Should Tim Geithner step down ?

[LegendKiller]

:biggrin: I really got your panties in a wad with that one.



To the contrary, I would propose "our" viewpoints are the result of thorough study of all those previous.

"All of those previous", or just the ones that tow your party line, then exclude and deride those who have education and experience contrary to your party line, comrade?

 

[bamacre]

especially references that blatantly support racial discrimination.

I think the conspiracy theory forums are somewhere over there.

 

[First]

^ I guess the answer to my question is a big, fat no.

Oh and...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/01/the_rockwell_files.cfm
http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/01/21/racism-and-bigotry-delivered-courtesy-of-lew-rockwell/

 

[bamacre]

"All of those previous", or just the ones that tow your party line, then exclude and deride those who have education and experience contrary to your party line, comrade?

What I meant, LK, was that free market economists like Mises and Hayek were very well studied in other's ideas. Examples being "Socialism" by Mises, and "The Road to Serfdom" by Hayek.

 

[bamacre]

^ I guess the answer to my question is a big, fat no.

I think you should find something else to do rather than be LK's cheerleader. Not just because I fear seeing you in a skirt, but also because I don't think he needs one.

 

[First]

What I meant, LK, was that free market economists like Mises and Hayek were very well studied in other's ideas. Examples being "Socialism" by Mises, and "The Road to Serfdom" by Hayek.

From an old post of mine months/years ago:

"The Hayek-Mises explanation of the business cycle is contradicted by the evidence. It is, I believe, false." - Milton Friedman

"I tremble for the reputation of my subject" after reading the "exaggerated claims that used to be made in economics for the power of deduction and a priori reasoning [the Austrian methods]." - Paul Samuelson

Noted economist Mark Blaug has called Austrian methodologies "so cranky and idiosyncratic that we can only wonder that they have been taken seriously by anyone."

1. Friedman, Milton. "The 'Plucking Model' of Business Fluctuations Revisited". Economic Inquiry: 171–177.
2. Paul Samuelson, Economics, 6th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), p. 736.
3. Mark Blaug, The Methodology of Economics (New York: Cambridge, 1980), p. 93.

I'm sure a lot of long nights studying at home and considering the alternative explanations was done while reaching the conclusions that Mises and Hayek are, um, a "thorough study of all those previous".

 

[First]

I think you should find something else to do rather than be LK's cheerleader. Not just because I fear seeing you in a skirt, but also because I don't think he needs one.

I'm merely reiterating the insanity that is a belief in Mises, Hayek, Austrian econ, Peter Schiff, or Ron Paul politics that you pollute the board with. I am exceedingly justified in each belief based on the evidence explained, presented, and sourced by myself and others, so of course I'm going to pimp it until the cows come home. If you didn't always bitch out of discussion, at least it would be intellectually stimulating.

 

[Darwin333]

LOL. Only you and the dipshit above would take what I said and twist it that way. I've merely stuck to what you can blame him for, not what you can't.

As far as me personally, I take a far more pragmatic approach to the markets, which you despise. I've spoken out against banks, their abuses, and for better regulation. Just because I don't want to be a pig farmer and nail maker, like you want to be, doesn't mean I shouldn't be listened to. Only somebody who wars against experience, knowledge, and intelligence, would discredit somebody merely for those factors.

What's really concerning, yet ironic, about you and Darwin is that the world is full of shades of gray, yet you only see black and white, which is why you interpret all of my posts the way you do. Why is that scary? Because you attempt to gather support for your extremist agenda and there are 5% of the people out there that agree with you.

Why is it ironic? Because for all of your attempted knowledge and supposed "rightness", you exclude all viewpoints but your own, which is the antithesis of having superior knowledge.

Exactly what extremest agenda do I believe in again?

 

[bamacre]

From an old post of mine months/years ago:

So you have proven economists disagree with each other. Unbelievable. Someone get this guy a Nobel Prize, stat!

 

[bamacre]

Since everything Milton Friedman said was fact, then...

“The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great Depression by contracting the amount of money in circulation by one-third from 1929 to 1933.”

"One unsolved economic problem of the day is how to get rid of the Federal Reserve."

"The political principle that underlies the market mechanism is unanimity. In an ideal free market resting on private property, no individual can coerce any other, all cooperation is voluntary, all parties to such cooperation benefit or they need not participate. There are no values, no "social" responsibilities in any sense other than the shared values and responsibilities of individuals. Society is a collection of individuals and of the various groups they voluntarily form."

"Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that mistakes — excusable or not — can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic — this is the key political argument against an independent central bank."

 

[sandorski]

Since everything Milton Friedman said was fact, then...

1)“The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great Depression by contracting the amount of money in circulation by one-third from 1929 to 1933.”

2)"One unsolved economic problem of the day is how to get rid of the Federal Reserve."

"The political principle that underlies the market mechanism is unanimity. In an ideal free market resting on private property, no individual can coerce any other, all cooperation is voluntary, all parties to such cooperation benefit or they need not participate. There are no values, no "social" responsibilities in any sense other than the shared values and responsibilities of individuals. Society is a collection of individuals and of the various groups they voluntarily form."

3)"Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that mistakes — excusable or not — can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic — this is the key political argument against an independent central bank."

1) Yup, attempting to decrease Public expenditures, lack of Stimulus were both bad policy

2) Context is needed

3) Seems to be an argument for the Need of Regulation/Oversight

Disclaimer: Don't really know much about the guy or his positions.

