Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Republican Debate VI: The Donnybrook in Dearborn
The Republicans are debating economic policy at 4 p.m. ET on CNBC... and 9 p.m. ET on MSNBC. I don't know why they're filming so early, as my Thompson campaign sources assure me he already took his nap today, but it would be a lie to start "liveblogging" the rerun of this thing. So I'll be covering the first run here.
Alex Massie previews the debate with some worries about Ron Paul. How is a gold bug going to fare with the microscope on economics? Will everyone be too busy poking Thompson to notice Paul?
UPDATE: Actually, I'll only be able to liveblog until 5 or 5:30. I'll get the rest of the debate at the rerun.
4:01: The producers deserve an Emmy already: Matthews stood next to Maria Bartiromo and didn't say one untoward, offensive thing.
4:02: Fred Thompson meets expectations, which, we'll remember, were incredibly low.
4:03: Thompson makes a blatant grab for Larry Kudlow's approval, quoting his line (which no one else has really picked up) that our economic growth is "the greatest story never told."
4:05: How would the governor "put a tax on the debate"? Was that even a joke?
4:06: Chris Matthews, paraphrased: "What is money?"
4:07: Giuliani pushes away the question and spins the Wheel o' Talking Points. It lands on: Tort reform.
4:08: Paul gives one of his best-ever debate answers, which makes sense since he's been training for a prime time (well, prime afternoon TV time) speech on the Fed and monetary policy since roughly 1960. It's... not quite true, but it's well put together and the audience, sort of surprised, applauds it.
4:09: Thanks, John McCain. I'm sure Paul hasn't read any Adam Smith.
4:11: McCain on S-Chip funding: "We want to tax children's health, and we want everybody to smoke?" That does seem to be a problem with sin taxes in generally and cigarette taxes in particular.
4:13: A question for the room: Why are Fair Tax advocates treated seriously and Paul treated like a kook.
4:14: Hunter and Paul have basically the same economic position with one, uh, key difference: Hunter thinks we can uplift the working class via endless war.
4:15: You know when I'll stop snarking at Fred Thompson? When, uh, he (voice quavers) can answer a question (rubs hands) without disappointing everyone.
4:16: Bartiromo asks the audience to tamp down its applause. She then calls on Sam Brownback. Really, either one of those decisions would have done the trick.
4:18: Tom Tancredo awakes his inner libertarian for a couple minutes and talks about... entitlements! A bigger worry, even, than the Mexican hordes who want to do menial labor in the Southwest.
4:20: It's all over, already: Giuliani and Romney are going to win this debate. They're the only wonks on stage and the only guys who know what they want to do, specifically, with the budget.
4:22: Romney and Rudy scrap over their economic records and I really don't know how Romney expects to win these fights. Rudy cut spending in New York but... he thinks the line item veto is unconstitutional? That's a dealbreaker. Rudy's "a supply-sider," which is all he needs to keep saying for a certain chunk of the electorate.
4:26: This is what happens when you shimmy onto the China-bashing bandwagon: You start getting one-upped by tree slugs like Duncan Hunter.
4:29: McCain attacks "the waste in defense spending." He doesn't have the expertise of the big two (I'm leaving out Thompson) but on this and torture he's pretty untouchable.
4:33: Rudy supports the Dubai Company being able to buy 20 percent of Nasdaq. This seems like a "gotcha" question that no one is getting got on.
4:34: Paul and Giuliani agree on Dubai. This is far more pleasant than those "I'm-a-lookin' for Jack Bauer" national security debates.
4:35: McCain, again, adapts to his lack of comparative knowledge on this stuff by sneering and looking angry: "I'm a student of history," don't "listen to this siren song" coming from Duncan Hunter.
4:37: This is increasingly loopy: No one opposes free trade on this stage except for Duncan "0.0 percent" Hunter. He's a particularly stiff, bag-eyed straw man.
[UPDATE: Here there was a five-hour work-related interruption.]
9:38: Tancredo: "If Dubai wanted to buy Wal-Mart, I'd think about it." Nasdaq is a bigger national security interest than Wal-Mart? Either of them is a national security interest?
9:40: Thompson on the AMT: "Generally speaking, lower tax rates grow the economy." He really sounds like he's running against a Democrat for Senate, not for president.
9:45: Thompson fetishizes the military again: Troops know more about national security than politicians who've been in Washington for 20 years.
9:46: McCain regrets that President Bush didn't nag Americans to enlist in the army after 9/11 and says he criticized the Iraq War's prosectution from the beginning... true, if you forgive him for voting for the war with no strings, campaigning to re-elect Bush, and defending the war's progress in the media.
9:48: Paul gets another question, an attempt to get him to rant about Iraq: Instead, he gets onto the gold standard. "Our biggest export is paper money."
9:49: It must be frustrating when Matthews denies Rudy McRomneypson a chance to beat up Paul and goes to Brownback. Was Iraq a war for oil? "What I voted for was a war on terrorism!" Sam Brownback won't be president, so don't worry.
9:50: Thompson says he was worried about Iraq because Saddam "used weapons on the Kurds." Yes, in 1988.
9:52: Mitt Romney doesn't know if he could launch an Iran War without Congressional approval: "You'd have to sit down with your lawyers." Hooray, White House Counsel-and-then-Associate Justice John Yoo!
9:53: Duncan Hunter will attack a "fleeting threat." He does this a lot, throwing military jargon into a debate to dodge the question. Just put up with it for another month or so.
9:55: They tried to light a fire under Paul... and succeeded. "Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it?"
9:56: President Huckabee would bomb Iran "in a heartbeat" even if the threat consists of some Iranians handing a briefcase to terrorists.
9:57: McCain: "I would consult with Congress because there will come a time when you may have to get approval from Congress." May come, yes.
9:58: Not a bad answer from Thompson, all told.
9:59: Giuliani takes a whack at Paul for saying we'd never faced an "imminent attack" from a terror state: Remember 9/11. "That was no state!" Paul says. "That was 19 thugs!" Giuliani: "I think it was planned in Afghanistan and Pakistan." In other words, not a state.
10:01: Giuliani on Iran: "We should have, and would have gone to war against Saddam. But maybe not."
10:03: "We've got to get more electricity involved in our car fleet," says Sam Brownback. Years from now he'll regret not just dropping out and endorsing Huckabee.
10:05: McCain: "I wouldn't drill in the Grand Canyon unless the people of Arizona wanted to."
10:07: Kudos for Huckabee using a NASCAR metaphor to talk about energy independence. How much energy could we save if NASCAR fans learned how to read? (I exclude Clarence Thomas from this piece of angry sarcasm, as I think he is a NASCAR fan, too.)
10:09: More Thompson, more filler.
10:10: Is our food supply really in Jeopardy or is Romney's Iowa pandering software just functioning smoothly?
10:11: How will the GOP regain the advantage on economic issues. Paul sounds... pessimistic about it.
10:12: President Huckabee will restore our resiliency and optimism by, basically, running on the Fair Tax. The Republicans are in bad shape at the moment.
10:13: McCain wheezes about how much Republicans have sucked of late, Romney says he'll win by being "optimistic" and not so "doom and gloom."
10:15: Giuliani's developing a bit of a tic: He starts with something weird (We can "sell" our health care solutions to China? If I'm Chinese, I think my health care's the only thing I'm satisfied with) and segues rather jaggedly to Hillary-bashing.
10:17: Brownback on America: "I mean, this place rocks!"
10:18: Tancredo knows how to win back the GOP brand. "Stop illegal immigration!" And after that: "Stop pandering." Irony bounces off his head like a paper kite.
10:23: Bartiromo claims Thompson, alone among the candidates, has given specifics about Social Security. I wasn't aware of this. My skeptism is rewarded with a fairly rote Republican answer on post-2005 debacle Social Security reform, with a non sequitor about how "our national parks have got to be taken care of."
10:26: Romney answers a health care question with around three attacks on Hillary Clinton and no references to his own, actual, Massachusetts health care plan.
10:28: Paul concisely defends the right to organize "without special rights." Huckabee fantasizes about unions "coming back in roaring form."
10:30: McCain sternly (he's doing everything sternly) calls for Michigan to become a right-to-work state, which has to please Republicans there... doesn't it? Am I misinformed about battered Michigan Republicans?
10:33: Yes, Brownback and Tancredo just had a fight about Brownback's mom. "My mother is not an illegal immigrant!"
10:36: Man, how many times is McCain going to uncork that joke about "having a glass of ethanol every morning"? He says this a lot.
