set in his ways as to the best economic solution to things, so are you. Who says those "theories" and "stodgy" practices didn't work? They worked just fine till Woodrow Wilson sold out. I think Lozina brought out a graph showing the debt or inflation (cant remember which) from 1913 (year of FED creation) till now. Before 1913 you could almost use a ruler as to how straight it was. Since the creation of the FED however, you would need a compass.

"Keep it Simple Stupid" is a good moto

Again, who gives a flying fluck through a rolling donut if inflation has gone up. Has wealth gone up? Have wages gone up? What is so evil about inflation that it has to be gone?

Furthermore, the most important question is, were we better without steady and predictable inflation? Historical performance and empirical evidence shows we are.

Nobody has been able to counter that yet, yet somehow you keep coming back to the same point you have no backup for.

For flucks sake, think.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Inflation helps those who benefit from usury. Those who do not are left in the dark. This has been explained multiple times through many documents posted here. That's the evil of inflation. Not to mention that I honestly can't not find a real reason to explain away inflation as a simple increase in costs of goods. Through our entire history goods have not increased in cost to produce. With the advent of technology the cost of goods should not rise. Sure added features, added complexity, increased demand could raise prices, but does this explain why things like simple tools, raw foods, medical technology, medicines, clothing all seem to be rising? As manufacturers refine techniques, discover new and better technology one would think value would stay relative or would actually deflate. Especially as with always when demand decreases or the new techniques can keep up or exceed the demand. Does it make sense to anyone as to why raw materials such as gold, silver, steel, copper, lumber have all increased in price? Are we mining/harvesting less of it? Has our ability to get these materials actually decreased in capability?

Or is the value of the dollar been deflated? If the dollar is worth less and less should we ask ourselves why? Why is it that 50 years ago a family of four could easily live off a single income? Why has there been such a shift of wealth and value from the middle and lower class? Why is it that a man who worked 40 hours a week in the 60's paid less taxes, could buy more "needed" goods than that of a similar man of today? We can attempt to explain this away as the value of goods has increased, or we can explain this away as the value of our dollar has decreased. Ron Paul thinks the latter, and he doesn't think it's a good thing.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

I don't think he ends up looking like an idiot. I think just as he is set in his ways as to the best economic solution to things, so are you. Who says those "theories" and "stodgy" practices didn't work? They worked just fine till Woodrow Wilson sold out. I think Lozina brought out a graph showing the debt or inflation (cant remember which) from 1913 (year of FED creation) till now. Before 1913 you could almost use a ruler as to how straight it was. Since the creation of the FED however, you would need a compass.

"Keep it Simple Stupid" is a good moto

Again, who gives a flying fluck through a rolling donut if inflation has gone up. Has wealth gone up? Have wages gone up? What is so evil about inflation that it has to be gone?

I sure care about inflation, the buying power of my dollar and my savings take a hit.

Furthermore, the most important question is, were we better without steady and predictable inflation? Historical performance and empirical evidence shows we are.

Nobody has been able to counter that yet, yet somehow you keep coming back to the same point you have no backup for.

For flucks sake, think.

With a steady predictable inflation we would be better. Being able to better plan out our futures financially. Savings would hold a relative value or buying power for a longer period of time. Purchasing power of the dollar would be less volatile. So your case:

were we better without steady and predictable inflation? Historical performance and empirical evidence shows we are.

IMO isn't as justified as being the correct course.

Relax LK

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
So, you still haven't replied to any point above, including answers to your video posted. Care to address those?

 

[Mavtek3100]

I'll respond to topic 6 1st. All the candidates on the Republican side have advocated getting rid of the death tax. Michael Badnarik Libertarian nominee in 04 also advocated ending the death tax. Yes I can see the issue of aristocracy, I personally don't care about the death tax or it's abolishment. To say it's not Libertarian or Republican is just incorrect. It's especially Libertarian in principal. The death tax is in essence a socialist solution.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I'll respond to topic 6 1st. All the candidates on the Republican side have advocated getting rid of the death tax. Michael Badnarik Libertarian nominee in 04 also advocated ending the death tax. Yes I can see the issue of aristocracy, I personally don't care about the death tax or it's abolishment. To say it's not Libertarian or Republican is just incorrect. It's especially Libertarian in principal. The death tax is in essence a socialist solution.

