MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Gold Standard: Yglesias at Slate Doesn't Have to Tell You Why It's Absurd

Matthew Yglesias yesterday filled some space on Slate with something that pretended to be a critique of the Cato Institute for throwing a conference that considers the possibility that gold might make better money than government/central bank paper.

PHGCOM / Foter / CC BY-SAPHGCOM / Foter / CC BY-SA

He doesn't do anything as gauche as, say, report on what people said there regarding gold, even to critique it. Here's the gold content:

....the affinity between free market economic thinking and hard money is an interesting and important phenomenon. It's far from universal—Milton Friedman was obviously a low taxes and deregulation guy. But I do think there's a deep logic to it. Once you concede the fact that prosperity over both the long- and short-term depends in part on competent demand management from a powerful bureaucratic organization, then it's difficult to resist the moral logic of redistribution regardless of the empirical merits of any particular government program. But there's a deep yearning to give the case for free markets a profound moral reading rather than a pragmatic one, and that reading is hard to maintain in the face of a modern monetary system. Hence the hankering for gold.

Friedman, as lots of people don't know or don't remember, despite his reputation as the "libertarian who hated gold" got far more mellow about the possible merits of gold-as-money in his later, more libertarian years. See his book Money Mischief, where he wrote that "it does not follow [from the fact that there are costs associated with mining the gold, etc.] that the existence of a gold standard...is a mistake and harmful to society...the verdict is far from in on whether fiat money will involve a lower cost than commodity money," pointing out that relying on the probity of government managers to guarantee a safe and sane money might have its own risks.

While there is nothing like an argument against gold as money in the above--to say it is to refute it apparently--one can find elsewhere Yglesias offering such smackdown assaults as that, well, more gold can be mined (or aliens can steal some--really) so it isn't totally resistant to inflation or deflation, so that should make it no better as an inflation management tool than allowing government central bankers to invent as much money from nothing as they want. (This is not to say there aren't more sophisticated and interesting ways to argue for the benefits of fiat money over gold as money; but it is to point out that the idea is apparently in Ygs head so definitionally nutty that he doesn't think his readers need or deserve to hear them.)

The rest of the above quoted just doesn't make any coherent sense. It might be clumsy writing as opposed to incoherent thinking, but one can believe in "competent demand management" for reasons of economic efficiency or even "that's just the way things are" without embracing the "moral logic of redistribution." (See, for example, the sort of "demand management" we see in the real world that involves giving resources to banks or car companies or big Wall Street firms vs. the poor.)

There is no reason to say that gold as money people embrace it for some sort of "profound moral reading" of anything in particular, necessarily, or why the morality of free markets, if one does believe in it, is "hard to maintain" if fiat money exists, or even if one believes in it. (He may be getting at an argument that some libertarians used to aim at Friedman: that if you believe free markets work, you shouldn't believe that money needs to be centrally managed by the state. If so, he's not delivering it very clearly, and not sure what the morality part has to do with it.) That last "hence" comes from nowhere, but given the laughability of his "gold is no better than fiat to curb inflation" argument above, I guess he can't imagine any real reason one might value gold as money.

His argument seems inexplicable, pointless; on the surface it has nothing to do with any actual argument for or against gold as money, says nothing worth saying and is confusing in doing so. It is, I should say, perhaps the very definition of that horrible little twitter-esque mockery term "derp" which appears in its URL, as if Cato is guilty of it rather than the Yg.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Winston||

    Did David Cameron back this double posting?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Squirrels are getting more aggressive. They're no longer content with just double posting comments.

  • ||

    His argument seems inexplicable, pointless; on the surface it has nothing to do with any actual argument for or against gold as money, says nothing worth saying and is confusing in doing so.

    So you're just learning that SadBeard is functionally retarded?

    Remember, Brian, when you gaze into a SadBeard article, it gazes back into you. Slack-jawed and drooling.

  • trshmnstr||

    Remember, Brian, when you gaze into a SadBeard article, it gazes back into you.

    Scared neighborhood kids: "Don't look into the deadlights!"

    Sadbeard sewer clown monster: "The interest rates, they all float down here!"

