Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: lone_gunman on March 21, 2009, 08:51:57 PM
-
During the primary, Ron Paul noted that our current financial and economic policies, along with out of control federal spending, and a never ending War on Terror would bankrupt America. Romney rolled his eyes, McCain simply ignored him, and now it seems to have come to pass. Less than six months later, our economy is crashing and burning, with no end in sight. We have Republicans and Democrats who seem to think the only way to get out of the hole is to spend more....
Has anyone reconsidered what Paul said? Maybe the Republicans should have paid him more attention, and rolled their eyes a little less.
-
Maybe the Republicans should have paid him more attention, and rolled their eyes a little less.
If Republicrats and Democans were capable of learning the obvious, they'd be Libertarians.
-
Maybe the Republicans should have paid him more attention, and rolled their eyes a little less.
maybe if there weren't a crowd of troofers chanting around him or no one minting money with his picture on it there'd be less eyerolling
-
Yeah, because weird people supporting him = him being wrong. John McCain was supported by a woman that carved letters into her face and claimed liberals did it. Does that have any actual bearing on anything?
Of course, laughing at people who wear strange clothes or who have bizarre beliefs is a convenient excuse for not actually voting or supporting for people who support individual liberty. You know, because actual change is scary.
-
I am not too interested in rehashing all the stuff from the election. Certainly, Ron Paul had some weird people supporting him, but I supported him, and I am more or less normal. I think it is a shame a lot of people could not get past the odd hodgepodge of supporters he had and paid more attention to the message.
The economic collapse, which Ron Paul said was going to happen, has happened. I think that should improve his credibility in the eyes of his party, but it probably will not.
-
Yeah, because weird people supporting him = him being wrong. John McCain was supported by a woman that carved letters into her face and claimed liberals did it. Does that have any actual bearing on anything?
no because weird folks all around you being embraced by you makes you seem loony tunes yourself. the liberty dollars thing was "special". as was your attempt to find equivalency in the dingbat with the carved face liking mccain and pauls relationship with the troofers. one doesn't have control of the nuts one can control having em move in with you
-
think it is a shame a lot of people could not get past the odd hodgepodge of supporters he had and paid more attention to the message.
The economic collapse, which Ron Paul said was going to happen, has happened. I think that should improve his credibility in the eyes of his party, but it probably will not.
i think its a shame he couldn't distance himself from the flakes it might make him getting more credibility possible. but both are unlikely and its worse than a shame its a crime
-
as was your attempt to find equivalency in the dingbat with the carved face liking mccain and pauls relationship with the troofers
The dingbat thing was completely irrelevant to anything.
So was the appearance of truthers.
What is relevant is a candidate's views on issues, and, to a lesser degree, his character. Ron Paul has had supported individual liberty throughout his career with far more consistency than any other candidate who had run against him in the race. I suppose that this didn't matter to most voters. But if you think that wearing a nice tie and being respectable is more important than individual liberty, then maybe you're not such a big fan of individual liberty after all - which is not a crime, we are all entitled to our views.
Here is the blatant truth: what exists in modern society is not, of course, a condition of slavery. There are no death camps and no Stasi. But what exists in modern society is not freedom in the sense in which libertarians, classical liberals and Goldwaterite conservatives aspire to it. Open up Goldwater's book and read the description of the society he wants - no Federal invovlement in education, no graduated income tax, and so forth - even that rather moderate vision is already radically different from what we have today. I.E., it is revolutionary. To get from 'here' to 'there', we require either decades and centuries of change or a revolution - a clearing away of the social institutions on which the current system rests, either rapidly or slowly.
If you really want to live in a free world, then you need to have a revolution. By this I don't mean you need to grab a rifle and storm the Bastille or some silly fantasy like that, what I mean is that the very notion of rapid political change like that is by itself a revolution. That's what the definition of revolution is, the rapid replacement of one kind of political and social system by another.
But the truth it, you can't have a revolution while wearing a three-piece suit. Wanna have freedom in your life time? Then you gotta accept some strange bedfellows. Want to nitpick people about how they're not wearing a tie? Then don't wonder why the two parties are alike or why your taxes are too high or why lefties keep taking your shiny toys.
-
Sigh...here we go again. :rolleyes:
-
How about we keep it on topic, folks, or this thread will go away really quickly.
-
During the primary, Ron Paul noted that our current financial and economic policies, along with out of control federal spending, and a never ending War on Terror would bankrupt America. Romney rolled his eyes, McCain simply ignored him, and now it seems to have come to pass. Less than six months later, our economy is crashing and burning, with no end in sight. We have Republicans and Democrats who seem to think the only way to get out of the hole is to spend more....
Has anyone reconsidered what Paul said? Maybe the Republicans should have paid him more attention, and rolled their eyes a little less.
Hooray for strawmen!
At least we've moved on from bashing Bush and are now bashing Romney, McCain, or Generic Republicans. I guess we could call that progress.
-
So the only thing we should do is bash Obama, Dodd, Hillary, or Generic Democrats? =D
-
You forgot about Ron Paul. We can always bash Ron Paul.
Anybody can predict economic apocalypse. The question is, did Ron Paul predict the specific causes of specific disasters we are currently seeing? A second question would be, did he have real solutions to those problems? Naturally, he would do a better job than Obama, but who wouldn't?
-
Well, Ron Paul's answer was composed of three points: 1. Cut taxes and spending. 2. Reduce the regulatory power of the Federal Government 3. Reform the monetary system.
Yes, I can see how some people would be opposed to 3, but considering a. Ron Paul was never comitted to an overnight switch to free banking, that was the least dangerous part of the program and b. Ron Paul was right on so much other stuff, I'd think they'd be able to get over that.
If you think that more individual liberty and personal responsibility are bad, then Ron Paul is probably not the man for you.
But here's the thing: the reason we're now discussing this is not, in my mind, Ron Paul, the physical Pennsylvania-born physician who's now a Republican conservative from Texas.
The problem is that some of us (not just me, my opinion is pretty much irrelevant, but all those American guys who voted for RP, whose opinion is a bit more important than mine) feel that these events involving Ron Paul are not a minor occurence in the constant stream of political nonsense. A lot of people on the 'radical' wing of conservatism/libertarianism felt that the tie-wearing gradualist dudes are our friends, and that if an opportunity presented itself to smash the system, then the gradualists would grab it or at least agree to help out if the alternatives were not actually gradualist, but big-government. That turned out to be untrue. People started focusing on the quirks of the Ron Paul candidacy like high-school jocks during nerd-baiting season. Practically all of the conservative pundits, all of them Limbaughs and Levins and so forth, arrayed themselves against the only candidate that was actually capable of giving them most of what they claimed to want, if they were elected. A lot of people seem to feel, on an emotional level, that the people that we respected (at least to some degree) have turned around and suddenly attacked us, while we had a common enemy.