10:37: Giuliani wants to police the internet bt "I don't want to create a new agency." Giuliani has proposed creating a few new agencies, especially when it comes to nation-building, but I guess he didn't create a new police department in NYC...
10:45: Oh, how Paul wishes he got the strong dollar question. Perhaps better for him that Thompson got to muddle through it.
10:46: Giuliani thinks we can strengthen the dollar if we "sell energy independence, sell health care." I... don't know what that means.
10:48: Paul is asked, sort of, if he'll reject the party's nominee and run third party. He parries with an answer about how much he disagrees with the other candidates, as does Tancredo (who's endorsed third party candidates for Congress).
10:50: "Getcha head up!" vies with "This place rocks!" as the line of the night.
10:54: McCain will catch bin Laden with "something like the OSS"... which still exists, and now is called the CIA.
10:56: Another debate, another canned Romney joke. Fred's response is surprisingly pointed.
11:04: The debate is over, and the MSNBC pundits are in agreement. Romney blundered by saying he'd "consult lawyers" if he was going to bomb Iran. Not because he wasn't going to ask Congress, but because, as Howard Fineman says, "voters want to hear something from the gut."
America's doomed. Feel free to discuss the debate in the comments.
tomwright|10.9.07 @ 3:38PM|#
I do hope Dr. Paul leaves the gold standard stuff alone as much
as possible.
Yes, he is right, IMO, but it is too wonkish for campaign
speeches.
Just say he believes in it but the Congress and the people need to
be conviced before any change can be made. That takes the wind out
of the sails of the idiots that think a president is the same as a
monarch or dictator who can just change the law unilaterally when
elected.
|10.9.07 @ 3:44PM|#
Couldn't pick a better spot for an economic debate. Michigan is the biggest economic failure in the country. Any candidate who can go there and not pander to big labor, has presidential stones.
|10.9.07 @ 3:56PM|#
"I don't know why they're filming so early, as my Thompson
campaign sources assure me he already took his nap today"
And being an immature asshole advances the story how?
Jay D|10.9.07 @ 4:02PM|#
Ron Paul will hit the economics out of the park. That's his reason for entering politics in the first place.
fan of Ron Paul|10.9.07 @ 4:08PM|#
I agree... I hope he focuses on things other than the gold standard.
|10.9.07 @ 4:09PM|#
John,
No, they can't. But you can run duck tape across the bottom of your
screen. Is there nothing it can't fix?
|10.9.07 @ 4:12PM|#
Ron is speaking now, about how 'debasing' the currency is the reason for multi-billionaires. But there are lots of millionaires these days, because in general the economy is doing quite well (except here in Michigan, but that's another story) and the Fed hasn't 'debased' the currency more recently than at other times. He's whistling in the wind right now.
Timothy|10.9.07 @ 4:14PM|#
Chris Matthews, paraphrased: "What is money?"
It's a gas.
See also: store of value, unit of account, and medium of
exchange.
|10.9.07 @ 4:14PM|#
Anyone know where this video is streaming? The link on the msnbc website isn't working.
ace|10.9.07 @ 4:15PM|#
huckabee (paraphrased): nothing will discourage americans from
spending.
is he joking?
|10.9.07 @ 4:15PM|#
Few people understand that economics is what prompted Paul to
run for office.
From Mises and
Austrian Economics: A Personal View
I decided to run for Congress because of the disaster of wage and price controls imposed by the Nixon administration in 1971. When the stock market responded euphorically to the imposition of these controls and the closing of the gold window, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and many other big business groups gave enthusiastic support, I decided that someone in politics had to condemn the controls, and offer the alternative that could explain the past and give hope for the future: the Austrian economists' defense of the free market. At the time I was convinced, like Ludwig von Mises, that no one could succeed in politics without serving the special interests of some politically powerful pressure group.
Although I was eventually elected, in terms of a conventional political career with real Washington impact, he was absolutely right. I have not developed legislative influence with the leadership of the Congress or the administration. Monies are deliberately deleted from routine water works bills for my district because I do not condone the system, nor vote for any of the appropriations.
My influence, such as it is, comes only by educating others about the rightness of the free market. The majority of the voters in my district have approved, as have those familiar with free-market economics. And voters in other districts, encouraged by my speaking out for freedom and sound money, influence their representatives in the direction of a free market. My influence comes through education, not the usual techniques of a politician. But the more usual politicians in Congress will hardly solve our problems. Americans need a better understanding of Austrian economics. Only then will politicians become more statesmanlike.
Returning to the gold standard, abolishing the Fed are the goals of
his entry into politics. He is no more going to shy away from it
than Elli Wiesel would shy away from denouncing Naziism in a debate
for the leadership of "The Eagles of Riga" (a club for Lithuanians
who had supported the Nazis).
Jesse Walker|10.9.07 @ 4:17PM|#
The gold standard stuff won't hurt Paul. It will turn off a few dozen mainline economists, and it will reassure a few thousand left-leaning Americans who don't have any opinions about monetary policy but who enjoy hearing Paul on the subject because it allows him to sound like a populist.
|10.9.07 @ 4:18PM|#
Actually, I hope the economic focus IS on the gold standard simply because that is exactly what is at the epicenter of all of the economic woes facing our once great economy. Until people understand that simple fact, nothing else can move forward (or backward to a Constitutionalist). It's like trying to mop a wet floor without fixing the leaky roof... an exercise in futility! With that said, people must also understand that it's taken 94 years for us to find ourselves in this awful situation, so it's going to take some time to straighten this mess out. Heaven forbid we pull the rug out from beneath all of those parasites sucking the life force out of the productive people in the country. It is said, however, that the journey of 1,000 miles starts with a first step.
Jerry|10.9.07 @ 4:18PM|#
Maybe Michigan needs protective tariffs to protect them from other US states, mr. Duncan Hunter?
|10.9.07 @ 4:20PM|#
ugh I'm thoroughly disappointed in MSNBC for not actually streaming the video of their own debate. jerks.
John|10.9.07 @ 4:20PM|#
Tancredo is making a good point about entitlements, but he's doing a horrible job articulating it.
Richard|10.9.07 @ 4:22PM|#
They are streaming it. I'm watching it now. A few glitches, but that's life.
brian|10.9.07 @ 4:23PM|#
Link please, Richard? Out of the country, so it's not on TV and I'm having trouble finding it
|10.9.07 @ 4:23PM|#
4:09: Thanks, John McCain. I'm sure Paul hasn't read any
Adam Smith.
BWAAA HAA HA! Oh no he dinn't
Duckman|10.9.07 @ 4:24PM|#
Sadly economically clueless Americans will probably think McCain "got" Paul on that one.
LarryA|10.9.07 @ 4:25PM|#
Duct tape.
It was invented to seal galvanized air conditioning ducts (hence
the silver color) not to ensnare our feathered friends.
Sorry. It's been that kind of day.
|10.9.07 @ 4:27PM|#
Sorry LarryA but it's DUCK (as in quack quack) tape. It's named for the sound it makes when you pull a foot from the roll.
brian|10.9.07 @ 4:28PM|#
It's both. Duct tape was created for air ducts, and duck tape is a slight variant developed for the military in cases where they will be going both on land and in water (so it doesnt fall off), hence the "duck."
brian Prest|10.9.07 @ 4:30PM|#
I must be blind. where is the "watch live" link on the page? way too much stuff going on over there at msnbc.msn.com...
|10.9.07 @ 4:37PM|#
If Ron Paul would come in off the ledge on the gold standard, he would do a lot better. "It will turn off a few dozen mainline economists,"? It does a lot more than that. It makes him sound like the crazy old lady at the laundry mat.
John|10.9.07 @ 4:38PM|#
Isn't the worst thing we can do in regards to the Middle East is tell them their business isn't welcome in America?
Richard|10.9.07 @ 4:40PM|#
brian, on the home page I'm looking at, there's a picture captioned "Money Talk", and underneath that there's a link that says "watch live." If you're out of the country, maybe it's different. Also, on the msn.com homepage, there's another link on the right side of the page, under "Republicans Kick off Debate."
VM|10.9.07 @ 4:44PM|#
It will turn off a few dozen mainline economists
wow. Jesse has is biatch on today.
|10.9.07 @ 4:46PM|#
I missed the first several minutes of the debate so I'm glad to see that Ron Paul has got to speak. I'm afraid he isn't going to get much time.
|10.9.07 @ 4:47PM|#
"It will turn off a few dozen mainline economists" and do more damage to the US economy than any event since the great depression, but hey what is the big deal right?