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    His argument seems inexplicable, pointless; on the surface it has nothing to do with any actual argument for or against gold as money, says nothing worth saying and is confusing in doing so.

    You just summed up pretty much everything written at Slate, Salon, and Huffington Post.

  • CatoTheElder||

    There's a guy at HuffPo who's pretty good. His name is Balko.

  • newshutz||

    It's funny to read the comments to Balko. Lots of outrage at the police state required by the policy supported in other Huffpo threads.

  • ||

    prosperity over both the long- and short-term depends in part on competent demand management from a powerful bureaucratic organization

    There is nothing more you need to read from that. The very assertion that bureaucracy aids in any way, prosperity, is just too absurd to be worth consideration. What a fucking moron.

  • GILMORE||

    BUT BUT HE SAID 'HENCE' AT THE END WHICH IS LIKE WHAT LAWYERS AND TEACHERS DO SO ITS LIKE AN ARGUMENT WHY DO YOU DENY HIS WORDS HAVING MULTIPLE POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS YOU ANTI INTELLECTUAL REDUCUTIVIST

  • kevrob||

    OK, like Natalie & Shelly in The House Bunny.

    Hence!

    Kevin

  • Brandybuck||

    I couldn't read past that part. There's just so much wrong. Conceding his point takes more contortions than my brain can handle. I'll leave that to the professionals, like Ruby the Rubber Girl.

  • Winston||

    His argument seems inexplicable, pointless; on the surface it has nothing to do with any actual argument for or against gold as money, says nothing worth saying and is confusing in doing so.

    That way you can't really refute any argument he is saying and he can refute you without making any sense! Progs: learning the best from the Communists.

  • ||

    Progs: learning the best from the Communists.

    The Progs are the Communists. They just got themselves a purty name and threw in a little fascism and lots of cronyism.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No. The oldschool Commies actually thought a lot. They were hardcore and uncompromising they did not lead with emotion. They knew their system required imprisonment of the masses and establishment would require a paroxysm of violence. They were disciplined and hardcore in the way any student of a broken extremely detailed system like the Earth-centric solar system. So complicated-and it still doesn't work!

    Progs have emotions that they rationalize. Modern-day progs are especially insecure and require confirmation and consensus. They are lost without The Hive.

  • ||

    Their ideology is basically the same.

  • SweatingGin||

    "Progs have emotions that they rationalize. Modern-day progs are especially insecure and require confirmation and consensus. They are lost without The Hive"

    This week's focus on the Obamacare debacle has been great, and has warmed my heart.

    But this line *really* brought back that libertarian Christmas feeling. Thinking back to the OWS tools and such. One little chink and they fall apart.

  • ||

    The federal government has grown to the point of it being unmanageable. I thought maybe it could continue to function for a couple of more decades. Now, I don't think so. I think we are seeing the beginning of the collapse. I knew this was coming, just not so soon. It's already been projected that our debt will reach 22 trillion by Feb 2014. How can we sustain this? Answer is, we can't.

  • SweatingGin||

    Everything is moving faster these days.

    I saw the drudge headline for 22t, but follow through to see why. Is it a legit number? Ie, not just projecting the 300 billion increase through?

    I figure the important thing isn't debt to GDP ratio, it's debt service to tax revenue.

    That could change real quick, debt is constantly being rolled over.

  • Irish||

    I figure the important thing isn't debt to GDP ratio, it's debt service to tax revenue.

    That could change real quick, debt is constantly being rolled over.

    Yeah, which actually makes this more dangerous. Because of interest rates, our debt service is actually very similar to what we were paying in 2000...even though we've got trillions more in debt.

    A slight uptick in the interest rate will result in debt service skyrocketing. This will also increase the deficits substantially.

  • SweatingGin||

    I ran some graphs a few days ago on FRED, and yea, debt service is minor at the moment. Interest rates going to their historical mean (around 4%, a 1.2 percentage point increase) would be devastating, the only thing keeping them where they are is that everyone else is terrible.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    And this is why QE will never end, because it can't. When the whisper of a rumor of 'taper' began, the rate on the 10T bumped up significantly. If rates don't stay low we will struggle to service the debt.