Wasn't your biggest problem with the Fed, or a fiat currency the aggregation of wealth to upper society, the aforementioned gini quotient?

Is it not the eventual result of a society that doesn't redistribute wealth that all wealth is aggregated to those who have been able to make the most, the earliest, and those that pass it onto future generations to deploy it more efficiently again? Doesn't this result in the eventual aggregation of all wealth to the most powerful people who can influence society to the greatest extent? Isn't that what we fought the Rev. War against and also the French Revolution? A ruling class with more wealth and influence since it was passed on through generations?

Isn't that what would happen here?

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I'll respond to topic 6 1st. All the candidates on the Republican side have advocated getting rid of the death tax. Michael Badnarik Libertarian nominee in 04 also advocated ending the death tax. Yes I can see the issue of aristocracy, I personally don't care about the death tax or it's abolishment. To say it's not Libertarian or Republican is just incorrect. It's especially Libertarian in principal. The death tax is in essence a socialist solution.

It seems to me that having an estate tax would be a very liberal (Classical Liberalism) idea. In classical liberalism, the government is hands off and to paraphrase Bentham, laws are only passed if they prevent an evil greater than the evil created by passing the law in the first place. It seems like allowing an aristocracy to form is a worse evil than passing a law that helps to mitigate that result.

By the way, do you have a different idea for how to prevent the build-up of wealth into a permanent aristocracy?

 

[Mavtek3100]

I didn't post a video but here's one from today, Kramer talks about the Fed.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I didn't post a video but here's one from today, Kramer talks about the Fed.

You posted one in the other thread.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I'll respond to topic 6 1st. All the candidates on the Republican side have advocated getting rid of the death tax. Michael Badnarik Libertarian nominee in 04 also advocated ending the death tax. Yes I can see the issue of aristocracy, I personally don't care about the death tax or it's abolishment. To say it's not Libertarian or Republican is just incorrect. It's especially Libertarian in principal. The death tax is in essence a socialist solution.

It seems to me that having an estate tax would be a very liberal (Classical Liberalism) idea. In classical liberalism, the government is hands off and to paraphrase Bentham, laws are only passed if they prevent an evil greater than the evil created by passing the law in the first place. It seems like allowing an aristocracy to form is a worse evil than passing a law that helps to mitigate that result.

By the way, do you have a different idea for how to prevent the build-up of wealth into a permanent aristocracy?

No I can't say I have an answer for this problem, but I doubt many would say the death tax has been much of an answer either as it is easily averted for much wealth through trusts and a decent CPA. Even if it isn't averted we're still talking about a massive amount of wealth transferred to future generations after the tax. I personally think that in a freer market there would indeed be fewer extremely wealthy people so aristocracy would balance itself out to a certain extent. Also thanks to technology wealth is becoming less and less powerful as merit, ideas, and innovation are indeed becoming more and more powerful thanks to the internet and technology. An example would be Ron Paul's campaign itself, it's already much more a success than any have predicted.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I'll respond to topic 6 1st. All the candidates on the Republican side have advocated getting rid of the death tax. Michael Badnarik Libertarian nominee in 04 also advocated ending the death tax. Yes I can see the issue of aristocracy, I personally don't care about the death tax or it's abolishment. To say it's not Libertarian or Republican is just incorrect. It's especially Libertarian in principal. The death tax is in essence a socialist solution.

So, I give you a step by step post on why his interview and ideas are loony. I break down every argument you and any other person present, yet all you can do is counter one point?

That's all you have?

Wow, shocking!

 

[Mavtek3100]

Damn been sick all day, now I'm on drugs can't even think straight I didn't post the video...............
Damn...

http://www.thestreet.com/video...61880&bctid=1381147844

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I'll respond to topic 6 1st. All the candidates on the Republican side have advocated getting rid of the death tax. Michael Badnarik Libertarian nominee in 04 also advocated ending the death tax. Yes I can see the issue of aristocracy, I personally don't care about the death tax or it's abolishment. To say it's not Libertarian or Republican is just incorrect. It's especially Libertarian in principal. The death tax is in essence a socialist solution.

