Well, technically I don't have cabal. So even if I wanted to watch something as bland as the news when there's plenty of prime time dramas and "edgy" teen comedies...
Basically once you declare you're running for president, a bunch of legal disclosure issues kick in. The expected "front runners" for the GOP nomination (or at least the political heavyweights) haven't declared because it would limit their ability to raise money.
Then again, there's no saying that a relative lightweight couldn't win the GOP nomination, it worked for Obama.
LordofHats wrote:Well, technically I don't have cabal. So even if I wanted to watch something as bland as the news when there's plenty of prime time dramas and "edgy" teen comedies...
biccat wrote:Apparantly it was pretty popular[/url], with over 3 million viewers (more than Maddow & Morgan (the next two) combined.
Almost 1% of the US population watched! This was more people than watched talking head pundits on a calbe news channel!
You're right that the viewing numbers were quite good, but they were good by the standards of cable news, not by the standards of relevant political debate.
Presidential debates at this point are pretty useless, most of the people who will be running haven't even declared their candidacy yet.
Basically, yeah. None of these people are serious candidates. They only appear that way because there's no serious candidates out in the wings.
EDIT - I guess Herman Cain won, given no-one had any idea who he was before the debate started, and now we do thanks to that fun line about how well experienced candidates have done in Washington. I don't think anyone else gained one tiny thing about the debate, so that leave Cain.
Also, the mispelling of Rick Santorum's name in the poll is awesome, given the other meaning of Santorum... makes him sound like a pornstar.
Also, the mispelling of Rick Santorum's name in the poll is awesome, given the other meaning of Santorum... makes him sound like a pornstar.
Haha! One of my funnier typos to be sure.
As to the debate, on the basis of who had the most to benefit from the debate, I have to agree that perhaps Herman Cain edges out here. Before the debate a lot of people really didn't know who he was, and his one liner certainly garnered him some renown.
However, I think that Paul made a close second by using the exact same scoring "system." Last election cycle (and now to an extent) many people did not consider Paul having any chance of getting the nomination. However, since 2008 Paul's message as led to some of the biggest political stirrings in the nation. Fox News, most likely the most hostile news network to Paul, even conceded that he is considered by many to be "the Founder of the Tea Party movement." Regardless of your opinion on the Tea Party, and its many factions, you cannot deny the large political force it has brought to the table and how it is forcing the old "establishment" GOP to rethink the way they handle things.
In short, last election almost everyone said "Who is Ron Paul?" This cycle a large majority of people know who he is and a great deal of his predictions about the economy have come true in the past few years, who would have thought 3 years ago that the Fed would ever any level of transparency brought to it?
Now, if we grade the candidates on an intellectual standard, the is no denying Paul took the cake. Cain offered no really solid answers to any of the questions asked him, just witty and Reaganisque responses that sound appealing. T-Paw and Santorum came off as the personification of the "typical politician" and I think the debate hurt them, especially since the image of "typical politicians" is really a no go at the moment, or at least more so than in the past.
Johnson... ehh... kind of like Paul in some ways but really not very impressive nor as energetic as the Congressman. Other than the Mary J question, I think he didn't lose much, but he certainly gained nothing either.
Monster Rain wrote:I always really like Ron Paul. He has a lot of interesting things to say.
Then he says "gold standard"...
True. I don't drink his kool-aid, but he's honestly the guy who I most identify with out of the Republican field of candidates.
I have typically found that most people who say "o lord, he wants a gold standard?" can't go on to explain what the difference between a gold standard and fiat currency is. The problem with the way people understand how the gold standard works is that they look at it with the mindset of a Keynesian economist (Keynesianism, our current accepted system, has proved time and time again to be bust system that is responsible for the boom and bust cycle of our economy) instead of an Austrian economist.
Those who learn about the Austrian school and accept the Keynesian school as unsustainable, suddenly look at the gold standard in a new light. Although it might sound archaic, not all things old are bad.
For those of you who want a quick read on both schools, just go to wikipedia, the explanations there are fairly good.
Keynesian economics is a bit like a diet plan: it's not that it doesn't work, it's just that nobody follows it.
Governments understand the "borrow and spend during recessions" part, but they don't understand the "tax and save during growth periods" part.
What makes you think spending during a recession is a good thing? Although I don't want to delve too deep into this venue, as it is not in line with the OP, I feel the need to point out that the viewpoint of government spending during recessions is being challenged. One could cite the economic recessions of 1921 and 1929 as examples, as well as our current depression as examples of how government spending during these times is not good.
The Austrian school argues that depressions, when left alone, correct themselves very quickly once bad assets and debt have been liquidated and resources are freed to be applied elsewhere.
I actually don't think the Gold Standard is a terrible idea, in theory.
I just don't see how we could implement it without destroying the global economy. I'm sure Ron Paul would say "feth 'em" which I can also appreciate, but I'm not ready to jump off that cliff just yet.
I actually don't think the Gold Standard is a terrible idea, in theory.
I just don't see how we could implement it without destroying the global economy. I'm sure Ron Paul would say "feth 'em" which I can also appreciate, but I'm not ready to jump off that cliff just yet.
Switching back to the gold standard would be a painful process, no argument on that. If I recall correctly there is only around 150,000 tons of gold in circulation in the entire world, the stated "value" of this gold is less than the money in the U.S. alone (but you have to remember that an ice cream cone that today costs 3 bucks used to cost 15 cents or less one hundred years ago).
However, choosing to stay with the system we have today has proven and will prove to continue to be disasterous. Governments can and also will be highly susceptible to the ideas of deficit spending and intentional inflation policies. A gold standard effectively wards off these sorts of policies while insuring a stable value of all currency.
I'm not an economist, so I really don't delve too deeply into it. Usually spending during a recession is at least partly a way of pacifying the people. Economics or no, a general revolt is never a good thing.
Monster Rain wrote:I actually don't think the Gold Standard is a terrible idea, in theory.
I just don't see how we could implement it without destroying the global economy. I'm sure Ron Paul would say "feth 'em" which I can also appreciate, but I'm not ready to jump off that cliff just yet.
Well Ron Paul thinks the US government was involved in 9/11 so F him to, but thats justa side point I like to bring up when I interact Ron Paul supporters. Its when they say "yea he's right" I get extra careful...
Monster Rain wrote:I actually don't think the Gold Standard is a terrible idea, in theory.
I just don't see how we could implement it without destroying the global economy. I'm sure Ron Paul would say "feth 'em" which I can also appreciate, but I'm not ready to jump off that cliff just yet.
Well Ron Paul thinks the US government was involved in 9/11 so F him to, but thats justa side point I like to bring up when I interact Ron Paul supporters. Its when they say "yea he's right" I get extra careful...
That would be one of the incidents I alluded to earlier, when I have to shake my head and say "He was doing so well up to that point."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manstein wrote:
I actually don't think the Gold Standard is a terrible idea, in theory.
I just don't see how we could implement it without destroying the global economy. I'm sure Ron Paul would say "feth 'em" which I can also appreciate, but I'm not ready to jump off that cliff just yet.
Switching back to the gold standard would be a painful process, no argument on that. If I recall correctly there is only around 150,000 tons of gold in circulation in the entire world, the stated "value" of this gold is less than the money in the U.S. alone (but you have to remember that an ice cream cone that today costs 3 bucks used to cost 15 cents or less one hundred years ago).
However, choosing to stay with the system we have today has proven and will prove to continue to be disasterous. Governments can and also will be highly susceptible to the ideas of deficit spending and intentional inflation policies. A gold standard effectively wards off these sorts of policies while insuring a stable value of all currency.
Yeah, I mean I totally agree with that in my extremely limited knowledge on the subject.
US history between 1929 and 1939, unless you're a crazy revisionist or a Fox News employee.
Last time I opened a history book I saw the government spend a great deal of money for 10 years and it did no good.