    This is why Obamacare was just fundamentally irresponsible. Adding another expansive entitlement to the ledger when both Medicare and Social Security were unstable and during a historic recession and period of financial instability was beyond stupid.

  • ||

    not just projecting the 300 billion increase through?

    Could be. My point was more about the Obamacare debacle than the debt, just threw that in there, because it is a real problem no matter what team blue says.

    Government is too big and it has to fail at some point. It's no longer manageable. We already have rogue agencies all over the place that no one really knows what they are doing, and they are expanding at light speed, and becoming enormously expensive.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I agree. I do think that it is currently still fixable. I just don't think you'll find more then a handful of people in Washington with the balls to do so. And a handful isn't gonna be enough.

  • SweatingGin||

    Yup. Obamacare is a wonderful example. It should go down in the history books for what technocrats can't do. I'm sure it'll get rewritten as "they hired people who couldn't make it happen".

    Damn, Obamacare is just so awesome on this.

    Can't buy coverage, 'cause they delayed decisioned for politics, and even then, it'd take government years to do this.

    Okay, well, we're about to fine people for not buying coverage when they couldn't. Don't want that going to court. We'll delay the individual mandate.

    Now the insurance companies have adverse selection, and will be insolvent around January 5th.

    FIND THE NEXT FIX! FIND THE NEXT FIX!

    Oh, and if you go to Congress, hopefully the republicans will do an all-or-nothing.

    And they can claim they'll fix it, if only they get power again, but they screwed this up so bad, who would give it to them?

  • ||

    One little chink

    Hey, man, there's no need to talk about Glenn on The Walking Dead like that.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    He teaches us that in the zombie apocalypse you can score with a girl that's way out of your league!

  • ||

    A valuable message, to be sure. He also taught us that if you go almost insane you can survive an encounter with a zombie in a closed room while tied up.

  • Homple||

    "Chink"?

    Lacist.

  • ||

    RACIST!!111!!111ELEVENTY-ELEVEN!!111!

  • PM||

    One little chink...

    RACIST!

  • PM||

    Shit, shoulda scrolled...

  • John C. Randolph||

    They were hardcore and uncompromising they did not lead with emotion.

    I beg to differ. The entirety of the motivation behind communism is emotion. Communism is nothing more than highly focused hatred of anyone who disobeys the communist.

    -jcr

  • SweatingGin||

    It's good to harken back to the utopian Christian origins, too (even though the atheistic wing won, communism is still utopian)

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Eh, most Western philosophies are "like Christianity" if you stare at them too long because you come from things with a Judeo-Christian mindset and so did the people who came up with communism (or at the very least, the pre-Christian mindsets were synthesized/interpreted in that light). Libertarianism is like that too, if you squint and look at it in the right light.

  • trshmnstr||

  • Tony||

    This is why you will never be taken seriously, among other things.

  • CatoTheElder||

    All early 20th Century American commies called themselves "progressive". It was practically a term of art.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "His argument seems inexplicable, pointless;"

    I guess we were all pretty much thinking this while reading his tripe.

  • sloopyinca||

    This story can't be repeated often enough, Doherty.

  • ||

    Once you concede the fact that prosperity over both the long- and short-term depends in part on competent demand management from a powerful bureaucratic organization, then it's difficult to resist the moral logic of redistribution regardless of the empirical merits of any particular government program.

    But most serious advocates of "competent demand management" would assert that such management is utterly orthogonal to redistribution or any particular government program.

    You helicopter the new money in. You distribute it as far from savings as possible. Whatever. The point is that, if you believe in "competent demand management", it is a complete accident that redistribution turns out to be one way to promote consumption over investment. If you are biased by "the moral logic of redistribution" in this endeavor, you are not at all acting like the scientist you are pretending to be.

    What an idiot.

  • Number 2||

    That quote is arguably one of the worst, most idiotic sentences I have ever read. All you need to do to discredit its author is to quote it. It's scary to think he actually gets paid for producing that drivel.