It seems to me that having an estate tax would be a very liberal (Classical Liberalism) idea. In classical liberalism, the government is hands off and to paraphrase Bentham, laws are only passed if they prevent an evil greater than the evil created by passing the law in the first place. It seems like allowing an aristocracy to form is a worse evil than passing a law that helps to mitigate that result.

By the way, do you have a different idea for how to prevent the build-up of wealth into a permanent aristocracy?

No I can't say I have an answer for this problem, but I doubt many would say the death tax has been much of an answer either as it is easily averted for much wealth through trusts and a decent CPA. Even if it isn't averted we're still talking about a massive amount of wealth transferred to future generations after the tax. I personally think that in a freer market there would indeed be fewer extremely wealthy people so aristocracy would balance itself out to a certain extent. Also thanks to technology wealth is becoming less and less powerful as merit, ideas, and innovation are indeed becoming more and more powerful thanks to the internet and technology. An example would be Ron Paul's campaign itself, it's already much more a success than any have predicted.

Yes, but a lot of money is still redistributed.

Ironically, you have backed up our main assertion with yours. If you say innovation has lead to smarter people getting more wealth, look at what those people have done. The same ones you laud are the ones redistributing wealth (bill gates, warren buffet...etc) because they know what would happen.

The one guy who has built his money through the hardest work, Warren Buffet, had a very interesting quote about what he was going to bequeath to his kids.

"I will give them enough to do something, but not enough to do nothing".


As far as RP's campaign. IT's supported by fringe people with fringe ideas and won't go anywhere.

 

[Mavtek3100]

LK that's all I have time to do... I've come down with the flue, I'm sorry earlier I was in front of the computer and didn't feel quite so badly. For the most part tonight though I've been lying on the couch. I'm sorry, let me study it. The post I put up earlier I put without ever reading your winded reply.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I'll respond to topic 6 1st. All the candidates on the Republican side have advocated getting rid of the death tax. Michael Badnarik Libertarian nominee in 04 also advocated ending the death tax. Yes I can see the issue of aristocracy, I personally don't care about the death tax or it's abolishment. To say it's not Libertarian or Republican is just incorrect. It's especially Libertarian in principal. The death tax is in essence a socialist solution.

It seems to me that having an estate tax would be a very liberal (Classical Liberalism) idea. In classical liberalism, the government is hands off and to paraphrase Bentham, laws are only passed if they prevent an evil greater than the evil created by passing the law in the first place. It seems like allowing an aristocracy to form is a worse evil than passing a law that helps to mitigate that result.

By the way, do you have a different idea for how to prevent the build-up of wealth into a permanent aristocracy?

No I can't say I have an answer for this problem, but I doubt many would say the death tax has been much of an answer either as it is easily averted for much wealth through trusts and a decent CPA. Even if it isn't averted we're still talking about a massive amount of wealth transferred to future generations after the tax. I personally think that in a freer market there would indeed be fewer extremely wealthy people so aristocracy would balance itself out to a certain extent. Also thanks to technology wealth is becoming less and less powerful as merit, ideas, and innovation are indeed becoming more and more powerful thanks to the internet and technology. An example would be Ron Paul's campaign itself, it's already much more a success than any have predicted.

Yes, but a lot of money is still redistributed.

Ironically, you have backed up our main assertion with yours. If you say innovation has lead to smarter people getting more wealth, look at what those people have done. The same ones you laud are the ones redistributing wealth (bill gates, warren buffet...etc) because they know what would happen.

The one guy who has built his money through the hardest work, Warren Buffet, had a very interesting quote about what he was going to bequeath to his kids.

"I will give them enough to do something, but not enough to do nothing".


As far as RP's campaign. IT's supported by fringe people with fringe ideas and won't go anywhere.

I think that's essentially what I was stating, technology has improved equality in society. The smarter people have gained more wealth, but so have the stupid wealthy people so I'm not sure where to go with that. I do believe the idea of a monetary with little to no inflation is better to equalize the rich and poor. Thus hampering aristocrats.