Instead they turned around and rallied behind the various RINOs whom they swore up and down never to support - remember, before the election many people viewed the positions of the RINOs a so similar they were given the nickname "Rudy McRomney", as if to mock their similarity.
Suddenly "I'll never vote for a RINO" turned into "Vote for Romney, he's better than McCain!".
-
Ya know, I actually did an image search on Ron Paul and he was wearing a tie in almost every shot. FWIW. There's some irony in the tie remarks, but I don't know whether you see it or not.
So, Ron Paul was advising standard conservative/libertarian economic policies, plus the gold standard thing. We all knew that. But the OP makes him out to be a prophet, not merely a laissez faire capitalist. That's the part I'm still wondering about.
Your analysis of conservative response to Ron Paul is interesting, but just amounts to more whining about Ron Paul's failure to accomplish his objective. As Rush Limbaugh frequently said for the past year or two, it is not his job to push any particular candidate. If Paul wanted Limbaugh's support, he should have acted like it. Why should Limbaugh et al be any more solicitous of Ron Paul than they were of McCain? Neither candidate was especially inspiring to mainstream conservatives. That remains their own fault. As it turned out, the conservative punditry supported McCain, as he was better than Obama. Paul would no doubt have received similar support.
-
See, in my view, the reason RP was awesome is because he advocated not some form of gradualism, but getting in there and taking a hatchet to the whole bloody works.
As for "own fault", I'm not sure I ever said Ron Paul was a great politician. Ron Paul's campaign was plagued, from day one, by a variety of problems. Beause I followed it very closely, I can expound on them in great detail for your curiosity, but I don't think it's the issue here. I think Ron Paul, for all his positive qualities, did many things wrong. But the thing is, your opinion about someone ALWAYS reveals something about you AND about that someone. So I can say that Medved or Reynolds were complete idiots for attacking Paul in the way they did even while commenting about how Ron Paul's campaign post-November 5th was completely mismanaged.
-
Anybody can predict economic apocalypse.
Exactly. My grandmother predicted a similar economic outcome last year as she watched the housing bubble burst.
Maybe she should've run for president, based on her clairvoyant skills? ;/
-
Practically all of the conservative pundits, all of them Limbaughs and Levins and so forth, arrayed themselves against the only candidate that was actually capable of giving them most of what they claimed to want, if they were elected.
Rush is an interesting character - especially his presidential candidate non-support. Pretty sure he wiped out Buchanan.
I don't know how he picks his presidential choices... he may do it because he wants to be 'right' in the sense of 'correct'... but from my limited memories, he tends to mow down the guy that is closest to his beliefs when a primary comes around without fail. Pretty sure Fred Thompson was closer to his beliefs than Romney, but no support issued for him.
Of course, I seem to recall reading that Bill Buckley having a strong dislike of Goldwater, too. Maybe there's just serious personality conflicts involved.
-
Rush is an interesting character - especially his presidential candidate non-support. Pretty sure he wiped out Buchanan.
Please explain more about this. I have a gap in my education concerning what conservatives were doing in the 90's.
-
Please explain more about this. I have a gap in my education concerning what conservatives were doing in the 90's.
I believe it was the '96 primaries when Pat Buchanan, among others, was running for president. Buchanan also ran versus Bush Sr. in 92, and apparently was endorsed by Rush. A quick internet search indicates that Rush favored Phill Gramm or Steve Forbes... and I don't think Forbes was all that conservative.
My folks are the main source of this particular knowledge, since I wasn't too much into politics at that age.
Here we go:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/upcp/1998/00000015/00000003/art00007
"Recent studies suggest that what the political talk radio hosts say on the air can shape the political orientations of their audiences. Drawing on data from a panel survey conducted in 1996, I examined the "Limbaugh effect" during the GOP presidential nomination campaign. My findings cast doubt on popular assumptions about the power of Limbaugh's words. Despite weeks of listening to Limbaugh criticize Pat Buchanan, members of the audience were no more likely to harbor negative feelings toward the candidate than were nonlisteners."
So he did, as I'd heard, run Buchanan down. This particular fellow doesn't think it hurt, but I'm pretty darn sure it didn't help.
Also this:
http://books.google.com/books?id=xSUKVfOM60wC&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=%22Pat+Buchanan%22+Rush+Limbaugh+1996+primary&source=bl&ots=22La8w3L7L&sig=9rw0XJR-re0XpRjHbsGQ9nAaP7U&hl=en&ei=WdrGSbetBYLoyQXL3fykCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result
Buchanan also ran in 2000, again with no Limbaugh support.
And this.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blumert1.html
-
So the only thing we should do is bash Obama, Dodd, Hillary, or Generic Democrats? =D
Bash those who caused the problems. That would specifically not include Romney and McCain.
Also, don't deify those who would have made the mess worse. That specifically includes Ron Paul. An inelastic money supply would have been devastating these past few months.
I'm unimpressed by the original post. I'm tired about hearing about how evil Republicans are, and seeing as justifications things they didn't do and wouldn't have done. I'm also tired of hearing how great Ron Paul is from people who don't understand just what the ramifications of his monetary policy would have been in a time like this.
Sure, Ron Paul predicted that a financial mess was coming. But so did bazillions of other people, like Gewehr's grandma, basically anyone who was paying attention (that rules out Washington insiders). Heck, you don't even need to have a clue at all to predict a coming recession. Simply state, without any reason or cause, that a recession is coming soon. Given the nature of the business cycle, you're bound to be proven right eventually.
The real questions to ask are who was correct in predicting the reasons why the financial problems occurred, and who is right in proposing how to solve them. Sorry fellas, but that just ain't Ron Paul.
-
Bash those who caused the problems. That would specifically not include Romney and McCain.
There is enough blame to go around.
An inelastic money supply would have been devastating these past few months.
I am sorry, you are misinformed about the nature of Ron Paul's monetary policy. It was much more creative than a simple deflationist gold-standard rant. Regardless, you didn't hear me subscribing to Lone_Gunman's views on this. The reasons that I think that Ron Paul was the best candidate are entirely different.
For the purpose of this thread, suffice it to be said that I think that it is legitimate to disagree on whether we want to have a national bank and fiat money, just as it is legitimate to disagree on anthropogenic human warming. Disagreeing with you on this doesn't automatically make Ron Paul an ignoramus.