WWII pulled us out of the depression by acting as an artificial agent in which to create demand. When you enlist millions in the armed forces and send resources off to be destroyed then the economy is going to change. It was not until Eisenhower's massive army reductions and a return to "relatively less" government intervention in the economy that we saw the boom of the post war.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled said
Well Ron Paul thinks the US government was involved in 9/11 so F him to, but thats justa side point I like to bring up when I interact Ron Paul supporters. Its when they say "yea he's right" I get extra careful...
As someone who is usually a fan of your posts, that last comment was none sense. Here is Paul at the last election cycles presidential debate denying that claim in a very straight forward manner. To speculate that he secretly still harbors that belief is about as silly as believing 9/11 was an inside job and just as conspiritorial.
US history between 1929 and 1939, unless you're a crazy revisionist or a Fox News employee.
Last time I opened a history book I saw the government spend a great deal of money for 10 years and it did no good.
WWII pulled us out of the depression by acting as an artificial agent in which to create demand. When you enlist millions in the armed forces and send resources off to be destroyed then the economy is going to change. It was not until Eisenhower's massive army reductions and a return to "relatively less" government intervention in the economy that we saw the boom of the post war.
Not to nit-pick, but the hoover administration did about nothing for three and a half years first. The New Deal didn't kick in until mid 1932. Unless Hoover was secretley spending more money than I think, the economy didn't exactly rebound too well under laissez faire.
Not to nit-pick, but the hoover administration did about nothing for three and a half years first. The New Deal didn't kick in until mid 1932. Unless Hoover was secretley spending more money than I think, the economy didn't exactly rebound too well under laissez faire.
You actually just hit the nail on the head Polonius, but in a different way than you might expect. Hoover was actually heavily involved at first, calling many business leaders in for private meetings and insisting that they not cut wages or let go of workers. Pressure from the Hoover Administration prevented large businesses from expunging bad assets in the form of labor on the onset, meaning that the businesses held on to those assets hoping to ride it out, which, as a result of their not expunging them, they did not. This is what let to the eventual massive lay offs and job losses that turned the recession of 29 into the Great Depression.
Naturally, politics being politics, FDR picked up on this and ran saying Hoover did not do enough. Since FDR won the election and Hoover lost, the tale of the victor is told here and the myth of Hoover being a none interventionalist in economic affairs was solidified.
To quote Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA, "[Hoover] adopted pro-labor policies after the 1929 stock market crash that accounted for close to two-thirds of the drop in the nation's gross domestic product over the two years that followed, causing what might otherwise have been a bad recession to slip into the Great Depression."
I can understand your skepticism on the topic Polonius, and I would expect nothing else of someone genuinely trying to understand a new theory. Here is a link to one of Lee Ohania's, a well known Professor of Economics at UCLA, lectures on the subject. He can explain it far better than I.
If you want the meet, skip to the 10 minute mark and wait for it, he starts up pretty quick on the worker topic on which I am speaking.
Manstein wrote:Switching back to the gold standard would be a painful process, no argument on that. If I recall correctly there is only around 150,000 tons of gold in circulation in the entire world, the stated "value" of this gold is less than the money in the U.S. alone (but you have to remember that an ice cream cone that today costs 3 bucks used to cost 15 cents or less one hundred years ago).
The problem is, if you set $1 equal to X amount of gold, then how do you create more wealth? Any additional value that is created must be by devaluing the existing wealth (or by creating more gold).
For example:
If everything in the world is 2 sheep and 2 oz of gold, then 1 sheep is worth 1 oz of gold. If those sheep have 4 lambs, then by the next generation we have 4 sheep and 2 oz of gold. Now a sheep is only worth 1/2 oz of gold. Under a fiat currency, the value of currency can be inflated to match the change in total wealth, simply add $2 to the global net worth and now sheep continue to be worth $1.
Looking at it from the perspective of the capitalist: by holding onto his gold in the first scenario he doubles the value of his money by simply holding onto it. In the second scenario, the value of the capitalist's money is the same (or slightly decreased due to the decrease in demand for sheep). However, from the producer's perspective a fiat currency allows him to double his wealth while applying the gold standard simply means he has the same amount of wealth.
If the goal of the government is to maximize wealth production, the gold standard is a bad idea, because it incentivizes hoarding of capital and fails to incentivize production.
I'll ehck it when I'm home later tonight (if my internet allows me to stream...)
I'm seriously doubting two aspects of the theory:
1) that businesses would retain workers solely as a favor to the president
2) that retaining those workers was the precipitating factor for expanded depression
The latter I suppsoe could be enough, although that kind of disproportionate response seems dramatic. The former just doesn't seem likely given the business climate of the times.
He is a lecture by Professor Thomas Woods, he isn't an economist but rather a historian. I realized that for some Ohanian's intense economic theory lecture might lead those not familiar with all the terms a bit in the dark, since history reads a lot more like a narrative, perhaps a historian will be easier to understand.
You'll need more than one economist to support that argument boyo.
Do a quick search on the recession of 1921, the government did nothing and the markets corrected everything in a year and a half. Sitting around and doing nothing is hard, we all want to get up and try to fix things to make it better. However, there are some things in life that you just need to sit back and leave alone if you want it to correct itself.
As for requiring another economist, you can ask any Austrian economist, not just Ohanian, what they think on the Great Depression and they will tell you the same thing. Unfortunately, the predominant economic philosophy at the moment is Keynesianism, meaning the Austrians tend to go unheard and unrecognized. Thankfully, these Austrians are getting more and more well known as our recession begins to become more of a depression.
O... and if you want another name, even though I think he is an ass hole, Peter Schiff agrees and he predicted the current economic failure in 2003 on live cable television.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll ehck it when I'm home later tonight (if my internet allows me to stream...)
I'm seriously doubting two aspects of the theory:
1) that businesses would retain workers solely as a favor to the president
2) that retaining those workers was the precipitating factor for expanded depression
The latter I suppsoe could be enough, although that kind of disproportionate response seems dramatic. The former just doesn't seem likely given the business climate of the times.
Perhaps my earlier comment was too ham fisted, to be more precise... The Hoover Administration pressured the private sector and passed regulations putting severe price and wage controls on various businesses and companies in spite of the fact that there were many workers of the same skill and experience willing to work for an average of 30% less than current market wages. Check out the lectures and that will be explained in more detail for you.
If everything in the world is 2 sheep and 2 oz of gold, then 1 sheep is worth 1 oz of gold. If those sheep have 4 lambs, then by the next generation we have 4 sheep and 2 oz of gold. Now a sheep is only worth 1/2 oz of gold. Under a fiat currency, the value of currency can be inflated to match the change in total wealth, simply add $2 to the global net worth and now sheep continue to be worth $1.
Looking at it from the perspective of the capitalist: by holding onto his gold in the first scenario he doubles the value of his money by simply holding onto it. In the second scenario, the value of the capitalist's money is the same (or slightly decreased due to the decrease in demand for sheep). However, from the producer's perspective a fiat currency allows him to double his wealth while applying the gold standard simply means he has the same amount of wealth.
The premise of your comparison is false. Currency is not meant to be like sheep, ever growing and constantly reproducing, rather... wealth is supposed to change form in the medium of said goods. Increasing the amount of money in the money supply only gives the illusion of there being more wealth but inflation always comes afterwards and the products you once paid X for, now cost not Y but rather Z.
Your point driving towards the retention of wealth is good, but too all incomposing. Your thesis is thata gold currency stymies investment and prevents growth because investors see greater profits in retaining their money. This would not take place is no one invested their money and the fact that saving can be profitable means that investors will make sure they put there money into places where growth is sure to be stable and worth while, not risky (as out last housing bubble).
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ Frazzled
That video is hilarious and I love it, it explains how the Austrian school is what needs the attention and how Keynesianism is flawed. But it does so in a rap! YEAH!
Manstein wrote:The premise of your comparison is false. Currency is not meant to be like sheep, ever growing and constantly reproducing, rather... wealth is supposed to change form in the medium of said goods.
What premise is false? I simply presented a factual situation and the results of both.
In my opinion (and I think this would be shared by a lot of people) currency is meant to be a reflection of the total wealth of a society.