As far as RP's campaign it was never thought to go anywhere, yet as of this writing he garnered 2nd place in Nevada, 1st place in Louisiana, He's had over 100,000 people vote for him in just 5 states. He's had 250,000 people donate to his campaign, and this fringe candidate has raised more money in the last 4 months than all of those running with the exception of Barack Obama.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Again I'm awaiting any type of response to my posts, maybe they are too loony.

Or perhaps they are too sane

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
1. If you don't think a strong and independent CB is essential to a well running economy please provide why and examples of how a current economy is operating well without one. Furthermore, provide evidence, through history, that economies have operated well without one, excluding any major boom/bust periods. Explain further how this fits within the well known fact that stability is essential and how stability will be enhanced without a strong CB.

Sure, take a look at Hong Kong during the mid 1900's. Banking was almost 100% free and there were almost no bank failures. Then take a look at the US side. This proves you don't need a central bank.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-3.html

Btw, what are you talking about when you say stability? The dollar lost 90% of its purchasing power since its induction. Economic instability has still been going on since we've had the Fed so that point is invalid.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
2. So deflationary currencies aren't bad? What happens when you have a deflationary spiral? How do you control for that outside of the free market, which responds in arrears, not proactively? Furthermore, how do you take into account boom/bust mentalities in a world where extremism becomes all the more rampant? Please provide evidence that a free market gives as much predictability, security, and thus willingness to invest for the long-term as the current system.

What other use does a dollar have when people stop accepting it as currency? But when it comes to gold, I can just make a nice necklace and people still want it. That's why it can never hit rock bottom. Because the worst case scenario for gold is people still want it. Wonder what people try to get their hands on during a deflationary spiral? I'll give you a hint. Its shiny.

http://newsmine.org/dbsrv/caba...cam/BehaviorofGold.pdf

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Then you say that if access to currency is the problem, then buy more assets and issue more currency? What happens with the assets you buy as they go up in value? You must devalue the currency peg, printing more money to fight deflation. On top of that, you drive out the people who *need* those same hard assets for their own industries or collections.

If 35oz of gold buys a house then I can print off as much currency as I want to represent gold, but 35oz will still buy that house.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
The point being, the entire bulk of hard asset values are arbitrarily set by the market. The entire base cannot hope to encapsulate the wealth of the world to infinity. Your only option is to devalue while purchasing, leading to further instability as the exact peg will never be maintained for more than an intermittant time. Additionally, since those same commodities are at the will of the specific commodity market they can easily be cornered or manipulated, see oil.

Funny you should mention oil. The price of oil has risen significantly and recently in terms of USD. But guess what commodity oil remains quite relative to?

http://www.dinocrat.com/archiv...ot-just-about-100-oil/
http://commonsenseforecaster.b...lation-1-oil-gold.html
http://terjepetersen.wordpress...ility-and-commodities/
http://thebullishbear.blogspot.../01/goldoil-ratio.html
http://www.zealllc.com/2004/goldoil4.htm

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
The smoothness hasn't been enhanced by the fiat system? See the bank runs of the mid to late 1800s and the chaos that ensued. There were far more boom/busts at that time and manipulations of the banking system due to disaggregation.

3. AHHH, so now the problem isn't the monetary system, but the fractional reserve system? The fractional reserve system is put into place to cover the losses of a bank. It's a good system that has been strengthened in many years.

How was fractional reserve banks at fault during the 4-5 runs on banks in the 1800s and before the Reserve Act was put into place? How come there's only been a few minor runs in subsequent times, with the CB coming to the rescue?

How many times did JP Morgan bail out banks? How many times did he see banks fail because they didn't get help from a strong CB? In fact, his Father's bank was one!

Fractional Reserve Banking is the reason bank runs exist. Think about it. Say a bank exists. It begins to accept money. It then takes that money and loans it out. The person comes back to get his money. The bank already loaned it out.