-
There is enough blame to go around.
I am sorry, you are misinformed about the nature of Ron Paul's monetary policy. It was much more creative than a simple deflationist gold-standard rant. Regardless, you didn't hear me subscribing to Lone_Gunman's views on this. The reasons that I think that Ron Paul was the best candidate are entirely different.
For the purpose of this thread, suffice it to be said that I think that it is legitimate to disagree on whether we want to have a national bank and fiat money, just as it is legitimate to disagree on anthropogenic human warming. Disagreeing with you on this doesn't automatically make Ron Paul an ignoramus.
I neither know, nor particularly care, why you appreciate Ron Paul so much. I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to the original post.
Nevermind that. I'll respond specifically to you here.
I very much believe that advocating for a gold standard makes one an ignoramus. That is especially true in times like this, where the raison d'etre for an elastic money supply is kicking us in the face. Our current deflationary crash likely would have been made many times worse by an inelastic money supply. Also, deflationary crashes like this one would become quite a bit more common than under our current fiat system, just as they were before the Fed came into existence.
You say that Ron Paul's version on the gold standard would have been more creative than this. Perhaps his version was indeed more creative, but if it was sufficiently creative that it could handle times like this then I don't see how it can still be called a gold standard. A money supply can either be expanded as needed, or it can't. The very essence of a gold standard policy is that it is of the latter type, and the result is devastating deflation.
Why don't you enlighten me on just how creative Paul's non-gold-standard gold-standard really is.
-
I do not wish to derail this thread, but briefly: A gold standard does not mean a gold piece exists in the economy for every bit of money. It requires only that the M0 money supply be tied to gold. In a free banking system, (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2008/11/selgin_on_free.html) banks are regulated in a limited manner to avoid fraud (rather than the micromanaging system that exists today),and the system of derivatives that comprises the real currency is created by the free market process of lending and borrowing. Ultra-large banks function as lenders of last resort. Many economists believe that in this system, gold would emerge as the basis for the M0 currency.
The best book about gold-standard based Free Banking is Competition and Currency: Essays on Free Banking and Money - in the sense that it explains the idea and attacked Friedmanism and Keynesianism rather eloquently. The author is less eloquent at defending the idea itself.
Many economists – both Austrians and Friedmanites - both disagree with your assertion – that the current crisis is deflationary in origin. Many claim that it is in fact an inflationary bubble that created this crisis. I do not wish to argue this – because I do not know who is right – but I do know that a legitimate debate exists on this point and it is ridiculous to claim any one side is composed of ignoramuses. Certainly Hayek and Mises were no ignoramuses.
-
I neither know, nor particularly care, why you appreciate Ron Paul so much. I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to the original post.
Nevermind that. I'll respond specifically to you here.
I very much believe that advocating for a gold standard makes one an ignoramus. That is especially true in times like this, where the raison d'etre for an elastic money supply is kicking us in the face. Our current deflationary crash likely would have been made many times worse by an inelastic money supply. Also, deflationary crashes like this one would become quite a bit more common than under our current fiat system, just as they were before the Fed came into existence.
You say that Ron Paul's version on the gold standard would have been more creative than this. Perhaps his version was indeed more creative, but if it was sufficiently creative that it could handle times like this then I don't see how it can still be called a gold standard. A money supply can either be expanded as needed, or it can't. The very essence of a gold standard policy is that it is of the latter type, and the result is devastating deflation.
Why don't you enlighten me on just how creative Paul's non-gold-standard gold-standard really is.
Deflation?
Lack of large amounts of inflation is not necessarily deflation. Neither is a drop in some commodity prices and the (notional) wealth-destruction of adjustment in the housing market in the 5 states where that sort of thing has been a kick in the jimmy.
Official CPI stats went barely negative (month-to-month) in only OCT-DEC2008 and are again positive (IOW, inflationary), and the annual 2008 CPI was up 3.8% relative to 2007 (2007 was up 2.8% relative to 2006, BTW).
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/consumer-price-index-and-annual-percent-changes-from-1913-to-2008/
As is usual, the shadowstats folks show a greater inflation that official stats:
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data
FEB2009 inflation is pinned at 0.4%.
I guess I have not bought into the notion that 2-4% annual inflation is A Good Thing in perpetuity. Holding inflation close to zero while we undergo economic and population growth seems the best policy. Also, if a positive 2-4% inflation for years on end is harmless, deflation of a similar magnitude for a much shorter length of time ought to be similarly harmless.
But, then, we'd have to actually experiencing deflation. Which we are not.
None of this is to endorse Paulistinian economics, but merely to point out that using a fiction to refute Paul's goldbuggery is not effective.
-
Lack of large amounts of inflation is not necessarily deflation.
Huh??
The rest of the post is very cogent, but inflation is the opposite of deflation. Therefore, large amounts of inflation can never be deflation.
-
Huh??
The rest of the post is very cogent, but inflation is the opposite of deflation. Therefore, large amounts of inflation can never be deflation.
The lack of one in quantity does not necessarily imply the other. Going from the usual ~2-4% of inflation we have seen since the early 1980s to less than 1% inflation does not deflation make. Similarly, going from Zimbabwean hyperinflation to 2-4% inflation is also not deflation, just less inflation.
IOW:
Less Inflation != Deflation
We have seen only the tiniest smidgen of deflation in month-to-month figures in late 2008...a year that had higher annual inflation than 2007.
jfruser's speculation:
I would put forward the notion that the only reason we have not had steep inflation (greater than 4% up to 10%-ish) is the fall in oil/gas/energy prices since JUL2008. The drop in energy prices has has the stimulative effect of an across the board tax cut in addition to attenuating the inflationary pressures of dumping obscene amounts of gov't-debt-increasing cash on to the financial sector.
If we see oil/energy prices start to climb up near to JUL2008 levels, we'll see stagflation rise from the grave to kick our asses for a good 10+ years.
-
The lack of one in quantity does not necessarily imply the other. Going from the usual ~2-4% of inflation we have seen since the early 1980s to less than 1% inflation does not deflation make. Similarly, going from Zimbabwean hyperinflation to 2-4% inflation is also not deflation, just less inflation.
IOW:
Less Inflation != Deflation
We have seen only the tiniest smidgen of deflation in month-to-month figures in late 2008...a year that had higher annual inflation than 2007.
jfruser's speculation:
I would put forward the notion that the only reason we have not had steep inflation (greater than 4% up to 10%-ish) is the fall in oil/gas/energy prices since JUL2008. The drop in energy prices has has the stimulative effect of an across the board tax cut in addition to attenuating the inflationary pressures of dumping obscene amounts of gov't-debt-increasing cash on to the financial sector.