Richard|10.9.07 @ 4:49PM|#
McCain was asked what kind of "sacrifice" he thinks Bush should have asked for. He included joining a "neighborhood watch" in with the military or the Peace Corps. Seriously.
|10.9.07 @ 4:52PM|#
Paul does not support a gold standard. He simply supports the right for gold to compete, by making gold and silver legal tender. Hopefully Paul will dispell the rumour that he's for a gold standard.
|10.9.07 @ 4:54PM|#
"Paul does not support a gold standard. He simply supports the
right for gold to compete, by making gold and silver legal tender.
Hopefully Paul will dispell the rumour that he's for a gold
standard."
If he doesn't support the gold standard, that is a good thing. But,
what does he mean by making gold and silver legal tender but not
supporting the gold standard? That doesn't make any sense to
me.
Chris|10.9.07 @ 4:56PM|#
At least with Ron Paul as president the new Amero might be backed by something. The dollar ain't gonna last forever folks. Currency comes and currency goes.
John|10.9.07 @ 4:56PM|#
Paul's looking for applause for his Iran answer and seemed a little baffled that he didn't get it until the end.
Jerry|10.9.07 @ 4:58PM|#
Since Romney brought up Ahmadinejad, I'm sure the Republicans
aren't happy to see Iranians to stand up against Ahmadinejad
themselves, as they would blow the image of Iran united against the
USA.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/09/wiran109.xml
|10.9.07 @ 4:59PM|#
John, He wants private money to be able to compete with Fed fiat money. He wants the eventual elimination of the Fed. Therefore, all paper currency will be privately issued with the supply being self-regulating. He wants the market to create money.
Adam Smith|10.9.07 @ 4:59PM|#
Ron Paul supports the free market right of Iran to develop and sell nukes to al qaeda.
|10.9.07 @ 5:01PM|#
Are you f'n kidding me. Do non but Paul have the even the slightest respect for the constitution. Its not only there for when it is expediant. Wow. Did Rudy suggest we attack Pakistan?
Adam Smith|10.9.07 @ 5:01PM|#
Rudy takes the easy shot on Ron Paul for forgetting 9/11. Is the Doctor senile?
Mr. X|10.9.07 @ 5:01PM|#
Giuliani got in his obligatory, "I don't know where Congressman
Paul was on September 11th" line.
9/11!!!!
Timothy|10.9.07 @ 5:02PM|#
Drena: Which is a much less stupid idea than the gold standard, but those currencies will be subject to the same problems of current fiat currency AND you'll still have that pro-cyclical money supply problem you get with gold. Unless you think the business cycle is entirely a creation of government a pro-cyclical money supply has a few major draw backs.
BTS|10.9.07 @ 5:02PM|#
God, by the next debate it's just gonna be a no-holds barred cage match with Ron Paul in one corner and Rudy Guiliani in the other; They were really going at it. And Ron got fucking PISSED about attacking Iran.
|10.9.07 @ 5:03PM|#
oh oops! I don't agree with your policy prescriptions! I must
have forgotten 9/11!
But seriously, I'm not surprised they're not asking Paul too many
questions - how exciting can the answers be if they're from a
serious free marketeer? People want grand plans, not an exhortation
to figure things out themselves.
Lynn|10.9.07 @ 5:05PM|#
Ron didn't come off too good on that one.. now I'm getting worried about him. danggggg
|10.9.07 @ 5:05PM|#
Of course Paul supports moving back to the gold standard and this fact is quite well documented. Being a Constitutionalist, he simply consults Article I, sections 8 & 10 (specifically 10), "... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts:..."
|10.9.07 @ 5:06PM|#
I agree with Paul's distrust of currency by Fiat. Has anyone here actually owned one of those things? Not dependable at all.
|10.9.07 @ 5:07PM|#
No, Paul does not support a gold standard. He's said in interviews a few times that gold standard's are a problem. He simply wants to "legalize the constitution" by making gold and silver legal tender. That's not the same thing as putting a gold standard on the dollar. It's simply allowing gold and silver, and private currencies backed by them, the ability to compete with fiat money.
|10.9.07 @ 5:09PM|#
"That's not the same thing as putting a gold standard on the dollar." I'm not sure I understand what you're tring to say. Having our paper backed by gold & silver is the gold standard.
Mr Blackwell|10.9.07 @ 5:09PM|#
Hey! Maria Bartiromo is naked.I guess they'll change that for the 9:00PM debate. Whoops! My mistake....she is actually wearing some kind of transparent latex lingerie.
|10.9.07 @ 5:12PM|#
Bill,
Making gold "legal tender" is not the same thing as making the
dollar gold backed. Those are two seperate issues. Paul wants the
eventual elimination of the Fed itself. The Fed is who prints
money.
Adam Smith|10.9.07 @ 5:14PM|#
Romney is all for more and bigger ag subsidies and ethanol supports.He really needs Iowa.
|10.9.07 @ 5:14PM|#
Fiat money is paper that is not backed by anything tangible... which is fundamental to what's caused our economic problems since 1913. Paul just said, "we need sound money", i.e.; the gold standard.
|10.9.07 @ 5:16PM|#
Thompson has revealed that he's a fraud. On the one hand he says he's for a "free market," and on the other he says he supports ethanol subsidies.
|10.9.07 @ 5:16PM|#
"That's not the same thing as putting a gold standard on the
dollar." I'm not sure I understand what you're tring to say. Having
our paper backed by gold & silver is the gold
standard.
I guess he wants to force everyone to accept gold and silver (by
weight, I guess?) as payment for services, just like they accept
government-issued currency.
I hope I'm wrong, because that sounds remarkably stupid. I mean,
starting with vending machines and moving into easy of forgery --
we going to make clerks learn to assay gold? Make sure it's not
lead with a coating? Or some sort of private coinage deal? What
about clipping, milling, and all the fun ways to play with
currency?
Jesus, gold sucks as currency. People moved to paper for a
reason.
Gold's for people who can see that fiat currency's worth lies in
the agreement of buyer and seller, but who can't see that gold is
the exact same way.
|10.9.07 @ 5:17PM|#
If there is no Fed then were does the sound money come from? It comes from the free market. Paul is for private competing paper currencies, including private currencies backed by gold. He doesn't want the government to be involved in paper money at all.
|10.9.07 @ 5:17PM|#
I'm not saying we need to wander around with gold in our pockets, just paper backed by gold, which, I believe, is what Paul, agrees with. Getting rid of the private FED has to happen in order for that to occur. I think we're on the same page here, just expressing it differently.
Richard|10.9.07 @ 5:19PM|#
You know, the reason libertarians never get anywhere in the real
world is that they want to re-fight battles that were lost in the
19th Century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender_cases
There is going to be no gold standard. Neither are private
companies going to be getting into the business of minting gold and
silver coins that people are going to use to buy their groceries.
The Federal Reserve isn't going anywhere. Move on.
|10.9.07 @ 5:22PM|#
Bill,
But, Paul does not support tying the U.S. Dollar to gold. He
supports free market money. For example, you can start a company
that issue money which you choose to back by gold, if you want. The
market would decide what money we would use. Right now, it's
difficult for private gold-backed money to compete (e.g. e-gold)
because gold is not legal tender and there is a sales tax on
it.
|10.9.07 @ 5:25PM|#
The FED loans our own money to us, at interest. It's like me loaning you $100 at 4% annual interest (just an example). At the end of that year, I'm standing there with my hand out wanting $104 from you. But I only order $100 to be printed, so where are you going to get the other $4? You are force into taking another "loan" from me to pay that interest.
|10.9.07 @ 5:29PM|#
Gold is the only legal tender according to our Constitution. That's why our old paper used to say, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private, AND is redeemable in LAWFUL MONEY at the United States Treasury or any Federal Reserve Bank". Now it just says "this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private".
Richard|10.9.07 @ 5:31PM|#
McCain just plugged right-to-work states. In Michigan. Takes some stones.
|10.9.07 @ 5:33PM|#
But, Paul does not support tying the U.S. Dollar to gold. He
supports free market money. For example, you can start a company
that issue money which you choose to back by gold, if you want. The
market would decide what money we would use. Right now, it's
difficult for private gold-backed money to compete (e.g. e-gold)
because gold is not legal tender and there is a sales tax on
it.
And who the hell wants that?
Seriously. Who wants that? Where is the giant demand for "not
government backed currency"?
It's certainly not businesses, who prefer to do their banking in
the official currency of the country. It's not 99.9% of the
population, who like only having the ONE currency to keep track of.