Manstein wrote:Increasing the amount of money in the money supply only gives the illusion of there being more wealth but inflation always comes afterwards and the products you once paid X for, now cost not Y but rather Z.
As more wealth is produced, society becomes wealthier. The amount of currency should grow to reflect this. Yes, an ice cream cone today that costs $1 would have only cost 35 cents 40 years ago (simply by way of example), but what is the relative cost of $1 today vs. 35 cents 40 years ago in terms of the cost of labor? The amount a laborer has to work to obtain an ice cream cone has decreased.
Manstein wrote:Your point driving towards the retention of wealth is good, but too all incomposing. Your thesis is thata gold currency stymies investment and prevents growth because investors see greater profits in retaining their money. This would not take place is no one invested their money and the fact that saving can be profitable means that investors will make sure they put there money into places where growth is sure to be stable and worth while, not risky (as out last housing bubble).
Why would someone who has gold in hand ever want to invest? The only way that more "profits" are earned is either by taking them from someone else or by gold production. The growth in wealth can never exceed gold production.
In a fiat system, producing wealth grows the economy, and the wealthy earn profits not by taking from others, but by producing more wealth.
As an aside, the gold standard forms the building blocks for class resentment and socialism/communism. As long as there's a fixed pot of wealth, there is a desire to take it from the "capitalists" who hold the gold and distribute it fairly.
US history between 1929 and 1939, unless you're a crazy revisionist or a Fox News employee.
Last time I opened a history book I saw the government spend a great deal of money for 10 years and it did no good.
WWII pulled us out of the depression by acting as an artificial agent in which to create demand. When you enlist millions in the armed forces and send resources off to be destroyed then the economy is going to change. It was not until Eisenhower's massive army reductions and a return to "relatively less" government intervention in the economy that we saw the boom of the post war.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled said
Well Ron Paul thinks the US government was involved in 9/11 so F him to, but thats justa side point I like to bring up when I interact Ron Paul supporters. Its when they say "yea he's right" I get extra careful...
As someone who is usually a fan of your posts, that last comment was none sense. Here is Paul at the last election cycles presidential debate denying that claim in a very straight forward manner. To speculate that he secretly still harbors that belief is about as silly as believing 9/11 was an inside job and just as conspiritorial.
Well as I've seen him discuss this allegation multiple times that does it for me. if you believe something that crazy for years you're cookoo for coco puffs in my book.
In a fiat system, producing wealth grows the economy, and the wealthy earn profits not by taking from others, but by producing more wealth.
As an aside, the gold standard forms the building blocks for class resentment and socialism/communism. As long as there's a fixed pot of wealth, there is a desire to take it from the "capitalists" who hold the gold and distribute it fairly.
That statement sounds great, and if it were possible even I might give a second thought to the usage of fiat currency. Unfortunately, once paper money is unhooked from the gold standard, or a silver standard, you invariably get a snow ball effect on the economy. At first the snowball is small and prices only rise slowly, however, eventually prices begin to rise at inordinate levels and hyperinflation follows. Every fiat currency in the history of mankind, save the U.S. dollar, has experiences massive hyperinflation at some point in its life span. For a good modern day example one need only look to Germany in the 1920s, where children build castles out of 100 Deustch Mark stacks of bills.
The only way to regulate this growth is.... well... an illusion. Advocates of fiat money promise exactly what you have stated, more wealth, and then claim that they can control the negative side effects through central banking, i.e. the Federal Reserve. In the words of Herman Cain (although I don't like him, I do love that I am about to use a quote from an ex- State Fed Chairman) "How's that working for you?"
Central banking through a fiat currency system leads to boom and bust cycles that cause more harm than happiness. So far we have been lucky in that our busts have been minor, up until 2009 and the ongoing years. Austrian economists, the economists who have predicted every bust that has taken place after 1945, predict that this "recession" is only going to get a lot worse, especially once we hit a dollar crisis.
In the end, fiat money sounds great, and can, for a short amount of time, provide greater wealth. Unfortunately, the wealth does not last and eventually just gets redistributed to those at the highest end of the monetary spectrum. Fiat currencies make the rich richer and make the poor suffer the hardest via inflation and loss of value. That is where your class warfarists should really be looking, one need only look back to the bailouts of a few years ago and see that the top 1% benefits more from invisible manipulation of fiat money than from a stable gold standard.
Manstein wrote:
The Austrian school argues that depressions, when left alone, correct themselves very quickly once bad assets and debt have been liquidated and resources are freed to be applied elsewhere.
Anything you have to say after that citation should be mocked, aggressively.
I mean seriously bro, the argument you have given voice to here is essentially "after the recesion is over, the recession will be over" its tautological crap which you should be ashamed of.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manstein wrote:
Central banking through a fiat currency system leads to boom and bust cycles that cause more harm than happiness.
Yeah, totally....
I could see the merits of such an argument if your contention is that the harm done to people outside the system relevant to the bank is important, as the purpose of central banks is the use of authority over value for the purpose of amalgamating wealth in a given set of hands. Unfortunately that isn't the point you're trying to make.
Manstein wrote:
Austrian economists, the economists who have predicted every bust that has taken place after 1945, predict that this "recession" is only going to get a lot worse, especially once we hit a dollar crisis.
They also predicted several which never came to pass. When all you pronounce is doom, you will eventually be correct.
Anything you have to say after that citation should be mocked, aggressively.
I mean seriously bro, the argument you have given voice to here is essentially "after the recesion is over, the recession will be over" its tautological crap which you should be ashamed of.
Your user name fits you perfectly.
Well as I've seen him discuss this allegation multiple times that does it for me. if you believe something that crazy for years you're cookoo for coco puffs in my book.
I like to think I follow things very closely, and Paul as never written nor said that he believed 9/11 was an inside job or not committed by terrorists.
In the past Paul has left the question open as stated that he was unsure and would like more information on the subject. Although it might have seemed obvious to many, it is not a sign of insanity to question things. Although the comparison may be strong, I am sure Catholics in the dark ages thought the same thing of folks like Galileo and Copernicus.
I am not saying that 9/11 truthers are right, I personally don't agree with them, but I don't think someone questioning it for a short period of time is wrong. Paul was unsure, he looked at the facts closely and changed his opinion of "not sure" to "sure that terrorists did it."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Manstein wrote:
Central banking through a fiat currency system leads to boom and bust cycles that cause more harm than happiness.
Yeah, totally....
I could see the merits of such an argument if your contention is that the harm done to people outside the system relevant to the bank is important, as the purpose of central banks is the use of authority over value for the purpose of amalgamating wealth in a given set of hands. Unfortunately that isn't the point you're trying to make.
Although I didn't plan on answering you, I actually did say what you just said, in more or less words.
n the end, fiat money sounds great, and can, for a short amount of time, provide greater wealth. Unfortunately, the wealth does not last and eventually just gets redistributed to those at the highest end of the monetary spectrum. Fiat currencies make the rich richer and make the poor suffer the hardest via inflation and loss of value. That is where your class warfarists should really be looking, one need only look back to the bailouts of a few years ago and see that the top 1% benefits more from invisible manipulation of fiat money than from a stable gold standard.
Manstein wrote:Central banking through a fiat currency system leads to boom and bust cycles that cause more harm than happiness. So far we have been lucky in that our busts have been minor, up until 2009 and the ongoing years. Austrian economists, the economists who have predicted every bust that has taken place after 1945, predict that this "recession" is only going to get a lot worse, especially once we hit a dollar crisis.
Under a gold standard you still need a central bank if you want anything other than gold coins changing hands. Even then, there must be some sort of regulation to establish and monitor gold weights. The failure of the US and French central banks to regulate the value of gold in the '20s is what led to the great depression, and has caused a lot of major swings throughout history.
Since you don't provide any references or jumping off points for your argument, I'm not sure how to respond to the rest of it.
Manny he was making these statements at the time of the last Presidential election. Thats a very longer time to make up your mind on something thats prima facae crazy talk.