If we see oil/energy prices start to climb up near to JUL2008 levels, we'll see stagflation rise from the grave to kick our asses for a good 10+ years.
Ah, ok I understand what you were saying.
Your point was a decrease in the inflation rate is not deflation. Deflation is only a decrease in the value of money.
To me it sounded like you were saying a large amount of inflation can be deflation. Hence my confusion.
-
Ah, ok I understand what you were saying.
Your point was a decrease in the inflation rate is not deflation. Deflation is only a decrease in the value of money.
To me it sounded like you were saying a large amount of inflation can be deflation. Hence my confusion.
Me get good eventually writing with for communicate better-wise.
Hey, in my defense, I can write and understand at least (...counting...) 15 languages . Of course, I claim proficiency in only one usually associated with communication between humans, the rest being means of communication with computers.
-
Many people have espoused in whole and in part what Ron Paul actually ran on. RP lacks the political charisma to win an election but more to the point we are not yet at the point where people in the mass are ready to embrace the kind of "intensive care" RP is proposing. That doesn't mean the patient isn't sick and that Paul's diagnosis isn't correct. I think it is essentially on point, although I don't really agree with RP on all aspects of foreign policy or immigration policy as I understand his positions. RP is another John the Baptist type, more prophet than political leader, I'm afraid.
Government statistics are to be trusted the way government budgets are.
-
Medved or Reynolds were complete idiots for attacking Paul in the way they did even while commenting about how Ron Paul's campaign post-November 5th was completely mismanaged.
Maybe that's where you and I see things differently. I am struggling to recall any derogatory remarks made about Paul from the punditry, and the only thing that comes to mind has to do with the episode in which Hannity was chased and badgered by Paulistinians. Mostly, they seem to have ignored Paul. The only Reynolds I know is Mal, and I don't listen to Medved. Not that I don't like him; he just isn't on in this market that I know of.
-
MicroBalrog is right about Medved. He consistently dismisses anyone who strays outside the two major parties. He likes to refer to the libertarians as "losertarians." Medved is very sharp, encyclopedic on American history, but when he gets into that snide, smart-ass mocking mode, he just sounds like a Republican shill.
-
MicroBalrog is right about Medved. He consistently dismisses anyone who strays outside the two major parties. He likes to refer to the libertarians as "losertarians." Medved is very sharp, encyclopedic on American history, but when he gets into that snide, smart-ass mocking mode, he just sounds like a Republican shill.
That is because he is the biggest Republican shill on the air. He is a textbook definition neo-conservative. If I weren't sure he was sincere, I'd think him a parody of a big gov't neo-con.
I will also tip my hat in acknowledgment of his historical literacy.
-
jfruser's speculation:
I would put forward the notion that the only reason we have not had steep inflation (greater than 4% up to 10%-ish) is the fall in oil/gas/energy prices since JUL2008.
We're not seeing inflation right now because the money isn't trickling down to us unwashed masses. With the interest rate this low bank to bank lending isn't exactly very profitable and a bit dicey considering the state of the economy is scarier than a hunting trip with Dick Cheney.
I know one business owner that received a call from his bank after a loan for somewhere between $1 and $2 million was approved. They told him they either had to cancel it or re-negotiate because they couldn't get any of the bigger banks to loan them money. They were going to have to use savings and checking accounts of their customers for it and that'd require a higher interest rate.
When the day comes and that money is flowing freely into our economy we're finally going to see the inflation.
-
Deflation?
Lack of large amounts of inflation is not necessarily deflation. Neither is a drop in some commodity prices and the (notional) wealth-destruction of adjustment in the housing market in the 5 states where that sort of thing has been a kick in the jimmy.
Official CPI stats went barely negative (month-to-month) in only OCT-DEC2008 and are again positive (IOW, inflationary), and the annual 2008 CPI was up 3.8% relative to 2007 (2007 was up 2.8% relative to 2006, BTW).
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/consumer-price-index-and-annual-percent-changes-from-1913-to-2008/
As is usual, the shadowstats folks show a greater inflation that official stats:
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data
FEB2009 inflation is pinned at 0.4%.
I guess I have not bought into the notion that 2-4% annual inflation is A Good Thing in perpetuity. Holding inflation close to zero while we undergo economic and population growth seems the best policy. Also, if a positive 2-4% inflation for years on end is harmless, deflation of a similar magnitude for a much shorter length of time ought to be similarly harmless.
But, then, we'd have to actually experiencing deflation. Which we are not.
None of this is to endorse Paulistinian economics, but merely to point out that using a fiction to refute Paul's goldbuggery is not effective.
Yes, deflation.
We're seeing massive amounts of debt being destroyed. We're seeing prices in virtually all asset classes going down. We're seeing people hoard cash. We're seeing people eschew borrowing, even at near zero interest rates. We're seeing retail goods from cars to clothes being discounted all over the place.
We're seeing the Fed do it's damnedest to push money out into the economy. And we're seeing them fail.
Deflation. Cold, ugly deflation. There is no question in my mind.
The simplistic definitions of inflation/deflation that look solely at CPI miss the point. Inflation/deflation is a matter of the value of money, but CPI cannot measure the value of money. All CPI measures is the price of a small handful of consumer goods.
CPI cannot account for what's happening right now. Almost everything has gotten cheaper these past few months. The only notable exception is cash and its equivalents.
Deflation.
(Interesting discussion on what inflation is here (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/02/inflation-what-heck-is-it.html).)
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nowandfutures.com%2Fimages%2Fm3b_long_term.png&hash=5b616b1c4d68e64d6ac7b062e6621592e8d5dcc5)
-
Ron Paul has a lot of good things to say, along with a bit of quackery.
Unfortunately, he had the baggage of being supported by a lot of highly visible kooks. That would have sunk him if nothing else.
There is also the problem that the US does not have much of a history of 3rd party success. There are occasional exceptions, such as TR, but that was not so much about a political party as it was about an individual.
The LP has wasted what little resources it has on futile campaigns for the presidency. Thats why many of the serious people in the LP deserted it eventually an formed the RLC side of the Republican party. It is way to early to tell if they can bring about change to the RP.
-
Ron Paul has a lot of good things to say, along with a bit of quackery.
Unfortunately, he had the baggage of being supported by a lot of highly visible kooks. That would have sunk him if nothing else.
There is also the problem that the US does not have much of a history of 3rd party success. There are occasional exceptions, such as TR, but that was not so much about a political party as it was about an individual.