It's not the cash businesses that really don't want to have to deal
with god knows how many types of currency whose relative worth
they'd constantly be having to figure out.
Why even bother with the middleman? Go invest in gold, and then
your money is happily gold backed. Well, effectively.
Where on earth do people even come up with this idiocy? "Multiple
competing private currencies"? Do you just hate yourself that much?
Do you want to punish yourself for your past sins, or what?
|10.9.07 @ 5:34PM|#
Federal Reserve Note...... three lies in a row.
1. There is nothing Federal about the Federal Reserve.
2. There is no longer any "reserve".
3. The word "note" is an IOU (Blacks law dictionary) and I can no
longer take that "note" and redeem it for what is supposed to be
backing it. We, as a nation, have been very well "paper trained" to
accept these pieces of paper as "money". It's like saying that a
quart container IS the milk that it contains.
|10.9.07 @ 5:34PM|#
Unless you think the business cycle is entirely a creation of government
Since the business cycle is created by inflation of the money
supply, and the money supply is 100% controlled by the government,
commodity backed money is a better solution. Yes, there's the
problem of people mining more gold, but that's trivial compared to
the printing more bits of paper.
|10.9.07 @ 5:39PM|#
For those who've never read it:
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect
savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store
of value. If there were, the government would have to make its
holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone
decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or
copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks
as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing
power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a
claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires
that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect
themselves.
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against
gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of
wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands
as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no
difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the
gold standard.
Alan Greenspan
[written in 1966]
|10.9.07 @ 5:42PM|#
Ron Paul has said many times that he wants to repeal legal
tender laws. This would create a situation where you have a free
market in money.
He does not want to abolish the federal Reserve outright. Rather he
correctly concludes that in a free market for money, especially one
where taxes are low, the Federal Reserve Note would be toast.
Remember, a commodity that is used as money has two inputs into its
value:
1) Its value as a consumption good.
2) The perceived value of other goods it can be exchanged
for.
In a free market, the commodities that are in greatest demand yet
are durable and easily divisible become money. It can be ax-heads.
It can be cigarettes (as frequently happens in prison camps). All
of these goods will have some use in consumption or production.
This usage will provide the basis for ites value as an exchange
good.
The modern dollar has no value as a consumption good. Oh, I suppose
you could burn them to keep warm or something. But it competes in
that usage with very inexpensive materials like news-paper.
The entire value of the dollar is predicated upon its use as a
medium of exchange. However this is not tenable; In the end the
value of the money tracks its worth as a consumption good.
I am of the opinion that the U.S. dollar has had its crash slowed
by two factors: the modern Delian League of monetary agreements
where other central banks pile their reserves on FRN's and the fact
that the vast majority of oil producers have, until recently, only
accepted FRN's for oil.
This is, of course, an untenable situation. It is, in fact, what
doomed the pre-constitutional United States. Remember the phrase
"not worth a Continental"?
Guess what the Continental was? Effectively unbacked bank notes.
The parallels with the modern FRN are quite striking. It was the
depression and rebellions that the Continental Congress' attempts
to fund itself via inflation that caused Madison to write in such
strong strictures concerning monetary policy into the U.S.
Constitution.
|10.9.07 @ 5:47PM|#
Tarran.... right on the "money"! This is an old lesson in history that seems to repeat itself, al la the Roman Empire.
|10.9.07 @ 5:49PM|#
The same technology that separates the official from the
unofficial slugs could handle gold and silver in vending machines.
A similar technology could be used at point of purchase.
BTW in previous centuries commerce was able to compensate for the
differing purities of gold and silver coins. As the man said
Eureka!
|10.9.07 @ 5:50PM|#
Richard | October 9, 2007, 5:31pm | #
McCain just plugged right-to-work states. In Michigan. Takes some stones.
Eh, not really. Remember, this is just for the Repub primaries.
Now, if this were a true debate between Hillary (like anyone else
is getting the Dem nomination) and the Repub winner I would be
floored if the same quote popped out of his mouth.
|10.9.07 @ 5:52PM|#
Chris Matthews asks all the "second tier" candidates if they'd support the winner just make sure we all know who the second tier candidates are. Notice he only asked Paul, Brownback, Tancredo, and Hunter. So obnoxious.
Richard|10.9.07 @ 5:52PM|#
Fair point, kwix. Glad somebody wants to talk about the debate in this tread.
|10.9.07 @ 5:55PM|#
Another simple example:
1971 Gold = $35 oz.
1971 Corvette = $5,200.00 FRNs = 148 oz. gold
2007 Gold = $738.80 oz.
2007 Corvette = $50,000.00 FRNs = 67 oz. gold
I can purchase two 'vettes today with the same amount of gold that
I could in '71... and have change left over for gas &
insurance!
Richard|10.9.07 @ 5:57PM|#
McCain wants to recreate the OSS? The CIA is just completely worthless, huh?
miche|10.9.07 @ 5:59PM|#
I'm dying over Giuliani's answer about third parties. He said the two party system has served us well.
|10.9.07 @ 6:03PM|#
It's amazing to me that these candidates talk about how wonderful everything is in this country (economy, schools, healthcare etc.), when the vast majority of the "working stiffs" I speak to are far worse off than they were just a decade or so ago, on all counts. It just seems to me that this is another example of how out of touch they (most) are with the plight of the working people everywhere.
Missy|10.9.07 @ 6:03PM|#
What good is a 30 sec. timer when they let some candidates go on and on, and others (like Dr. Paul) they cut off at 28?
|10.9.07 @ 6:03PM|#
I am not watching the stream... Is Huckabee there? If so, is he
a "second tier" candidate? If not, why not?
More to the point, what is with the Huckabee love exhibited on FOX
News polls and writeups?
The Democratic Republican|10.9.07 @ 6:04PM|#
For the love of God, people...
1) Pay attention to those here who are explaining the nuances of
Paul's "gold standard" position. There are MANY ways to have a gold
standard.
2) Will people PLEASE stop quoting the Constitution about only gold
and silver being legal tender. If you READ that section, it CLEARLY
applies to the STATES, and it is given to them as an exception to
the otherwise absolute power of the federal government to do
whatever the hell it wants with the currency.
|10.9.07 @ 6:05PM|#
Bill,
Not to say that politicians are not out of touch with the "common
man" but in what ways are your "working stiffs" worse off now than
a decade ago? Unemployment is at a low point, inflation adjusted
wages are about the same and interest is less.
|10.9.07 @ 6:09PM|#
1) Pay attention to those here who are explaining the
nuances of Paul's "gold standard" position. There are MANY ways to
have a gold standard.
And all equally pointless, although some are more retarded than
others.
Gold standards are for people who see the illusion behind fiat
currency, but can't see it behind gold.
It's still there, which makes moving back to the Gold Standard just
replacing the trick you half-understand with the one you don't. It
doesn't buy you anything.
Richard|10.9.07 @ 6:12PM|#
I could also do without the class-based "working stiffs" vs.
"fat cats" talk. If you've got a job, plumber or hedge fund
manager, you're "working." Personally, I'm doing a lot better now
than I was a decade ago, and I'm in Michigan, with one of the worst
economies in the nation. This is an example of what Caplan called
the "Pessimistic Bias." Things are not, always and everywhere,
getting worse.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/122019.html
Jacob|10.9.07 @ 6:13PM|#
Huckabee came out for dictatorial powers. He said he would bomb Iran if he felt it necessary, even if Congress said "no".
|10.9.07 @ 6:17PM|#
The federal government is not working for you & I anymore. It is comprised, for the most part, of people who seem to be interested in nothing but lining their own pockets at the expense of the rest of us. The "machine" is broken, and needs to be fixed before it's too late (if it isn't already). I feel that Ron Paul is the only one that is bringing that to the table and a return to the Constitution is the foundation upon which he's running, gold and all.
Nash|10.9.07 @ 6:20PM|#
The reason a commodity standard is beneficial to the people is
because the money cannot be devalued by printing money. Period. End
of Story.
Maybe Gold is impractical, but it's at least fixed and only
devalues maybe 2% a year because as more enters the market. Far
better than increasing the paper supply however the FED sees
fit.
Also, if the govt can't print up money they can't recklessly spend
either.
|10.9.07 @ 6:26PM|#
Jacob | October 9, 2007, 6:13pm | #
Huckabee came out for dictatorial powers. He said he would bomb Iran if he felt it necessary, even if Congress said "no".