As a local boy he's been known for making similar statements in the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul This has a bit of it but there've been a good bit in the past, especially with the Asian refuguee fishermen started on the coast.
To hell with it, I will just answer you anyway, although I doubt it will lead to much....
dogma wrote:
Manstein wrote:
The Austrian school argues that depressions, when left alone, correct themselves very quickly once bad assets and debt have been liquidated and resources are freed to be applied elsewhere.
Anything you have to say after that citation should be mocked, aggressively.
I mean seriously bro, the argument you have given voice to here is essentially "after the recesion is over, the recession will be over" its tautological crap which you should be ashamed of.
The Austrian school doesn't end recessions in the way you think, it ends them by not extending them in the way that Keynesianism does. The Keynesian school and central banking essentially encourages a system that promotes the myth that we can actually do something on a governmental / central level to intervene and change the economy for the better. At first this system may seem to work, as in the NASDEQ crash of the early 2000s, but as time marches on, it becomes apparent that Keynesianism does not actually end recessions it puts them on hold and waits until later, unfortunately, by the time the recession comes back around it hits all the more harder.
The Fed's preventative measures that "eased" the NASDEQ crash directly lead to the even bigger and nastier bubbles that have created the mess we have today.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design (emphasis added)" - F. A. Hayek
Manstein wrote:
The Austrian school argues that depressions, when left alone, correct themselves very quickly once bad assets and debt have been liquidated and resources are freed to be applied elsewhere.
Anything you have to say after that citation should be mocked, aggressively.
I mean seriously bro, the argument you have given voice to here is essentially "after the recesion is over, the recession will be over" its tautological crap which you should be ashamed of.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manstein wrote:
Central banking through a fiat currency system leads to boom and bust cycles that cause more harm than happiness.
Yeah, totally....
I could see the merits of such an argument if your contention is that the harm done to people outside the system relevant to the bank is important, as the purpose of central banks is the use of authority over value for the purpose of amalgamating wealth in a given set of hands. Unfortunately that isn't the point you're trying to make.
Manstein wrote:
Austrian economists, the economists who have predicted every bust that has taken place after 1945, predict that this "recession" is only going to get a lot worse, especially once we hit a dollar crisis.
They also predicted several which never came to pass. When all you pronounce is doom, you will eventually be correct.
And we were having such a polite conversation until this came along.
Manstein wrote:
Your user name fits you perfectly.
I'm dogmatic because I can recognize, and subsequently disparage, tautologies?
Manstein wrote:
Although I didn't plan on answering you, I actually did say what you just said, in more or less words.
n the end, fiat money sounds great, and can, for a short amount of time, provide greater wealth. Unfortunately, the wealth does not last and eventually just gets redistributed to those at the highest end of the monetary spectrum. Fiat currencies make the rich richer and make the poor suffer the hardest via inflation and loss of value. That is where your class warfarists should really be looking, one need only look back to the bailouts of a few years ago and see that the top 1% benefits more from invisible manipulation of fiat money than from a stable gold standard.
No, that isn't what I said. Not at all. You're conflating the generic "wealthy" with wealthy, or more properly powerful, nations.
Manstein wrote:
The Austrian school doesn't end recessions in the way you think, it ends them by not extending them in the way that Keynesianism does.
I didn't state that the Austrian School ends recessions. I stated that the argument you made turned on a tautological claim (recessions end quickly when all those conditions which create recessions end), which rendered it fallacious.
Manstein wrote:
The Keynesian school and central banking essentially encourages a system that promotes the myth that we can actually do something on a governmental / central level to intervene and change the economy for the better. At first this system may seem to work, as in the NASDEQ crash of the early 2000s, but as time marches on, it becomes apparent that Keynesianism does not actually end recessions it puts them on hold and waits until later, unfortunately, by the time the recession comes back around it hits all the more harder.
Of course, but that is the fundamental purpose of all initiatives to amalgamate wealth.
Are you under the impression that there exist permanent solutions to any particular set of problems that exist in a competitive system?
Edit: It is also amusing that you would cite Hayek's contradiction quote. You can't argue that economics cannot be controlled, and then advocate something like a gold standard; which turns on control.
Manstein wrote:Central banking through a fiat currency system leads to boom and bust cycles that cause more harm than happiness. So far we have been lucky in that our busts have been minor, up until 2009 and the ongoing years. Austrian economists, the economists who have predicted every bust that has taken place after 1945, predict that this "recession" is only going to get a lot worse, especially once we hit a dollar crisis.
Under a gold standard you still need a central bank if you want anything other than gold coins changing hands. Even then, there must be some sort of regulation to establish and monitor gold weights. The failure of the US and French central banks to regulate the value of gold in the '20s is what led to the great depression, and has caused a lot of major swings throughout history.
Since you don't provide any references or jumping off points for your argument, I'm not sure how to respond to the rest of it.
You don't need a central bank to print money and do anything beyond simple regulations of weights, the idea is silly and can be handled by other venues.... besides, governments have printed money without central banks in the past. As for your theory on my the reason why the great depression came about...
The main cause of the depression was the initial EXPANSION of the money supply in the 1920s that led to an unsustainable credit-driven boom. It was this inflation of the money supply that led to an unsustainable boom in both asset prices and in capital goods. By the time the Fed belatedly tightened in 1928, it was too late and too tight. At that point an economic contraction was bound to take place. According to the Austrian school, the artificial interference in the economy was a disaster prior to the depression, and government efforts to prop up the economy after the crash of 1929 only made things worse.
Economists like Hayek and Rothbard all state that government involvement delayed the market's adjustment and made the road to complete recovery far more difficult. As previously stated in my earlier posts, the eventual tightening of the belt got the blame for the depression as was used by FDR to oust the indecisive and flip flopping Hoover, thus solidifying it in history as the "reason" behind the depression.
Also, my apologies if I didn't give a solid jump start on some things, if you like, you can quote a point of mine and I will be happy to provide specific reference points or reliable sources.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Edit: It is also amusing that you would cite Hayek's contradiction quote. You can't argue that economics cannot be controlled, and then advocate something like a gold standard; which turns on control.
The gold standard is not a form of control, gold is the world's real and most ancient form of real currency. Fiat money is a form of control that attempts to regulate the value of money when, in fact, gold IS and has BEEN for centuries the standard by which human beings around the world trade.
Unless all humans all over the world suddenly forsake gold as a worthless hunk of metal, gold will always carry an intrinsic value whereas paper money does not (at least now) carry any sort of intrinsic value beyond a a faith that is has value. The gold standard simply promises everyone that that paper in your hand is actually worth a real and tangible thing, and that its value is not determined by faith or perceived / false value.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Manny he was making these statements at the time of the last Presidential election. Thats a very longer time to make up your mind on something thats prima facae crazy talk.
As a local boy he's been known for making similar statements in the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul This has a bit of it but there've been a good bit in the past, especially with the Asian refuguee fishermen started on the coast.
I went to that link but the think is just far too vast, plus the section heads don't really give a clue to where the comments might be, so my apologies. Regardless, my point is that if he has forsaken and openly disbelieves such things now, I am willing to forgive and forget. Especially since I believe he is one of the few politicians who is an honest person.
I really like Ron Paul as a person much of the time when I see him speak. My family were big supporters in 1988. Some of his positions are great and very courageous. But he believes and has supported some stuff I don't think is at all credible, and some stuff has been published under his byline that's downright crazy and wrong.
As for the more general discussion, I'm with Keynes, and Polonius.
Manstein wrote:The gold standard is not a form of control, gold is the world's real and most ancient form of real currency. Fiat money is a form of control that attempts to regulate the value of money when, in fact, gold IS and has BEEN for centuries the standard by which human beings around the world trade.
Unless all humans all over the world suddenly forsake gold as a worthless hunk of metal, gold will always carry an intrinsic value whereas paper money does not (at least now) carry any sort of intrinsic value beyond a a faith that is has value. The gold standard simply promises everyone that that paper in your hand is actually worth a real and tangible thing, and that its value is not determined by faith or perceived / false value.