Panic of 1819

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1819

Austrian school economists view the nationwide recession that resulted from the Panic of 1819 as the first failure of expansionary monetary policy. The explanation of the Panic of 1819 is based on the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle. Government borrowed heavily to finance the War of 1812, which caused tremendous strain on the banks? reserves of specie and led inevitably to a suspension of specie payments in 1814. The suspension of the obligation to redeem greatly spurred the establishment of new banks and the expansion of bank note issues. This inflation of money encouraged unsustainable investments to take place. It soon became clear that the monetary situation was in bad shape, and the Second Bank of the United States was forced to call a halt to its expansion and launch a painful process of contraction. There was a wave of bankruptcies, bank failures, and bank runs; prices dropped and wide-scale urban unemployment began.

Panic of 1837

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=536

As a result of all of these factors, high inflation resulted. Currency quickly depreciated in value. In July 1836, Jackson issued the Specie Circular. Under this act, the government would only accept gold or silver in payment for federal land. Foreign investors also did not want to accept American currency as payment, and they began to call in their loans to American businessmen before the currency depreciated further. American citizens rushed the banks to withdraw the necessary funds to pay off their debts. Unfortunately, many banks had loaned out too much money and did not have sufficient reserves on hand to meet the demands of their customers. Approximately eight hundred banks closed their doors in 1837, stifling economic growth and bankrupting numerous businesses, including many of the banks.

See the pattern?

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
5. Short-term thinking is Congress. They care about getting re-elected, not about ensuring future progress. Look at our national debt! For flucks sake, if they cared about the long term they wouldn't be shackeling us with more than $10TR in debt with sights on locking us into more!

I agree. Why would I trust Congress with my money?

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
7. This is why people won't ever see that RP is wrong. If we relied totally on free markets, including for currency, then you get situations where things go awry very quickly. Some organization must take place, if only for the sake of market certainty.

People weren't bitching when the Dollar was kicking ass only a few years ago. Then RP's ideas were loony and they still are. Things are cyclical.

I have an excuse. I just started college and just started looking into this issue.

But know that I know about the Fed I'll know that when we have an economic boom I should be expecting a bust.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Arbitrage can be great as it cures price fluctuations. However, in this case, they would be horrible since they increase overhead and aggregate wealth to those that can exploit it (aka the rich). Furthermore, it decreases willingness for investment both domestically and internationally, since they know that part of their returns are lost beyond their control.

Something is only worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
We had competing currencies, they resulted in chaos, runs on banks, some banks taking others down, problems with the economy, and variability in inflation and deflation. All of that lead to decreased investment and the bunker mentality.

No we haven't. We've had a gold standard. Not even Hong Kong had competing currencies. I don't think competing currencies is that bad of an idea. The Liberty Dollar is not doing bad (despite the Federal government raiding their offices..).

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Sorry, but your system failed and this one has proven much more stable in a relative sense. IF you have a better idea, present it, but regurgitating the same bullspit doesn't work.

K.

Btw, I'd like to reiterate that I'm no economic expert. Just a curious kid in college.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
your alternative theory is a hard currency. LK has pointed out time and again why hard currencies are bad. the biggest is that they are contractionary in nature (the supply of gold doesn't go up all that fast). your argument that hard currencies provide stability is completely without merit. we had thousands of years of hard currencies, and they haven't proven stable at all.

It doesn't matter. The fact that gold is scarce is part of the reason its valuable. And gold is a lot more stable than the usd. You want to know why the price of gold and oil are going up almost quite similarly?

http://commonsenseforecaster.b...lation-1-oil-gold.html
http://terjepetersen.wordpress...ility-and-commodities/

Its because the dollar is decreasing in value. If the dollar was "as good as gold" then oil would not cost $100 a barrel.

Originally posted by: ElFenix

I have pointed out many times the ridiculousness of your argument that the Fed has brought us "prosperity" it is you whom has completely ignored that in fact it was not the "Fed" who has dealt us our prosperity. This is the type of babble that makes your argument both ridiculous and completely lacking of credibility.

the fed hasn't given us prosperity. it has given us stability. stability has reduced risk. reduced risk gave us confidence. confidence allowed a generally risk averse public to move assets into positions that generate a higher return. that is what has generated our prosperity. the fed merely provided the foundation.