  • SugarFree||

    I think there is a moral dimension to hard money. It makes it far more difficult for a welfare state to inflate itself into looking like a functional entity when it redistributes wealth and larders the taxpayer with entitlements. I mean, isn't that one of the big reasons why we are suppose to like hard money in first place? aka It makes it very hard for the government to "tax" us by devaluing our savings?

  • Warty||

    It's the main reason why I like the idea of hard money. But I'm mostly concerned with moral arguments anyway.

    In other news, I found a 1972 silver dollar the other day. I was super excited about it, right until I found out that silver dollars stopped being silver in 1965. Fuck you, LBJ.

  • SweatingGin||

    Huh, there was a 40% silver version as a collectible.

    http://www.coinflation.com

    Good site for seeing if your ashtray is doing better than your 401k.

  • John||

    Yes. The only problem is that governments can still debase hard currency That is what they did after World War One. But I think it might be harder though.

  • Tony||

    Because a better, more stable system that allows for a welfare state is just not worth the horrible outcome that your morality is exposed as pointless and dumb.

  • Invisible Finger||

    ^Here's a writer actually less coherent than Yglesias.

  • Brandybuck||

    Don't be so critical. Tony actually has two working brain cells, which is more than I can say for...

  • Cytotoxic||

    Once you concede the fact that prosperity over both the long- and short-term depends in part on competent demand management from a powerful bureaucratic organization, then it's difficult to resist the moral logic of redistribution regardless of the empirical merits of any particular government program. But there's a deep yearning to give the case for free markets a profound moral reading rather than a pragmatic one, and that reading is hard to maintain in the face of a modern monetary system. Hence the hankering for gold.

    Holy Toledo I thought this quote in the morning links was from some insane commentator, but I should have known Sad Beard was up to it! 'Accept my premises and know peace, fellow Derpikans.'

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    Once you concede the fact that Muhammad is the true and final prophet of God, it's difficult to resist the moral logic of fundamentalist Islam.

  • Irish||

    Once you concede that the air is poison, it's difficult to resist the moral logic of not breathing.

  • Killazontherun||

    I thought the same, that it was just a commenter with no acquaintance with micro talking out of his ass like the trolls do here, but, shit, fuck me not, you should not expect a paycheck at the end of the day after that, Sadbeard.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Sadly, all of those quotes were from people paid for their opinions.

  • SugarFree||

    Matty's fundamental failing as a writer is closely linked to his purpose for writing; he isn't interested in arguments because he is constructing apologies in the formal sense. He assumes his audience already accepts his conclusion and so he tries to work backwards in order to support it. And he tries to be funny to suggest that disagreeing with him is absurd, perhaps even perverse. Krugman and Klein both employ the same "voice."

    Yglesias isn't making arguments, he's arranging a bouquet of derp to present to the members of the choir for them to delight in, an affirmation of shared beliefs, a respite from the anguish of living in a world that refuses to hold the exact same opinions as they do.

  • ||

    I thought his fundamental failing as a writer is that he's terrible at it. Him being retarded just makes it worse. I mean, the most coherent sentence the guy can come up with boils down to "I love frozen burritos".

    Hey, wait a second. That sounds a lot like you, except your most coherent sentence is "I like to write about shriveled labias".

  • Irish||

    I thought his fundamental failure as a writer was that he's so anti-social that he doesn't seem to understand how human being interact, speak, or associate with one another.

  • SugarFree||

    You have the soul of a poet, Episiarch.

  • SugarFree||

    In a glass jar.

  • SugarFree||

    That you slap your dick on every night before going to bed.

  • ||

    That's not my soul in there. It's my heart. Well, that poet's heart, really. I ate part of it to gain his power but it didn't work; all I can write are haikus.

  • Killazontherun||

    Handsome Jack: Did that guy just speak in Haiku?

    I had trouble killing a guy that I liked as much as HJ. And I wasn't about to let Lilith do it, not another damn screaming revenge over Roland speech. They fucked her character up royally. I was glad he died, bitch. When he was trapped under the rubble and said, 'go on, soldier, don't worry about me', I jumped on the top of the rubble to see if I could hasten his demise. DON'T. CALL. ME. SOLDIER, MOFO! That word means 'bitch' in upper rank speak. I'm a mercenary. You want something out of me, you fucking pay for it!