Thats your problem, gold has until recently been a hunk of worthless metal. It itself serves no practical purpose, thats why it was adopted as currency. However if we move to a gold standard then I hope you don't mind losing your computer, or any other electronic device. Since you really should be using your money for anything other then money if you want to have a stable economy
Manstein wrote:
The gold standard is not a form of control, gold is the world's real and most ancient form of real currency. Fiat money is a form of control that attempts to regulate the value of money when, in fact, gold IS and has BEEN for centuries the standard by which human beings around the world trade.
The age of a given currency has no bearing on whether or not its use is controlling. When you stake your currency against a commodity, any commodity, you are necessarily controlling it value. The same is also true of any set of practices which limits the means of legitimate exchange to a commodity, like gold.
Manstein wrote:
Unless all humans all over the world suddenly forsake gold as a worthless hunk of metal, gold will always carry an intrinsic value whereas paper money does not (at least now) carry any sort of intrinsic value beyond a a faith that is has value. The gold standard simply promises everyone that that paper in your hand is actually worth a real and tangible thing, and that its value is not determined by faith or perceived / false value.
That's utter nonsense. Gold has no "real value" its value is determined according to what people will exchange for it, just like palladium, silver, platinum, and every other thing in the world; including paper money, which is also a physical object with "intrinsic" value.
More to the point, it is ridiculous that you felt it was acceptable to first write that a gold standard is not a means of control, and then successively indicate that it specifically dictates the valuation of another item.
Manstein wrote:I have typically found that most people who say "o lord, he wants a gold standard?" can't go on to explain what the difference between a gold standard and fiat currency is.
A gold standard fixes the value of printed currency to that of gold (currency can notionally be redeemed for a certain amount of gold). Fiat currency does not have any underlying value, it's value is dependant on someone else being willing to take the currency as payment for goods or services.
That good enough for you? And do you really think that many people likely to come in on this kind of argument can't make the argument?
The problem with the way people understand how the gold standard works is that they look at it with the mindset of a Keynesian economist (Keynesianism, our current accepted system, has proved time and time again to be bust system that is responsible for the boom and bust cycle of our economy) instead of an Austrian economist.
Except that's complete nonsense and there are countless examples of boom bust cycles before modern capitalism, let alone Keynesian economics, was developed. Tulips, anyone?
For those of you who want a quick read on both schools, just go to wikipedia, the explanations there are fairly good.
It really doesn't do a good job of explaining how marginal, and largely irrelevant the Austrian school is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manstein wrote:What makes you think spending during a recession is a good thing?
Government spending maintains aggregate demand, preventing a single system shock from lowering overall demand and depressing other market sectors. Even the Austrian school doesn't deny that. They just say that it's better to get the decline over with quickly.
Although I don't want to delve too deep into this venue, as it is not in line with the OP, I feel the need to point out that the viewpoint of government spending during recessions is being challenged.
Not on any sensible level it isn't. There's nattering from fringe figures who've been doing the same nattering for a few decades, and that's all.
The Austrian school argues that depressions, when left alone, correct themselves very quickly once bad assets and debt have been liquidated and resources are freed to be applied elsewhere.
But they have little to no substantive evidence of that actually being true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:I actually don't think the Gold Standard is a terrible idea, in theory.
It's completely impossible to put in place. There isn't enough gold in the world to represent the trillions of dollars in the US.
Also, unlike centuries ago, that gold now has real uses in industry. Do you really want to stop all those high end electronic goods from being manufactured?
And more importantly, how do you continue to grow the economy from there? Average growth is around 3% pa, but you won't be able to grow gold reserves by 3%
I just don't see how we could implement it without destroying the global economy. I'm sure Ron Paul would say "feth 'em" which I can also appreciate, but I'm not ready to jump off that cliff just yet.
Yours would be the first economy to collapse. Do you understand how dependant you are on world trade?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manstein wrote:However, choosing to stay with the system we have today has proven and will prove to continue to be disasterous. Governments can and also will be highly susceptible to the ideas of deficit spending and intentional inflation policies. A gold standard effectively wards off these sorts of policies while insuring a stable value of all currency.
The gold standard doesn't stop governments from deficit spending. It stops them from printing more money, but they are still free to borrow money to fund deficits.
The point of the gold standard is price stability. This is an irrelevant concern, because the independance of reserve banks, the acceptance of the risk of stagflation, and the abandonment of that stupid MM line in 70s has given us effective control over inflation, even with our fiat currencies.
That's a really fundamental error you made there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manstein wrote:Last time I opened a history book I saw the government spend a great deal of money for 10 years and it did no good.
You read a terrible book.
WWII pulled us out of the depression by acting as an artificial agent in which to create demand. When you enlist millions in the armed forces and send resources off to be destroyed then the economy is going to change.
That's deficit spending! Whether it's used to build tanks for war or for roads in peacetime the effect is still the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manstein wrote:You actually just hit the nail on the head Polonius, but in a different way than you might expect. Hoover was actually heavily involved at first, calling many business leaders in for private meetings and insisting that they not cut wages or let go of workers. Pressure from the Hoover Administration prevented large businesses from expunging bad assets in the form of labor on the onset, meaning that the businesses held on to those assets hoping to ride it out, which, as a result of their not expunging them, they did not.
An asset is a fixed, static unit which carry future economic benefits, intended to offset the initial outlay and eventually exceed it. Plant and machinery, property, all those things are assets. Workers aren't assets, because their cost is incurred daily.
The result of this misunderstanding is almost non-sensical description of the early days of the Great Depression.
To quote Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA, "[Hoover] adopted pro-labor policies after the 1929 stock market crash that accounted for close to two-thirds of the drop in the nation's gross domestic product over the two years that followed, causing what might otherwise have been a bad recession to slip into the Great Depression."
FDR also made mistakes, particularly in setting wage fixes. He was operating in uncharted territory, and it is because sensible people have studied what happened, and what happened in later recessions, that we now know have a much clearer idea of what works to stimulate a depressed economy, what doesn't help, and what actively hurts it.
The argument that FDR did some things that made the problem worse, therefore everything he did and everything done in stimulus plans since, is, quite frankly, a terrible argument. Especially because the overall effect of FDR's plan was overwhelmingly positive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manstein wrote:He is a lecture by Professor Thomas Woods, he isn't an economist but rather a historian. I realized that for some Ohanian's intense economic theory lecture might lead those not familiar with all the terms a bit in the dark, since history reads a lot more like a narrative, perhaps a historian will be easier to understand.
Don't be patronising, you've made basic errors in this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manstein wrote:The premise of your comparison is false. Currency is not meant to be like sheep, ever growing and constantly reproducing, rather... wealth is supposed to change form in the medium of said goods. Increasing the amount of money in the money supply only gives the illusion of there being more wealth but inflation always comes afterwards and the products you once paid X for, now cost not Y but rather Z.
You have no understanding of how money works, and how the price of goods is calculated. You are correct that printing more money doesn't create wealth, because actual wealth is the goods and services we produce.
But if the total amount of currency is fixed by a gold standard, then the constantly increasing goods need a money supply increasing at about the same rate, otherwise you get deflation. Deflation is really bad.
This is something you really need to understand before you can start attempting to make an informed decision to reject economic orthodoxy and embrace a fringe theory like the Austrian school.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manstein wrote:That statement sounds great, and if it were possible even I might give a second thought to the usage of fiat currency. Unfortunately, once paper money is unhooked from the gold standard, or a silver standard, you invariably get a snow ball effect on the economy. At first the snowball is small and prices only rise slowly, however, eventually prices begin to rise at inordinate levels and hyperinflation follows. Every fiat currency in the history of mankind, save the U.S. dollar, has experiences massive hyperinflation at some point in its life span.
This is factually wrong. Please point out the periods of hyperinflation in the currencies of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. I've just listed those off the top of my head, if you want I can list more.
And in attempting some kind of snowball analogy you've tried to imply that inflation is always increasing, and this is completely and utterly wrong. Inflation can be directly measured by the amount of currency released into the economy, and can be increased or decreased throught the printing of more or less currency.