The LP has wasted what little resources it has on futile campaigns for the presidency. Thats why many of the serious people in the LP deserted it eventually an formed the RLC side of the Republican party. It is way to early to tell if they can bring about change to the RP.
Because the left and right don't have kooks?
-
...and I am more or less normal...
YOU'RE the one! Dang I thought I would meet one but never figured it'd happen on Algores inyernet. Just when you least expect it, live throws you a curve.
:laugh:
-
Thats why many of the serious people in the LP deserted it eventually an formed the RLC side of the Republican party.
Headed by... oh wait...
-
Because the left and right don't have kooks?
Ron Paul is on the right, but I think we all get your meaning. Yeah, the two established parties have kooks like me. But the thing is, kooks hurt you a lot worse in the court of public opinion, when you're already a small fringe element and a relative new-comer.
RLC? Never heard of it.
-
Because the left and right don't have kooks?
The left certainly does.
It is very hard for people to look at a campaign like Ron Pauls and not see the kooks. They are right out there in front for all to see. The mainstream parties tend to hide the kooks better.
-
Ron Paul is on the right, but I think we all get your meaning. Yeah, the two established parties have kooks like me. But the thing is, kooks hurt you a lot worse in the court of public opinion, when you're already a small fringe element and a relative new-comer.
RLC? Never heard of it.
Republican Liberty Caucus. Basically the more serious people in the LP deserted it and returned to the RP with the intent of reforming it from within.
http://www.rlc.org/
-
Republican Liberty Caucus. Basically the more serious people in the LP deserted it and returned to the RP with the intent of reforming it from within.
http://www.rlc.org/
You do of course realize that Ron Paul is formerly chair of the RLC and a member of it?
The trouble is, the agenda of libertarianism and radical conservatism is revolutionary in nature. You can't have a revolution without kooks.
-
You do of course realize that Ron Paul is formerly chair of the RLC and a member of it?
And?
-
And?
Ilbob was pointing out the RLC as some form of reasonable alternative to RP and people like him. WHich struck me as ironic.
-
Umm, no, he was pointing it out as an alternative to the LP.
A little over-protective of Ron, are we? =)
-
I'm reminded of that line H&K fans used to have.
"I'm not an H&K fan, I'm a 'whoever makes the best firearms in the world' fan".
When another politician appears with views like Ron Paul's, I'll be backing him too.
In fact, if we can manage to get a young, handsome guy with those views to run for office, I'll be shifting my support to him. :D
-
I'm reminded of that line H&K fans used to have.
"I'm not an H&K fan, I'm a 'whoever makes the best firearms in the world' fan".
When another politician appears with views like Ron Paul's, I'll be backing him too.
In fact, if we can manage to get a young, handsome guy with those views to run for office, I'll be shifting my support to him. :D
Does that mean RP hates us 'cause we suck? :lol: And comparing yourself to obnoxious, delusional fan boys is hardly a compelling argument. =D
-
Does that mean RP hates us 'cause we suck? :lol: And comparing yourself to obnoxious, delusional fan boys is hardly a compelling argument. =D
See, I already explained the serious reasons for my argument above. I think they basically got ignored by everybody. So I'm now resorting to humor. =D
-
Ilbob was pointing out the RLC as some form of reasonable alternative to RP and people like him. WHich struck me as ironic.
RLC is not a candidate or a party. Its a movement to reform the RP from within.
I am well aware that Dr. Paul came to the conclusion that the goofy people and failed tactics of the LP made it non-viable so he helped form the RLC. I give him a lot of credit for that.
I also give him a fair amount of credit for campaigning to the end. If nothing else, maybe he gave the next underdog some encouragement, and some things to look at not to do the next time.
-
Time hasn't proven anything. RP was right all along. Many people were telling themselves "that can't happen here" though. Now we know it CAN happen here. Strangely, there are still those who seem to have locked themselves in a closet, stuck their fingers in their ears and are singing, "La-la-la-la-la..., I can't hear you." One day the door will be torn open and they'll see that the house they used to live in is gone.
-
Hey micro, did you have a point when you posted that big M3 chart?
-
Hey micro, did you have a point when you posted that big M3 chart?
Yeah, you can't really have deflation when the money supply is off like a crazed rocket.
-
Is M3 the money supply?
-
Is M3 the money supply?
Several types of money supply exist. M0 is the supply of money that actually exists in greenbacks. M3 is all the forms of money that circulate, which is far greater.
-
I am quite familiar with the various money aggregates. None of them are a satisfactory description of the money supply.
For our purposes here, we can conceptualize the money supply into two parts: "base money", which is the stuff the Fed prints and gives to the banks, and "credit money", which is what the banks produce through fractional reserve lending. The money supply is the sum of base money and credit money. It's what's available and spendable at any given moment.
Now, is the money supply shooting up like a crazed rocket?
Credit money clearly isn't. Credit is way, way down. Crazy down. Scary down. We're seeing debt destruction on a massive scale.
The Fed is trying to compensate for lost credit money by pumping out lots and lots of base money. But they can't print fast enough to make up for the destruction of credit we're seeing right now. This mess is too big, even for them.
It's actually even worse than that. All that base money the Fed is printing is simply being sequestered in bank vaults without ever entering the economy. It isn't spendable, it isn't in circulation.
So credit money is way down. Base money is up when viewed on paper, but is flat for all practical purposes. The money supply, the sum of the two, is down overall.
That's deflation.
-
I'm reminded of that line H&K fans used to have.
"I'm not an H&K fan, I'm a 'whoever makes the best firearms in the world' fan".
When another politician appears with views like Ron Paul's, I'll be backing him too.
In fact, if we can manage to get a young, handsome guy with those views to run for office, I'll be shifting my support to him. :D
Actually, no. You're just so used to Ron Paul being lambasted that you're seeing it when it's not even there. Time to bring the threat level back down a couple of notches. =)
-
Actually, no. You're just so used to Ron Paul being lambasted that you're seeing it when it's not even there. Time to bring the threat level back down a couple of notches. =)
<Can't...help...self...>
Does the Paulian DEFCON equivalent consist of various less or more geeky hirsute scifi characters?
-
<Can't...help...self...>
Does the Paulian DEFCON equivalent consist of various less or more geeky hirsute scifi characters?
Oh my...
Sir! Threat is IMMINENT! We've just upgraded from Cylon to Khan!!!!
-
In the meanwhile we have this (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=18742.0;topicseen), this (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=18616.0), and this. (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=18639.0). And Ron Paul would be worse, how?
-
Yes, MB, the U.S. has officially turned to *expletive deleted*it, based on just those three examples.