Stability? The value of the dollar is going down. That doesn't exactly make me confident. It kinda pisses me off that the money I'm saving is being lost due to inflation.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
http://www.giveproductions.com...onGlennBeck1-23-08.mp3

Ron Paul on the economy, you can all listen, you decide is he loony?

Holy shit on a stick batman, where to start?


1. Bond insurance - He completely misses the point of the current problem and doesn't understand what's going on in the credit markets. He starts with bond insurance and goes on to FDIC and FHA, completely ignores the whole problem. He doesn't know jack shit about what's going on! He simply goes on to blather about this or that problem, never addressing the problems in the capital markets. Do you guys know why there was a bounce in the markets today? Not because Ron Paul saved us, but because people found out there was a plan to bail out the bond insurers and stop the problems.

Well to be honest I'm not even sure what you are talking about as this topic doesn't even seem to have been covered in the interview. The transcript can be found here.

I'd say since the topic doesn't seem to have been covered, maybe you're correct. Maybe Ron Paul doesn't know shit about Bond insurance since he only mentions the FDIC and FHA in a paragraph not adhering to that particular issue at all. Maybe you've read into that a lot more than I have, but again I'm not seeing the correlation here. So in my opinion your 1st point has no basis, and is irrelevant to the discussion.

2. Print money, call it capital - He claims the debt is printing money. What does this mean? Isn't debt capital invested from somebody else? Don't people have to have money to invest? What about international investors, don't they have other money to invest? Is that printed? Does he even realize what happens when the Fed floods the market with money? They usually do so by backing it up with assets. Again, he is a joke. Sure, some money is printed and put onto the market, but most of it is into a downturn. What do downturns produce? That's right, deflation. So who knows if inflation is even going to happen to a large extent.

I can only ask you if they flood the market with credit backed by assets what assets are these? According to their latest audit they have $870b in assets, they list these assets as an amalgamation of Tbills, loans, and Securities that are currently depreciating. 1st and foremost even in the audit one can see their liabilities outweigh their assets. Now in order to flood the market with capital they lower interest rates, making it easier for banks to loan money to people regardless of credit. Well maybe not regardless of credit but it certainly makes it seem easier for the banks to make money because the rates are so low for this newly instituted from thin air money that obviously has no assets backing it. Other than a note saying "Bank will pay back at 3% interest". When the loans default the Reserve injects more money into the banks to start the process all over again, and float the banks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federal_Reserve

3. Business people think savings are going on - They are going on, not just our savings but other savings. He assumes that increased debt means savings aren't occuring, they are occuring, they are just offset by greater debt. More loony tunes. Sorry, but things are happening and he's too stupid to realize it.

I don't think he's saying "no one" is saving, I think he is stating exactly what you stated, there is far more debt than there is capital saved. You just stated the same thing so I guess you're loony tunes too....? Oh and if "things" are going on maybe you can explain them as I'm not aware of these "things" so maybe I along with Ron Paul am too stupid to realize it too. Things ok?

4. Capital comes out of nowhere - How does capital come out of nowhere? Isn't isn't wealth created, savings made, and investments deployed? How do you get the fact that the economy is growing and money is still taken in? What about all of the foreign capital?

Isn't isn't? When you find out how to "create wealth", "make savings" and "deploy investments" let me know as I've never even heard these terms before. How do I get the "fact" that the economy is growing? How do I even answer that question? Is it a fact that the economy is growing? From what most are saying we are in a recession which surely you understand that means the direct opposite of growth. What foreign capital? What are we producing that is bringing in foreign capital?

What about the debt for the future that will be repaid? Isn't that wealth created?

I'm sorry what? What guarantee is there that this debt will be repaid? In the future who is going to pay this usury to create wealth? Your children, my children, their grandchildren? I'd hardly call that wealth, especially considering none of the usury has thus been paid to date. $9.3 trillion deficit as I type this.

Debt is nothing more than future cashflows brought to today, it isn't "created". Somebody has cash they can lend today and do so.

people claim the banks are distributing more cash. What about the single biggest injection of cash in the world history by the ECB? Won't that increase Euro inflation? Why hasn't it degraded the euro to a certain extent? I bet he can't answer that, but I can.