Nevermind, I guess this answered my question.
|10.9.07 @ 6:29PM|#
Half understand?? It's amazing that, based on the limited amount of information that you have at your disposal, you can make such a statement. Gold & silver savings have served me quite well over the years, thank you. My real concern is for the welfare of my children & grandchildren's generations. If "inflation" continues at this pace, it's not going to be a pretty picture. Richard, I'm glad you're doing better than a decade ago but that's not the case for most out there. Let's face it; We're all posting here because we all recognize that there are problems with the direction this nation is headed (if not, I guess we can all go out and vote for Hilary). How we make those corrections will take time & debate, but I think we all agree that changes are due.
|10.9.07 @ 6:56PM|#
gold as legal tender means if you bought an ounce at $730 and it went to $1000, you wouldn't have to pay tax on the appreciation. Imagine living in a tiny country where the entire currency is $3000, and 3 people own 3 different stocks for $1000 each. The government then doubles teh money supply and the stocks go up to $2000 each. They sell their stock to each other, and now each of them has to pay tax on a $1000 gain. The economy has not improved one iota, but the govt is richer and you are poorer. That's what's happening now.
jdd|10.9.07 @ 6:56PM|#
I don't know why people can't understand the distinction between
backing the USD w/ a metal and simply allowing competing
money.
If it were legal to issue money, backed by something or nothing at
all, the dollar would likely be driven out of circulation if a bank
anywhere issued money, fiat or otherwise, that could not be easily
counterfeited and that was matched with a consistent level of
liquid reserves. Most people would want gold and/or silver to back
it because those commodities are liquid anywhere in the
world.
USDs would either trade at a substantial discount or the Fed would
have to keep the money supply stable.
People act like there never was free banking in the US or competing
currencies. But there were, even in the early 19th century. I don't
see why Bank of America, Citybank, or any other private bank
couldn't run a fabulous seigniorage business by printing stable
money.
I think Paul advocates repeal of the legal monopoly on legal tender
that the US central bank possesses -- and please correct me if I am
wrong.
stephen the goldberger|10.9.07 @ 6:57PM|#
I guess I don't understand why it's so important to back up money with some rocks that people think look pretty. If the main reason is to ensure there isn't inflation why don't we just ensure there isn't inflation? Isn't that what the last 40 years was about?
stephen the goldberger|10.9.07 @ 7:01PM|#
Don't credit cards basically serve as the competing tender you are discussing also?
iih|10.9.07 @ 7:07PM|#
While on the subject of money, could someone tell me, what is the forecast for the US dollar vs. the Canadian dollar? Is the US dollar going to regain its "strength"? Otherwise I am screwed. Last time I checked, it was still going down.
Paco|10.9.07 @ 7:13PM|#
The US$ is only valuable because people value it. The only reason gold is valuable is because people value it (also it's shiny and makes pretty jewelry). The montary base of the US is Fed credit (used to be gold). The Fed can create more credit by tickling their keyboards, they cannot create gold. Right now total fed credit is ca. $860 Billion and the US population is about 300 million. Simply tie Fed creidt by law to the population and you have a defacto gold standard without the hard labor of digging up gold. The fed then can play with the yield curve by buying short notes and selling long bonds (or vice versa) As long as total credit is capped a their ability to steal by inflation is limited.
|10.9.07 @ 7:17PM|#
iih, anyone who managed to accurately predict the direction of
the USD/CAD exchange rate could make a HELL of a lot of money.
However, given trends in commodity prices and the Fed's belief that
it has inflation under control and should therefore print money
with reckless abandon, I would bet that the loonie will continue to
appreciate against the dollar.
There are ways to hedge yourself if you are seriously exposed to a
continued decline in the dollar vs. the loonie. Forex trading is
some of the cheapest trading you can do, and you can adjust your
degree of leverage in order to provide the appropriate amount of
hedging.
|10.9.07 @ 7:21PM|#
"Don't credit cards basically serve as the competing tender you
are discussing also?"
Only if they are not dollar-denominated
iih|10.9.07 @ 7:21PM|#
Graphite:
Thanks. I am not quite an economist, but I now the loonie's rise is
hurting my pocket (I spend money there). Will check Forex.
Paco: That was my plan B ;-)
|10.9.07 @ 7:24PM|#
Thank god some ppl here actually explain RP's nuanced position
on Gold. He is not for a compulsary gold backing, just against the
FRN's monopoly.
Allow currencies to compete (as they already do to some extent near
the border) and the govt can no longer print to oblivion without
suffering the consequences.
Competition provides a healthy discipline.
|10.9.07 @ 7:29PM|#
"gold as legal tender means if you bought an ounce at $730 and
it went to $1000, you wouldn't have to pay tax on the
appreciation."
Spot on!
|10.9.07 @ 7:30PM|#
The reason the goldbugs are concerned with gold, isn't because
their aurophiles (i.e. that they have a gold fetish). They focus on
gold because that is what the market chose. The free market in
money, unimpeded by the actions of governments, chose gold to be
the medium of exchange.
It was the actions of the governments in the early 20th century
that destroyed the gold standard, not the decisions of the free
market. If the government ended the meddling gold would likely be
chosen once again. It is not the case that government paper and
gold are simply equal and are both faith based money, government
paper is simply force. Eliminate their shenanigans, and let us see
what the market chooses.
|10.9.07 @ 7:32PM|#
"It was the actions of the governments in the early 20th century
that destroyed the gold standard, not the decisions of the free
market."
With the use of quite a lot of violence, I might add.
|10.9.07 @ 7:36PM|#
There is a big difference between gold-backed government-issued money and free market gold (or silver, or bread or land..whatever!) hard money.
|10.9.07 @ 7:39PM|#
I can't believe how complacent people in this thread are about inflation. It wasn't that long ago that the U.S. was suffering from nasty, high, and unpredictable inflation. It will happen again. Count on it.
|10.9.07 @ 7:39PM|#
I live in Denmark, travel to switzerland, england and lots of EU
countries. Competing currencies are definitely the way to go,
specially for your savings.
I don't see what difference it makes if they are issued by
governments or by private banks.
javier|10.9.07 @ 7:40PM|#
This is the most intelligent discussion on the fed I have ever seen on the internet
|10.9.07 @ 7:44PM|#
This place seems full of ppl who deride the gold standard. I'm
no economist, but I heard that Alan Greenspan was, and still is
quite keen on gold.
Can someone explain why the onus probandum is not on the fiat
pushers?
Remember, the CHF was on the gold standard until 1998.
Duckman|10.9.07 @ 8:23PM|#
The onus is not on the fiat pushers because we have been on
partial fiat since 1913 and total fiat since 1971. It's considered
a "closed issue" by most, like a return to barbarism.
Pity.
M|10.9.07 @ 9:05PM|#
What good is a 30 sec. timer when they let some candidates go on and on, and others (like Dr. Paul) they cut off at 28?
Time is money.
rho|10.9.07 @ 9:18PM|#
The onus is not on the fiat pushers because we have been on
partial fiat since 1913 and total fiat since 1971. It's considered
a "closed issue" by most, like a return to barbarism.
We've had massive inflation during that time, too. Because of fiat
money. We've had good economic times, too. It's hard not to with an
inflating currency. The good times will roll all the way up until
it suddenly stops. The world has seen it many times before.
|10.9.07 @ 9:21PM|#
Seriously. Who wants that? Where is the giant demand for
"not government backed currency"?
If no one wants it, no one wants it. Let the market decide.
|10.9.07 @ 9:24PM|#
Inflation isn't so bad for the average working stiff. Inflation
is bad for old people and banks. Someone who works salary is tied
to their productivity not the price. As prices rise, so do wages.
It is a vicous circle. Inflation kills people on fixed incomes. As
prices rise, their income stays the same and is worth less and
less. Inflation however is good for debters. Assuming your interest
rate is fixed, as prices and wages rise, the real value of your
debt goes down. This is why central bankers are so obsessed with
inflation. It totally screws banks.
The idea that their is anything populist about a return to the gold
standard is just fucking laughable. I am amazed at the historical
and economic ignorance of some people. The original populists, the
Grangers and William Jennings Bryant and the like started as a
movement to end the gold standard. That was the famous cross of
gold speech. The gold standard caused deflation throughout the late
19th century. It screwed small land holders by making their land
and commodities they produced worth less and less while their
mortgages stayed the same.