Do yourself and us a favor - get over here, get that education, become an American, get yourself or Ron Paul elected to the White House, and fix it all for us, ok?
Jeebus.
-
To attack my statement on the basis of my current geographical location is the very zenith (or nadir) of ad hominem. My point does not become less valid because I say it. Longeyes, who is an American citizen, has made the same points I make.
My point is very simple and you have so far not replied to it. I have stated it repeatedly through this thread. Now it is possible that I have made a mistake somewhere, and have not made myself clear enough.
The current order of things is as follows:
1. Government has been growing in size and scope throughout the Western World, since the early 20th Century. In America in particular this process is often attributed by historians to the New Deal, but some go as far back as 1913. This is not solely an American, but a transnational issue, unfortunately, in evidence throughout the Western world.
2. This growth has been directed at least in part by various social reformers, who have created several institutions to back up their vision of society. There exist various groups of people - unions at major industries, public employees, and others - who have a vested interest in maintaining and expanding the current social order.
If we oppose this growth, there remain three opportunities:
A. A purely-defensive strategy. This is flawed because even with leaders who do absolutely nothing to actively encourage it, the system continues to grow - as it did under the two last Republican Presidents. The problem with it that you do not mount a principled opposition to the changes your opponent wants, and once a leftist wins an election (as one is bound to do, sooner or later - and one just did) he's going to swing in there and start expanding programs and spending like crazy.
B. A long-term gradualist strategy. This is flawed both because it can be overthrown by the leftist guy from example A who will NOT be a gradualist and because it will take generations upon generations.. The advantage of this is that it is simpler and more likely to succeed.
C. Radicalism. Get in there and start breaking *expletive deleted*it and taking names. The advantage of this is that once you establish a radical change in the status quo you create new interest groups, which will have an interest in maintaining the new order that you establish. This is difficult to accomplish, but the dividends are enormous. I am in favor of pursuing B while trying C whenever possible, because I don't want to be 97 years old when it's all over.
Obviously, because of the influence America has the world over culturally and economically, the system falling over in America would be a 'shot heard around the world' yet again. The whole damn house of cards would go under in a decade or two, from Brussels to Toronto.
-
Oh my...
Sir! Threat is IMMINENT! We've just upgraded from Cylon to Khan!!!!
http://www.khaaan.com/
Also, would James Tiberius Kirk qualify as hirsute, given that his luxurious mane is the product of (possibly alien) technology?
More seriously, I think MB explains the options pretty well.
I guess I would describe myself as a "B" guy willing to exploit "C" opportunities, were they to manifest. I haven't seen any such opportunity, Ron Paul included. If RP had been able to keep a lid on his wackier supporters and a lid on his wackier ideas, he might have been that opportunity.
Like BHO, talk centrist on the trail, with a little of his true agenda as spice, or maybe using the equivalent of "dog whistle" phrases for the liberty-minded to tip them off.
What we need is not a new Reagan, but a liberty-minded policritter who holds the values of liberty close to his heart (and vest) while having the ability to communicate like a Reagan and also have Reagan's sunny disposition.
Ron Paul was not that man. At best, he was a John the Baptist / Goldwater type.
One thing you can bet on, is the atheists and religiophobes are going to be disappointed with someone who is both liberty-minded and effective. This theoretical person will not win unless he can convince the 25-35% of fundies/conservative religious folk to jump on the minimalist gov't bandwagon. Even RP was ardently pro-life.
-
I think there are two caveats here:
1.The important thing is not that the policritter in question fit some ideological mold to T. The important thing is that he must be willing to engage and destroy the social institutions upon which the system rests, even if he's not going to implement every inch of a given ideology. Ideologies are always limited anyhow.
2.While it is disadvantageous to a certain degree to be supported by social outcasts, it's useful to remember that ANY C-candidates will always attract them. If you're going to oppose the status quo for real, you're going to attract the people who feel (rightly or wrongly) that they've been harmed by it. The important thing is to utilize these forces wisely.
-
2.While it is disadvantageous to a certain degree to be supported by social outcasts, it's useful to remember that ANY C-candidates will always attract them. If you're going to oppose the status quo for real, you're going to attract the people who feel (rightly or wrongly) that they've been harmed by it. The important thing is to utilize these forces wisely.
If you want to win an election, it is important to hide them, at least until the election is over. Just the way things are.
-
Time has proven RP correct only in showing that authoritarian leftist extremism continues to be inefficient and evil, just as it has been for all of history.
-
I am quite familiar with the various money aggregates. None of them are a satisfactory description of the money supply.
For our purposes here, we can conceptualize the money supply into two parts: "base money", which is the stuff the Fed prints and gives to the banks, and "credit money", which is what the banks produce through fractional reserve lending. The money supply is the sum of base money and credit money. It's what's available and spendable at any given moment.
Now, is the money supply shooting up like a crazed rocket?
Credit money clearly isn't. Credit is way, way down. Crazy down. Scary down. We're seeing debt destruction on a massive scale.
The Fed is trying to compensate for lost credit money by pumping out lots and lots of base money. But they can't print fast enough to make up for the destruction of credit we're seeing right now. This mess is too big, even for them.
It's actually even worse than that. All that base money the Fed is printing is simply being sequestered in bank vaults without ever entering the economy. It isn't spendable, it isn't in circulation.
So credit money is way down. Base money is up when viewed on paper, but is flat for all practical purposes. The money supply, the sum of the two, is down overall.
That's deflation.
But... what about defaulted debt?
Does defaulted debt no longer exist as a future credit on an accountant's balance sheet? Some accountant? Somewhere? Even a collection agency, or money owed to FedGov at a future date from stimulus recipients?
We've undergone significant degrees of defaulted debt in the last few years. If we're calling it "all gone," then you're right: credit money + base money is stagnant. If, on the other hand, that defaulted debt is still active somewhere in the system, then money supply = credit money + base money + new stimulus money. That gives inflation.
But, even if we call it "all gone," the actual value of the collateral still exists even though the debt is magically gone. Thus, money is created. Inflation.
Regarding the OP premise: RP is not a messiah nor a prophet. He's just a guy that noticed a trend, with a couple of kooky ideas to accompany a couple of good ideas. His awareness of the trend was timely, but unwelcome by those caught with hands in the cookie jar.
RP is not the solution, because the man just isn't the leader we're looking for. But, his ideas found resonance and will be adopted slowly by more charismatic politicians. Hopefully he will have an influential voice in 2010 or 2012. Time will tell.
-
We've undergone significant degrees of defaulted debt in the last few years. If we're calling it "all gone," then you're right: credit money + base money is stagnant. If, on the other hand, that defaulted debt is still active somewhere in the system, then money supply = credit money + base money + new stimulus money. That gives inflation.