  • Killazontherun||

    Oh, spoiler alert.

  • The_Mangatang||

    You throw in a spoiler alert AFTER a spoiler? That makes about as much sense as flipping on your turn signal after you make the turn. Too late buddy. And on the subject of BL, I fail to see how they screwed up Lilith or Roland when they weren't legitimate characters in BL1; just a simple class selection. They finally gave them personality in BL2, though Roland was a clichéd good-soldier type. And I HATED Handsome Jack. The dude was funny for the first third of the game, but he was a demented, arrogant asshole. After the 10th "baby killer" comment, I wanted to take that vault key and shove it up his orifice.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "I like to write about shriveled labias".

    That makes more way sense then sadbeards article

  • SweatingGin||

    chafed walnut

  • ||

    Get that guy a ribbon and send him to the Special Olympics! He'd fit right in.

  • John||

    There have been hack writers since the dawn of time. Some of them wrote great prose and were often quite clever.

    So yeah. His problem is that he is terrible writer. He is just terrible. He is proof that you don't get an education at Harvard. Never forget, he writes this shit for a living. He does knock it out on his smart phone. He sits down and works and that is as good as he can do.

  • Irish||

    This article seems to really talk down to Matthew Yglesias, treat him like a child, and generally not act as if he is a serious thinker.

    I always knew I liked you, Doherty.

  • SweatingGin||

    Hear, hear!

    The last paragraph made my day.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Why is Reason still paying any attention to that ivory-tower moron? Come on, he actually said "the moral logic of redistribution", oblivious to the fact that "redistribution" has no moral logic whatsoever, it's just looting.

    -jcr

  • AlmightyJB||

    Same reason we get articles on stupid shit krugman, thomas friedman, and the other usual idiot suspects say or write. Cause it's easy. Money for nothing and your chicks for free. How much punditry is nothing more than critiques of other pundits?

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    If you want some more MY derp, here's his five-point plan to fix the economy

    Step one—short-term unemployment: Big problem. The fix is to suspend the payroll tax that funds Social Security entirely, and replace the lost funding with money printed by the Federal Reserve. Promise that said printing will continue until nominal income catches up with its pre-crisis trend path, and that in the future the Federal Reserve will be targeting the level of nominal income and using this payroll tax swap as an instrument if needed to keep the target on track. I think there is a persuasive case that nominal income targeting alone would work, but pairing the target with the addition of this instrument should address the objections raised by fiscalists (since the instrument is fiscal policy) but also most of the objectives raised by demand denialists (since the instrument is also a pro-growth supply-side reform).

  • AlmightyJB||

    I think the underwear gnomes plan will work better.

  • ||

    You don't suppose that he has been reading too much Krugnuts?

  • ||

    I didn't know SadBeard spoke another language. I'm no expert, but I think that's Imbecile, right?

    "She only speaks French, Roy. She doesn't speak imbecile."

  • Jordan||

    Yglesias offering such smackdown assaults as that, well, more gold can be mined (or aliens can steal some--really)

    Or somebody might discover alchemy one day!

    /Derpglesias

  • Killazontherun||

    I've got two neutron stars on target for collision as we speak. Gold in those asteroids sharding off, I tells ya!

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    His argument seems inexplicable, pointless

    Perhaps because Yglesias' existence is itself inexplicable and pointless?

  • Irish||

    How can you say that when he's written such thought provoking pieces as Eating Lunch Outside Sucks, Stay Inside.

    The Slate D.C. office very much has a "sad desk salad" office culture, which I don't approve of, so I was excited when a colleague proposed today that a bunch of us should all eat lunch together outside in Dupont Circle. It's a great idea. Sharing a meal with others is fun. And you get good ideas through casual conversation. For example, I mentioned that I thought the one flaw in this plan was the outside element of it. Why eat outside when the excellent option of inside is also available?