Ok so do it, don't tell us why you can, I'd love to ask him, but I'd assume their currency isn't as inflated because they have significantly grown their economy. The Euro was created to be a mass blanket currency encapsulating all of the other currencies, it was a competitive currency that replaced that of many other countries. If you have another explanation I'd love to read it. A lot of what you type is indeed entertaining.

5. Getting rid of Sarbox in response to Enron. Does he even know what SarbOx is? Does he know how it hold's CEOs and other execs accountable for their own actions? Nah, he just wants less regulation. He somehow thinks that the "free market" in a fairy tale world will fix itself. Good one sparky.

Funny you assume when Ron Paul speaks of something he must want to Abolish it even though that is not what he said at all. He said he'd get rid of a good portion of Sarbanes-Oxley that he considers over regulation. Well to be honest if you read much Walter Williams, Williams has also advocated this. I'm not sure what to tell you, you disagree with the philosophy of free markets so that's a philosophical debate more than anything else. Government regulations in the economy are few and far between in a Mises/Austrian view of economics. It's hardly loony I might ad.

6. Get rid of death tax? Wow, here's a real good one. This fucktard thinks that redistribution of wealth throughout the economy isn't a good thing. Too bad this goes against all principals of "private bankers" and "rich" people controlling everything. He advocates this and claims he is a Republican or a libertarian? He actually advocates the creation of a perm. aristocracy with ever increasing wealth and permanence? Eventually they become the ruling class, to the detriment of the whole society. You fail again gasbag.

Well I responded to this in another post, I can only reiterate how intelligent you sound with all of your snide remarks and insults.

7. Getting rid of taxes encourage investment - Here's a good one. Sorry buckwheat, but somehow we've managed to invest quite a bit despite the taxes, imagine the fact that we've done pretty damn well! All he wants to do is shift taxation from one hand to another, right pocket left pocket to play money games. Novel idea!

The key question is who is investing, granted we have invested quite a bit, but who are these investors and is the market in a bubble? I'd say yes the market is quite overvalued, you may disagree, but I'd hardly say that's premise for name calling.

8. Interest rate generates bubble - Sorry, but the Fed interest rate had almost no bearing on the long-term interest rates of the 10-year note, the benchmark for mortgages. Additionally, it has almost no bearing on credit card spreads, both of which drove mortgage pricing. Too bad it was the deployment of long-term capital overseas that generated the RE and credit bubble. But of course, overseas money was fictional too!

Wow, no, wow, yep wow again.... Did you really just say the Fed rate has no bearing on long term interest rates? Care to explain how Mortgage rates drop whole points when the Fed rates drop? After 9/11 the Fed dropped rates to historical lows, mortgage rates plummeted. People went out of their way buying up homes everywhere, banks went out of there way giving out loans that were easily questionable. You know, you remember, "No money down, 100% financing 4.9% 30 year fixed!" And you are asserting the Fed had nothing to do with this?

9. dollar bubble - Nobody bitched 5 years ago, but in a downturn do. What happens when it rebounds eventually after the PPP returns to decent levels compared to the euro? Then what?

When is that going to happen? What if it doesn't happen anytime soon? What if it gets worse? Oh and people bitched 5 years ago, but everyone is so used to the boom then bust cycle only the Austrian Economist like Paul and Walter Williams were ticked off saying it would come back home to roost.

10. borrow or print money, where is inflation - Again, we come back to demonizing "fat" like we demonized inflation. Inflation BAD, GOLD GOOD! Sure caveman, think in binary terms. Too bad inflation isn't directly correlated to expansion of money, as is proven by several items. Furthermore, inflation isn't always bad, unpredictable inflation is.

11. how do they lower interest rates? They lower them through Repo and liquidity, so what? Does that mean it always creates inflation? If it did, then why didn't it create inflation in 2001-2003?

It did, look at the value of the dollar when compared to crude and gold 6 months after they lowered the rates. Sure the CPI here was fine, but when compared to other currencies and more static exchanges like crude and gold it was tanking. Gold was $260 an ounce in 2002, today it is $860. Crude was $27 a barrel. Now the bubble is yet again bursting.