But, even if we call it "all gone," the actual value of the collateral still exists even though the debt is magically gone. Thus, money is created. Inflation.
When a borrower defaults the loan goes away. The collateral asset remains, but collateral isn't money. You can't spend a foreclosed house like you can spend a wad of greenbacks.
Defaults are a comparatively small part of the picture. The big idea is that everyone is shunning debt, everyone fro corporate juggernauts to the little old lady living next door. Banks are afraid to lend, too, due to the heightened risk of default and their own precarious financial situation. Loans are being paid down, and very few are being taken out to replace them.
And that just scratches the surface. It doesn't even begin to delve into the credit market mess. Securitization? "No bid"? Mark to market? Saywhathuh?
Anyway, the point is that debt is vanishing left and right. The credit money that came with it is vanishing too, even if the collateral remains. Debt destruction is a good thing, I think, but it does mean that the money supply is shrinking (at least for now).
-
Nobody wants to loan money?
I would amend that to, "Nobody wants to lend money to those who oughn't be lent money."
I can still get an auto loan. I can still refinance my house. Thing is, I have good credit and employment.
There is money to be lent.
I think too many folks believe the policritters and those who stand to benefit from continued fiscal incontinence by the gov't. "Of course the sky will fall if you don't loan me and Nearbankruptcorp a buttload of money."
-
I agree with you that the politicians are overstating the problems. I also agree that there is still some credit available for people who are sure to repay.
There's not nearly as much credit available as before. And it's not available to nearly as many people as before. And even among people who could get credit, much fewer are choosing to accept it.
Regardless, it doesn't matter all that much whether people ought to receive a loan or not. What matters is whether they do receive a loan. The money multiplier works the same whether your credit score is 800 or 400.
-
If you want to win an election, it is important to hide them, at least until the election is over. Just the way things are.
Well, it's never going to be possible to hide them completely. Even with moderate leaders like McCain the media will try to paint them as extremists.
For me, I think I'm mature enough not to care. I'd rather vote for a guy that wants to do what I think should be done even if he has weird guys attached to him rather than to vote for a guy who opposes individual liberty because he's all nice and tie-wearing. Maybe that's just me.
-
You're "mature enough"? So, if someone chooses to nominate candidate A rather than B, because they think A stands a better chance in the general election, that is a question of maturity? ???
-
You're "mature enough"? So, if someone chooses to nominate candidate A rather than B, because they think A stands a better chance in the general election, that is a question of maturity? ???
Put it this way. I think that to oppose a person because of how their random supporters dress, and instead support a guy who is in opposition to all your actual views is counterproductive. I get people voting for Fred Thompson instead of Ron Paul because they like Fred's views more. I don't get people who claim to be 'libertarians' but voted (or supported) McCain or Rudy in the primaries based on RP having wacky supporters. I think this sort of thing distracts from the actual substance of the process.
P.S. FWIW I think maturity is overrated anyway, but that's a whole other topic.
-
It is one thing to be in total agreement with Ron Paul, but then vote for McCain because you don't like Wookie suits.
It is another thing to agree with Ron Paul, but judge that he is unelectable because of his odd supporters.
It is a third thing to mostly agree with Ron Paul, but judge that he is unelectable because of a few of his own quirks, in addition to his odd supporters.
It is a fourth thing to find neither McCain nor Paul very satisfactory, but judge that Paul is unelectable because of a few of his own quirks, in addition to his odd supporters.
The first option might be counterproductive or immature. If you find any of those people, let us know.
It might be a tad immature to pretend that WookieSuit/Troofer weirdness is the only reason that anyone here opposes Ron Paul. Those of us who aren't on board for Ron Paul have given our reasons; economics, national security, etc.
-
i always worry about folks with money with their own picture on it. other than caligula of course he was a trend setter too
-
It might be a tad immature to pretend that WookieSuit/Troofer weirdness is the only reason that anyone here opposes Ron Paul. Those of us who aren't on board for Ron Paul have given our reasons; economics, national security, etc.
First, I can happily debate any of those issues, but I never said EVERYBODY who opposed Ron Paul is immature. This would be the height of idiocy. I states specifically that those people who supported people opposed to their own views on nearly issue based on the fact that RP was connected to strange people or 'was unelectable' were acting, the first, in an immature manner, and the others, in a counterproductive manner. I completely understand people who supported, say, Huckabee or Fred.
Second, most of the people you see attacking the ostensible “Ron Paul movement” on these forums do this on the basis of “they had wacky people” or the much-maligned wookie suit.
-
Nevermind. Don't let reality get in the way of your little fantasy. In the real world, you can't just vote for the best guy. You have to have a "best guy" that will not let himself become a laughing stock, as both Ron Paul and John McCain managed to do. But don't worry about that. People like yourself won't be much help in the political struggle, but at least you'll be the most ideologically pure subject of the Obamanation. Might as well stay in Israel. Mayhap we'll join you there, if it gets really bad here.
-
Have I said anything about ideological purity? No, I didn't.
There's a difference between "Let's vote for a slightly different guy because he's more electable" and "Let's vote for a completely different guy." Practicality has limits, too. Limits beyond which it is not really even that practical.
Do you think Andrew Sullivan supporting Obama in the general after endorsing Paul in the primary was smart?
How about these people (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/05/rasmussen-libertarians-favor-obama-over-mccain-5338/)?
-
Have I said anything about ideological purity? No, I didn't.
There's a difference between "Let's vote for a slightly different guy because he's more electable" and "Let's vote for a completely different guy." Practicality has limits, too. Limits beyond which it is not really even that practical.
Do you think Andrew Sullivan supporting Obama in the general after endorsing Paul in the primary was smart?
How about these people (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/05/rasmussen-libertarians-favor-obama-over-mccain-5338/)?
Andrew Sullivan long ago lost any credibility. Dude is a fickle as the the Texas weather in springtime, with the exception of gay marriage. On gay marriage he will use any argument at hand, even if it contradicts the argument he made the day before.
AS thinks he & his are the only "true conservatives." Thing is, AS also thinks taking buck-nekkid pictures of your HIV+ self and then trolling for anonymous sex on the internet is hunky-dory.
Tell me again why anyone would take AS seriously as anything other than an hysteric freakjob with the gift of clear prose (if not logic)?
From your hot air link:
Here’s a clip from last month of America’s Greatest Patriot acknowledging the overlap between his supporters/cult followers and Obama’s even while he derides Obama as an agent of the status quo, particularly with regard to keeping troops in Afghanistan. Or, as I like to call it, the war Ron Paul forgot he voted for.