    That opening paragraph will never get old.

  • ||

    That opening paragraph will never get old

    It almost sounds like he has overdosed on a combination of estrogen and stupid.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Hahahaha, 'colleague'.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Truly, it is the magnum opus of the pathetic public persona that is Matthew Yglesias.

    It really doesn't get old.

  • ||

    Oh, yes, it does.

  • Calidissident||

    I think that might be the saddest and most pathetic paragraph in the history of the English language.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So he's agoraphobic too?

  • Irish||

    I'd also like to bring up Matthew Yglesias' monumentally successful book, which has 274 one star reviews on Amazon.

    Highlights:

    Yglesias seems to try very hard to be insightful, but there is just nothing here to justify the cost or the time. His "practical solutions" to high rent are not only bland, uninteresting, and a a poor restatement of conventional wisdom, but as vapid as his personal attacks on public figures he doesn't like.
    There are words in this book. Some of them form sentences. But all of them, put together, are equal to less than the sum of their parts.

    Plus, the author is a jerk.
  • SweatingGin||

    Shallow, and pedantic.

  • Irish||

    I'm a fan of the bodice ripper genre, so I know not to expect Tolstoyan character development or Wodehouse levels of writing talent.
    But even for a romance novel, this book was poor. The characters were stilted, the plot was nonexistent, and the romance had no passion at all.

    It was bad enough that the "hero" was described as a pudgy balding Jew--I mean, seriously?--and the heroine was a thin aloof black individual with no distinguishing secondary sex characteristics. But the sex scenes were just atrocious. I mean ATROCIOUS. If Rick Santorum becomes President, employers will be required to read this book to all their nonmarried employees, because the first "romantic encounter" starting on page 50 alone is enough to drive a lifelong commitment to celibacy. And whatever you do, don't read the second one. If you do read the second one, resist the siren song of your steak knives to go the Origen route. But don't read the second one. Just don't. Don't read the third one either.

    Yglesias is irredeemable, but for other authors let me give you a few tips on writing a sex scene.
    1. Don't use the word 'turgid.' Don't use it more than once. Don't use it as a noun for some inexplicable reason.
    2. No loogies.
    3. No necrotic tissue.
    4. The Laffer curve doesn't mean what you think it means.

    Don't buy this book. Use your $ to pay your rent.
  • SweatingGin||

    SugarFree wrote that one, right? Or someone from here? Writing style seems familiar.

  • SugarFree||

    I wish I wrote that.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    This is brilliant. Which one of us wrote it?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Here is a 5-star review:

    Yglesias is one of the real bright lights of the progressive blogosphere. As a conservative who has been reading politics his whole life, I can attest that he is "Exhibit A" in my overall case that liberals have dramatically upped their policy advocacy game, while conservatives have stagnated, largely intellectually stuck in the assumptions and narratives of the Reagan era.

    I shudder to think what this "conservative" has been reading which has him positively comparing Yglesias to the conservative movement.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Perhaps he's using "conservative" in it's original meaning which is SCARED SHITLESS OF EVERYTHING!!

    Which pretty much sums up the modern left.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's profoundly pathetic what passes for progressive economic and political thinking today. And these people like to think of themselves as intellectuals when they are, in fact, the opposite.

  • ||

    Read the comments at HuffPo. That will dispel the notion of progressives being intellectuals very quickly for anyone with a working brain.

  • ||

    It's the most fascinating aspect of their delusions. They have absolutely no evidence to back up the fact that they think they are brilliant, except for praise from others in their herd. Yet, somehow, they think they are. Their predictions do not come true. Their political dreamboats shit on them and never do what they said they were going to do. They can barely do basic math, have no idea what science even is, and get the simplest technology concepts wrong.

    It's amazing.

  • ||

    I think it's due to the fact that they are entrenched in all of our major institutions of higher learning.

    I was watching a documentary a couple of weeks ago, with my wife, on the new discoveries of Mayan civilization throughout the Yucatan. It was really fascinating. And then they started to put together a new theory of why the civilization went into decline and perished. I think the most believable theory right now is climate change, including the Krakatoa eruption around 1535 AD and a serious and prolonged drought a few hundred years later, proven by earth core samples taken from lakes in the area.

