Ted Cruz just won my support

[makattak]

I've been a Jindal supporter because I want more executive experience,  but with Senator Cruz's new plan,  he's now  my choice:

https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan/

He's right that we just need to enforce existing law. (Among many other items)  I believe he's got the guts to do it,  too.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

If he is the candidate, I'll vote against Hillary. Cruz is still a career politician IMO.

[roo_ster]

He still left lots of weasel room, but better than anyone's except Trump's.

Remember: We must also return those already here.

[charby]

His whole wanting to return the gold standard showed me how ignorant he is of national and global economies.

[makattak]

His whole wanting to return the gold standard showed me how ignorant he is of national and global economies.

The gold standard is neither a catastrophe nor a cure-all. It simply has different strengths and weaknesses than a fiat currency.

[makattak]

He still left lots of weasel room, but better than anyone's except Trump's.

Remember: We must also return those already here.

Yes, we do. I may be expecting too much, but I read "enforce existing law" and complaints about lack of deportations as saying he will both deport at least some here and remove the incentive for others to stay.(self-deportation)

[Hawkmoon]

His whole wanting to return the gold standard showed me how ignorant he is of national and global economies.

Explain, please.

[charby]

Explain, please.

Saves time typing

http://openmarkets.cmegroup.com/4510/what-would-a-return-to-the-gold-standard-mean

[roo_ster]

Saves time typing

http://openmarkets.cmegroup.com/4510/what-would-a-return-to-the-gold-standard-mean

Some interesting data, but then they beclown themselves worst than the most feverish gold bug with this load of hooey:
“Money supply grows in reaction to the growth of the real economy,”

Two largest contributors to growth in the money supply:
1. Fed.gov incurs more debt / spends more and (between the Fed Reserve and Dept Treasury) yanks greenbacks out of their asses with a few keystrokes.
2. Other non-gov't actors incur debt in the fractional reserve banking system.

Note, that at no time was economic growth the stimulant.

In the end, FR banking with fiat money or a gold backed currency can both be viable money systems.  And they can both be absolute disasters.  The problem lies not with what backs the currency, but with the perverse, destructive, and self-serving actions of those who manage the money system and gov't.

[Scout26]

If he is the candidate, I'll vote against Hillary. Cruz is still a career politician IMO.

But he has and continue stick his thumb in the eye of establishment (both Washington and R's).  He not only talks the talk but has also walked the walk.

He still left lots of weasel room, but better than anyone's except Trump's.

Remember: We must also return those already here.

Read the whole page.  Cutting off their benefits, preventing companies from deducting their wages, and a whole host of H1B visa changes to end the Shenanigans with that mess.    That page is "Comprehensive Immigration Reform", the kind that warms the cockles of my ice cold heart, and will make the D's scream like stuck pigs !!!

[Scout26]

[BlueStarLizzard]

I'm also liking Cruz more and more (and not just because he can directly quote one of the best scenes of the Princess Bride)

As far as his stance on the gold standard... It's still smarter than Bernie's understanding of economics.

We aren't going to get perfect. I'll settle for mostly reasonable, sane and not in it for the shock value or power trips. Cruz seems to be in that category.

[roo_ster]

Read the whole page.  Cutting off their benefits, preventing companies from deducting their wages, and a whole host of H1B visa changes to end the Shenanigans with that mess.    That page is "Comprehensive Immigration Reform", the kind that warms the cockles of my ice cold heart, and will make the D's scream like stuck pigs !!!

I read it.  If enacted, it will send many back from whence they came.  That is good, but I want an explicit statement to the effect, "We are sending them home because this is our country, dammit."  It needs to be said and defended out in the open.

And Cruz is still super-slippery WRT H1B and other legal mass immigration.  My reading from his past statements is that his recent come-to-jesus on immigration is due to:
1. Seeing Trump's success with it.
2. Other circumstances, without which, he would still be in favor of America lifting its skirts to the 3rd world masses, H1B or otherwise.

I am not convinced that his change in message is merely words or a change of attitude/heart.

Still better than the rest of the crowd the GOP is contemplating.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

But he has and continue stick his thumb in the eye of establishment (both Washington and R's).  He not only talks the talk but has also walked the walk.

Read the whole page.  Cutting off their benefits, preventing companies from deducting their wages, and a whole host of H1B visa changes to end the Shenanigans with that mess.    That page is "Comprehensive Immigration Reform", the kind that warms the cockles of my ice cold heart, and will make the D's scream like stuck pigs !!!

Understand all of that. And like Cruz well enough. But, he is still, by definition, a career politician. I hate cared politicians.

[just Warren]

From OpenMarkets

“Modern finance has growing money. Money supply grows in reaction to the growth of the real economy,” says CPM Group’s Christian. “As an economy grows, more wealth is generated. Post industrial growth for the last 160 years has averaged 2-3 percent and the gold supply hasn’t risen at the same pace.”