That's ^^^ funny right there.
As to the meat of the link, the general thesis seems to be, "political exam poor means to determine libertarian personal philosophy."
One last note: That clip of RP was one of his better snippets. He kept it reasonable, avoided going into the details of his goldbuggery, & made a clear & simple argument that most folks could understand. His supporters pick up on the dog whistle terms, but others do not.
If he could have kept that tone & level of detail on his more radical propositions, he would have made a much better candidate.
FTR, I doubt many successful revolutionaries laid it all out before they got their hands on the levers of power. In the real world, you gotta flack he most popular bits of your agenda and downplay the less popular parts.
-
Thing is, AS also thinks taking buck-nekkid pictures of your HIV+ self and then trolling for anonymous sex on the internet is hunky-dory.
What are you referring to?
One last note: That clip of RP was one of his better snippets. He kept it reasonable, avoided going into the details of his goldbuggery, & made a clear & simple argument that most folks could understand. His supporters pick up on the dog whistle terms, but others do not.
This.
Ron Paul has made an inept campaign in many, many ways.
-
There's a difference between "Let's vote for a slightly different guy because he's more electable" and "Let's vote for a completely different guy."
I think you may be quite confused about what I'm trying to tell you. Hint: I did not nominate McCain or Rudy, nor did I tell anyone else to.
-
What are you referring to?
AS built up some credibility years' back by writing against the gay bath house culture of unprotected anonymous sex by the truckload.
He also wrote about how monogamy is a good thing in gay relationships and wrote the seminal (no laughter, now) work on gay marriage.
Then, it turns out that he was in the habit of soliciting anonymous gay sex on line, including nekkid pictures of his HIV+ self on (laughter allowed, but keep it down) Barebackcity.com.
Here is one article:
The story goes like this: Some time ago, Sullivan, who is HIV positive, took out an anonymous personal ad on a website called Barebackcity.com, which advertises itself as the "one stop source for bareback [i.e., unprotected anal] sex." He listed himself under the screen name "RawMuscleGlutes," posted two headless photographs, and solicited bareback sex, preferably (although he did not say only) with other HIV-positive men. He also indicated an interest in "bi-scenes, one-on-ones, three-ways, groups, parties, orgies and gang bangs," but not in "fats and fems."
-
In the real world, you can't just vote for the best guy. You have to have a "best guy" that will not let himself become a laughing stock....
Sage advice from the guy with the sock-monkey avatar..... :lol:
-
There is also the problem that the US does not have much of a history of 3rd party success. There are occasional exceptions, such as TR, but that was not so much about a political party as it was about an individual.
Are you talking about Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moosers? I'm not sure I'd call that a success.
-
Are you talking about Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moosers? I'm not sure I'd call that a success.
It was pretty successful for Woodrow Wilson.... :lol:
-
Back to one of the major drifts in this thread:
from THGAnyway, the point is that debt is vanishing left and right
Ummmm, doesn't the FedGov count? Deflation, during a time when we can see 1+ trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see? What do you suppose will happen to the budget, the deficit, tax policy, and then the economy, when the Treasury has to bump up the T-bill interest rates in order to attract capital? Dollars become Reichsmarks (see the Weimar Republic experience). To (mis)quote the late voice character: "Hyperinflation. This time, it's for real!"
-
more drift when i saw this thread the first thought that came was "a broke clock is right twice a day"
-
Back to one of the major drifts in this thread:
from THGUmmmm, doesn't the FedGov count? Deflation, during a time when we can see 1+ trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see? What do you suppose will happen to the budget, the deficit, tax policy, and then the economy, when the Treasury has to bump up the T-bill interest rates in order to attract capital? Dollars become Reichsmarks (see the Weimar Republic experience). To (mis)quote the late voice character: "Hyperinflation. This time, it's for real!"
A couple of points come to mind.
First, you're confusing what has happened in the recent past and present (deflation) with what is likely to happen sometime in the next few years (deficits and high inflation).
Second, FedGov doesn't loan money. They don't create money through fractional reserve lending. FedGo cannot create money, only the Federal Reserve can. FedGov can only acquire existing money from one place and spend it somewhere else.
Third, high interest rates do not cause inflation the way you say. High rates are a symptom of inflation.
The Fed is doing their best to turn the deflation back into inflation by creating gobs of money. So far they haven't succeeded, because the economic conditions (liquidity crisis in the banks, recession in the overall economy, nobody wanting to borrow) are more powerful than they are. But these conditions will someday pass, and when that happens it'll be a whole new ballgame. The Fed will likely find that it has dramatically overcompensated, and that will cause inflation sometime in the future.
We're not there yet, though. April 2nd might be an interesting day in this regard, if they eliminate mark-to-market. Time will tell.
-
My point about interest rates was that debt service cost will balloon in size once the fill in foreign creditor here folks begin to believe that the value of the dollar will fall. There was a little tremor last week when the fed auction of T-Bills didn't go as planned.
Second, FedGov doesn't loan money
No, they borrow it, about a gazillion bucks so far. This means that credit is created (T-bills issued) so the treasury can borrow. When/if inflation cooks off (see above), the sound of smashing piggy banks will resound across the land, with a vast amount of dollars currently on the sideline, here and overseas, will enter the market, seeking tangible assets. These dollars will cause a huge surge in price inflation.
My fear is that I may be a multi-millionaire in a few years. And that it won't buy lunch at McDonald's.
-
My fear is that I may be a multi-millionaire in a few years. And that it won't buy lunch at McDonald's.
Rest easy, I think these fears are unfounded.
-
Rest easy, I think these fears are unfounded.
I don't think they are totally unfounded.
At the current projected spending, the interest paid per year on the national debt will be One Trillion Dollars in 10 years.
The INTEREST will be $1,000,000,000,000 per year!
I realize the ability to tax the American economy is a HUGE asset, but at some point our government will be unable to get people to buy their debt.
We cannot sustain this level of spending.
I do not see hyperinflation as an imminent threat, but I no longer consider it an impossibility for the United States.
THAT, by itself, is scary.
-
edGo cannot create money, only the Federal Reserve can.
The Federal Reserve can be easily termed a government structure. It is, of course, part-private, but it is the public part that really defines its existence.
-
Resurrecting the thread, I have been staying at a hotel that also houses FDIC employees and contractors who are deployed here to help dispose of a failed bank. They (the contractors) are also concerned about an inflationary/hyperinflationary future. Kinda chilling to here them talk about that, and in one case, his plans for self-sufficiency.