 

[MotF Bane]

1) Yup, attempting to decrease Public expenditures, lack of Stimulus were both bad policy

2) Context is needed

3) Seems to be an argument for the Need of Regulation/Oversight

Disclaimer: Don't really know much about the guy or his positions.

Holy facepalm, Batman.

 

[sandorski]

Holy facepalm, Batman.

Hook me up Dude, like I clearly said, I don't know the dudes positions. I'm merely postulating based upon the limited statements quoted.

 

[First]

So you have proven economists disagree with each other. Unbelievable. Someone get this guy a Nobel Prize, stat!

No actually, I have proven economists in agreement that Hayek-Mises (and therefore Schiff, Paul, et al) is bunk. And, as a result, pretty much the bulk of your "contributions" to P&N.

Since everything Milton Friedman said was fact, then...

“The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great Depression by contracting the amount of money in circulation by one-third from 1929 to 1933.”

Yes actually, the Fed didn't do anything so by allowing the money supply to contract they in fact "caused" the GD by doing nothing. The hacks you cite (Schiff, Paul) wouldn't have a Fed to begin with and have railed against increasing the money supply. Frankly, I'm not sure why you're even quoting this Friedman statement, as doing nothing is precisely what you and the kooks recommend as the remedy and what Friedman resoundly denounces as lunacy both in your above quote and in the following statement:

"Anna Schwartz and I in our Monetary History were discussing the situation after the financial collapse of the 1930s. We said then and believed then, and I still do, that the Federal Reserve had failed to do what it was originally set up to do. It had permitted a collapse of the monetary system, it had permitted perfectly sound banks to fail by the thousands because of liquidity problems, although it had been set up in 1913 with the objective of preventing that kind of a situation. And we argued in the book that since the Fed had failed and showed no sign that it was not going to continue to fail in pursuing its function, something else was needed to perform the function for which it had originally been established and that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation would serve that function. Interestingly enough, it did for some 40 years. From 1934 to the early '70s, there were very few bank failures. And there were essentially no runs on banks because of liquidity problems. So it did serve a useful function for 40 years."

So not only does he clearly rail against everything you and your kooky sources cite as the solution to economic turmoil (doing nothing), but he makes the argument for the very real need for the existence of the FDIC, one of another set of financial institutions you and Paul/Schiff/etc. kooks claim need to be abolished because they somehow pervert market conditions.

"One unsolved economic problem of the day is how to get rid of the Federal Reserve."

"The political principle that underlies the market mechanism is unanimity. In an ideal free market resting on private property, no individual can coerce any other, all cooperation is voluntary, all parties to such cooperation benefit or they need not participate. There are no values, no "social" responsibilities in any sense other than the shared values and responsibilities of individuals. Society is a collection of individuals and of the various groups they voluntarily form."

"Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that mistakes — excusable or not — can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic — this is the key political argument against an independent central bank."

Please, Friedman has been crystal clear about his stance on the Fed. He has said that ideally the Fed wouldn't exist but that it would be replaced by a machine that would institute monetary policy by simply increasing the money supply on a structured basis (something he said could no longer be possible before his death, in essence accepting the Fed needed to exist). Friedman has been very clear about what he meant in your quote, his explanation which I just listed above, and has also written extensively about the need for its continued existence to increase the money supply as often as necessary to combat depressions like the one we saw in the 30's. And we're talking about Milton Friedman, probably the most famous true libertarian-leaning economist in history and he still rejects the lunacy that the Fed caused the Great Depression in the 30's by their actions in the 20's as the bigot/nuts at lewrockwell or Paul or Schiff believe, all of whom you cite. Friedman rejects that without question.

But yes, of course Friedman isn't "right" about everything...which is why I listed Samuelson and Blaug, and can cite all sorts of consensus throughout academia for further confirmation that your Austrian nonsense is precisely that. This joke of a statement you made about it being a "thorough study of all those previous", it's just sad. Of all who previous, and based on what evidence? Friedman was very clear; the evidence, the actual data, show your Austrian religion to be unprovable, idealistic nonsense which is why many libertarians predictably cling to it. It's why many people laugh/ignore your posts when you claim Republicans and Democrats are all the same while making the uproarious claim that your candidate, Ron Paul, would be different. So deliciously ironic.

 

[EXman]

Should Tim Geithner "step down" because Republicans ask him to?

LoL partisan to the end. You'll defend a criminal if he is in your party. Take the high road once in a while and admit that he is a failure and that he has NO BUSINESS ever even being nominated as the tax cheat he is.

He is a tax cheat = Fact

 

[bamacre]

But yes, of course Friedman isn't "right" about everything.

Exactly.

So you're proven nothing.

 

[First]

Exactly.

So you're proven nothing.

I've proven conclusively for years now you can't have a debate on the facts.

 

[bamacre]

I've proven conclusively for years now you can't have a debate on the facts.

The only "facts" you ever have are "he said she said."

 

[LegendKiller]

The only "facts" you ever have are "he said she said."

And the only thing you ever produce is Mises bullshit. Do you even have any of your own thoughts?

 

[First]

The only "facts" you ever have are "he said she said."

Defining inflation, moral hazard, monetary and fiscal policy, and consensus for you isn't he said she said, that's just a discussion of facts and history. Which you can't refute because, well, you're out of your league here. And it's why you can't refute anything in my prior post here or elsewhere. You've got nothing to refer to except what your political idols feed you.