    But guess what? There's a new theory. You'll never guess what it is? The main cause of the collapse of Mayan civilization was political. There was apparently some teabaggers around back then, and because government was not big enough during the drought, the people had no idea what to do, and so they perished. You cannot make up stuff this fucking stupid.

  • ||

    You made that up.

    I get the whole echo-chamber higher learning institution stuff, but it still blows my mind that people who literally have nothing other than a piece of paper from a university to point to as an accomplishment can think they're brilliant. And almost always a piece of paper that's for something that involves no math, logic, science, or problem solving. They haven't made a ton of money, or started a company, or written a top-selling book, or scaled Mt. Everest, or anything.

    It's a real form of delusion; I suppose it's a delusion of grandeur but it's more insidious than that. It's more of a weird tautological mental state where "I'm brilliant because I am".

  • ||

    Dude, I didn't make it up. Seriously, let me try to find the name of the documentary and you can watch it yourself.

    Although they already have solid theories, which I myself buy into, they felt some need to tie it into todays political scenario and blame the downfall of the Mayans on a cult that destroyed big government (The Mayan Tealiban, I am sure). I really didn't make this up.

  • Calidissident||

    I think your off by about 1000 years on the eruption and collapse of the Maya. 1535 was around the time the Spanish came around, and while the Maya were still around, their heyday (called the "Classic period") had been over for hundreds of years.

  • ||

    Holy. Fuck.

    Yglesias. You're ignorant. Period.

  • ||

    Dems up for re-election in 2014 getting on the delay mandate bandwagon

    NO. FUCK NO! You own it, biotches, if it's so great, let's see what's in it.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Unfortunately, most people aren't paying attention. They'll buy whatever their team is selling come 2014.

  • ||

    A lot of people are going to get fucked because of this. I suspect that at least a few might want their money back. The stupidest thing the GOP could do would be to back a delay of the mandate.

  • Rich||

    As more people get fucked, the GOP should relentlessly point out the thousands of waivers "granted".

  • AlmightyJB||

    You mean the waivers they're going to grant to the vast majority of the DNC base? Not gonna help the GOP any.

  • ||

    Then you can bet that is what they will do.

  • AlmightyJB||

    :)

  • Homple||

    It's the Democrats' stool sample. They passed it, now we see what's in it.

  • SweatingGin||

    HOW CAN THEY BE SO RACIST!?!?

    It's settled law. Fuck you, that's why.

  • Almanian!||

    Stupid is as stupid writes. Way to go, Matty Y!

  • frzcvjo efjsckr||

    As a Jew, I have a lot of sympathy for the Palestinian side of this. The oppression that the Palestinian people have suffered at the hands of the right wing Zionists is completely antithetical to the traditions of Jewish morality. What the right wing Zionists desire is the creation of an apartheid like system in the West Bank, where the Palestinians would be not allowed to vote and not allowed self-determination. The Israeli government is an enemy of Israel to Israelis as well, it is very corrupt, featuring what is essentially cartel socialism, it drafts women into the military, it bans political parties that oppose it, and it gives large welfare payments to religious institutions which promote an embarrassing proportion of the population to be leeches.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I have my own problems dude. Maybe you should be talking to the Israelis and Palestinians.

  • ||

    Do they teach this construction in troll school? This is exactly like something shreek or tony would write.

  • ||

    I didn't realize that we were discussing the Zionists. Perhaps an OT, or something like that was in order here?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Irish had the word jew in his sadbeard's book review. I'm guessing the presence of the word prompted some automatic search results.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Or maybe it was Gold. ugh

  • SweatingGin||

    Both. Jews and gold mentioned on the same page. No better bot bait than that, is there?