One other point about the gold standard. Since it fixes the amount
of currency in circulation, it means that a country cannot borrow
to pay for imports. If a country is importing more than it is
exporting, it either has to find new gold reserves quickly or there
is a huge outflowing of wealth and currency to make up for the
imbalance. As a net debter nation, a return to the gold standard
would put the economy into a tailspin not seen since the great
depression. There used to be crashes like that pretty regular. One
in the 1890s and a really vicous one in the 1830s caused by Jackson
closing the bank of the united states. Both of those were as severe
as anything in the great depression. That is what you would get if
you went on the gold standard.
|10.9.07 @ 9:28PM|#
Gold standards are for people who see the illusion behind
fiat currency, but can't see it behind gold.
It's still there, which makes moving back to the Gold Standard just
replacing the trick you half-understand with the one you don't. It
doesn't buy you anything.
Gold has the advantage of being historically demonstrated to be
more sound than paper. Gold is valuable. It was valuable in the
past and it is valuable today. The same cannot be said of various
fiat currencies in the dustbin of history.
iih|10.9.07 @ 9:31PM|#
John:
I am (really) no economist, but if the gold standard is brought
back, won't this motivate banks, investors, etc., to self-regulate
(otherwise they are the first and biggest losers)? If instead of
abandoning the gold standard, couldn't the great depression have
been a great lesson to banks and investors to self-regulate? I hope
I don't sound "laughable"!
|10.9.07 @ 9:32PM|#
"Gold has the advantage of being historically demonstrated to be
more sound than paper. Gold is valuable. It was valuable in the
past and it is valuable today. The same cannot be said of various
fiat currencies in the dustbin of history."
So buy gold then as a hedge against inflation or land. Big deal.
Those fiat currencies went away because the countries that backed
them went away, not the other way around. If your country goes to
hell, you are screwed and the gold standard is not going to save
you.
Fluffy|10.9.07 @ 9:35PM|#
So let's see, John -
A metals-based currency favors savers over debtors, and punishes
state attempts at maintaining indefinite fiscal and trade
deficits.
Those sound like upsides to me.
|10.9.07 @ 9:37PM|#
Since it fixes the amount of currency in circulation, it means that a country cannot borrow to pay for imports. If a country is importing more than it is exporting, it either has to find new gold reserves quickly or there is a huge outflowing of wealth and currency to make up for the imbalance.
Damn John, I thought Adam Smith had demolished that bit of
mercantilist superstition in The Wealth of Nations.
If gold is flowing out of a country, and gold is used as money,
imports become more and more expensive resulting in fewer imports
resulting in the gold flow tending towards 0. Imports do not
impoverish a nation.
All those crashes you point out where the inevitable result of the
inflation that preceeded them, and not caused by returning
to a gold standard. When you debase the currency, and don't allow
people to abandon it of their own free will, you get economic
collapse. It may take a century, or it may take only a few years.
But throughout written history, it has always held true.
The crazy idea that the solution to the problems caused by
inflation of a fiat money is more inflation is fucking
homeopathic economics.
|10.9.07 @ 9:39PM|#
"A metals-based currency favors savers over debtors, and
punishes state attempts at maintaining indefinite fiscal and trade
deficits.
Those sound like upsides to me."
Until you see the incredible transition cost back to a metal based
economy. You could make the arguement that we should have never
left the gold standard and you might be right. The problem is that
the horse is out of the barn so to speak. Its too late to go back.
The floating currency system has served us quite well once we had a
fed that was committed to keeping prices stable. Whatever the
advantages were to the old standard are not that great. The economy
has averaged over 3% growth since 1983 with only two very small
recessions and near price stability. Jesus how much growth do you
want? Go back to the gold standard and we get a recession the likes
of which hasn't been seen since the 1930s. Sure things will shake
out and the economy will adjust, eventually, but the price will be
enormous for very little gain.
|10.9.07 @ 9:41PM|#
There used to be crashes like that pretty regular. One in
the 1890s and a really vicous one in the 1830s caused by Jackson
closing the bank of the united states
The crashes came from fractional reserve banking. Banks were
basically allowed to go off the gold standard. They issued more
notes than they had gold reserves, so the currency was partially
paper. Government propped up these banks instead of letting them
fail in a free market. They did things like continue to accept the
notes as payment in taxes and whatnot.
|10.9.07 @ 9:42PM|#
"When you debase the currency, and don't allow people to abandon
it of their own free will, you get economic collapse. It may take a
century, or it may take only a few years. But throughout written
history, it has always held true."
How is the currency debased? We have had near price stability for
over 25 years. If there is an economic collapse coming, it will be
for reasons completly independent of the currency, namely a return
to protectionism and increased taxes and regulations on the
economy.
Fluffy|10.9.07 @ 9:47PM|#
"Until you see the incredible transition cost back to a metal
based economy. You could make the arguement that we should have
never left the gold standard and you might be right. The problem is
that the horse is out of the barn so to speak. Its too late to go
back. The floating currency system has served us quite well once we
had a fed that was committed to keeping prices stable. Whatever the
advantages were to the old standard are not that great. The economy
has averaged over 3% growth since 1983 with only two very small
recessions and near price stability. Jesus how much growth do you
want? Go back to the gold standard and we get a recession the likes
of which hasn't been seen since the 1930s. Sure things will shake
out and the economy will adjust, eventually, but the price will be
enormous for very little gain."
There would be a couple of political gains:
First, it would effectively destroy the ability of the state to
deficit spend at its current level, at least for prolonged periods
of time.
Second, it would eliminate the possibility of a Carter-era Fed ever
coming back into play. We have had a fairly responsible Fed of
late, massively assisted in its job by worldwide deflationary
pressures [the prolonged stagnation in Japan, energy prices
decreasing in real terms for two decades, the addition of the
former East Bloc nations to the world economic system, the addition
of the labor pools of China and India to the world economic
system]. We might not always have such a responsible or such a
lucky Fed. And you only need ONE hyper or near-hyper inflation to
wipe out all of the economic gains a couple of decades of "good
Czar" Feds give you.
Fluffy|10.9.07 @ 9:50PM|#
Switching gears for a moment to talk about the debate -
Apparently after the debate Paul went outside to address a crowd of
2000 screaming college kids on the Michigan campus. Strangely, I
find exactly NO coverage of this fact in the media.
If Fred Thompson had strolled out of the debate to 2000 Fredheads,
who thinks that we would hear about it on one of the cable
networks?
|10.9.07 @ 9:53PM|#
RE: Tancredo Wal-Mart/Nasdaq/Dubai comment.
He'd think about it? Why? When was it the government's business to
regulate who owns private companies?
|10.9.07 @ 9:53PM|#
Price stability? What color is the sky in your world John?
Food is more expensive. Fuel is more expensive. Medical care is
more expensive. School is more expensive, Shelter is more
expensive. About the only things that aren't more expensive are the
products that have benefited from technological innovation.
The only guys who are benefitting from the current scheme are guys
who work for the government, supply it, or are subsidized by
it.
iih|10.9.07 @ 10:04PM|#
If RudyMcRomney vs. HRC is what most Americans are rooting for, then they do not deserve a great man like RP! Populism for the populists.
|10.9.07 @ 10:05PM|#
Jesus Christ, I'm beginning to wonder if the republic and
survive any of these dillholes. Ron Paul isn't just the Hope for
America. He's America's ONLY Hope.
The RON PAUL revolution.
be part of it
iih|10.9.07 @ 10:09PM|#
Huckabee is using Nascar to make the voter understand foreign dependence on oil! How stupid does he think the voter is? (Or how stupid am I to believe in the "voter"?)
iih|10.9.07 @ 10:13PM|#
American dream? It is a dream for goodness sake! How about the American reality?
|10.9.07 @ 10:13PM|#
ok, I've had it with this bunch of worthless, power-grabbing
fascists. Only 2 out of 9 (!) said they need to go to congress to
carry out military actions! 2 out of 9! It's in the fucking
Constitution, assholes!
It's become clear that politics have nothing to do with the
founding document of our nation, and we might as well scrap it if
any of these fuckers but Paul wins.
rho|10.9.07 @ 10:20PM|#
John D:
Inflation isn't so bad for the average working
stiff.
This is simply not true. Inflation makes simple saving worse than
useless. A savings culture will raise the fortunes of all people,
not just the financially adept. Of course the schlub can put his
savings in a mutual fund or something, but that is not the same
thing. Especially since your investment earnings are taxed.
The problem is that the horse is out of the barn so to speak.
Its too late to go back.
This is not a valid argument. It can be used to dismiss nearly
anything. If you really believed that you'd stop coming around
here, 'cause if there's a horse-gone, barn-closed posterchild it's
libertarianism.
robc|10.9.07 @ 10:23PM|#
How can this discussion have gone on this long without a
reference to Gresham's Law?