12. Dollar goes down, weaking is crisis, how do we suffer? I love his alarmist statement that a dollar is now .8, sorry, but it's not that bad. Furthermore, that's assuming that wages don't go up. Sorry, but you haven't proven that long-term wages have eroded significantly, you just say inflation is evil, which it isn't.

Long Term wages have not kept up with inflation or increased taxation. A sharp increase and redistribution of wealth happened during the 80's after stagflation, then the saving and loan busts.
http://select.nytimes.com/2006...ml?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

13. dollar is worth so little - Is it? If it was worth so little and the prospects sucked so much long-term, why are people still willing to finance our companies and consumers? Obviously it's not for the hell of it.

They are for now, but one must wonder for how much longer will they do this and will we have the money to pay them back, and at what costs.

14. Poorest getting hit by more inflation - Prove?

Read the article by Greenspan in this very topic, hell read Greenspan's latest book he can explain it a hell of a lot better than I can. Unless you will assume he's just some fucktard and that you are the authority on anything regarding economics.


15. where is inflation of 10-12% come from? Any proof behind this? At most, CPI is at 4.1% annualized. Where do you get this? I would like direct information that is empirical and repeatable.

16. He predicted market would go down - Whoops, bond insurers aren't that bad now, are they? Guess that's why the market swung up. His prediction, like the rest of his bullcrap, was wrong.

Yea he was, I thought that was funny, because he often isn't. I will tell you this I think it's inevitable that we will see a large downturn soon.

17. One world government and socialism from wilson - Ohhh, here we go, shadowy conspiracies! More loony toon bullcrap!

He didn't mention that it was Beck, but the evidence is alarming if you care to actually investigate it, thus far from this debate I doubt you will, you'll just claim it to be loony crap.

18. Any great nation off gold standard will not remain to be great, what nations? Emperical proof is against. - Proof? Empirical evidence says he is wrong as Halik linked. I guess he has some Mises or Friedman theory that counters that, eh?

19. How would gold standard and competing currency be less chaotic? - Competing currencies have, historically, shown themselves to be more chaotic, less enticing for investment, and create more runs on banks. Sorry loony tune, you lose again!

Awesome theory there, I'd love to see some proof of how this wouldn't work in our technology filled society where we use competing currencies all the time.

20. Has read the federalist papers - Wow, you read some of the founding fathers, but not all. Considering the head federalist was Hamilton and he was the real, first, state-controlled top-down big brother government believer, I guess I question why you don't counter many of his believes with Republican ones, which were Jefferson's ideas for more state rights and a smaller government. Of course, only one-sided founding father papers are correct.

Wow neither Paul nor Beck said this, but to each his own and their wild speculation. The comment that was made was that wow you have at least read the Federalist papers, Ron Paul said well yes thank you, good bye..... Talk about wild conspiracy flying conclusions.....

All in, crap interview from a crap interviewer and a crap interviewee. Too bad both are fringe loony tunes kept to fringe politics...

Yes and I think it's pretty damn conclusive they are fringe loons because you say so, and well not a whole hell of a lot more than that Have a nice night trying to sleep as I know it will be tough for you.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Everyone satisfied now? I've responded to LK even though he is irrational and lacking in his understanding of what Ron Paul and other Austrian's are stipulating. He simply sees these views as non status quo non Keynesian so they must indeed be loony, when clearly that is not the case in the slightest.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Everyone satisfied now?

I am, don't know about anyone else.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Everyone satisfied now?

I am, don't know about anyone else.

I know you would be. You're satisfied by youtube videos.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Everyone satisfied now? I've responded to LK even though he is irrational and lacking in his understanding of what Ron Paul and other Austrian's are stipulating. He simply sees these views as non status quo non Keynesian so they must indeed be loony, when clearly that is not the case in the slightest.

I am working on a response, had a a lot of work to do today. My ideas aren't as Keynesian as they are realistic.

My irrational thinking? Please, when you're loonys become more than a fringe bunch of dipshits spamming the internet let me know. Otherwise, you're still irrational.

You're still missing almost every other post. Where's CK's answer? What about the Computer's response? What about the other stuff you missed?

How come I answer every RPB's post, but you guys rarely ever answer mine? Chicken?