  • Killazontherun||

    As a non Jew, I have a lot of symapathy for the Palestinian side of this. And the Jewish side of this. The oppression fuck if I know what condition that the Palestinian people have suffered at the hands of the right wing Zionists living beside those awesome topless beaches near Gaza. I mean Jewish women often have amazing jugs, right? is completely antithetical to the traditions of Jewish morality. What the right wing Zionists desire is the creation of an apartheid like system in the West Bank, where the Palestinians would be not allowed to vote and not allowed self-determination Just how bad could life be, being a young Palestinian lad with a pair of binoculars up on top of a building staring at Jew titties all day? Sounds like my idea of Heaven.

  • playa manhattan||

    *Slow Clap, followed by fist pumping*

    Most of the girls I banged in college were Jewish, and it was wonderful because they didn't feel guilty afterwards. Little did I know that my habits would lead to me marrying one....

  • Killazontherun||

    The Slow Clap at its finest:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHWuSHC7x_I

  • Killazontherun||

    Bang time in college was mostly black girls and Irish Catholic ones. I couldn't really tell if the later were overwhelmed with guilt afterwards, or not. I'm not into girl emotions like guilt.

  • playa manhattan||

    There were no hot white girls at Berkeley. There could have been, but they were too into growing leg hair and smelling bad. Just lots of Jews and Latinas.

    God, I miss college.

  • Killazontherun||

    Fortunately, Carolina was very much a place for yuppies to go, so the women tended to be pro-hygienic, and the other school I went to, the Greensboro branch of the system, had a six to one women to men ratio as it was the former girls college. Had no problem with the hook up scene back then.

  • Sevo||

    frzcvjo efjsckr|10.23.13 @ 8:36PM|#
    "As a Jew, I have a lot of sympathy for the Palestinian side of this...."

    I didn't know the palestinians had a 'side' to the gold standard.
    Or are you confused?

  • ||

    You know what the sad thing is about Sadbeard's article? It gives all those chumps in the thread a forum to voice their derpiness.

    Man, there's some bad stuff in there.

    A couple of them are valid and worthy of discussion but as a whole...yeesh.

  • Juice||

    What thread? Are there comments to the Slate post? I don't see them. I even allowed all scripts on the page and I still don't see them.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    They redesigned their website and put the comments on a separate tab that you have to click.

    It's like the comments on a USA Today online article.

  • ||

    Am I too reason-jaded if at first I thought the title of this post wasn't sarcastic?

  • ||

    Oh, and I cant help but point out that 'moral logic' is an oxymoron.

  • newshutz||

    Since logic is used quite often in moral arguments, I do not understand how "moral logic" is an oxymoron.

  • JidaKida||

    That jsut loosk like its gonna be good. Wow.

    www.AnonBliss.tk

  • Sevo||

    "The Gold Standard: Yglesias at Slate Doesn't Have to Tell You Why It's Absurd"

    That's 'cause he really has no idea.
    He's a writer, not a thinker.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    It's called pseudo intellectual bluffing - a universally distinguishing characteristic of all liberals.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Once you concede the fact that prosperity over both the long- and short-term depends in part on competent demand management from a powerful bureaucratic organization

    What fucking moron would accept this premise?

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    Matty Y is a philosophy major who like to talk about what he hears.

    One of the worst errors of the Economics profession was the decision to make Keynsian IS-LM models the basis of Macro 101 curricula at the college level. The decision was made because it allows the teaching of the concept of modeling without requiring the use of calculus, aka Econ for People Who Can't Understand Economics. But the result is a lot of college-educated people who think that the models are still relevant, even though they were completely discredited, starting in the 1960s with the Lucas Critique.

    Now, dilletants like MY can always find a justification for government spending money. "It's also a short-term economic stimulus!"

    NBC News ran an article on how the government shutdown "cost the economy $24 billion in foregone government services". Keynes gives these morons an excuse to believe that if the government takes (or borrows) my money and spends it for me, it is adding value to the economy.

  • kevrob||

    My college made Micro ECON 101. Macro was 102. That way anyone taking just the one course as an elective learned something useful.

    Of course, our Econ chairman was an Austrian.

    Kevin R

  • Invisible Finger||

    How much did Sad Beard/Slate pay Reason for this link?

    Click-throughs are internet money. Ignoring Sad Beard will make him go away, linking to his retarded articles only makes him stronger.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online