Im not sure which side to apply it to (both, actually), but it
definately applies.
Some of said that fiat money is the ultimate unavoidable result of
Gresham's Law.
|10.9.07 @ 10:24PM|#
tarran,
Those things have become more expensive for reasons unrelated to
inflation: fuel due to increased industrial demand in Asia, school
due to burgeoning federal and state financial aid programs
increasing demand, food due to increases in farm subsidies (and
increased fuel costs), and medical care due to more expensive
treatments being discovered and demanded.
Thinking like John|10.9.07 @ 10:24PM|#
The horse is out of the barn on this drug war thing. Our only
choice is to escalate it(think of easing up on the drug war as
deflation).Returning to a "legal" drug market would be too
disruptive.
Agricultural subsidies? That milk cow is out of the barn.Ending
subsidies would be disruptive to our economy- like ending perpetual
inflation of fiat money.
Iraq War? Camel is out of the barn I'm afraid we are in Iraq for
the long haul. Leaving would be disruptive to our geopolitical
stability.
|10.9.07 @ 10:26PM|#
If RudyMcRomney vs. HRC is what most Americans are rooting
for, then they do not deserve a great man like RP!
Unfortunately, those of us who deserve better are going to get the
same thing most Americans do...
Mr Blackwell|10.9.07 @ 10:27PM|#
Too bad Looks like they reshot Maria's questions with her wearing clothes for the rebroadcast.
|10.9.07 @ 10:28PM|#
Environmental Regulation? That hippie is out of the commune. The only thing left to do now is adopt the Kyoto protocols and impose massive taxes on everything that pollutes, like people.
Guy Montag|10.9.07 @ 10:30PM|#
Huckabee is against anybody making more money than anybody else. He is worse than FDR and I never thought that possible from his party in the modern era.
|10.9.07 @ 10:32PM|#
He is worse than FDR and I never thought that possible from
his party in the modern era.
Where you been the past ten years Guy?
#|10.9.07 @ 10:33PM|#
Well at least Huckabee is a top tier candidate.
He isn't some loser also-ran like Hunter, Brownback or Paul. Time
to winnow the debate field so we can get serious here.
Guy Montag|10.9.07 @ 10:35PM|#
Where you been the past ten years Guy?
In the real part of the USA, where Fred is from.
I hear that from other parties all of the time, but not from the
noBS Republicans (McCain excluded and I never heard him say that
but I can imagine it).
Guy Montag|10.9.07 @ 10:38PM|#
FRED RULES!
Chick who reminds me of the chick who cried about the Yankees
losing: "Should the government step in to the Chrysler (MOPAR,
stupid girl) negotiations?"
Fred: "NO!"
BRAVO Senator Fred!
Vermont Gun Owner|10.9.07 @ 10:48PM|#
What makes Huckabee a top tier candidate? Is it his massive name recognition? Or his 0-1% domination over Ron Paul in national polls? Or is it his wonderful performance in straw polls (beating Paul in an astonishing 4 out of 31 straw polls)? Perhaps his incredible fundraising abilities?
Guy Montag|10.9.07 @ 10:49PM|#
Damn Senator Fighter Pilot, the right answer to "has the fed cut interest enough" is ALWAYS no! Not a trip arounf the South China Sea on the way to no!
Larry Kudlow|10.9.07 @ 10:52PM|#
the right answer to "has the fed cut interest enough" is
ALWAYS no!
Guy,
Are you trying to get hired by CNBC?
Guy Montag|10.9.07 @ 10:53PM|#
OMG, Rudy gave a great tax answer. Now if I could only believe him about leaving my guns alone . . .
Guy Montag|10.9.07 @ 10:56PM|#
Larry Kudlow | October 9, 2007, 10:52pm | #
the right answer to "has the fed cut interest enough" is ALWAYS
no!
Guy,
Are you trying to get hired by CNBC?
And leave my lucrative robber-barron Defense Contractor position?
HA!
But you are my favorite NBC person ever.
|10.9.07 @ 10:58PM|#
I will never understand why people are so afraid of the trade balance. Obviously I don't think that the current state of US/China trade is what it would be if both sides repealed some of their sillier regulations, but is it really so bad that we are trading services and investments for material goods? What we happen to have comparative advantage at that?
Guy Montag|10.9.07 @ 11:04PM|#
I will never understand why people are so afraid of the
trade balance.
Me neither. Negative trade balances mean that you are well-off
enough to nuy lots of things. The other way means you make thigs
well.
Not sure what the problem is.
|10.9.07 @ 11:24PM|#
Well not to worry, with the dollar loosing value every day US goods get more and more attractive. I never thought I'd live to see a Loonie worth a Sacagawea.
Guy Montag|10.9.07 @ 11:38PM|#
10:07: Kudos for Huckabee using a NASCAR metaphor to talk
about energy independence. How much energy could we save if NASCAR
fans learned how to read? (I exclude Clarence Thomas from this
piece of angry sarcasm, as I think he is a NASCAR fan,
too.)
David, I was thinking about inviting you to a Pentagon tour.
Perhaps you would prefer G'itmo?
Ben|10.9.07 @ 11:41PM|#
"What Makes Huckabee top tier?"
Only that he is 2 points behind Romney in the national polls ( Poul
is like 8 or 9) and is also ahead of Rudy in Iowa.....
|10.10.07 @ 12:12AM|#
Here's a link to Ron Paul's utterances at the debate. For some reason, it's spread out over several video clips, which is annoying, but you get what you pay for, I guess.
|10.10.07 @ 12:50AM|#
Huckabee is using Nascar to make the voter understand
foreign dependence on oil! How stupid does he think the voter
is?
He thinks the voter is stupid enough to vote for him; in some cases
he is right.
|10.10.07 @ 1:19AM|#
LarryA,
"Duct tape" is the newer term... "Duck tape" is the older term.
Both are appropriate.
A bit of Duck tape history:
First created and manufactured in 1942 (approximate date) by the
Johnson and Johnson Permacel Division. Its closest predecessor was
medical tape.
The original use was to keep moisture out of the ammunition cases.
Because it was waterproof, people referred to the tape as "Duck
Tape." Also, the tape was made using cotton duck - similar to what
was used in their cloth medical tapes. Military personnel quickly
discovered that the tape was very versatile and used it to fix
their guns, jeeps, aircraft, etc. After the war, the tape was used
in the booming housing industry to connect heating and air
conditioning duct work together.
Soon, the color was changed from Army green to silver to match the
ductwork and people started to refer to duck tape as "Duct
Tape."
SxCx|10.10.07 @ 2:05AM|#
Although I've already learned a lot just by scrolling through this thread, do the gold standard scholars have any introductory sources they could list for a head-scratching layman like myself? I'm struggling to develop an opinion on all this.
Fluffy|10.10.07 @ 7:14AM|#
"is it really so bad that we are trading services and
investments for material goods? What we happen to have comparative
advantage at that?"
That's not what a negative trade balance means.
The value of services and overseas investments is already figured
into the trade balance. So already counting those things, we have a
massive negative balance of trade.
The harm of a trade deficit comes when the foreign nations who have
been sending you goods and taking nothing but your currency in
exchange decide that there are other uses for their capital than
using dollars to buy government debt or dollar-denominated
financial market assets. Then your currency turns into the
Malaysian baht during the Asian Meltdown of the late 90's.
|10.10.07 @ 7:35AM|#
No, fluffy...
The trade deficit figures do not include overseas
investments.
The trade balance and net capital balance are opposite and
equal.
A trade deficit is matched by a net capital inflow.
They match always. If people don't want them to match, the value of
the dollar (and other currencies) change until people do want them
to match.
The situation we are in recently is that the dollar is falling in
value. The result should be a smaller trade deficit and lower net
capital inflow. And, Americans will be a bit poorer because we will
get fewer imports for our exports. (That isn't to say that other
things might not happen that will be making Americans richer. The
falling dollar is a factor that will tend to at least partially
offset the consequences of improving tecnhology, etc.)
If we were on a gold standard, the dollar wouldn't fall (being tied
to gold.) Gold would leave the U.S. (which is what fluffy seems to
identify with a trade deficit.) The U.S. money supply would fall.
Dollar incomes would drop in the U.S., lowering U.S. costs, and
U.S. prices. This would result in greater U.S. exports and lower
U.S. imports. (Lower imports because Americans are poorer and
because buying at home is now cheaper.) This would reduce the trade
deficit and bring it back in balance to the net capital inflow less
gold.