Central banking through a fiat currency system leads to boom and bust cycles that cause more harm than happiness.
No, that's factually wrong. Boom and bust cycles occurred before central banking existed.
So far we have been lucky in that our busts have been minor, up until 2009 and the ongoing years. Austrian economists, the economists who have predicted every bust that has taken place after 1945, predict that this "recession" is only going to get a lot worse, especially once we hit a dollar crisis.
They predicted each bust, in the sense that they said 'there'll be a bust' and when it didn't happen they just kept saying it'll happen any day now, when it does finally happen they shoutedd 'hahah!'.
sebster wrote:Do you really want to stop all those high end electronic goods from being manufactured?
And more importantly, how do you continue to grow the economy from there? Average growth is around 3% pa, but you won't be able to grow gold reserves by 3%
The really amusing thing is that I said that the Gold Standard wouldn't work. Right? I'm pretty sure that was the gist of my post.
sebster wrote:Yours would be the first economy to collapse. Do you understand how dependant you are on world trade?
Do you understand that the United States is part of the "world economy" that I was alluding to?
Monster Rain wrote:Do you understand that the United States is part of the "world economy" that I was alluding to?
Exactly, so when Paul says 'feth 'em' he also means 'and feth us just as much'.
Right, and I think he genuinely believes that that would be a necessary evil as far as getting back onto the Gold Standard. Hence my agreement with dogma that it's not a good idea when the subject was first brought up.
Monster Rain wrote:Right, and I think he genuinely believes that that would be a necessary evil as far as getting back onto the Gold Standard. Hence my agreement with dogma that it's not a good idea when the subject was first brought up.
Note how far Paul and Romney fall as second choices. Note how Palin and Gingrich improve, or maintain position. It points to partisan division, which is what most people have been arguing.
Note how far Paul and Romney fall as second choices. Note how Palin and Gingrich improve, or maintain position. It points to partisan division, which is what most people have been arguing.
IIRC, that was one of several straw polls that the Ron Paul fanatics fixed (by showing up en masse to support their candidate), which explains the drop off of Ron Paul as "second choice." I would love to see the numbers on a second choice too, because in my experience a lot of Paul fans wouldn't vote for a Republican if they couldn't get Paul. If they did vote for a 2nd ticket, it was probably randomly distributed among the other candidates.
In 2010, Gingritch and Palin were probably the most identifiable conservatives, especially given the Tea Party movement which severely hampered Romney's standing. There are still some good candidates out there (Herman Cain and Tim Pawlenty come to mind), but there's still a long ways to go until even the 2012 primaries.
Manstein wrote:I have typically found that most people who say "o lord, he wants a gold standard?" can't go on to explain what the difference between a gold standard and fiat currency is.
A gold standard fixes the value of printed currency to that of gold (currency can notionally be redeemed for a certain amount of gold). Fiat currency does not have any underlying value, it's value is dependant on someone else being willing to take the currency as payment for goods or services.
That good enough for you? And do you really think that many people likely to come in on this kind of argument can't make the argument?
The problem with the way people understand how the gold standard works is that they look at it with the mindset of a Keynesian economist (Keynesianism, our current accepted system, has proved time and time again to be bust system that is responsible for the boom and bust cycle of our economy) instead of an Austrian economist.
Except that's complete nonsense and there are countless examples of boom bust cycles before modern capitalism, let alone Keynesian economics, was developed. Tulips, anyone?
For those of you who want a quick read on both schools, just go to wikipedia, the explanations there are fairly good.
It really doesn't do a good job of explaining how marginal, and largely irrelevant the Austrian school is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manstein wrote:What makes you think spending during a recession is a good thing?
Government spending maintains aggregate demand, preventing a single system shock from lowering overall demand and depressing other market sectors. Even the Austrian school doesn't deny that. They just say that it's better to get the decline over with quickly.
Although I don't want to delve too deep into this venue, as it is not in line with the OP, I feel the need to point out that the viewpoint of government spending during recessions is being challenged.
Not on any sensible level it isn't. There's nattering from fringe figures who've been doing the same nattering for a few decades, and that's all.
The Austrian school argues that depressions, when left alone, correct themselves very quickly once bad assets and debt have been liquidated and resources are freed to be applied elsewhere.
But they have little to no substantive evidence of that actually being true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:I actually don't think the Gold Standard is a terrible idea, in theory.
It's completely impossible to put in place. There isn't enough gold in the world to represent the trillions of dollars in the US.
Also, unlike centuries ago, that gold now has real uses in industry. Do you really want to stop all those high end electronic goods from being manufactured?
And more importantly, how do you continue to grow the economy from there? Average growth is around 3% pa, but you won't be able to grow gold reserves by 3%
I just don't see how we could implement it without destroying the global economy. I'm sure Ron Paul would say "feth 'em" which I can also appreciate, but I'm not ready to jump off that cliff just yet.
Yours would be the first economy to collapse. Do you understand how dependant you are on world trade?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manstein wrote:However, choosing to stay with the system we have today has proven and will prove to continue to be disasterous. Governments can and also will be highly susceptible to the ideas of deficit spending and intentional inflation policies. A gold standard effectively wards off these sorts of policies while insuring a stable value of all currency.
The gold standard doesn't stop governments from deficit spending. It stops them from printing more money, but they are still free to borrow money to fund deficits.
The point of the gold standard is price stability. This is an irrelevant concern, because the independance of reserve banks, the acceptance of the risk of stagflation, and the abandonment of that stupid MM line in 70s has given us effective control over inflation, even with our fiat currencies.
That's a really fundamental error you made there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manstein wrote:Last time I opened a history book I saw the government spend a great deal of money for 10 years and it did no good.
You read a terrible book.
WWII pulled us out of the depression by acting as an artificial agent in which to create demand. When you enlist millions in the armed forces and send resources off to be destroyed then the economy is going to change.
That's deficit spending! Whether it's used to build tanks for war or for roads in peacetime the effect is still the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manstein wrote:You actually just hit the nail on the head Polonius, but in a different way than you might expect. Hoover was actually heavily involved at first, calling many business leaders in for private meetings and insisting that they not cut wages or let go of workers. Pressure from the Hoover Administration prevented large businesses from expunging bad assets in the form of labor on the onset, meaning that the businesses held on to those assets hoping to ride it out, which, as a result of their not expunging them, they did not.
An asset is a fixed, static unit which carry future economic benefits, intended to offset the initial outlay and eventually exceed it. Plant and machinery, property, all those things are assets. Workers aren't assets, because their cost is incurred daily.
The result of this misunderstanding is almost non-sensical description of the early days of the Great Depression.
To quote Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA, "[Hoover] adopted pro-labor policies after the 1929 stock market crash that accounted for close to two-thirds of the drop in the nation's gross domestic product over the two years that followed, causing what might otherwise have been a bad recession to slip into the Great Depression."
FDR also made mistakes, particularly in setting wage fixes. He was operating in uncharted territory, and it is because sensible people have studied what happened, and what happened in later recessions, that we now know have a much clearer idea of what works to stimulate a depressed economy, what doesn't help, and what actively hurts it.
The argument that FDR did some things that made the problem worse, therefore everything he did and everything done in stimulus plans since, is, quite frankly, a terrible argument. Especially because the overall effect of FDR's plan was overwhelmingly positive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manstein wrote:He is a lecture by Professor Thomas Woods, he isn't an economist but rather a historian. I realized that for some Ohanian's intense economic theory lecture might lead those not familiar with all the terms a bit in the dark, since history reads a lot more like a narrative, perhaps a historian will be easier to understand.
Don't be patronising, you've made basic errors in this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manstein wrote:The premise of your comparison is false. Currency is not meant to be like sheep, ever growing and constantly reproducing, rather... wealth is supposed to change form in the medium of said goods. Increasing the amount of money in the money supply only gives the illusion of there being more wealth but inflation always comes afterwards and the products you once paid X for, now cost not Y but rather Z.
You have no understanding of how money works, and how the price of goods is calculated. You are correct that printing more money doesn't create wealth, because actual wealth is the goods and services we produce.