Put another way, today’s global economy stands at roughly $100 trillion GDP, and has been growing at 3-4 percent per year. “Finding that much more gold per year is just not going to happen,” says Goldstein. That’s why going back to the gold standard is a pipe dream.”

This is idiotic. The money supply doesn't follow the gold supply.


From http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2011/010211.html

We have come to the end of our first century. We began in 1775, with the dollar pegged to gold near $20/oz., and we ended in 1900, 125 years later, with the dollar still pegged to gold near $20/oz. (in actuality there was a little bit of variation, but let's just call it even point-to-point).

Remember that we began our show with $12 million of money, mostly in the form of foreign silver coins. In 1900, including gold and silver coins, we have $1,954 million of notes and coins, an increase of 163 times over 125 years.

So we see that a gold standard does not at all limit the money supply to some fixed quantity. The money supply increased by 163 times! However, the value of money was stable, at $20.67 per ounce of gold.

Bolding mine.

The whole point of a gold standard is to increase or decrease the money supply based on your parity with the price of gold. So the amount of money will fluctuate. There are people out there that think the monetary supply is frozen. It isn't.

As we see in the above quote the money supply increased with demand yet the price of gold stayed stable. Weird!

From OpenMarkets

“It would force lending to slow down and the economy to slow down,” says Goldstein. Explaining the connection and impact on lending, Goldstein elaborates. “For every dollar a bank has, it can loan maybe $10-15 out. But, if those dollars are convertible to gold, that all collapses.”

It adds discipline to lending which means borrowers are getting the proper price (information) about what money costs and that leads to less malinvestment. And if banks want more money to lend maybe they could raise what they pay to depositors. Crazy!

OpenMarkets

The gold standard would result in a devaluing of the dollar and it would buy less

Hah, what? You can set the peg to whatever you want you know. So set it to match what the conditions are now, not what they were. That's what got Britain in trouble in the 30's.

OpenMarkets

CPM Group’s Christian echoed those thoughts. “If we are going to manage our money supply, the economy cannot grow as rapidly as it wants to grow with periods of deflation, starvation and depravation that simply don’t have to occur,” he says, noting that repeated periods of starvation were seen in the U.S. through the 1870’s-1890’s “because the money supply could not grow fast enough to grow the economy.”

What a lying bag of crap. Look into those instances and you'll see it was political malfeasance not the gold standard that caused them. Which is why I'm a free-banker not a gold standardist. Politicians and bureaucrats should not be allowed anywhere near the money supply.

[just Warren]

Here's a good article if you're leaning towards Cruz.

No belief? Gold, on the markets, soared 23-fold in the 1970s, peaking at $800 per ounce. In the 1980s and 1990s, it hugged a tight band around $350. In the 2000s, it zoomed six-fold to $1,800 then bounced down to the $1,150 it hangs out at now. Here is what I told Dr. Janet Yellen herself, Fed chair extraordinaire, across her big meeting table at the Eccles Building in Washington last February:

“Economically the effects were startling in their contrasts. In the 1980s and 1990s, growth was high, recessions rare (there was one from 1982 to 2000)*, entrepreneurialism common, and jobs abundant. In the 1970s and the 2000s (through today), recessions were either frequent or their recoveries slow and shallow, un- and under-employment sampled new high levels, and investment went into primary inputs ranging from oil to land (and gold) to an uncommon degree.”

He's more on the religious side than I like but he likely has a better chance that Paul. And I think Cruz probably gets it on money more than Paul does. Though I live in California so whoever is the candidate will likely still lose to the Dem here.

*That's poorly worded. It should say there was one recession in that span of years, instead of reading like there was an 18-year long recession.

[Scout26]

I went back and re-read Cruz's Immigration plan.  The vast majority of it does not require new laws to be passed, merely ordering the executive agencies to follow the listing laws and rigorously enforce them.

[makattak]

I went back and re-read Cruz's Immigration plan.  The vast majority of it does not require new laws to be passed, merely ordering the executive agencies to follow the listing laws and rigorously enforce them.

Which is why I like it. We don't need new laws. We need to enforce the ones we have.

[Ben]

Which is why I like it. We don't need new laws. We need to enforce the ones we have.

Exactly. Don't tell me about all the new laws you're going to introduce to "fix things". Tell me you're: 1) going to enforce current laws and 2) examine current laws and start getting rid of bad* and duplicative laws.

*Bad laws include those with the wording, "X is prohibited, with the exception of paragraphs 1-745 on alternate Tuesdays and Thursdays." If it's against the law, it's against the law. If it's not specifically against the law, it's allowed. Knock it off with the bajillion special exclusions that only lawbreakers and corporate lawyers know about.