This process has traditionally been associated with a recession in
the short run. That is, rather than dollar incomes and prices
dropping smoothly, dollar incomes drop as production and employment
drops. Then, in the face of unemployment of labor and surpluses in
most markets, prices (including wages and other recource prices)
drop, resulting in a recovery of employment and production while
dollar incomes and prices remain lower.
In U.S. history, the fragility of the unit banking system (and yes,
fractional reserves) would magnify even small disturbances. But,
this "magification" would be rapidly reversed once recovery
began.
Jacob|10.10.07 @ 7:47AM|#
I can't believe we have talked about fiat money this long without mentioning sticky wages. Sticky wages are why increases in the money supply acts to increase production in the short run. You basically give all the working stiffs in the country a secrete, stealth pay cut.
|10.10.07 @ 8:05AM|#
We have had near price stability for over 25
years.
We haven't even had inflation stability for 25 years, never mind
price stability.
Raging inflation can return at any time. All it takes is a Fed that
gives in to political pressure to "pump up" the economy.
|10.10.07 @ 8:36AM|#
"Food is more expensive. Fuel is more expensive. Medical care is
more expensive. School is more expensive, Shelter is more
expensive. About the only things that aren't more expensive are the
products that have benefited from technological innovation."
I don't write the economic statistics, I just read them. We haven't
had a serious bout of inflation in this country since the early
80s. If anything in the 1990s, deflation was the danger. There are
just as many economic dangers to deflation as their is to
inflation. A moderate rate of inflation of about 2% is pretty ideal
for long term growth and that is what we have had for most of the
last 25 years.
Two things I have got to stop doing; trying to convince
creationists man didn't live with dinosaurs and trying to convince
gold standard people the currency is not going to collapse and the
world end because we no long have the gold standard. Some
superstitions die harder than others and some, like those two,
never die.
|10.10.07 @ 9:02AM|#
SxCx "Although I've already learned a lot just by scrolling
through this thread, do the gold standard scholars have any
introductory sources they could list for a head-scratching layman
like myself? I'm struggling to develop an opinion on all
this."
I can post several links where you can get a "crash course" that
make the case for a return to the gold standard, which Paul
advocates, but I would suggest just checking out what Dr. Paul
himself has to say on YouTube (search Ron Paul FED). Yesterday I
posted an excerpt from a book entitled "Capitalism: The Unknown
Ideal", authored by Ayn Rand, in which Alan Greenspan authored two
(or three) chapters. One of those chapters is entitled "Gold &
Economic Freedom", which details the importance of the gold
standard as well as how the powers that be ushered us away from the
gold standard; and how it's negatively impacted us all. You can
also check out any historical gold pricing chart to actually see
how those price changes coincide with significant events in
monetary history. Here are several links:
Ron Paul on The FED:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTV1VLPZnRk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q
Historical gold charts:
http://kitco.com/scripts/hist_charts/yearly_graphs.plx
As you look at this chart, some key events to remember: 1933-
Executive order 6102, which called in the gold coin in circulation.
1963- Executive Order 11110, designed to strip the Federal Reserve
Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest.
1971- the year we "officially" went off the gold standard (and you
can see what effect that had on the price of gold). Keep the faith
and spread the word!
|10.10.07 @ 9:06AM|#
SxCx Although I've already learned a lot just by scrolling
through this thread, do the gold standard scholars have any
introductory sources they could list for a head-scratching layman
like myself?
These speeches
from Murry Rothbard from Misis.org are really good, even funny and
entertaining at times.
The
Founding of The Federal Reserve
Banking
and the Business Cycle
Money and
Prices
libertreee|10.10.07 @ 9:06AM|#
So, Edward, continuous inflation of 2% is the ticket? With no
real deflation? Where did you get the notion that deflation does
not occur with growth? There has been plenty of growth with
deflation. Your continuous inflation (which is only low because
"core" inflation does not count numerous sectors) negates economic
growth, does not spur it. Inflation causes too much growth in some
sectors, not enough in others.
The Stock Market bubbles and Dot Com bubble and Housing bubble and
numerous Fed bailouts with taxpayer money are caused by your
continuous inflation. The inclination to spend and not save is
also. The productivity of the economy and Wall Mart and China have
kept our heads above water, not the continuous inflation.We need
gold to encourage saving and keep the workers solvent and Wall
Street honest.
libertreee|10.10.07 @ 9:29AM|#
href=http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1040
There are four types of inflation presented. Two are positive, two
negative. The deflation that Edward is worried about is the
deflation of the great depression. However, that deflation was not
allowed to run its course due to government intervention, in
particular the constant push to keep wages high, resulting in wage
inflation while prices were plummenting. Wages in a free economy
have to fall, as well as prices, for the system to purge out the
effects of the bank inflation we experienced in a vain attempt to
keep England a "great nation".
Note to Edward: Keynesian economics is dead. Have a good sob, and
get over it.
Jesse Walker|10.10.07 @ 9:32AM|#
The original populists, the Grangers and William Jennings
Bryant and the like started as a movement to end the gold standard.
That was the famous cross of gold speech.
Paul's rhetoric is populist with a small p, not Populist as in
Populist Party. I'm aware of the irony of someone coming off as
William Jennings Bryan while advocating a position closer to
William McKinley's, but it's not really that absurd: Think of Paul
as a Barnburner Democrat of the antebellum period, when hard money
and free trade were the populist, anti-monopolist positions.
|10.10.07 @ 9:36AM|#
"trying to convince gold standard people the currency is not
going to collapse and the world end"
Got news for you:
You are going to die.
The world will end.
The dollar will collapse.
Superstition?
|10.10.07 @ 10:25AM|#
Morat made, I think, a good point the other day. While I think a
return to a free-market in money would be desirable, the hard fact
is there's very few people out there (aside from us) who care
much--for the simple reason that inflation has been low and stable
over the past several years.
A gold standard is just the most foolproof way of giving paper
money a real anchor and imposing discipline on monetary growth. By
no means is it the only way, though--inflation targeting (now
practiced by many central banks) is just one, and, for all its
theoretical flaws, has worked well enough in practice that
inflation is the last thing from most voters' minds these days in
countries (like Canada) where it is practised.
US voters aren't so worried about inflation yet, but that could
change if the drop in the dollar goes on much longer. Paul might
want to keep his powder dry for 2012.
BTW, the loonie is at $1.02 today.
|10.10.07 @ 10:42AM|#
Quote from a Forex report in todays news;
"This morning the U.S. dollar is down to 78.35 (from 78.83
yesterday). Support is at its all time record low at 77.657. Below
this is uncharted territory for the U.S. dollar."
Guy Montag|10.10.07 @ 11:22AM|#
An Ottawa Reader,
Come on man, don't you know that the commodity of the future is
tin?
It was well documented in an episode of Barney Miller.
Fluffy|10.10.07 @ 11:26AM|#
That's actually a great episode.
My favorite Barney Miller episode, naturally, is the one where
Dietrich's knowledge of the plot of The Fountainhead is key to
knowing what the angry architect is going to do.
Guy Montag|10.10.07 @ 11:51AM|#
My favorite Barney Miller episode, naturally, is the one
where Dietrich's knowledge of the plot of The Fountainhead is key
to knowing what the angry architect is going to do.
My favorite is the one where Dietrich tracks down the Vietnam
protestor who stayed in his apartment for 10 years. Took him 24 -
72 hours to find the guy I think?
|10.10.07 @ 12:03PM|#
"US voters aren't so worried about inflation yet, but that could
change if the drop in the dollar goes on much longer. Paul might
want to keep his powder dry for 2012."
He is old!
He needs to get the message out, people will remember him as being
right.
"the hard fact is there's very few people out there (aside from us)
who care"
Yeah, and keeping quiet about such an important issue is not going
to help with that.
|10.10.07 @ 2:53PM|#
How about the episode where that guy is staging a hunger strike, protesting the TV station "radiating" him with beams of some kind. Dietrich explains to him that there is an entire sect of people that don't eat food, needing only air & water, and to just breath deeply. The guy does that for a bit and Dietrich says, "Don't stuff yourself." By the end of the show, the hunger strike is over and he asks Dietrich for a doughnut, to which he replies, "You just had some air."
|10.10.07 @ 11:01PM|#
Now if Maria Bartiromo showed up wearing a shirt that says, "I'd napalm Laos" or some other conservative slogan, I'd buy it, and wear it, and pretend Maria was in that shirt with me.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245