But if the total amount of currency is fixed by a gold standard, then the constantly increasing goods need a money supply increasing at about the same rate, otherwise you get deflation. Deflation is really bad.
This is something you really need to understand before you can start attempting to make an informed decision to reject economic orthodoxy and embrace a fringe theory like the Austrian school.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manstein wrote:That statement sounds great, and if it were possible even I might give a second thought to the usage of fiat currency. Unfortunately, once paper money is unhooked from the gold standard, or a silver standard, you invariably get a snow ball effect on the economy. At first the snowball is small and prices only rise slowly, however, eventually prices begin to rise at inordinate levels and hyperinflation follows. Every fiat currency in the history of mankind, save the U.S. dollar, has experiences massive hyperinflation at some point in its life span.
This is factually wrong. Please point out the periods of hyperinflation in the currencies of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. I've just listed those off the top of my head, if you want I can list more.
And in attempting some kind of snowball analogy you've tried to imply that inflation is always increasing, and this is completely and utterly wrong. Inflation can be directly measured by the amount of currency released into the economy, and can be increased or decreased throught the printing of more or less currency.
Central banking through a fiat currency system leads to boom and bust cycles that cause more harm than happiness.
No, that's factually wrong. Boom and bust cycles occurred before central banking existed.
So far we have been lucky in that our busts have been minor, up until 2009 and the ongoing years. Austrian economists, the economists who have predicted every bust that has taken place after 1945, predict that this "recession" is only going to get a lot worse, especially once we hit a dollar crisis.
They predicted each bust, in the sense that they said 'there'll be a bust' and when it didn't happen they just kept saying it'll happen any day now, when it does finally happen they shoutedd 'hahah!'.
In order to properly discuss this we would really need another thread. I have done my fair share in derailing my own thread and don't want to continue to do so. If you are interested in discussing the point further, open up a new thread and I will reply to your assertions.
Note how far Paul and Romney fall as second choices. Note how Palin and Gingrich improve, or maintain position. It points to partisan division, which is what most people have been arguing.
IIRC, that was one of several straw polls that the Ron Paul fanatics fixed (by showing up en masse to support their candidate), which explains the drop off of Ron Paul as "second choice." I would love to see the numbers on a second choice too, because in my experience a lot of Paul fans wouldn't vote for a Republican if they couldn't get Paul. If they did vote for a 2nd ticket, it was probably randomly distributed among the other candidates.
In 2010, Gingritch and Palin were probably the most identifiable conservatives, especially given the Tea Party movement which severely hampered Romney's standing. There are still some good candidates out there (Herman Cain and Tim Pawlenty come to mind), but there's still a long ways to go until even the 2012 primaries.
Haha, Herman Cain and Tim Pawlenty? Time Pawlenty is a made up candidate and the very definition of a career Washington politician. Just watch the debate, the guy comes off as being the most removed and "fake" of everyone on the stage, in short... status quo.
As to Herman Cain, he talks the talk but does not walk the walk. This former member of the Kansas Federal Reserve board knew about everything that was happening that lead to the recession years ago but never raised a single note about it. Cain is in the race for his own political gains and the GOP his eying him hard as a candidate to pit against Obama... I mean, the GOP running a black candidate against the first black President? Sounds like a bid to keep the status quo and hopefully garner some extra votes from more conservative blacks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, as to Ron Paul fans "fixing" the polls by showing up en masse..... If Mitt Romney fans or Tim Pawlenty fans showed up en masse to these events people would be screaming about how it is a sign of how strong they are. When Ron Paul fans do it, they are "fixing" the polls.
Note how far Paul and Romney fall as second choices. Note how Palin and Gingrich improve, or maintain position. It points to partisan division, which is what most people have been arguing.
IIRC, that was one of several straw polls that the Ron Paul fanatics fixed (by showing up en masse to support their candidate), which explains the drop off of Ron Paul as "second choice." I would love to see the numbers on a second choice too, because in my experience a lot of Paul fans wouldn't vote for a Republican if they couldn't get Paul. If they did vote for a 2nd ticket, it was probably randomly distributed among the other candidates.
In 2010, Gingritch and Palin were probably the most identifiable conservatives, especially given the Tea Party movement which severely hampered Romney's standing. There are still some good candidates out there (Herman Cain and Tim Pawlenty come to mind), but there's still a long ways to go until even the 2012 primaries.
Agreed. These initial straw polls always have ROn Paul way ahead. Then the people besides his 50 voters in the room start to notice there's an election on and his numbers fall into the bucket.
Palin, no chance. The media likes to use her as a straw opponent.
Trump, thats pure media fun. His 30 days are over now. Sam as above.
I'm hoping Christie gets "drafted" that would be a fun election. No more amateurs.
Note how far Paul and Romney fall as second choices. Note how Palin and Gingrich improve, or maintain position. It points to partisan division, which is what most people have been arguing.
IIRC, that was one of several straw polls that the Ron Paul fanatics fixed (by showing up en masse to support their candidate), which explains the drop off of Ron Paul as "second choice." I would love to see the numbers on a second choice too, because in my experience a lot of Paul fans wouldn't vote for a Republican if they couldn't get Paul. If they did vote for a 2nd ticket, it was probably randomly distributed among the other candidates.
In 2010, Gingritch and Palin were probably the most identifiable conservatives, especially given the Tea Party movement which severely hampered Romney's standing. There are still some good candidates out there (Herman Cain and Tim Pawlenty come to mind), but there's still a long ways to go until even the 2012 primaries.
Agreed. These initial straw polls always have ROn Paul way ahead. Then the people besides his 50 voters in the room start to notice there's an election on and his numbers fall into the bucket.
Palin, no chance. The media likes to use her as a straw opponent.
Trump, thats pure media fun. His 30 days are over now. Sam as above.
I'm hoping Christie gets "drafted" that would be a fun election. No more amateurs.
I like Christie too, but I highly doubt he is going to enter in the race or be "drafted" by any means. The fight to out Obama is going to be extraordinarily difficult as is and I think Christie wants to save his political capital for a later race and / or time.
Manstein wrote:I like Christie too, but I highly doubt he is going to enter in the race or be "drafted" by any means. The fight to out Obama is going to be extraordinarily difficult as is and I think Christie wants to save his political capital for a later race and / or time.
I could see Christie winning, but I agree that Obama is going to be difficult to beat. Obama has a very good PR campaign, a very good smear team, and an excellent ability to brush off any mud that comes his way. Combine that with a complacent media, and it is going to be very difficult to defeat him, politically.
On message, I'm pretty sure that any of the Republican candidates could wipe the floor with him. Hillary did a better job on explaining her positions, advancing the party line and won all of the debates, but still lost the primary to Obama.
The Republicans have a decent shot at taking the presidency in 2012, but an even better chance in 2016 without an incumbent. But if Republicans win in '12, then Christie will have to sit out until at least 2020 (unless he wants a VP stint).
Note how far Paul and Romney fall as second choices. Note how Palin and Gingrich improve, or maintain position. It points to partisan division, which is what most people have been arguing.
IIRC, that was one of several straw polls that the Ron Paul fanatics fixed (by showing up en masse to support their candidate), which explains the drop off of Ron Paul as "second choice." I would love to see the numbers on a second choice too, because in my experience a lot of Paul fans wouldn't vote for a Republican if they couldn't get Paul. If they did vote for a 2nd ticket, it was probably randomly distributed among the other candidates.
In 2010, Gingritch and Palin were probably the most identifiable conservatives, especially given the Tea Party movement which severely hampered Romney's standing. There are still some good candidates out there (Herman Cain and Tim Pawlenty come to mind), but there's still a long ways to go until even the 2012 primaries.
Agreed. These initial straw polls always have ROn Paul way ahead. Then the people besides his 50 voters in the room start to notice there's an election on and his numbers fall into the bucket.
Palin, no chance. The media likes to use her as a straw opponent.
Trump, thats pure media fun. His 30 days are over now. Sam as above.
I'm hoping Christie gets "drafted" that would be a fun election. No more amateurs.
I like Christie too, but I highly doubt he is going to enter in the race or be "drafted" by any means. The fight to out Obama is going to be extraordinarily difficult as is and I think Christie wants to save his political capital for a later race and / or time.
You may be right about that. There's not in the guts enthusiasm for the heir apparent though, which is troubling. For the life of me I suddenly forgot his name (thats not a good sign is it). But as Yoda said "no there is another." so we shall see.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alarmingrick wrote:
biccat wrote:All politicians have a very good PR campaign, a very good smear team, and an excellent ability to brush off any mud that comes their way.
Fixed it for you. it's just that some are better than others.
He has an excellent one, helped out by an extrmely complacent MSM. I'd give him about 8-12 points just on the MSM part.
Manstein wrote:I like Christie too, but I highly doubt he is going to enter in the race or be "drafted" by any means. The fight to out Obama is going to be extraordinarily difficult as is and I think Christie wants to save his political capital for a later race and / or time.
I could see Christie winning, but I agree that Obama is going to be difficult to beat. Obama has a very good PR campaign, a very good smear team, and an excellent ability to brush off any mud that comes his way. Combine that with a complacent media, and it is going to be very difficult to defeat him, politically.
On message, I'm pretty sure that any of the Republican candidates could wipe the floor with him. Hillary did a better job on explaining her positions, advancing the party line and won all of the debates, but still lost the primary to Obama.
The Republicans have a decent shot at taking the presidency in 2012, but an even better chance in 2016 without an incumbent. But if Republicans win in '12, then Christie will have to sit out until at least 2020 (unless he wants a VP stint).
I think there are some strong GOP candidates that could challenge Obama this race, by no means is this upcoming election "in the bag" for el Presidente. As you can most likely imagine, I believe Paul is a strong candidate who can take on Obama. Paul is without a doubt one of the, if not the, strongest candidate when it comes to garnering middle of the road votes. Regardless of the issues those further along on the right have with Paul, most of them would vote for a block of cheese so long as it wasn't Obama.
The swing this election is going to be independent voters and I can't see T-Paw, Santorum, Huckabee, or even Romney being able to effectively harness that voting block. Unfortunately, as interesting a character as Chris Christie is, I don't think he appeals enough to independents on the surface to win the race, HOWEVER, a few strong debates and a solid verbal defeat of Obama could make Christie into a stronger candidate.
Herman Cain has the potential to harness the independents while at the same time solidly taking up support from the social conservatives of the Right. Although I believe Cain is a "fake," that won't stop him from being a strong candidate and I believe Fox News is taking the steps to groom him for the candidacy.
Lets be clear Paul has no chance. He's a loon that would lose the center immediately. If it were he vs. Obama, I'd vote for Obama, and I consider Obamacare as designed to kill older Americans on Medicare in favor of others.
If Paul has no chance then how come both CNN and Fox New's vaunted Rasmussen poll both show him as having the best chance to actually beat him? Instead of simple dismissing him as a loon, you should present valid arguments as to why he is not viable. Pointing out old and discredited newspaper's in an attempt to say he is "crazy" is silly and dismissive in a way that is by no means constructive.
There is no argument, that when it comes to traditional, non social, conservatism, Paul is the most conservative of the entire Republican bunch.
Also, please explain why you think he would lose the center.
Manstein wrote:If Paul has no chance then how come both CNN and Fox New's vaunted Rasmussen poll both show him as having the best chance to actually beat him?
Don't play polling games, we both know those are in fact, games.
Instead of simple dismissing him as a loon, you should present valid arguments as to why he is not viable. Pointing out old and discredited newspaper's in an attempt to say he is "crazy" is silly and dismissive in a way that is by no means constructive.
There is no argument, that when it comes to traditional, non social, conservatism, Paul is the most conservative of the entire Republican bunch.
Also, please explain why you think he would lose the center.
No, I don't have to. History takes care of that for me. He's ran multiple times and had his ass kicked multiple times, partly based on those statements. He's ran as a Republican. he's ran as a libertarian. He's been mauled in all instances. Get him out of his district and he's viewed as a joke in Texas. If life has kicked your ass I don't have to pile on.
He's not conservative by any means. Libertarian potentially but then again you have to bifurcate his loony bin comments from libertarian positions.
So you are saying Paul is a liberal? If by liberal you mean anti-war, you need not look back but 30 or so years to see that the Republican Party was once the anti-war party. These days both parties are pro-war but the Democrats claim to be otherwise.
Saying that Paul is a liberal, inclines me to believe that you don't really know very much about him and what you do know has been given to you by other, biased, sources. At any rate, the matter is really irrelevant, as I doubt you are going to change your opinion on the matter. Although I do urge you to perhaps rethink your thoughts on the matter, I won't pursue the matter any farther.
Manstein wrote:So you are saying Paul is a liberal? If by liberal you mean anti-war, you need not look back but 30 or so years to see that the Republican Party was once the anti-war party. These days both parties are pro-war but the Democrats claim to be otherwise.
No, I'm saying he's crazy. As he and I are both Texans I will use a Waco phrase. He's as crazy as a gak rat.
Saying that Paul is a liberal, inclines me to believe that you don't really know very much about him and what you do know has been given to you by other, biased, sources. At any rate, the matter is really irrelevant, as I doubt you are going to change your opinion on the matter. Although I do urge you to perhaps rethink your thoughts on the matter, I won't pursue the matter any farther.
Again, er no. I'm not sure where you're from but he's local and his reputation is a long one.
Paul is mostly libertarian, or a classical liberal.
Also, he would never win a presidential election because most people want a little bit of socialism.
The trend under Bush was for Republicans to slow down the socialization of the US economy. Now, it looks like we're going back to the Reagan ideal of actually starting to step back some of the socialization.
Paul wants to completely eliminate the socialist aspects. While this might be a good idea (and would allow reversal of a lot of dubious Constitutional Law), most Americans wouldn't support it.
As much as the liberals love to demean Palin, she would have a better chance of winning than Paul.
Frazzled wrote:
Agreed. These initial straw polls always have ROn Paul way ahead. Then the people besides his 50 voters in the room start to notice there's an election on and his numbers fall into the bucket.
We agree, mother of God. Paul is one of those candidates who tends to motivate a small group of passionate (read: crazy) voters who will artificially inflate his numbers through the primary. Palin is much like this, and so are Michelle Bachman and Young Trump.
The greatest nightmare of GOP strategists is that one of these idiots manages to win the primary, allowing the Democrats to kick the resultant puppy candidate all the way to victory.
Frazzled wrote:
I'm hoping Christie gets "drafted" that would be a fun election. No more amateurs.
I actually quite like Pawlenty. Christie isn't terrible, but I disagree with his abortion position, and his education position.
Apparently there is talk Mitch Daniels (Indiana Governor) may be announcing. Considering he is the Governor of one of the few states in the black and did it without raising taxes he may get some notice. I'm neither endorsing nor refuting, just tossing out what I have been hearing.
Manstein wrote:If Paul has no chance then how come both CNN and Fox New's vaunted Rasmussen poll both show him as having the best chance to actually beat him?
Don't play polling games, we both know those are in fact, games.
More to the point, don't argue polling data while citing Rasmussen, which is a pathetic methodological joke.
dogma wrote:The greatest nightmare of GOP strategists is that one of these idiots manages to win the primary, allowing the Democrats to kick the resultant puppy candidate all the way to victory.
Yeah, I don't think the Republican strategists are up at night worrying they might blow the presidential election, they probably concede they're long shots no matter who runs. What would be keeping them up at night is the thought they might end up with a candidate who will get utterly caned, and the resultant voter turnouts cost them a lot of seats in congress.
I mean, theoretically the right candidate could play a smart enough game to keep the social conservatives and tea partiers happy enough, while still appealing to the mainstream rightwing, and then ride the still mediocre economy to victory, but it'll be a challenge for a candidate with broad appeal to get through the primaries while the Republican base is in such a strange mood.
